Slashdot Mirror
NASA Seeks Proposals For Hubble Robotic Servicing
hcg50a writes "SpaceFlight Now has an article about NASA asking for proposals to mount a robotic mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. Such a Hubble-servicing mission would occur toward the end of calendar year 2007. If you like politics mixed with your spaceflight, you can read NASA Administrator O'Keefe's speech in which the announcement was made."
Would be funny if some of the Battlebot teams got together and made a proposal. The robotic module gets closer and closer....then suddenly, a huge blade whips out and slices the Hubble in half! PWN3D!!!
The great part of this plan is that it gives NASA a specific goal for implementing robotic repair/servicing. They get to use the project as a testing ground for new technologies, some of which will surely make their way into other future missions. Costs will go down for "routine" orbital missions that can be automated, allowing us to do more in near space and saving the money for other missions demanding astronauts.
BBC is also following the story... IMHO if we have the means, then Hubble should be saved.
Batman: "Slake your thirst. You'll have worse than a parched sensation when we're through with you!"
NASA is obviously scared to death of another Challenger / Columbia tragedy. They came out looking totally inept in both of those incidents. I believe they fear they would lose all support from the public and (arguably more important) congress if more astronauts are lost. I'm not saying that is the right attitude. It's kind of like saying "I'm afraid of being killed in an automobile accident, so I am going to stop driving."
I've got news for you. The most exciting thing humans have ever done in space - the moon missions - was exciting exactly once. By the Apollo 12 mission, lots of people were complaining to the TV networks that their programmes weren't on because of all the boring moon stuff. Apollo 13 raised the figures again, but I don't think you're really calling for an "all disaster, all the time" approach to manned spaceflight, are you?
Modern day manned spaceflight is as boring as you like. "The crew are a mathematician, a different kind of mathematician, and a statistician" pretty much sums it up. Who cares?
So manned spaceflight is
a) a regular PR disaster
b) boring when it isn't being disastrous
c) scientifically pointless
whereas robotic spaceflight is
a) not a disaster
b) no more boring than manned spaceflight
c) scientifically useful
Robots win!