Space Robot Maker MDA Nets Hubble Repair Contract

hyperlinx writes "MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. said on Wednesday it has signed a $154 million deal to help NASA's controversial repair mission to fix the aging Hubble Space Telescope. The Canadian firm that built the Canadarm robotic arm technology used on NASA's space shuttles won the contract 'to provide a potential information and robotic servicing solution' in a rescue project being eyed for 2007."

Comments

Size

[Fr05t]

How many metres long with this be eh?

Re:Size

[Lennavan]

Are you sure you don't mean feet? :-O!!! http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric. 02/ Oops!

Re:Size

[Fr05t]

aaarrrg! I don't know anymore!

Re:Size

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, how many Volkswagen Beetles is it?

Define "repair"?

[helioquake]

What exactly does this robotic mission promise to accomplish?

I don't mean to be negative (if they can, great!), but it is not exactly an easy job to unscrew bolts and fastners by hand, even on ground!

I forgot what is built in as a modular unit without many mechanical parts to support. Solar panel and batteries may be replaceable with care. But can someone tell me if a gryoscope can be replaced without using Philip screwdriver? I know that some science instruments are fastened with bolts. I'm not holding my breath that $154M robotic mission can replace the STIS or install the COS for the Hubble.

Anyway, if they can fix the Hubble, great. I'd even call that the replacement of solar panels, batteries, and gryoscopes would receive a "successful" tag.

Re:Define "repair"?

[digitalchinky]

154 million dollars - a bunch of mates, a few beers, I'm sure we could come up with something for that much money!

Re:Define "repair"?

[pnewhook]

Replace batterys, gyros, a few computer modules, Wide Field Camera, COSTAR and a few other things. It's a huge mission.

Pretty much all the operations have been demonstrated with a robot on the ground by MDA which is why they were awarded the contract, so yeah, its possible.

Why not a manned mission?

[kinema]

Now that new fuel tanks for the shuttle have been completed why not a manned mission? Will the satellite fail before the next launch scheduled for May or June?

Re:Why not a manned mission?

[pnewhook]

Now that new fuel tanks for the shuttle have been completed why not a manned mission? Will the satellite fail before the next launch scheduled for May or June?

Simple - the robotic system is much cheaper and much safer.

While the robotic system is only $150Mil, the entire mission cost will be over $1 Billion. However the intended repair mission is huge. If you send a shuttle up to do the repair as many suggest, there is so much to do that a manned mission would take longer than the shutle can stay in orbit. So now you are talking TWO billion dollar shuttle flights.

Why not just deorbit the Hubble and replace it? Well Hubble has no deorbit capability - it was designed to be brought back in the shuttle. So a deorbit module has to be attached anyway (part of the robotic mission). This was the extent of the original plan but there was so much outrage that NASA wasn't going to fix Hubble, that they decided on the robotic repair approach. The replacement telescope (James Webb) isn't going to launch until late 2011 - probably later.

Which kind of space robots do they make?

[nekoniku]

Pusher robots or shover robots?

Re:Which kind of space robots do they make?

[Ben Struferga]

Bending Units

local article

[mike.newton]

Here's an article from the Vancouver Sun with some additional details.

Too dangerous

[benhocking]

You might think it is worth the danger (I do), but the current reason that the Hubble is off limits for the space shuttle (even after it finally gets the green light again) is that the orbit of Hubble is such that if something goes wrong similar to what happened to the Columbia shuttle (and if it is detected) they would not be able to get to the ISS. The advantage of getting to the ISS is that there is an emergency escape vessel (a Soyuz) that they can use to get to Earth. I've tried finding a link on Google confirming my memory, but have failed to find one that spells this out explicitly, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

Re:Too dangerous

[Vellmont]

Right, because we _just_ discovered this Space Shuttle thing was dangerous 2 years ago february. I've never bought that argument, and I don't buy it now. We've know the thing is dangerous since its creation. Since when did the human race (or at least the US) turn into a bunch of whiny little gits that don't want to take any risk of "people dying"? How many people have died for a far smaller payoff like climbing Mt. Everest? The astronauts are willing to do it, and the Shuttle itself probbably couldn't be repaired in orbit at the space station anyway.

The real deal is the administrators are covering their collective asses. No one wants to go down in the media shitstorm if a Shuttle is lost repairing hubble. Another casualty of our reactive media-wacko society.

Re:Too dangerous

[LWATCDR]

"The real deal is the administrators are covering their collective asses. No one wants to go down in the media shitstorm if a Shuttle is lost repairing hubble. Another casualty of our reactive media-wacko society."
There is another issue. We only have three shuttles left. It maybe they fear lossing the machine more than the men. They of course would never say that. Frankly I think we need to build a new shuttle. Set the target at the same performance as the current shuttle, the same payload. But use modern tech. Liquid fueled flyback boosters instead of the SRBs. Cermet thermal protechtion from the x33 and maybe develop linar airspike engines to replace the SSMEs.
Lets take a step forward not try to leap forward X-33 SSTO or a step back "Apollo"

Re:Too dangerous

[Almost-Retired]

The real deal is the administrators are covering their collective asses. No one wants to go down in the media shitstorm if a Shuttle is lost repairing hubble. Another casualty of our reactive media-wacko society.

I think that last sentence says it rather succinctly. And as far as fixing it with a robot, or remote teleoperators, and I like the latter much better than pure robotics, when it comes to getting it done expediciously because the man can adjust the angle of the screwdriver by feel much better than the robotic stuff can, or can back up and get a slightly better grip on the nut when he feels the nut starting to round, I can't see any way but a manned mission.

One capable of looking at the bolt he just removed and deciding if it can go back in, or does he need to rummage through the spare parts and find a new one that isn't all buggered up. That of course means a secure pocket/container to put the old ones, and probably a ready made plastic strip with the various styles of bolts screwed into it and suitably marked. Something that can be hung on yet another tether near where he is working. I mean whats he gonna to, rip it out of a plastic bag and throw away the friggin bag?

Story Musgrave did a hell of a lot of that stuff in earlier trips, maybe he could come out of retirement and either teach, or maybe even do it again. But his experience in doing that, something that should have been ample material for one hell of a book, seems to have been muffled for some reason.

Or did he publish a book and I missed it?

IMO, only a man on the job in real time can make that sort of decisions that make the difference between success and failure.

Given a rejuvinated shuttle thats obviously safer than it was for any launch and re-entry before, I see no reason for NASA to find they have no volunteers to do that job.

The work coming out of the hubble cannot be duplicated by the James Webb, they look at different portions of the spectrum entirely. So those that say we should let it die & wait till the Webb is up are literally throwing away a national treasure.

Their attachment of a de-orbiting rocket for when it is finished, is an admirable project, but lets first use such a device to raise its orbit another 30 miles, something the shuttle has been used (for a 15 mile raise IIRC) for previously, and which, if the giros & such are fixed, it will need this time in order to stay up till 2009 or so.

I think this push, and the fuel it uses to do that, means they couldn't get to the ISS from a hubble orbit. IAUI, getting to the ISS from a hubble orbit isn't really 100% doable anyway without quite a bit more fuel, booster burn for the hubble or not. In any event, the shuttle's not being required to do the additional burn should leave them with a lot more maneuvering fuel for the trip home. In terms of pounds to orbit, the smaller thruster mounted on the hubble makes a lot more sense than trying to raise, and then lower, all the tonnage of the shuttle for a little push.

We didn't get to where we are, anyplace in the sciences, without a casualty here and there, taken by people who knew the risks and were willing to take the chance at their 15 minutes of fame.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Too dangerous

[bitingduck]

You're correct that they always keep an escape capsule at the station. It doesn't have the capacity for a shuttle full of people-- Soyuz only holds 3 people-- but being on board a station in one piece, with air and food and stuff is much better than being scattered across Texas. Russia seems to have quite a bit of capacity for Soyuz launches and could probably send more escape capsules on relatively short notice.

Re:Too dangerous

[bitingduck]

We only have three shuttles left.

And possibly only enough parts for two. In one of the post Columbia reports I recall reading that they rotate some of the parts through because they don't have enough-- i.e. when one shuttle lands, they pull some parts and move them up to the next one that will launch.

Re:Too dangerous

[sjames]

when it comes to getting it done expediciously because the man can adjust the angle of the screwdriver by feel much better than the robotic stuff can, or can back up and get a slightly better grip on the nut when he feels the nut starting to round, I can't see any way but a manned mission.

There is a tradeoff for telepresence but it may not be what you think. A spacesuited astronaut has a LOT less dexterity and tactile feedback than you think. That's why they have to spend so much time and money training to remove a bolt.

Since I've never been in a spacesuit I don't know exactly how bad, but as an educated guess, try this:

Put on 12 or so sweatshirts and 6 pair of tight pants. Several pair of gloves. Top it off with a pair of heavy motorcycle gloves. Moving should be a significant effort. If you relax, your natural position should be arms out and legs at a 45 degree or so angle (like the famous drawing), fingers strait out and spread.

Now, go change your brake pads. If you tear your sweatshirt or gloves count yourself dead.

The point of all of that is that telepresance devices for space aren't to be measured against doing the work on a tech bench in a nice shirtsleave environment. It's a lot less hard to make a telepresence device that's as good as (or better than) being there in a spacesuit in freefall.

Re:Too dangerous

[Almost-Retired]

Telepresence, with sufficient feedback would probably be ok, but what about the comm delays? Like listening to yourself on the radio when they are useing a profanity button delay I'd think. If the tele also had good vision, it might help but I'd think there would be a tendency to move the tool about as far as you estimate it needs to move, then stop and wait for the feedback. 4 hours of that, and I'd be stark raving loonie. The instant feedback to my hands has allowed me to take camera lenses apart, repair them, and reassemble to restore function after some reporter rams the lens into a door frame at the courthouse shortening the back focus cell by .020". Beats 4 or 5 grand for a new lens in most cases. Ditto for headwheels in a pro vcr. Without good touch feedback, you can junk an $1800 wheel just by picking it up out of its shipping carrier.

I once had a surgeon watch me while I was fixing his two-way radio, which made me a bit nervous, but when I was done he amazed me by saying that if he was in a wreck and bleeding to death, he would use whatever hand he had left to hand me the emergency bag with needle and thread to sew him up. If anyone can, you can, he said. Well, their getting a bit shakey now at 70, but when I need to, I can still do it 99% of the time.

Do I want that job? Not no, but hell no!

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Too dangerous

[sjames]

Fully agreed that the delay would take some getting used to. Four hours of it would be exhausting, but unlike in space, when you get to a breaking point, you can bring in the next shift and go home.

It helps that Hubble was designed to be serviced in space with the minimal dexterity and tactile feedback. Most of the repairs considt of switching out fair sized modules rather than (impossible) fine manipulation.

I imagine after a while, the brain would naturally compensate for the delayed response and probably cope decently. The hard part would be when starting a session, and for a few minutes when it's over. No doubt co-workers would enjoy tossing things to telepresence operators when they're just getting off duty to watch them fumble.

Re:Too dangerous

[Almost-Retired]

They had better be good at ducking in that case, cause I wouldn't have any patience at all for that kind of tom-foolery at that stage of the game. Whatever was tossed, if I caught it, would come back on a very flat trajectory since my fuse would be all used up by then. I used to have a pretty decent arm for that.

That said, if they do this thing by telepesence, I hope they broadcast it, I'd love to watch & see how guys that have trained for that for months actually do it.

Question is, if they don't take a shuttle up to take the robotics to it, what are they going to use? I'd assume the robotics would be expensive enough they wouldn't really want them to be dumped into the pacific, what doesn't burn up that is. OTOH, they'll do what they have to do. If that means its throwaway, well...

And, what have we got in our spares arsenal that can re-ignite the steering rockets long enough to give the hubble another 15 to 30 mile boost in orbital height? I'm pretty sure it could use it again by now. They've given it a gentle push each time they've been there with a shuttle, for about 15 miles IIRC the last time. Without rolling up the solar panels, they have to be very gentle about that sort of thing. Not a damned thing that I'm aware of without resurrecting some of the moon hardware & thats manned. OTOH, I have no idea what may be hidden away at Vandenburg. The other possibility might be to attach a very small motor directly to it, I'm thinking of ion drive since it could push oz's for months/years on a hundred pound bottle of zenon, but that would take a lot of the hubbles solar power just to drive it. If that could be handled, it would otherwise be ideal, leaving virtually no exhaust products in the hubbles orbit to screw things up later. Plus, while the hubble probably wouldn't be available for observations while its running, it could be shut down and observation attitude obtained in a few minutes, and restarted again later.

Those things either are already worked out to their satisfaction, or somebody ought to be slapped upside the head with a 4 foot length of 2" water pipe to wake them up. Those of us who do think of such details wouldn't mind a bit more publicity as to how they are going to do this thing. At least try to convince us frogs to think they know what they are doing. :-)

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Too dangerous

[sjames]

Question is, if they don't take a shuttle up to take the robotics to it, what are they going to use? I'd assume the robotics would be expensive enough they wouldn't really want them to be dumped into the pacific, what doesn't burn up that is. OTOH, they'll do what they have to do. If that means its throwaway, well...

They might have to burn it up. Oddly, that might even make economic sense. It probably would be cheaper than the once planned shuttle flight would have been.

At the same time, if they did go with an ion thruster (good thought BTW), it could go to ISS when it's mission with Hubble is complete. I imagine it could be quite helpful there.

It would be nice to know more about what's in the works.

Re:Too dangerous

[Almost-Retired]

The ion thruster is to go on the hubble, to give it the orbital boost it probably needs by the time they get around "tuit". I doubt if the robotics and the upper stage, which will probably outweigh the hubble, could get enough delta-vee out of ion thrust to make the ISS, thats a whole orbital plane redirection, not just an orbital boost. However, given enough chemical boost once clear of the hubble, its probably doable with its own weight of propellant. That much weight however, seems to put the required booster into the Saturn class again.

And having that additional stuff available at the ISS could save a spacewalk or 10 in the long view. They would have to bring up the remote controls of course, hopefully before it arrived, so they could make it self snagging and get it anchored to something. The tankage of course would be nice additional room once vented to space and cleaned up. The darned thing looks like a tinkertoy kit now, whats one more arm and a pair of tanks? Heck, if it arrives there with enough fuel left for an orbit booster burn for the ISS, that would be a plus too.

I wonder if they'll think that far ahead?

--
Cheers, gene

Re:Too dangerous

[sjames]

I doubt if the robotics and the upper stage, which will probably outweigh the hubble, could get enough delta-vee out of ion thrust to make the ISS

I'm not sure the Hubble 'rescue vehicle' would necessarily be that heavy compared to Hubble itself (which is large as satellites go) once it has expended it's xenon by boosting Hubble. If so, once dettached, it's effective acceleration would be more than doubled when flying to ISS.

Of course, it could still make good sense to leave the whole thing attached to Hubble for future boosts and repairs.

If NASA will focus on the Delta IV and vehicles launched with it, this whole package could become part of the program. It would be a different approach to reusability based on never coming back down. Part of the problem with the shuttle is that every reusable componant has to be boosted for every mission, and carrys the additional weight penelty associated with making it suitable for safe reentry.

A new reusability program should likely focus on minimizing the need to bring working componants back at all. A combination of habitats and equipment that stay in orbit, and a crew vehicle and a simple cargo return capsule (seperate units) that can return.

The big thing that has made repairability and reusability uneconomic to date is the expense of getting astronauts into space and back every time. The cost of a shuttle launch is so high that even in the case of a minor failure, replacement is cheaper. If the rapair capability stays up there, the cost of launching spare parts plus supplies for the repair vehicle will likely be less than the replacement cost.

If the repair system is to be perminantly in orbit, it could be powered by a decent sized RTG rather than solar panels.

I wonder if they'll think that far ahead?

That's the big question. Thinking far ahead ios something the U.S. hasn't been very good at lately. Government planning tends to stop at the next election, and most business is all about next quarter (or at most, until the CEO's golden parachute can deploy) these days.

Re:Too dangerous

[Almost-Retired]

I tend to agree with the leave it up there approach. The biggest problem is that the lubricants tend to go away in the vacuum of space, and the next time they need to use it, its frozen. So thats a problem that will require much more thought than a throwaway in the pacific would need.

OTOH, the giro's, steering reaction masses and such are sized to handle the weight of the hubble. I'd think adding an offcenter weight to that would make them have to rewrite all their aiming software to compensate, and would probably, depending on how much of a "lever arm" is left hanging off it, affected its ability to move quickly. One of the things its been made famous for is its ability to get on the source of a GRB and get a useable pix within a minute or so of getting orders from the controllers. 30 seconds there is an eternity in terms of spotting the optical equ of a GRB. Easier done in x-rays as that bird can move quick, but if its not on target in 20 seconds, its not going to get much.

Yeah, too damned bad those golden parachutes aren't on the friggin ballot. Talk about an issue going down in flames...

Till next time.

--
Cheers, Gene

Good if only $150 million..

[adeyadey]

But that is not likely is it? It all depends on the final cost - if that is over $500 mil, its cheaper to build a new one..

Re:Good if only $150 million..

[iamlucky13]

The Hubble cost $1.5 billion to build and launch. The James Webb Space Telescope has been budgeted at $800 million, but won't be serviceable. I was going to say you're numbers are a little off, but I actually agree. If it costs over $500 million, it's better to abandon it, although there will be no direct replacement for many years.

Re:Good if only $150 million..

[adeyadey]

I would probably say even if less, its questionable. The hubble was brilliant as a late 70's design, but is well outmoded now - even the new cameras to be sent up are well behind current designs, and will be even more so by the time they are fitted. Hubble is wearing out in all areas - at some stage a critical failure will render it useless, whatever repairs are carried out.

Modern space-telescope mirrors weigh much less than the Hubble's, the Hubble's orbit is less than satisfactory, and so on. It has been proposed that modern space scopes with the same capability could be produced even cheaper than the JWST..

See:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-04p.html

If it costs $200mil+ to deorbit, I doubt even that is worth it - many more lifes could be saved by spending $200mil in other areas than are risked by hubble re-entry - although I realise that is a political decision..

Sounds like a plan, master rocket scientist

[iamlucky13]

While I am fascinated by and love the Hubble, I've begun to agree with many out there. Given the size of NASA's budget, the amount they want to accomplish in the next ten years, and future systems currently under development, a manned mission seems like an unnecessary expense, especially with cost estimates on the order of $1 billion.

The robotic mission will replace the old batteries and broken gyroscopes and provide a way to deorbit the telescope after it becomes unable to deorbit itself. It seems to me that the first goal of the mission should be to provide that method of deorbiting. Once the development team is confident of their ability to do that, they should begin working on replacing the batteries and gyros. That way, at the very least, NASA should be able to use Hubble until the either the last gyros fail or batteries die, which is expected to occur around 2009. That also, if I remember correctly, is when the next space telescope is scheduled to be launched. Of course, while I'm not one of the MDA or NASA engineers, I don't know of any reason why the robot itself couldn't take over the functions of the Hubble's aiming systems, so the gyro replacement and the deorbiting system may work hand-in-hand.

Re:Sounds like a plan, master rocket scientist

[bitingduck]

I don't know of any reason why the robot itself couldn't take over the functions of the Hubble's aiming systems

For the very finest guiding and control HST uses a signal off the telescope rather than just star trackers and gyros/IRUs. There may not be a reasonable way to bolt a robot on the outside and couple it to that system.

For 154 million, I'll go fix it

[jsveiga]

Can't less than $154 millions hire people who would happily sign a responsability waiver for NASA, board the oh-now-so-deadly shuttle and go fix Hubble personally?

Heck, a lot of people would do it for free, just for the ride!

People PAY to participate in sports more dangerous than a current shuttle mission!

When orbital space missions become as safe as a commercial flight, there will be the dangerous interplanetary missions. Being on the edge is dangerous, but someone has to do it, and some people love to do it.

As of now, space missions ARE dangerous. That's why they don't send civilian, children's teachers there. Huh, no, wait...

Re:For 154 million, I'll go fix it

[Martin Blank]

It costs a half billion dollars just to put the shuttle into space and bring it home, doing nothing else.

For $154 million, they'd let you touch the orbiter on the launch pad while it's fueled.

Re:For 154 million, I'll go fix it

[grozzie2]

Can't less than $154 millions hire people who would happily sign a responsability waiver for NASA, board the oh-now-so-deadly shuttle and go fix Hubble personally?

It may hire some people to ride the thing, but, it wont come near filling it up with fuel and getting it out to the pad, never mind an actual launch. Prior to all the new safety rules, that cost 500 million a trip. All the new rules probably pushing that up to nearly a billion dollars per flight now.

MDA did not build the Canadarm

[breem42]

"The Canadian firm that built the Canadarm"

Yes, MacDonald Dettwiler did buy Spar Aerospace, who built the "Canadarm", but the company otherwise has little to do with it. They are, however, involved in some of the robotics of the ISS (called "Canadarm 2").

BTW -- few people other than Canadians (of which I am one) call it the "Canadarm".

Tony in Vancouver

Re:MDA did not build the Canadarm

[pnewhook]

What the heck are you talking about??

MacDonald Dettwiler (now MDA) is the parent company of the division called MDRobotics that built the Canadarm, Canadarm2, SPDM, and practically every other space robot arm out there.

Just because the parent office of a multidivisional company was not involved doesn't mean you can say that MDA did not build the Canadarm. The fact that it was called Spar at the time the Canadarm was built is irrelevant.