Slashdot Mirror
NASA Schedules Robotic Spacecraft Launch
Nathan writes "NASA has finally set the launch date for their first robotic spacecraft, intended to "rendezvous in orbit with other satellites without any human intervention", to the 15th of April. The spacecraft, called "DART" as an acronym for "Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous", cost $110 million dollars and weighs 800 pounds."
....oh, wait.
Haven't the Russians been doing this for ages with their "Capsules"?
"rendezvous in orbit with other satellites without any human intervention"
Does that sound like a patent application to anyone else?
Sounds like a rocket scientist's night out.
So, basically, it's the same as any other non-manned launch, except this time it's going to meet up with another satellite? True, that sounds incredibly complex... but don't they do that already with manned craft? What's so special about this? And is it truly "autonomous", or will it receive instruction from ground control? If it's truly autonomous, then I will be slightly impressed: the thought of satellites up there mucking about by themselves is rather interesting (watching illegal TV I'd imagine!).
Sampizcat
With the delays, I was beginning to think that they'd be shooting boxes of Duke Nukem Forever into space along with the robots once it was time for launch.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Thats $137,500 a pound... If we built them out of Gold we would have build 19 of them. (Cheaper then Oil atm i guess ;)
http://www.sandstorming.com
Just modded down the first 11 posts to 0?
http://www.sandstorming.com
"We're prepared for launch," launch director Omar Baez said Friday during a televised news conference from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. "The next two weeks are crucial. There's a lot of work that's got to be done, but we're getting there."
Something I've always wondered about is whether very professional organizations (e.g. NASA) operate in the same way as software developers. Because when someone involved in Software says to the press, "We're prepared for launch," it usually means something a little different.
I would hope this wouldn't be the case with NASA or scientists with similarily important jobs, but does this happen? I mean, they have bosses to answer to and deadlines to meet. Just curious.
To maintain the Slashdot tradition of technical excellence in scientific units, such as the Library of Congress, the Olympic sized swimming pool and the telephone booth, I have managed to come up with a single unit which can be used to describe both the cost and the weight of a space faring vessel; and I bestow upon this revolutionary new satellite the honor of being the unit measure:
It is hearby declared to be one Anna Nicole Smith.
KFG
So NASA decides a robot mission to rescue HST is not feasable, but the same time they develope this kind of mission for other purposes? Makes we wonder if NASA is just helping the Pentagon to build new SDI technology. Clearly, HST is not something the Bush administration is interested in. Instead he wants telescopes like SPITZER which are infrared cameras - ideal for observing the earth. I wonder how many infrared telescopes build for the secret service are already monitoring us...
At the moment, as far as I know, both the European ESA, with their ATV and the Russians, with their Progress do this same thing, i.e. autonomously meeting and docking with ships in orbit (the ISS mainly). Apart from that, I can't imagine that the technology is all that spectacular that NASA wasn't able to do this in the past. Or is this a case of NASA wasting money in trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak?
Is there some aspect to this that really is new?
Is there any way to use it to (attempt to) fix Hubble? There's not all that much risk, it would keep Hubble operational, and it would test robotic technology. Is the robot functional enough to carry out repairs?
-b0lt
got sig?
The original name was Lightweight Automated Weaponless Navigation Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology, but for some reason they shortened it to DART.
A few people mentioned Russian cargo ships and such but miss the point. Delivery of cargo is just one optional mission for this device. The main objective seems to be remote servicing of satellites. As of right now that work is done by people if at all, most of the time it is just cheaper to replace the satellite in question. It could also be employed on a quick launch basis to survey a shuttle or other craft that suffered possible damage during launch. How about take oxygen or similar to such a damaged craft until a rescue can be performed?
There are many possibilities. Repairing the hubble would be outside of its domain as you would now need to design satellites with remote servicing as part of their design. This could open the door for more modular (generic) satellites. Besides opening the door for more nations to own them it creates new avenues for businesses in the future.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The spacecraft, called "DART" as an acronym for "Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous"
And the "T" stands for...?
Gee, why is this so significant?
Well, try tying a few news articles together.
(a) Bush revives the Star Wars program
(b) Bush cuts NASA spending (HST)
(c) NASA invests in robotic satellites
(d) Bush appoints Star Wars exec to head NASA
(e) NASA announces first robotic satellite
Anyone that cannot add these up and come up
with the correct answer -- the USA is fully
engaged in the militarization of space, is one
can short of a six-pack.
Well lets just hope they don't confuse meters and feet. We know what happens when NASA does that.
If it was completely autonomous, wouldn't it set its own launch date?
rewriting history since 2109
If they can bolt a rocket on to Hubble to de-orbit it (the current announced scheme), why can't they just bolt on a rocket and increase it's orbit and park it, until such a time as repairs are cheaper/easier? Why do they have to trash the entire telescope? Once it's orbit is increased, it's maintenance costs are minimal, just needs to be kept track of, same as all the other space stuff. And they already do that.
My best guess is the people making the decisions are basing the decision on some weird behind the scenes politics, not the science involved or engineering. It costs a lot of money per lb to get stuff up, Hubble is there, weighs a lot and is still sort of working and could be repaired, just the money isn't there at this time and they want to not have to rely on the Shuttle to do it. OK, I can see that, shuttle is old now and just not in that good of shape. That doesn't mean ten years from now (whatever) it wouldn't be possible given tech advances.
to see it had GPS on board. Suprised because I thought GPS wouldn't work at that altitiude, i.e. possibly even ouside the ring of GPS satellites.
Oh well, I suppose China/India/Japan or commercial interests will get around to it sooner or later.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This thing should be able to attach itself to the hubble and use it's gyros to stablize the hubble, and maybe if they put some of those ion engines on it, push hubble to a higher orbit.
I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.
fud, notfud, yes, no, maybe
If you had a ton of platinum, you wouldn't be able to sell it all at the current price. People don't buy platinum by the ton, they buy it by the ounce; and a big part of its value comes from the fact that there isn't enough available to satisfy all the people who want it. As soon as you start selling thousands of ounces, the supply increases; and unless you can somehow increase the demand as well, that means the price drops.
Now, platinum is useful stuff. Even if it were as common as lead, it would still be more valuable than lead because it has cool chemical properties, it's pretty, and it's non-toxic. It has some intrinsic value that would remain even in a situation of extremely large supply. But driving down the price drives much higher the number of tons you'd need to sell in order to make a mission to an asteroid profitable.
Also: asteroids are a lot farther away than Earth orbit; they don't contain all that much platinum anyway; and bringing one back intact is a much harder problem than just going there. Remember, these are very heavy objects that you;re talking about moving at orbital velocities. You're looking at many billions of dollars, maybe trillions; far more than the piddling small change quoted for the mission we're talking about today.
you will see bush and the neo cons want to use space to gain and control the world militarily. they not only want to use space for surveillance, but for a platform for attack on other nations and organizations that bush sees as potential competitors.
Read the above document.
photosMy Photostream
> ...first robotic spacecraft...
I have a problem seeing this as the "first robotic spacecraft". Sure, it's cool and all. But it's more of an example of progress in robotic spacecraft than it is a "first".
Depending on how one defines "robotic", one can make the argument that ALL spacecraft are robotic, or that all non-manned spacecraft are robotic. After all, most/many spacecraft other than, say, Sputnik and similar "beepers" have had some degree of autonomastion and decision-making ability, however primitive.
Still, this is a pretty nifty development.
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
This is the most on-target (no pun intended) post on the whole page.
It seems like Timothy likes repackaging Newsforge stories. Sometimes /. just sucks.
Where'd the "T" come from? Demonstraion of Autonomous Rendezvous. There is no "T". Is anyone else bothered by this?
Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.
Sending robots into space? Where exactly do these people at NASA think cylons come from?
You are worth your weight in dart?
I still like
You are worth your weight in gold.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well it's maybe offtopic, but I find it funny.
Tx for chuckle.
How is man to conquer space if we continue to send robots to do the job? Machines are supposed to take us there, not themselves there!
Launching robots into space is like paying someone else to do your homework.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
I just saw a thing on The News Hour about DART........ If your wondering why I was watching The News Hour, I was bored and nothing else was on, sue me.
Insert Pithy Quote here.
I wonder what the verdict will be should the technology performs better than expected during the close proximity testing.
1. "Sir, we just collided with a $400 million satellite"
2. Success!
how long before we can send robots with missiles up there... it's got to be obvious that nasa isn't just in the "exploration" business anymore... not that it's a bad thing.
Get your torrents...