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."
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?
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
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
"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.
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...
Think about this: What's the most expensive part of a space mission (apart from the launch)? Maintaining the humans on board once they're in space. Think about all the extra food, supplies, and all the space "wasted" on the astronauts. Imagine now if you could do away with them, and have machines do everything in space for you? Imagine if machines built the ISS? How much more space could be devoted to materials with each launch!
And for those that scoff at the idea: Think of the mars rover. That was remotely controlled (correct me if I'm wrong). Why couldn't somebody remotely control a robot to perform a task? True, latency, but, a few seconds, depending on the altitude. Or even completely autonomously, as this article could lead to. Have a robot build a space station, all by itself - no human intervention whatsoever (not even relaying commands to ground control). Sounds pretty cool to me.
Sampizcat
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...?
Dart is not designed to be a working satellite. Dart is a technology proving platform. It is the first of 3 vehicles currently being developed. Dart, at least for now, is not intended to actually do any work on other satellites. This mission will include various tasks including velocity matching, station keeping, and collision avoidance. Supposedly, Dart should approach no closer than 5 meters to the DoD target satellite. Once Dart launches it receives no position or tracking updates from external sources (fire and forget.) Dart is built by Orbital for NASA. Boeing is currently building an unmanned repair satellite named ASTRO (Autonomous Space Transport Robotic Operations) that is set to deploy in March 2006. ASTRO is a DARPA project. The third related program, the XSS-11 (Experimental Spacecraft System-11), is being built for the USAF by Lockheed. This system uses video imaging for close proximity maneuvering, can remain in orbit for a year, and is capable of approaching multiple "targets of opportunity." Of course, all these systems details are classified, so what is really going on is anyone's guess.
The one obvious use of a satellite that can approach other satellites but can't repair them is to ram them. Interestingly, Dart is also proving LIDAR tracking, which should be harder to jam than RADAR. Space is an excellent environment for beam weapons. The Army is also researching kinetic energy weapons that could easily be adapted for the XSS-11. The projected launch date for that program is November of this year. Rumor has it that China has, or will soon have, small interceptor satellites that could be used in swarms. At one USAF conference it was suggested that small versions of Dart-like satellites could serve as a kind of outer space "Coast Guard" to protect friendly assets. It is also interesting that the Bush Administration has abandoned the ABM Treaty but has not announced any policy regarding space-based weapons systems.
It seems inevitable that there will be space-based weapons - probably sooner than later. With the current reliance of the US military's battle plan on reconnaissance, data linking, and real-time situational awareness, the protection of space-based assets is of vital priority. The increasing use of unmanned vehicles also relies on the physical hardware maintaining the communication links. There is NO CHANCE the military will not deploy space-based systems to defend their assets. There is little chance they will reject offensive weapons designed to destroy the enemy's systems. It is my impossible dream that the battle will stay in space - but I'm afraid the logical next step is the capability to attack terrestial targets with space-based systems. Hurling rocks from orbit is a little too god-like for me to intrust to any of our current leaders. No evolution - no orbital bombardment. That seems fair, doesn't it? Besides, weren't we supposed to be going to Mars?
billy - "why no, we don't have any weapons in space!" ; )