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."

Comments

Finally

[majestiq]

Haven't the Russians been doing this for ages with their "Capsules"?

Re:Finally

[wingsofchai]

The Soyuz space capsules have three seats, one for a tourist and two for the crew. So no. You're thinking of Progress, which is unmanned, but still controlled by humans from the ground.

Re:Finally

[ehack]

apparently they need a special antenna to do this docking, costing a small amount of money to be paid to Ukraine, and at that time they didn't have the money to purchase this.

rendezvous without human intervention?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a rocket scientist's night out.

Doesn't this... already happen?

[Sampizcat]

From the article: "the first robotic spacecraft designed to rendezvous in orbit with other satellites without any human intervention"

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

NASA vs Software Houses

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

"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.

Why not rescue HST then?

[Jump]

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...

Re:Why not rescue HST then?

[whathappenedtomonday]

I wonder how many infrared telescopes build for the secret service are already monitoring us...

You'd be surprised. Oh and please stop picking your nose and sit up straight. Sincerely, Department of Homeland Surveillance.

Re:Why not rescue HST then?

[GileadGreene]

Please try to get over the misconception that NASA is the only agency in the US that does things in space. NASA is a civil agency. It does not do military work. Most of its employees are not cleared. Military space work (like SDI aka BMDO aka MDA) is done through the Air Force and the Navy (primarily the Air Force). The Air Force has its own programs for demonstrating the kind of mission that NASA is doing with DART: look up XSS-11, and Orbital Express. One would imagine that Secret Service satllites would be handled by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), since it's their job to develop and operate satellites that image the Earth.

I'm not sure why this is so significant

[theolein]

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?

Re:I'm not sure why this is so significant

[Sampizcat]

Yes, I think so actually. I'm starting to see the point... that no humans are involved.

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

Re:I'm not sure why this is so significant

[ramblin billy]

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!" ; )

Re:I'm not sure why this is so significant

[WhiplashII]

A lot of good points, but "dropping rocks" from orbit is a lot harder than it looks. Small rocks wouldn't survive reentry, and large rocks are too hard to move to an impact trajectory. Remember, in order to alter the orbit of an object large enough to do damage in order to miss the Earth we would need years and notice and use of our most powerful energy sources. Unless we find a rock almost about to hit Earth anyway, it would be nearly impossible to do damage using rocks.

This is a common enough thought that perhaps there is a misunderstanding of orbital mechanics? If you are on the space station, and throw a rock down, it will go down for half an orbit, then come back up and smack you (or if it misses it will go about as far up away from you as it went down). In order to have the rock hit Earth, you need to throw the rock hard enough to go into the atmosphere and not bounce back out. If you throw it directly behind you, you have to throw it 200-400 m/s or so. But then it reenters like any other meteorite - unpredictable impact zone and unlikely to survive atmospheric heating. To really cause damage, you would need to give it 2000-4000 m/s (about half orbital speed) so that it goes almost straight down. Of course, that takes so much energy that you might as well just use an ICBM.

The danger from space would be beamed weapons. My favorite would be a high-intensity millimeter wave transmitter - it would cause intense, nonlethal, but dibilitating pain in the target. That way you can incapacitate all the bad guys, send in the good guys, and noone has to die. (Well, before the trial at least...)

Hubble

[b0lt]

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

NASA had to change the name

[azaris]

The original name was Lightweight Automated Weaponless Navigation Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology, but for some reason they shortened it to DART.

Because its not just a delivery vessel

[Shivetya]

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.

DART Acronym

[connah0047]

The spacecraft, called "DART" as an acronym for "Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous"

And the "T" stands for...?

Re:DART Acronym

[Nifrith]

Yeah, I was confused by this. Reading the fine article however:
"Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous Technology"
Yeah. So. There.

In the news...

[quarkscat]

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.

Re:In the news...

[GileadGreene]

the USA is fully engaged in the militarization of space

They may well be. But NASA's mission has nothing to do with that. NASA is a civil agency. Military space work is done through the Air Force and the Navy (primarily the Air Force). The Air Force has its own programs for demonstrating the kind if mission that NASA is doing with DART: look up XSS-11, and Orbital Express.

Mistakes

[bostonsoxfan]

Well lets just hope they don't confuse meters and feet. We know what happens when NASA does that.

If...

[JustOK]

If it was completely autonomous, wouldn't it set its own launch date?

Dumb mission

[QuantumG]

Wow, isn't $110 million a lot for that? I mean, say you were a commercial concern and you wanted to do something that was actually profitable in space. You could send a robot probe to one of those asteroids that circle the sun in orbits close to earth and mine it. At least a few of those asteroids have high quantities of platinum. Say your robot probe could mine a tonne of it and return it to earth. How much would that be worth? Oh, about $30 million. So how many tonnes would your robot probe have to return to earth to be profitable? It's a finite number and wouldn't even make up a significant fraction of the total mass of the asteroid. Sounds like a pretty simple project really. If you could send back enough loads you could afford to sent humans instead of robots and cut out all that pesky upfront R&D. Just grab yourself 5 SpaceX boosters, point and shoot.

Oh well, I suppose China/India/Japan or commercial interests will get around to it sooner or later.

Re:Hot dang!

[nyekulturniy]

Let's consider that when we spend money on space, we're not putting several million dollars in a capsule and shooting it into orbit. We are paying for people... scientists, technicians, programmers, tech writers, program managers, accountants... the money is recirculated in the economy, and we learn something each time.