Slashdot Mirror
NASA Working On Refueling Satellites
cylonlover writes "Geostationary satellites cost a fortune and, despite their sophistication, they break down or eventually run out of propellant to keep them oriented. This is unfortunate when the nearest garage is back on Earth, so NASA wants to remedy this with an orbital version of roadside service. The space agency is developing a service robot that can visit ailing satellites and refuel or even repair them on the spot. The refueling program is already at an advanced enough stage that a technology demonstrator called the Robotic Refueling Mission (RRM) was delivered to the International Space Station (ISS) in July of last year. The RRM was installed on a temporary platform outside the station. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center wants a robot capable of carrying out what it calls the five 'Rs' – refueling, repositioning, remote survey, component replacement or repairing – on any satellite that might require its services."
Wall-E
What will refuel the refueling robots? Refueling-robot-refueling robots? Hopefully they're universal and can refuel each other, at which point we have a perpetual motion machine (as opposed to an infinite mass of fuel-hungry robots in geostationary orbit).
Quit wasting your time posting on Slashdot while people are starving in Africa.
Well, until someone figures out how to cure old age and its illnesses, we'll all continue to die from lack of healthcare. And to fix that is going to take more than just money.
Refuel, Reposition, and Repair
With apologies to AAA.
All NASA has to do is ask the Air Force if they can get a civvie version of the X-37B.
Yeah they keep it missions "secret" but this pretty much fits the only reason for having an autonomous space-truck with a robotic arm and cargo bay. Afterall, they're not going to be getting a full-sized replacement for the Shuttle anytime soon, so this is the next best thing.
Quit wasting our tax dollars on this boondoggle when people are dying from lack of healthcare.
[sarcasm warning] Yes, because satellites are never used for saving lives. [end of sarcasm warning]
Ezekiel 23:20
I could almost see there being some value in refuel. Maybe also in reposition if a big change is involved (but why would you need to move it anyway?). Take a few pictures of it if you want, since that is fairly cheap.
However, when you start getting into repair you're talking about a massive increase in cost and decrease in reusability of the refueling ship.
And if you don't do repair, then you need to design the satellites to have components that last for decades but a fuel supply which lasts much less - why not just launch it with a lifetime fuel load?
Repositioning only makes sense if it was unplanned and needs more propellant than could be carried by the satellite. If you dock a ship to it and use that to move the satellite, then you need enough fuel to reposition the combined mass of both. It would be smarter to just refuel it and let the satellite move itself.
Oh, and unless you're really patient, moving from satellite to satellite takes a fair bit of fuel (a little nudge goes a long way if you're willing to wait, but with each orbit lasting a day it will be probably weeks between encounters if you don't want to do large burns).
I think that the only way private companies would sign up for this refueling service were if the cost of the service were basically subsidized on the backs of taxpayers. I could be wrong, and that would be wonderful, but this really seems like a solution looking for a product. Sometimes it really is cheaper to just make a new one.
Maybe if this is successful, Nasa can spin off the technology to earth-bound vehicles as well. I would love to have some robot wander by from time to time and refuel or service my car overnight! You could even have robotic landscapers and robotic Christmas decoration putter-uppers. Really, the possibilities are endless. And, of course, a commercial success with this would help pay for more space exploration.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
The whole "let's re-use spacecrafts" has been conclusively demonstrated to be Economic Nuts by the Space Shuttle program (1kg lifted by the shuttle is ten times more expensive than 1kg lifted by a throw-away rocket) . I have the definite feeling NASA wants to prove this once again, just in a different way.
But maybe we should read this message metaphorically ;-)
Everything that can re-enter the atmosphere is incredibly expensive and can only be justified with some "super-duper enemy-strategic stallite snatch" "value". Or maybe doing some exotic research on the effects of space (residual atmosphere, van allen belt etc) onto advanced sensors.
Otherwise, just shoot up the sat and then either let it circle forever or let it burn up (if low-flying). That is by far cheapest.
Surely one of the main jobs this kind of program would encounter is retiring any satellite that it finds it cannot repair/refuel? Effectively just re-positioning into an orbit that intersects the atmosphere but given the problems of space junk I would have thought they would want to highlight this potential benefit especially as it increases the "R" count to 6.
The amount of money we budget for defense spending for one year is more than NASA's budget since it's existed. It's money well spent.
they should have thought of that 30 years ago
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Fit out the sats with an electric drive instead, like this: http://emdrive.com/
Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
I am starving in Africa and post on /. to take my mind off this fact. You insensitive clot!
You just don't get it: there is no real difference between a refueling satellite and a regular satellite. That is what OP meant.
-A.C.
Is that actually true? I'd love to see a citation on that. It would be incredible if it was. My Google-Fu is weak today, apparently.
That's not lack of healthcare.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You just don't get it: there is no real difference between a refueling satellite and a regular satellite. That is what OP meant.
I doubt it. I believe the OP just was trolling. As to your assertion, the purposes are different and that in turn leads to functional differences (such as larger propellent storage in the refueling satellite) and developments of appropriate technologies.
If you're thinking about it in terms of a satellite coming down, plucking up an accident victim, and dropping them off at a hospital before returning to orbit, no.
If you're thinking about it in terms of weather tracking, wildfire management, military intelligence, etc. Then yes.
I hate to reply to myself, but one shot of caffeine later and the results are in:
Projected budget for FY12 for NASA: $17,770m, or 0.48% of the total Fed budget.
Projected budget for FY12 for the Military: $1,030,000m – $1,415,000m, or potentially 33% of the Fed budget.
So now the question is, what has NASA spent historically? Well, if you normalize dollar amounts over the course of NASA's almost 60 years the grand total is 870,709m or a healthy 160,000m dollars below the lowest estimated cost for the military this year...
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Good News! We've got the firepower to make that happen since we haven't been wasting money on satellites!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
By the time a satellite in geostationary orbit needs refueling the technology will have advanced a lot, so why not just repelace it with a newer satellite that has more bandwidth and capabilities.. It might make sense for speciallised things like space telescopes, but not for general comunication / TV satellites.
The next step is to build a refinery right there in orbit, and mine some asteroids for raw materials. Or some Jupiter moons, even better, since they are loaded with hydrocarbons. That is where the real savings would be, since you're not paying to blast all that fuel into space.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
More likely, the most valuable thing up there is not the satellite, it's the position it's occupying. Once upon a time, we tried to keep 2 degrees of separation between geosync satellites - meaning that there were 180 "slots" where one could be placed, and obviously fewer than that that could service any one location. The separation keeps dropping, but that makes the need for stationkeeping more precise, probably calling for more fuel, etc.
So the best thing here is to keep those geosync slots in use, and not chewing up an empty slot with a dead or useless satellite. I'll have to agree with what someone else said - that de-orbit should be a published option, as well.
Personally, I believe the best option is a big, gravity-gradient-stabilized boom, with some serious solar panel capacity on the outer side, battery capacity to match, and standardized electrical and mechanical hookups. Then rather than sending up complete satellites, lease hookups on the boom, and just send up an electronics package. In this case, the "service satellite" carries the package up, anchors and connects it, and does initial checkout.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
How come we let robots have all the fun? I'd sign up for a job as geosync satellite gas-station attendant in a heartbeat! Who wants to be a coddled planet-bound human? I'll welcome our robot overlords only if they let me in on a piece of the action.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Sir, I literally laughed outloud. I wish I had a mod point for you.
USA military expenses are some orders above and beyond NASA ones, and directly or indirectly kill more people than the lack of healthcare. While it don' t makes invalid your argument, is like complaining for an ant in a room filled with elephants.
Be sure to give us the address of whatever planet you move to so we can come crush your badly funded military and reap all the benefits of your peaceful space program.
http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-space-a-1970-letter-to-a-nun-in-africa/
Most, if not all, present day satellites do not have fuel tanks that are made to be refueled, a lot have tanks that aren't even accessible from the exterior. They are going to have to come up with some kind of a way to put a hole in a tank, that doesn't put metal shaving inside, and install a refueling port that is perfectly sealed to the tank for this to be able to work. Might have to wait for the next gen of satellites before starting this service. Though NASA being NASA, they have pulled off some amazing things in the past, duct tape and CO2 removal canisters comes to mind!
US tax money for US related projects. I don't want to be an asshole but, Africa can start spending their tax money on buying foods so people wouldn't starve.
"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."
Neville Chamberlain - 1938
The most expensive satellites out there aren't civilian. The satellites with the most aggressive repositioning, and correlated fuel consumption, aren't civilian. The greatest dollar value of currently-useless satellites isn't civilian. The hardware and techniques developed in the open can be of value to all organizations with dead inventory out there. The results of this project has the potential to significantly save taxpayer money. NASA is perfect for this task. The results are generic, the project gives NASA something to do, NASA has experience with maintenance of already-lofted satellites, NASA can use the results itself when trying to revive old missions or when planning new ones, and NASA can become a resource yet again to others who have the budget and the need. Let's all hope NASA can progress and succeed. We'll then get even more bang for our bucks.
First it was self-serve gas pumps. That relegated the station attendant to a cash register operator.
Then they implemented gas pumps with credit card readers. No need to interact with a human running a cash register. Fully automated fuel stations.
Now, we've got a huge new industry being invented, and they're not even including humans in any part of this transaction. No one to ask what grade of fuel to use. No one to check the condition of the wiper blades or upsell the satellite owner on a new air filter. Probably going to have NFC chips on the satellites so there's not even a credit card to swipe to charge the customers for the fuel.
I gotta get on the horn to my congressman today. This is going to be too efficient at the cost of jobs. We need to employ a human operator up there or else there is no hope of the unemployment rate dropping below 7%.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Our GPS and intelligence satellites have saved VASTLY more lives than the difference in health care (e.g. per dollar spent)
Keep in mind that NASA runs something like 20 billion, while healthcare is in the trillions. It would accomplish next to nothing.
More over, the money they spend PAYS AMERICANS.. so the money isn't really lost. It's put back into the economy. So really, go pick up some critical thinking skills before the next election, for all of us; please.
Also, on the extreme side of things: in the long run one thing or another will REQUIRE humanity to GTFO this planet. So by following your advice we'd technically be increasing the potential to kill all of mankind, just to not even actually save anyone now.
Sure, it is. I think the simplistic commodification of health care policy is a terrible thing. It's treated like a bag of fries or a barrel of oil. Either you have it or you have a lack of it.
What we should be focusing on is health care outcome. The actual benefit not the pretense of health care. To observe as the original troll did, that people die from lack of health care is to ignore that people also die even in the presence of health care.
My view is that privately, you should be able to do whatever you want with your money and your life. But publicly, if the medical activity doesn't have obvious large benefits to society, such as immunizations, prenatal care, or treatable illnesses that can result in decades of good life quality at a modest cost, then it's not health care but health theater and I want no part of it.
Well that's effed up
I'm responding to the 'cure for old age' concept. If you're proposing that we reevaluate the sometimes huge expenses in 'end of life care', be prepared to place a money value in someone's life. Me, I'm pretty sure my wife values knee replacement research enough to support it, since because of knee implants she is able to go up stairs without assistance. And she's 59 years old. A car accident started her knee problems when she was in her 20s. Insurance is an imprecise financing method, so do name me a better one.
You seem to be advocating some dual tiered form of healthcare financing. I'm not very hopeful that will work out, but please explain in more detail.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
USA defence budget for 2011 = $708 - $695.7 billion (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/defense-spending-fact-of-the-day_n_1746685.html, http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13281)
USA defence budget for 2007 = $740 billion (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm)
NASA budget has varied between $33.514 billion in 1968 to $17 billion these days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)
One years USA defence spending exceeds the entire NASA budget for 50 years.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
For the horribly uniformed:
NASA, is not a waste of $, in fact for every $ we spend on NASA, the economy gets $8 back. (not true for other Govt programs, some have some return, but nothing like NASA)
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/
“Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA.”
How about if we instead send a friendly asteroid to crush you?
" Yo dawg we herd your girl likes big rocks, so we sent this ethanol-rich chondrite into your atmosphere so you can get smashed while you get smashed "
Not sure if this is what you meant, but I saw it as launching 1 ton will cost the same whether it is a 1 ton GPS satellite or a 1 ton refueling satellite. But that ignores several other factors, such as the cost to make each satellite, and also how many satellites the refueling satellite can top off. If it can top off at least 2, well you just saved yourself a launch.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I was thinking more like the following. Apparently, the block IIIA GPS satellites to launch this decade will as launch mass about 3.5 metric tons. A third of that mass apparently will be hydrazine as single propellant.
A refueling satellite would probably have a very large fraction (perhaps well over half) of its mass as propellant either for itself or its intended client. For example, it might have some sort of solar-electric propulsion to get to the spacecraft and a payload of hydrazine propellant (if it were serving the above GPS block IIIA satellite).
The dry mass would be devoted solely to the job of refueling satellites (tankage, efficient propulsion and power systems, capture/fueling system, etc).
Been there, done that:
manybooks.net/titles/berrymanj3067930679.html
called the Space Shuttle? Anyone want to take bets on whether the new robotic system will actually be cheaper than shuttle missions?