Slashdot Mirror
NASA Developing Robotic Satellite Refueling System
coondoggie (973519) writes "Refueling aging satellites that were never meant to be refueled is the goal with a emerging NASA system that could save millions. NASA this week said since April 2011, engineers have been working to build robotic satellite servicing technologies necessary to bring in-orbit inspection, repair, refueling, component replacement and assembly capabilities to spacecraft needing aid."
Nice, when can we productize this and have those robots refuel our cars while we drive?
-Alex. http://bit.ly/1iVPtfA
New technologies mean we don't need people up there.
And the concept, that robots and satellites especially, could continue their work, after Earth flames out, is animating.
Gently reply
NASA is in charge of our Robotic OVERlords!!
Huh, I was planning to do this exact same thing in Kerbal Space Program tonight!
It's fantastic that you can get that mileage in a car that is inconvenient, small, terrible range. BMW didn't win anything other than an aerodynamics and weight contest. I saw a Tesla Model S competing quite well on the 1/4 mile against Porche, Audi, and.. yeah It smoked a BMW M3 (I am assuming due to driver error). The key was it was quite a capable machine that after a full day of racing drove home and got 75 MPG on the freeway back to the drivers house.
This is why I put at least a Clamp-O-Tron Jr. on everything I launch.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Losing machinery is normally a zero PR problem,
and the absence of cumbersome life support and resupplying issues make present day unmanned-missions the smart bet.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
How will they manage satellite "meant to be refueled". If there is no accessible opening to inject fuel, that seems difficult. Are they going to unscrew or unbolt parts?
These are the missions the shuttle was designed for, so it is somewhat ironic that the shuttle is retired just as the first generations of truly expensive (and capable) satellites are entering their old age. The shuttle's design came from demands by the US military; they wanted a vehicle that could take a team into space and capture Soviet satellites. It's why a second, complete shuttle launch facility was built by the military, but never used.
Outside this mission, the shuttle makes little sense. It's horribly inefficient at putting satellites into space, because of all the humans aboard. There was no space station to resupply and ferry astronauts to when the shuttle started flying: Skylab went down in '79, and the first shuttle flight wasn't until '81. Conducting experiments in space as a science platform? Don't make me laugh. It's not up there long enough and it's not big enough.
But the shuttle is the perfect size for a satellite capture team, and it proved adept at that mission with service trips to multiple satellites; the shuttle effectively saved the Hubble. It did exceptionally well at exactly what it was designed to do.
Now it looks like we might be entering a golden age of outrageously cheap LEO launch services, when launch costs per kg are already at historic lows. So we're already putting more satellites up every day, and LEO is only going to get busier.
We're reaching the point where shuttle missions to service satellites would actually make sense, just as the shuttle is retired - a vehicle too advanced for its time.
NASA has no heavy lift rockets
NASA has no remotely feasible plans for heavy lift rockets.
This isn't a real plan, this is just NASA jerking off.
A nation that is willing to think will be doing space exploration autonomously.
Losing machinery is normally a zero PR problem,
Zero Compared to what? Despite their small stature, lots of folks do care if rovers die. Really though, you're thinking far too small: How much of a "PR problem" will it be to have to tell everyone that they are the last generation of humanity? Thinking doesn't describe the action I'm largely observing. Yes, you'll need autonomous systems, who wouldn't, but I wouldn't call visiting landmarks in Google Earth a vacation, and I wouldn't call doing the same while sitting on your ass in a control room "exploration". I surely wouldn't call replacing a battery on a satellite "space exploration" either. That would be like saying "reaching for the TV remote" was an "adventurous excursion". On your typical basket-ball sized globe, your atmosphere is as thick as the lacquer, and the ISS is a finger width from the surface. You've been there, and done the shit out of that. At the moon's size ratio of 3.7 it would be about the size of a tennis ball and in the next room over, 7.3m (24ft) away, and You Haven't Been to The Next Room in Over Four Decades! That's not exploration, it's a failure to launch and retreating back to mom's garage instead. Oh, the current space programs are not nothing; They're "something" alright, but you should call it "space investigation" because you know what real explorers can make? Real live Fucking Settlements.
and the absence of cumbersome life support and resupplying issues make present day unmanned-missions the smart bet.
Maybe, if you had sentient machines. If you don't then it's mathematically verifiable as one of the dumbest bets you can make -- It just boggles the mind given any inkling as to the reality of your situation -- I know you know what complexity is, you can count neurons, right? Buck protocol, I don't even care anymore. Look: You've got to get your fucks out of the magnetosphere and start discovering how to survive beyond your parent system's gravity basement. Any sentient species would make priority #0 reducing your current 100% probability of extinction. Screw super volcanoes, asteroids, comets, and other thermo-ballistic threats: You've got next to no defense from energy weapons, and the Universe really is out to kill you!
You think the comparatively marginal price justifies taking your chances on sub-sentient, non replicating golems? You spend more resources on entertainment alone, to say nothing of wars to prop up petty petroleum productions; Hell just air conditioning the US troops consumes more resources than the whole budget of NASA, and you talk of COSTS?! That word must mean something very different to you. Perhaps if you did have sentient machines, or even mechanical procreation, then maybe they'd gladly carry at least the memory of humanity's creative spark and exploratory drive to the stars for you; However, do you really want to risk this system's gorgeous and wonderful variety of organic life disappearing just because you... well... what?! There's NO reason at all! What bloody barrier is there? The homeless? The hungry? Oh those are just problems you like to talk about; You're not really trying to help them. Every technology you'll need for growing up and leaving the planetary nest will also vastly improve the state of things back at your parent's place.
It really is because of laziness, no really, it is. This is the one time you just can't blame the government bureaucracy: You get to deduct charitable donations from taxes. Do you see? That means you basically get to control where a large portion of your government tax money goes directly. Rather than pay the tax man, divert those resources into something beneficial -- But what could be a good cause? Oh, something that will help all (known) life, maybe something like saving all the fucking Earth. So, if you aren't doing that, it's the fault of
One of the companies involved in this refueling effort is the PTR Group. Their chief scientist, Mike Anderson, gave several very interesting presentations at the Embedded Linux Conference / Android Builders Summit earlier this week. Although his presentations were not directly related to the satellite servicing mission, he did say that they are involved in an effort to try and refuel a geostationary weather satellite before the end of this year.