Telemanipulator revolution at NASA?

[Andrew Nowicki]

NASA is going to use a telemanipulator to replace batteries
and gyroscopes of the Hubble Space Telescope:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_robotic_040504.html

Telemanipulator terminology:
http://www.engr.utk.edu/maes/ff/rlk/ieee/

MY COMMENT:

Telemanipulators are well suited for all kinds of space work:
recycling space junk, building orbital greenhouses, repairing
orbital slings, mining the Moon, etc. The human operators of
these machines will be glad to work without pay, just for the
fun of it.

NASA was forced to use the telemanipulator by accident
(the Columbia accident). They behave like medieval Frenchmen
who were forced by wartime famine to eat frogs and weeds.
Within a decade NASA will be proud of their telemanipulators,
just like modern Frenchmen are proud of their cuisine.

[Andrew Nowicki]

Canadian space telemanipulator called Dextre can handle bolts!!!!!!
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_sectors/human_pre/iss/mss_spdm.asp

Other space telemanipulators:
http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0405/13/a12-150753.htm

[Hop David]

Post by Andrew Nowicki
NASA is going to use a telemanipulator to replace batteries
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_robotic_040504.html
http://www.engr.utk.edu/maes/ff/rlk/ieee/
recycling space junk, building orbital greenhouses, repairing
orbital slings, mining the Moon, etc. The human operators of
these machines will be glad to work without pay, just for the
fun of it.
NASA was forced to use the telemanipulator by accident
(the Columbia accident). They behave like medieval Frenchmen
who were forced by wartime famine to eat frogs and weeds.
Within a decade NASA will be proud of their telemanipulators,
just like modern Frenchmen are proud of their cuisine.

This is great news for a number of reasons!

Of course, extending Hubble's service would be a wonderful thing.

And improved telemanipulators would be a very useful tool in space
development/exploration.

[MSu1049321]

I don't believe for a minute NASA wants to do anything but attach a de-orbiting
package and dump the Hubble. Everything else is just patronizing us in the
vocal pro-Hubble community to keep us quiet and not cause embarassment or
controversy to the administration until the re-election is over.

[EAC]

Post by MSu1049321
I don't believe for a minute NASA wants to do anything
but attach a de-orbiting package and dump the Hubble.

Better that way than to have an uncontrolled descent, but then again,
'they' might have manipulated N.A.S.A. so that Hubble's controlled
descent will have an 'accident' and descent into a heavy populated
area instead of a very low populated area.

Then the headlines will full of insulting remarks, like "Ooops!
N.A.S.A. did it again!"

Post by MSu1049321
Everything else is just patronizing us in the
vocal pro-Hubble community to keep us quiet
and not cause embarassment or controversy to
the administration until the re-election is over.

Personally, the whole Hubble controversy, the whole election
controversy (don't you notice that it's strange), and so on are
intentionally made so that people will fight each other.


Anyway. If Hubble suffer the same fate as Mir, it's probable due
because Hubble is a sign of ingenuity and pride of the U.S.A.'s space
program, much like Mir is a sign of ingenuity and pride for the space
program of the Soviet Union and then later on Russia. Deorbiting the
two cause the loss of pride, which bring down morale of the citizens.

[Paul F. Dietz]

Post by EAC

Post by MSu1049321
I don't believe for a minute NASA wants to do anything
but attach a de-orbiting package and dump the Hubble.

Better that way than to have an uncontrolled descent,

No, an uncontrolled descent is much better. The cost of avoiding
the remote chance of ground casulaties is far too high.

But perhaps you're in favor of gross government waste?

Paul

[Andrew Nowicki]

The James Webb Space Telescope will be 1.5 million
km away from Earth -- too far for human maintenance.
NASA's associate administrator for space science,
Ed Weiler, was considering making the James Webb
Space Telescope modular and using telemanipulators
to replace its worn-out parts.

I asked NASA if they were going to abandon the
James Webb Space Telescope when its batteries
and gyros wear out. Here is their reply:

"At this point in time, NASA's management has not directed the
JWST project to change the design to make the spacecraft or
instruments more modular or serviceable. That's always subject to
change, of course. :-)

The JWST currently has a design lifetime of 5-to-10 years, so
each of the pieces is being built with the expectation that it should
last for at least 10 years. In the case of JWST, the lifetime will
not be limited by batteries, since it will always be fully lit by the
Sun (unlike HST, which has a day/night cycle as it goes around the
Earth) and won't need to build up a power reserve for "night."

[triples]

Post by Andrew Nowicki
NASA is going to use a telemanipulator to replace
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_robotic_04050
4.html

This article says that people are excited about the
possibility - not that it is going to be done.

Where is the money coming from to fund any of this
development? Where is NASA going to reprogram money? Is the
Administration going to reprogram some money from the DoD to
do this? NO.

This would be wonderful but we have neither the money nor
the time to make this work. Sigh.

Post by Andrew Nowicki
Telemanipulators are well suited for all kinds of space
work: recycling space junk, building orbital greenhouses,
repairing orbital slings, mining the Moon, etc. The human
operators of these machines will be glad to work without
pay, just for the fun of it.

It would be neat if we did any of this stuff, but this is
all just science fiction and will be for years. And no one
could afford to work for free just for fun - let's be
serious here.

I don't know why I lend this idea some credibility by
answering it.

It would be wonderful if this was a possibility but we live
in the real world - or at least some of us do. The real
world (by the way) is a lot less fun than it could be.


Charles Phillips
"Drink Upstream Of The Herd, Get A Macintosh"
note feeble anti-spam attempt on Reply-To address

[Andrew Nowicki]

Post by triples
This article says that people are excited about the
possibility - not that it is going to be done.

True. Former astronauts are lobbying in favor of another
shuttle flight to fix the Hubble. Telemanipulators have
not yet learned how to lobby NASA ;-) but they will
probably win:
http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-6-3/21739.html
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/science/34200.html

Post by triples
It would be neat if we did any of this stuff, but this is
all just science fiction and will be for years.

Telemanipulators are not science fiction. They have been
used for half a century. They are cheaper and safer to
use than astronauts, but they don't look good on TV when
they wave the flag. Manual dexterity of the astronaut is
impaired by heavy gloves. Every NASA claim that
telemanipulators cannot do something that the astronauts
can do has been a lie. Telemanipulator may not be as fast
as the astronaut, but it can be designed to do anything
that human hands wearing heavy gloves can do.

Post by triples
And no one could afford to work for free just for fun
- let's be serious here.

A serious business entrepreneur considered landing a
buggy-like vehicle on the Moon and charging customers
for the privilege to control the vehicle from the Earth.

Why don't you wake up guys! All of you! There is an
opportunity to persuade NASA to make a HUGE step
forward!

[Joann Evans]

Post by Andrew Nowicki

Post by triples
This article says that people are excited about the
possibility - not that it is going to be done.

True. Former astronauts are lobbying in favor of another
shuttle flight to fix the Hubble. Telemanipulators have
not yet learned how to lobby NASA ;-) but they will
http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-6-3/21739.html
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/science/34200.html

Post by triples
It would be neat if we did any of this stuff, but this is
all just science fiction and will be for years.

Telemanipulators are not science fiction. They have been
used for half a century. They are cheaper and safer to
use than astronauts, but they don't look good on TV when
they wave the flag. Manual dexterity of the astronaut is
impaired by heavy gloves. Every NASA claim that
telemanipulators cannot do something that the astronauts
can do has been a lie. Telemanipulator may not be as fast
as the astronaut, but it can be designed to do anything
that human hands wearing heavy gloves can do.

Post by triples
And no one could afford to work for free just for fun
- let's be serious here.

A serious business entrepreneur considered landing a
buggy-like vehicle on the Moon and charging customers
for the privilege to control the vehicle from the Earth.

One? I predict long lines. And then there are control lag issues.

This would still only whet appitites to drive on the Moon personally.
A comment I once made long ago: "Wether it's Hawaii or the Moon, I want
to be *present,* not *telepresent.*"

Post by Andrew Nowicki
Why don't you wake up guys! All of you! There is an
opportunity to persuade NASA to make a HUGE step
forward!

As long as there are speed of light delays (and machines that break),
there will be a reason to have humans working in/personally exploring
space.

Espically at landing time....

[Hop David]

Post by Joann Evans
As long as there are speed of light delays (and machines that break),
there will be a reason to have humans working in/personally exploring
space.
Espically at landing time....

Between Hubble and a teleoperator, light travel distance could be
anywhere from 600 to 22,000 kilometers. This is a light lag of .002 to
.08 seconds. It seems to me that useful work could still be done via robots.

Dextrous robots would be a useful tool for manned exploration as well.

For orbital assembly you'd either need a pressurized hangar sized
volume, better pressure suit gloves, or teleoperated robots.

On the Moon, Mars, or asteroids it's desirable to conserve air and keep
dust out of the habs. Therefore airlock use should be keep to a minimum.
With teleoperated robot helpers, astronauts could still bodily leave
their habs to collect samples and explore. But they wouldn't have to
leave their habs to run power lines and tighten bolts, etc.

[Andrew Nowicki]

NASA's Robonaut has very dexterous hands.

"Many ground breaking dexterous robot hands have been
developed over the past two decades. These devices make
it possible for a robot manipulator to grasp and
manipulate objects that are not designed to be
robotically compatible."

"Joint travel for the wrist pitch and yaw is designed
to meet or exceed the human hand in a pressurized glove."

source: http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/Hands.htm

__________________________________________________________


"NASA Space Telerobotics Program was shut down in 1997,
and the research and technology development task supported
by the program were transferred to other efforts."

source:
http://ranier.oact.hq.nasa.gov/telerobotics_page/telerobotics.shtm

__________________________________________________________

Ranger: http://ranger.ssl.umd.edu/data/

[Hop David]

Post by Andrew Nowicki
NASA's Robonaut has very dexterous hands.
"Many ground breaking dexterous robot hands have been
developed over the past two decades. These devices make
it possible for a robot manipulator to grasp and
manipulate objects that are not designed to be
robotically compatible."
"Joint travel for the wrist pitch and yaw is designed
to meet or exceed the human hand in a pressurized glove."
source: http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/Hands.htm
__________________________________________________________
"NASA Space Telerobotics Program was shut down in 1997,
and the research and technology development task supported
by the program were transferred to other efforts."
http://ranier.oact.hq.nasa.gov/telerobotics_page/telerobotics.shtm
__________________________________________________________
Ranger: http://ranger.ssl.umd.edu/data/

This is very exciting research that seems to be happening in the
present. So NASA resumed it's telerobotic research after the program was
shut down in 1997?

[Andrew Nowicki]

Post by Hop David
So NASA resumed it's telerobotic research
after the program was shut down in 1997?

It seems likely. Robonaut looks like the winner
because Dextre is too big and Ranger may not
survive in the harsh space environment.

__________________________________________________________


"Robonaut engineers coordinated a highly successful
demonstration of Robonaut’s ability to repair Hubble
by simulating the most difficult tasks associated
with the repair activity."

source and nice pictures:
http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er_er/html/robonaut/status/Apr_Robonaut_Status_04.htm

[Andrew Nowicki]

Post by Hop David
So NASA resumed it's telerobotic research after
the program was shut down in 1997?

I believe the Robonaut program began in 1999.
See the status reports:
http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/Status_Archive.htm

__________________________________________________________


Another good description of the Robonaut:
http://www.lirmm.fr/DEA-SYAM/intranet/biblio/AUT/doc4_H.pdf

[Uddo Graaf]

Post by triples

Post by Andrew Nowicki
NASA is going to use a telemanipulator to replace
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_robotic_04050
4.html

This article says that people are excited about the
possibility - not that it is going to be done.
Where is the money coming from to fund any of this
development? Where is NASA going to reprogram money? Is the
Administration going to reprogram some money from the DoD to
do this? NO.
This would be wonderful but we have neither the money nor
the time to make this work. Sigh.

Exactly my point a couple of weeks ago. NASA won't be so eager once
Boeing/Lockmart start quoting billion dollar price tags for this mission.

[Andrew Nowicki]

Post by Uddo Graaf
Exactly my point a couple of weeks ago. NASA won't be so eager once
Boeing/Lockmart start quoting billion dollar price tags for this mission.

Boeing/Lockmart and the other rocket makers do not make telemanipulators.

The Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) also known as Canadarm
is very expensive ($108 million).
http://ewh.ieee.org/reg/7/millennium/canadarm/canadarm_technical.html

A much more sophisticated space telemanipulator called Special Purpose
Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM), Dextre, or Canada Hand, costs even more
($207 million) http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1997/04/10/05.asp and is very
massive (1662 kg) http://www.mdrobotics.ca/spdm_frame.html

Both manipulators are made by MD Robotics. In my (AN) opinion, their
cost and weight are bloated by one order of magnitude.

A cheaper ($14 million plus labor) telemanipulator called Ranger was
made in Space Systems Laboratory at the University of Maryland. Fixing
Hubble with the Ranger telemanipulator would cost about $300 million.
That’s far less than the $500 million-plus cost of using the shuttle.
More than $1 billion worth of commercial, military, and scientific
satellite “assets” are lost each year to premature breakdowns.
http://database.aura-astronomy.org/nv/Balt_Sun8.pdf
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/05/09/sphere/10049122.prt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12972-2004May9?language=printer

It is possible to launch a telemanipulator, an ion thruster, and
replacement parts for many failed satellites, not just the Hubble.
Despite inflated cost of the telemanipulators such mission would
be much cheaper than replacing the failed satellites or fixing them
with the shuttle.

[Bootstrap Bill]

Post by Andrew Nowicki
NASA is going to use a telemanipulator to replace batteries
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_robotic_040504.html

I remember reading that the Shuttle has the ability to land itself. If this
is true, why not send up an unmanned Shuttle to retrieve Hubble, repair and
upgrade it on Earth and launch it in a new orbit that can be reached by
Shuttles sent to the ISS?

The relaunch could take place during a resupply mission to the ISS.

[Jorge R. Frank]

Post by Bootstrap Bill

Post by Andrew Nowicki
NASA is going to use a telemanipulator to replace batteries
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_robotic_040504.html

I remember reading that the Shuttle has the ability to land itself. If
this is true,

It's not quite true. The shuttle has autoland guidance which can fly to
landing, but the computers cannot lower the landing gear, nor deploy the
air data probes. Upgrading the systems is possible, and is being
considered.

Post by Bootstrap Bill
why not send up an unmanned Shuttle to retrieve Hubble,
repair and upgrade it on Earth and launch it in a new orbit that can
be reached by Shuttles sent to the ISS?

That is a much harder problem than autoland. The shuttle has no autonomous
rendezvous capability, nor autonomous prox ops and capture. This is another
shuttle upgrade being considered, but I consider it likely this upgrade
will be cancelled if NASA is serious about retiring the fleet by 2010.

[William R. Cousert]

Post by Jorge R. Frank
That is a much harder problem than autoland. The shuttle has no autonomous
rendezvous capability, nor autonomous prox ops and capture. This is another
shuttle upgrade being considered, but I consider it likely this upgrade
will be cancelled if NASA is serious about retiring the fleet by 2010.

Would a crew of three be enough to retrieve Hubble and return it to
Earth? If so, why not send up a Soyuz capsule as a possible escape
vehicle? If it's not needed, it's returned to the Russians to be used
in a future launch.

[Cheap Skate]

Post by William R. Cousert

Post by Jorge R. Frank
That is a much harder problem than autoland. The shuttle has no autonomous
rendezvous capability, nor autonomous prox ops and capture. This is another
shuttle upgrade being considered, but I consider it likely this upgrade
will be cancelled if NASA is serious about retiring the fleet by 2010.

Would a crew of three be enough to retrieve Hubble and return it to
Earth? If so, why not send up a Soyuz capsule as a possible escape
vehicle? If it's not needed, it's returned to the Russians to be used
in a future launch.

If there is no room in the Shuttle for the Soyuz capsule, launch it to
Hubble a day or two before the Shuttle where it would remain until needed.

[Joann Evans]

Cheap Skate wrote:

[snip]

Post by Cheap Skate

Post by William R. Cousert
Would a crew of three be enough to retrieve Hubble and return it to
Earth? If so, why not send up a Soyuz capsule as a possible escape
vehicle? If it's not needed, it's returned to the Russians to be used
in a future launch.

If there is no room in the Shuttle for the Soyuz capsule, launch it to
Hubble a day or two before the Shuttle where it would remain until needed.

Soyuz can't get there by itself. And would be useful only in a replay
of the Columbia damage scenario, with the requirement that the crew
know, once on orbit, that it's happened.

And the Soyuz gets left behind, if nothing's wrong with the orbiter.
The cost of this scenario is addig up fast...

[Doug...]

In article <***@frontiernet.net>, ***@frontiernet.net
says...

Post by Joann Evans
[snip]

Post by Cheap Skate

Post by William R. Cousert
Would a crew of three be enough to retrieve Hubble and return it to
Earth? If so, why not send up a Soyuz capsule as a possible escape
vehicle? If it's not needed, it's returned to the Russians to be used
in a future launch.

If there is no room in the Shuttle for the Soyuz capsule, launch it to
Hubble a day or two before the Shuttle where it would remain until needed.

Soyuz can't get there by itself. And would be useful only in a replay
of the Columbia damage scenario, with the requirement that the crew
know, once on orbit, that it's happened.
And the Soyuz gets left behind, if nothing's wrong with the orbiter.
The cost of this scenario is addig up fast...

Very true, Joann. Add one more little point -- by law, the U.S. cannot
buy a Soyuz or its launch from the Russians -- and that puts paid to the
concept.

Oh, and of course, there is the little problem that you'd have to do a
few milion dollars' worth of modifications to one of the remaining three
orbiters to make the payload bay big enough to fit Hubble into it for a
return. Columbia was the only orbiter whose payload bay was long enough
to accomodate the Hubble for a return, due to the redesign of the bay
and the removal of the integrated airlocks.

Doug
***@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com

[Greg D. Moore (Strider)]

Post by Doug...
Oh, and of course, there is the little problem that you'd have to do a
few milion dollars' worth of modifications to one of the remaining three
orbiters to make the payload bay big enough to fit Hubble into it for a
return. Columbia was the only orbiter whose payload bay was long enough
to accomodate the Hubble for a return, due to the redesign of the bay
and the removal of the integrated airlocks.

You sure about that? It's length is 43.5 feet, bay is 65 feet. External
airlock I believe is about 3m in diameter or 10 feet.

I think ultimately the issue is center of mass more than length. (Which are
admittedly related since length affects how far in either direction you can
move the CoG.

Post by Doug...
Doug

[Doug...]

Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)

Post by Doug...
Oh, and of course, there is the little problem that you'd have to do a
few milion dollars' worth of modifications to one of the remaining three
orbiters to make the payload bay big enough to fit Hubble into it for a
return. Columbia was the only orbiter whose payload bay was long enough
to accomodate the Hubble for a return, due to the redesign of the bay
and the removal of the integrated airlocks.

You sure about that? It's length is 43.5 feet, bay is 65 feet. External
airlock I believe is about 3m in diameter or 10 feet.
I think ultimately the issue is center of mass more than length. (Which are
admittedly related since length affects how far in either direction you can
move the CoG.

My source is Henry; I recall when Columbia first was lost that he spoke
of the difficulty of recovering Hubble with any orbiter other than
Columbia, since the payload bay mods made to the other orbiters had
rendered the bay just a foot or two shorter than needed to get Hubble
into it.

Doug
***@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com

[Jorge R. Frank]

Post by Doug...

Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)

Post by Doug...
Oh, and of course, there is the little problem that you'd have to
do a few milion dollars' worth of modifications to one of the
remaining three orbiters to make the payload bay big enough to fit
Hubble into it for a return. Columbia was the only orbiter whose
payload bay was long enough to accomodate the Hubble for a return,
due to the redesign of the bay and the removal of the integrated
airlocks.

You sure about that? It's length is 43.5 feet, bay is 65 feet.
External airlock I believe is about 3m in diameter or 10 feet.
I think ultimately the issue is center of mass more than length.
(Which are admittedly related since length affects how far in either
direction you can move the CoG.

My source is Henry; I recall when Columbia first was lost that he
spoke of the difficulty of recovering Hubble with any orbiter other
than Columbia, since the payload bay mods made to the other orbiters
had rendered the bay just a foot or two shorter than needed to get
Hubble into it.

I think you misunderstood Henry. The payload bay itself was not modified.
The airlock was moved from inside the crew cabin to the payload bay,
reducing the available space. Moving the airlock back inside is not a
trivial mod, but it's not a showstopper either.

[Doug...]

In article <***@204.52.135.40>, ***@ibm-pc.borg
says...

Post by Jorge R. Frank

Post by Doug...

Post by Greg D. Moore (Strider)

Post by Doug...
Oh, and of course, there is the little problem that you'd have to
do a few milion dollars' worth of modifications to one of the
remaining three orbiters to make the payload bay big enough to fit
Hubble into it for a return. Columbia was the only orbiter whose
payload bay was long enough to accomodate the Hubble for a return,
due to the redesign of the bay and the removal of the integrated
airlocks.

You sure about that? It's length is 43.5 feet, bay is 65 feet.
External airlock I believe is about 3m in diameter or 10 feet.
I think ultimately the issue is center of mass more than length.
(Which are admittedly related since length affects how far in either
direction you can move the CoG.

My source is Henry; I recall when Columbia first was lost that he
spoke of the difficulty of recovering Hubble with any orbiter other
than Columbia, since the payload bay mods made to the other orbiters
had rendered the bay just a foot or two shorter than needed to get
Hubble into it.

I think you misunderstood Henry. The payload bay itself was not modified.
The airlock was moved from inside the crew cabin to the payload bay,
reducing the available space. Moving the airlock back inside is not a
trivial mod, but it's not a showstopper either.

Yeah -- the payload bay itself is the same length, but when you add the
external airlock, you lose the length needed to fit Hubble. And from
the way I read it, the mod of putting the airlock back inside the crew
cabin was millions of dollars worth of work, a major mod kind of thing.
(After all, they moved all the lockers back in the mid-deck, etc.) And,
of course, your only other option would be to fly without an airlock
(and therefore, without an EVA capability) -- which is verboten in any
event due to the possibility of problems with the payload bay doors.

I'm not saying that we ought not do the final servicing mission -- I'm
just saying that the time and effort (and money) involved in
reconfiguring an orbiter so that Hubble can be returned to Earth to be a
museum relic isn't justified. Even though I would love to be able to
see it in a museum someday.

Doug
***@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com

[Jorge R. Frank]

Post by Doug...

Post by Jorge R. Frank
The payload bay itself was not
modified. The airlock was moved from inside the crew cabin to the
payload bay, reducing the available space. Moving the airlock back
inside is not a trivial mod, but it's not a showstopper either.

Yeah -- the payload bay itself is the same length, but when you add
the external airlock, you lose the length needed to fit Hubble. And
from the way I read it, the mod of putting the airlock back inside the
crew cabin was millions of dollars worth of work, a major mod kind of
thing. (After all, they moved all the lockers back in the mid-deck,
etc.) And, of course, your only other option would be to fly without
an airlock (and therefore, without an EVA capability) -- which is
verboten in any event due to the possibility of problems with the
payload bay doors.

In other words, not a trivial mod, but not a showstopper if we really
wanted to do it. We're in violent agreement here.

Post by Doug...
I'm not saying that we ought not do the final servicing mission -- I'm
just saying that the time and effort (and money) involved in
reconfiguring an orbiter so that Hubble can be returned to Earth to be
a museum relic isn't justified. Even though I would love to be able
to see it in a museum someday.

We agree here as well.

[Andrew Nowicki]

James Oberg's article about ‘telescience’
— remotely controlled experiments at
the international space station:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5173973/

[Andrew Nowicki]

Hubble news: http://www.space.com/hubble/

[Andrew Nowicki]

Sopurce: http://www.space.com/news/hubble_mdrobotic_040615.html

"NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center intends to issue a sole
source Request for Proposal (RFP) to MD Robotics for the
development of a robotic grapple arm and a double-armed
dexterous robot (named Dextre -- AN)...

DARPA's Orbital Express mission is designed to demonstrate
autonomous rendezvous and capture of a target vehicle. A
response date to NASA's RFP from the company is set for
June 30."

[Andrew Nowicki]

Source: http://www.space.com/news/okeefe_interview_040618.html

...Indeed, O’Keefe says, the effort now underway to develop
a tele-operated robot to extend Hubble’s lifetime will yield
valuable experience in developing robotic capabilities like
automated rendezvous and docking, listed in the commission
report as one of the enabling technologies necessary to get
humans to the Moon, Mars and beyond. Technology developed
for a robotic Hubble mission, says O’Keefe, could also be
applied to the construction of space-based telescope arrays
to search for Earth-like planets around other stars.

[Andrew Nowicki]

Source: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040623-020054-2412r

If there were any lingering doubts NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe
meant what he said last January about vetoing a space shuttle repair
mission for the Hubble Space Telescope, those doubts were eliminated
Tuesday...

...The point is, he told committee members -- several of whom seemed
visibly disappointed -- returning the shuttle to flight cannot be
undertaken and accommodate current safety concerns if the mission
destination is the Hubble. It makes more sense to prepare a robotic
repair flight, he said, and added that is the only responsible
decision...

[curlyQlink]

Post by Andrew Nowicki
...The point is, he told committee members -- several of whom seemed
visibly disappointed -- returning the shuttle to flight cannot be
undertaken and accommodate current safety concerns if the mission
destination is the Hubble. It makes more sense to prepare a robotic
repair flight, he said, and added that is the only responsible
decision...

Good. I can't for the life of me understand the rationale for resuming
shuttle flights. The shuttle was supposed to make manned spaceflight safe,
routine, and economical. It has failed on all three counts.

Manned spaceflight was a great idea in the 60s. But it's a technological
dead end, like the dirigible is to aviation. There was a time when if you
wanted to explore a place, you sent men there in vessels. Now there's a
better way. Sending people into space because that's the way Columbus would
have done it isn't exactly forward-looking. It's like continuing to look
for the Northwest Passage in wooden boats. Nostalic? Sure. Romantic? You
betcha. It doesn't make much sense, though.

[Jorge R. Frank]

Post by curlyQlink

Post by Andrew Nowicki
...The point is, he told committee members -- several of whom seemed
visibly disappointed -- returning the shuttle to flight cannot be
undertaken and accommodate current safety concerns if the mission
destination is the Hubble. It makes more sense to prepare a robotic
repair flight, he said, and added that is the only responsible
decision...

Good. I can't for the life of me understand the rationale for
resuming shuttle flights.

I don't think you understood. O'Keefe isn't cancelling all shuttle flights,
just the one shuttle flight (HST SM-4) that is not docking with ISS. There
will still be thirty or so shuttle flights dedicated to ISS assembly and
resupply.

[curlyQlink]

Post by Jorge R. Frank
I don't think you understood. O'Keefe isn't cancelling all shuttle flights,
just the one shuttle flight (HST SM-4) that is not docking with ISS. There
will still be thirty or so shuttle flights dedicated to ISS assembly and
resupply.

No, I understand that O'Keefe's decision only applies to the one mission.
The announcement just prompted me to get on my soapbox about the shuttle and
manned spaceflight in general.

The shuttle looks to me like a costly failure, and costly not only in terms
of dollars. An instrument like the Hubble (and Cassini, and the Mars
rovers...) are shining successes. And even when they aren't, nobody gets
killed when they fail. The policy choice here seems a no-brainer.

The space station itself strikes me as another huge mistake, little more
than a project to justify the shuttle, and vice versa.

[Andrew Nowicki]

Post by Cheap Skate
If there is no room in the Shuttle for the Soyuz
capsule, launch it to Hubble a day or two before
the Shuttle where it would remain until needed.

Batteries and gyros last only a few years. It is
much cheaper and safer to launch the batteries and
gyros once every five years than to bring the entire
telescope to Earth and launch it again.

[Andrew Nowicki]

The exorbitant price of space telemanipulators
($100,000,000-$300,000,000) is a hint of kickbacks.
Japan makes more advanced robots, motors, and cameras
than any other country, and yet it did not get any
telemanipulator contracts. Telemanipulators should not
weigh more than 100 kg and cost more than $100,000.
Anyone can cobble together a few brushless motors,
TV cameras, force sensors, and radio transmitters.
Space radiation is not severe in low Earth orbit,
so off the shelf electronics can be used. Special
lubricants are needed, but they do not add much to
the total cost.

A smart entrepreneur could make half a billion
dollars a year repairing satellites with a cheap
telemanipulator.

[Sander Vesik]

Post by Andrew Nowicki
The exorbitant price of space telemanipulators
($100,000,000-$300,000,000) is a hint of kickbacks.
Japan makes more advanced robots, motors, and cameras
than any other country, and yet it did not get any

More precicely, they are the only ones with a market in
which silly robots (provided they are domesticly made)
sell with any quanity.

Post by Andrew Nowicki
telemanipulator contracts. Telemanipulators should not
weigh more than 100 kg and cost more than $100,000.

Should not? Want to provide actual reasons that make you
think so?

Post by Andrew Nowicki
Anyone can cobble together a few brushless motors,
TV cameras, force sensors, and radio transmitters.

Yes, but that doesn't make a telemanipulator, much less
one that you can do anything with in orbit (or even more -
one that would survive launch).

Post by Andrew Nowicki
Space radiation is not severe in low Earth orbit,
so off the shelf electronics can be used. Special
lubricants are needed, but they do not add much to
the total cost.
A smart entrepreneur could make half a billion
dollars a year repairing satellites with a cheap
telemanipulator.

yeah right.

[Andrew Nowicki]

Andrew Nowicki wrote:
AN> Telemanipulators should not weigh more than 100 kg
AN> and cost more than $100,000.

Sander Vesik wrote:
SV> Should not? Want to provide actual reasons that
SV> make you think so?

They usually work in a weightless environment, so
little force is needed to move even the most
massive things.

[Andrew Nowicki]

First details about possible robotic rescue mission
to save the failing Hubble space telescope
were presented last week before a National Academy
of Sciences panel:

• A 12,000-pound repair vehicle would launch in December
2007 and travel to Hubble's orbit.
• A robot arm would attach to the telescope and hook up
power and data lines.
• The repair craft would boost Hubble to a higher orbit.
• A robot arm would perform repairs and upgrade Hubble
with two new instruments and three gyroscopes.
• The repair craft would then detach and leave behind
the batteries and a "de-orbit" module that would
eventually send Hubble to its death in a fiery,
controlled re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere
once its mission ends.

"That's a piece of cake," NASA's engineer Frank
Cepollina says. He notes that robots already
perform equally complicated tasks in factories on Earth.

Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-06-07-hubble-usat_x.htm

[Jorge R. Frank]

Post by William R. Cousert

Post by Jorge R. Frank
That is a much harder problem than autoland. The shuttle has no
autonomous rendezvous capability, nor autonomous prox ops and
capture. This is another shuttle upgrade being considered, but I
consider it likely this upgrade will be cancelled if NASA is serious
about retiring the fleet by 2010.

Would a crew of three be enough to retrieve Hubble and return it to
Earth?

No. Any HST mission involves rendezvous, prox ops, and RMS ops. And it's
highly likely that it will involve EVA as well, since some HST appendages
may need to be jettisoned. The minimum standard for any mission with all
those elements is a crew of five, though you may be able to do it with
four, provided enough training time and a hand-picked crew.

Post by William R. Cousert
If so, why not send up a Soyuz capsule as a possible escape
vehicle?

The Soyuz pads at Baikonur are at too high an inclination to reach HST's
orbit. The planned Soyuz pad at Kourou is not planned (at least initially)
to support the Soyuz spacecraft (the Soyuz spacecraft and Soyuz launcher
are two separate things). An HST retrieval mission would require the
removal of the external airlock in order to fit HST in the bay, but the
external airlock doubles as the docking mechanism, so the Soyuz would have
no place to dock.

Those are just the technical issues. The political issue is possibly more
daunting: the Russians would surely demand payment for this, and NASA is
forbidden from paying the Russians due to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of
2000.

Post by William R. Cousert
If it's not needed, it's returned to the Russians to be used
in a future launch.

Only if it's not launched. Soyuz is not reusable.

[Kevo]

If NASA doesn't want to send the Shuttle to Hubble, why not send the
Hubble to the Shuttle.

Instead of sending up a De-orbit booster to completely deorbit it, why
not send one that takes it to the orbital altitude of the ISS? Then
the Shuttle can do it on an extended Station construction mission, or
if we can get the thing in close enough proximity to the station,
station astronuats can do it if parts are sent up, either delievered
by the shuttle, a Progress cargo mission, or on a second rocket.

Using one of those solar powered ion engines means we could move it to
whatever orbit we wanted, even do more than one service mission on it.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[MSu1049321]

<< Instead of sending up a De-orbit booster to completely deorbit it, why
not send one that takes it to the orbital altitude of the ISS? Then >>


From what I'm told, altitude is half the problem, it also requires a plane
change to reach ISS. the two together create the immense fuel requirement.

[dave schneider]

Post by MSu1049321
<< Instead of sending up a De-orbit booster to completely deorbit it, why
not send one that takes it to the orbital altitude of the ISS? Then >>
From what I'm told, altitude is half the problem, it also requires a plane
change to reach ISS. the two together create the immense fuel requirement.

For a chemical rocket, the fuel requirement would be immense. The
previous poster suggested an ion thruster; with a good ISP design,
that would make the fuel requirement merely large, and the mission
would last a long time.

Maybe one of our solar sail experts could comment on using passive
propulsion to make it an even longer mission.

/dps

[Andrew Nowicki]

A report made by "The Committee on the Assessment of Options
"for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope"
suggests that the telerobotic Hubble repair mission is
combined with two other telerobotic missions: Air Force's
XSS-11 and DARPA's Orbital Express/DART.

Source: http://www.space.com/news/hubble_urged_040713.html

[Jorge R. Frank]

Post by Andrew Nowicki
A report made by "The Committee on the Assessment of Options
"for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope"
suggests that the telerobotic Hubble repair mission is
combined with two other telerobotic missions: Air Force's
XSS-11 and DARPA's Orbital Express/DART.
Source: http://www.space.com/news/hubble_urged_040713.html

Actually, the report said no such thing. It said that NASA should partner
with "other agencies in order to ensure that the returns from these
experiments can be beneficial to a potential robotic Hubble servicing
mission." It does not suggest combining the actual missions.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=13367