A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Working Hand In Glove



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 26th 04, 02:27 AM
Mike Rhino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Hand In Glove

What if one finger stops working properly and the astronaut starts flipping
the bird to everyone.

  #22  
Old February 26th 04, 09:56 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Hand In Glove

Andrew Gray wrote:

The reader is invited to suggest how many are appropriate tasks for
space-station assembly. The day people start worrying about how to pitch
manure and butcher hogs in LEO, the goal may be moot anyway.


I'd say that when NASA's original cost estimates for pound to orbit via
Shuttle, and number of Shuttle flights per year are taken into account,
the pitching manure challenge has been met triumphantly on their part;
and with NASA funding going to the study of the evolution of snakes, the
hogs have not only been successfully butchered, but well salted and
packed in a pork barrel.

The effect on dexterity is reasonably easy to design metrics for, at
least to compare gloves against each other (draw circles, thread
needles, juggle - wait, no...). Testing fatigue is likely more
difficult; you'd need a reasonable number of trials by (some)
experienced users, which amounts to a lot of time - and if any designs
rely on specific ug or hard-vac tricks, a lot of hard-to-simulate time.


Well, if we had an international crew test them...and one of this crew
were a lesbian from the Netherlands, we could check out the dexterity of
the gloves by having the crew take turns sticking their fingers into the
dy..... no, we won't go there.


Disclaimer: I know nothing about gloves.



And all I know about Dutch lesbians is what I read in the Happy Hooker's
Penthouse column


OTOH, it could be used as an equally interesting robotics-design goal -
build an instrumented "hand" to judge the workload of operating the
glove, bolt six to a panel, leave outside the airlock for a week.


Oh, nothing could go wrong with _that_ idea (image of crazed computer in
control of six mechanical hands.... tearing an EVAing astronaut's arms,
legs, helmet and gonads off all at once.)
No thank you sir! I'll take the Dutch lesbian; if she's good enough for
Xaviera, she's Gouda enough for me.

Pat Van Der Flan

  #23  
Old February 26th 04, 10:01 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Hand In Glove

Derek Lyons wrote:

One suspects you mistyped. RAH as a former serving officer should
have known that you conn a ship, yet you con a mark.


Maybe he pulled something on the whole ship's crew....

Pat

  #24  
Old February 26th 04, 05:37 PM
Len
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Hand In Glove

Hop David wrote in message ...
Len wrote:
iable,

(snip) Telerobots will
do most of the routine, "outside" work. Small, manned,
maneuverable, support vehicles may be an important adjunct.


As I mentioned earlier, robotic hands are still a poor, clumsy
substitute for real hands. But robotic hands will improve sooner or
later (hopefully sooner).


Assembling an automobile requires only about 20 man-hours;
nearly all the work is done by robots. But a certain amount
of manned presence is critical.


Repetitive assembly line tasks are comparable to orbital construction?
It'd be nice to have the economy of scale where we'd have assembly lines.

If so, then the "factory floor" would have to be assembled in space.



Our design concept for structures too large to be carried
prefabricated is highly modular. The trick is to have robots
capable of repositioning themselves to do basically repetitive
jobs. The difficulty of getting proper reaction forces is
partially offset by the lack of gravitational forces.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

  #27  
Old February 26th 04, 06:19 PM
Len
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Hand In Glove

(Bill Bogen) wrote in message . com...
(Len) wrote in message . com...
(Bill Bogen) wrote in message . com...
(Len) wrote in message . com...
Hop David wrote in message ...


....snip.....
Assembling stuff in a vacuum is hard when you have cucumber fingers.


The key item required for assembly in space is frequent,
reliable, low-cost access. With frequent, reliable,
low-cost access, relying on hangars and assembly bays will
be more logical than not having them.

Sure but you have to assemble the hangars, etc. Also, not all work in
the vacuum of space will be in low Earth orbit or in convenient
facilities.


Some combination of prefab and telerobots should be
able to do this job.


If you are referring to people on Earth remotely operating robots in
orbit, I think you may be underestimating the difficulties introduced
by the light-speed time lag, especially if the signal is routed to a
geosynch satellite first. If the operator is nearby (in a
station/habitat) and the robot has well-designed, dextrous effector
'fingers', well, then put the 'fingers' at the end of a space suit arm
and skip the expensive robot.


I couldn't agree with you more with respect to the
need for local manned presence. I even think that
some type of small, maneuverable excursion modules
would be desirable, but these would not be "suits."
I do not think that robots in space would be relatively
expensive. The main cost--even with low-cost space
transportation--is likely to be transportation. This
is probably compounded by the relative needs for
"maintenance supplies" when comparing people with
robots. But I do agree that the combination of people
plus robots is likely to be a must for a robot-based
construction strategy.


Telerobots will
do most of the routine, "outside" work.

Maybe but to be effective they'd have to be operated by someone on
site (light speed lag from Earth is troublesome) and if you're going
to have someone there anyway, it's cheaper to put a person in a suit
than build and maintain a robot.

What is your basis for saying that.


See above. You weren't planning on sending people into orbit without
making spacesuits available to them, were you?

Spacesuits are likely to be a necessary adjunct. However,
I think the primary construction approach would not rely
much on spacesuits.

Small, manned,
maneuverable, support vehicles may be an important adjunct.

Sounds like a rigid suit. Still need gloves/manipulators of some
sort.


I had in mind something like the excursion modules in
2001--perhaps smaller.


Cool. Still need manipulators, don't we?

Mais oui. But these do not necessarily need to house
human hands. The manipulators may not even be physically
connected to the excursion module. But the human "advisor"
could observe the manipulator at close hand through
appropriate windows and/or sensors. Not that I think that
gloved hands would not be very useful. It's just that
they are not the only option. I suspect some combination
of the two would be best.

Assembling an automobile requires only about 20 man-hours;
nearly all the work is done by robots. But a certain amount
of manned presence is critical.

Yep. So we need better gloves.


I think better gloves would be very useful. But
I think that frequent, reliable, low-cost access
is far more important and would open up many new
options.


The two are separate issues. Investing a million or 10 million in new
gloves won't delay CATS.


No argument. Plesae understand that I am not against
this. However, I do not want to detract from what I
view as the main problem: the need for frequent,
relliable, low-cost access to space. As Rand suggests,
we do not have to make a choice. I would like to see
both.

IMO, the size of what is assembled is restricted more by the
uncontrolled reentry hazard, than any other factor.

If that were true, ISS wouldn't be as big as it is, would it?
I think cost is the limiter.


For the cost of ISS, something perhaps 1000 times more
massive would become possible with truly low-cost access;
there is a compounding effect with respect to total costs.
Moreover, is anyone ready to say that uncontrolled reentry
of ISS would not be a serious problem?


You're talking $5 or $10 per pound; sounds great but I'm not sure how
you'd achieve that; even fuel alone would cost roughly $10/pound of
payload, I think.


No, I am not talking about $5 or $10 per pound; however,
$100 or $200 per pound can easily enable something 1000
times more massive, because of compounding, interacting
cost effects. I think that $100 or $200 per pound is
quite attainable. What is needed is a sufficient market
and sufficient credibilty for a non-traditional company
to attract sufficient investors to build a real space
transport.

Of course an uncontrolled re-entering ISS would be a serious problem
but I don't think the designers said, "Hmmm, better not make it any
bigger, just in case...."


A commercial operator has to think in terms of
how much liabliity risk the government will allow
a commercial operator to take.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

  #28  
Old February 26th 04, 09:03 PM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Hand In Glove

In article , Derek Lyons wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, con a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give
orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem,
pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."


One suspects you mistyped.


One thinks you overestimate my enthusiasm. Someone else mistyped, I just
pasted. ;-)

RAH as a former serving officer should
have known that you conn a ship, yet you con a mark.


And, so, we finally learn just *why* Heinlein never liked to talk about
how he left the Navy... rich...

(Wait, that was Nixon. I really must stop confusing those two.)

Attepting to steer this back on topic, what's the accepted term for
piloting a spacecraft on-orbit?

--
-Andrew Gray


  #29  
Old February 26th 04, 10:28 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Hand In Glove

Andrew Gray wrote:

In article , Derek Lyons wrote:

RAH as a former serving officer should
have known that you conn a ship, yet you con a mark.


And, so, we finally learn just *why* Heinlein never liked to talk about
how he left the Navy... rich...

(Wait, that was Nixon. I really must stop confusing those two.)

Attepting to steer this back on topic, what's the accepted term for
piloting a spacecraft on-orbit?


I dunno. (In maritime usage 'conning' and 'piloting' are different
functions, but the exact differences always eluded me.) The OOD (of a
ship) usually has the Deck and the Conn, unless we were maneuvering in
or out of restricted waters (read - port), in which case we stationed
a Conning Officer, while the OOD retained the Deck.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.