Space Shuttle, Not Robot, Should Be Used to Service Telescope

In article ,
Hop David wrote:
Also (ironically, given how the robot folks are always telling us much
more cost effective they are) the cheapest.

Both you and Henry Spencer seem less than enthused about a robotic
Hubble mission.

This surprises me. I seem to recall both of you saying that lack of
dexterity in pressure suit gloves was an obstacle to constructing stuff
in a vacuum.

We're not saying that a manned repair mission is trivial, only that the
capabilities of the robotic alternative have been badly oversold. Not
only is its cost escalating at an impressive rate, but success is far from
assured. Human hands, even in pressure-suit gloves, remain superior.

Wouldn't good, teleoperated robotic hands be worth a large investment?

They would, but what does that have to do with this mission? Nobody is
going to develop new robotic hand technology in two years! A robotic
Hubble servicing mission capable of flying before Hubble dies *must* use
robotics technology that is very nearly off-the-shelf today; there simply
is no time for any serious R&D cycle.

And as others have noted, considerable effort and investment have already
gone into attempting to develop such hardware, with limited success.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
One would think that a relacement 'Hubble' would be the most cost
effective way to go.

There is an argument for that. The Kodak blank is still out there
someplace.

In the Air & Space Museum, if I recall correctly.

A replacement Hubble is most unlikely to cost less than the incremental
cost of a shuttle servicing visit. Last I heard, the estimates for a
UV/visible Hubble replacement were running around $500M.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
John Thingstad wrote:
A infrared elescope will have a lesser public appeal than one
that works in the visual range. Which is why I don't think
it replaces Hubble in the public's eye.

Or in the eye of a good many astronomers, for that matter.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:
They would, but what does that have to do with this mission? Nobody is
going to develop new robotic hand technology in two years!

Actually, the hand exists. It was designed for the space station and appears
to be ready. (done by the same company that did the arms).

The problem is integrating such a hand to a new arm to a new vehicle, to new
control systems and making sure that they can actually enter Hubble and have
sufficient articulations to perform the required tasks. Oh, and develop
automated docking, grappling to a vehicle not equipped for automated docking/grappling.

The shuttle has always been the best solution to service Hubble.

The only decision that needs to be made is whether future telescopes or other
similar device should be human tended, or designed to be serviced robotically.

In article , John Doe wrote:
They would, but what does that have to do with this mission? Nobody is
going to develop new robotic hand technology in two years!

Actually, the hand exists. It was designed for the space station and appears
to be ready. (done by the same company that did the arms).

Yes, but it has nowhere near the capabilities some optimists impute to it.
In particular, the original article suggested that it was better than a
spacesuited human hand, which it most definitely is not.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:
A replacement Hubble is most unlikely to cost less than the incremental
cost of a shuttle servicing visit. Last I heard, the estimates for a
UV/visible Hubble replacement were running around $500M.

Astronomers have long complained about the lack of
emphasis on UV space-based observatories. Hubble was
very fortuitous for UV astronomy in that the focus on
very high quality visible astronomy created a natural
side effect of very high quality UV performance.
Further, the modular design of the instruments has
allowed enough diversity of instrumention to have made
it possible to sneak in UV instrumentation onto Hubble
without much complaint.

In message , Revision
writes

wrote in message
roups.com...
The unknown here is that if a manned flight were ok'ed but by the time
that flight could be taken out of mothballs and scheduled it might be
2007 , by that time Hubble may be a 'dead duck'.
One would think that a relacement 'Hubble' would be the most cost
effective way to go.

Well yeah that is a better option than spending a billion on a robot with
1% chance of success. The Webb Telescope is under construction now,
which to me is a sort of Hubble successor, though not beloved as the
Hubble is. It will function in the infra-red band and will be located at
a LaGrange point, which is not accessible for human maintenance visits.
The Webb Telescope has to unfold itself once it arrives on station, which
worries the hell out of me but for now I have to trust the designers to
get that part of it right (since no post flight lens-swaps, etc will be
possible.)

Hasn't this concept supposedly been tested on military reconnaissance
satellites? (Though ISTR that the problems with solar panels had also
been encountered, and the telescope designers were deemed not to NTK.)
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.