|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Space Access Update #102 2/9/04 | Henry Vanderbilt | Policy | 1 | February 10th 04 03:18 PM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
NASA Releases Dazzling Images From New Space Telescope | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 18th 03 07:02 PM |