Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Space Science

NASA Schedules Robotic Spacecraft Launch 107

Posted by timothy from the can-squeeze-you-in-next-thursday dept.
Nathan writes "NASA has finally set the launch date for their first robotic spacecraft, intended to "rendezvous in orbit with other satellites without any human intervention", to the 15th of April. The spacecraft, called "DART" as an acronym for "Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous", cost $110 million dollars and weighs 800 pounds."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Schedules Robotic Spacecraft Launch More

NASA Schedules Robotic Spacecraft Launch

Comments Filter:

  • Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

    by majestiq ( 861341 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @06:24AM (#12125640)
    Haven't the Russians been doing this for ages with their "Capsules"?

    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)

      by wingsofchai ( 817999 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @07:05AM (#12125724)
      The Soyuz space capsules have three seats, one for a tourist and two for the crew. So no. You're thinking of Progress, which is unmanned, but still controlled by humans from the ground.
      • Whichever name you call it, capsule, logistics module, a Progress is pretty much a modified Soyuz with things removed (like the heat shield for a return trip) to add extra space for cargo.
      • The Soyuz space capsules have three seats, one for a tourist and two for the crew. So no. You're thinking of Progress, which is unmanned, but still controlled by humans from the ground.

        Of course Russians controlled the automatic dockings. But how many times did they have to override the computer and go into manual mode?

        I believe NASA will also control their experiment, otherwise how will they know that it was successful?

      • Re:Finally (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        But the docking maneuver with Mir was done automatically. That was one of the funny things about the capsule crashing into Mir, it was under manual control for some reason. I guess the pilot didn't trust the automation :)

        • Re:Finally (Score:3, Informative)

          by ehack ( 115197 )
          apparently they need a special antenna to do this docking, costing a small amount of money to be paid to Ukraine, and at that time they didn't have the money to purchase this.

    • Yes, and for that matter they also retrieved moon rocks robotically a long time ago (1970s?).

  • Hmm (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "rendezvous in orbit with other satellites without any human intervention"

    Does that sound like a patent application to anyone else?

  • rendezvous without human intervention? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 03, 2005 @06:29AM (#12125652)
    Sounds like a rocket scientist's night out.
  • From the article: "the first robotic spacecraft designed to rendezvous in orbit with other satellites without any human intervention"

    So, basically, it's the same as any other non-manned launch, except this time it's going to meet up with another satellite? True, that sounds incredibly complex... but don't they do that already with manned craft? What's so special about this? And is it truly "autonomous", or will it receive instruction from ground control? If it's truly autonomous, then I will be slightly im

    • According to their fact sheet [nasa.gov] (pdf) the mission will be completely autonomous. The DART spacecraft even has collision avoidance algorithms. It seems that this spacecraft was designed only to repair one particular satellite (MUBLCOM [skyrocket.de]), although several of this satellite currently exist. Anyone know if the services of this DART spacecraft can only be used once, or can it travel the LEO repairing all MUBLCOM's it comes in contact with?
      --
      NoVa Underground: Where Northern Virginia comes out to play. This mean [novaunderground.com]

      • Anyone know if the services of this DART spacecraft can only be used once, or can it travel the LEO repairing all MUBLCOM's it comes in contact with?

        I'm going to guess no. In all likelyhood, it only has enough fuel to reach one satellite and would not be able to drastically change it's orbit like it would have to in order to reach another satellite. Plus, it wouldn't have enough spare parts for another satellite. I suppose however, if the need to repair two similar satellites at about the same time arose,

    • This will be the first "completely" autonomous non-manned renedezvous for NASA. The Russians's have done this using different methods, using guidance systems that rely on lasers and optics. A good portion of this systems guidance controls will use differential GPS to create orbit maneuvers for rendezvous which NASA has never done. However, the Japanese have already done this several times with ETS-VII in 1998....but who cares about those damn Japs anyway.
    • While previous rendezvous and docking efforts have been piloted by astronauts, the unmanned DART spacecraft will have computers and sensors to perform all of its rendezvous functions. Future applications of technologies developed by the DART project will benet the nation in future space systems development requiring in-space assembly, services, or other autonomous rendezvous operations.

  • Cute. (Score:2, Funny)

    by DarkHelmet ( 120004 ) *
    With the delays, I was beginning to think that they'd be shooting boxes of Duke Nukem Forever into space along with the robots once it was time for launch.

  • Hot dang! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by sandstorming ( 850026 )
    Thats $137,500 a pound... If we built them out of Gold we would have build 19 of them. (Cheaper then Oil atm i guess ;)
    • NO, thats not $137,50 a pound. The article is wrong. RESEARCH COSTS for DART are around 110 USD
    • You are worth your weight in dart?
      I still like
      You are worth your weight in gold.

  • NASA vs Software Houses (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Amazing Fish Boy ( 863897 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @06:41AM (#12125679) Homepage Journal
    "We're prepared for launch," launch director Omar Baez said Friday during a televised news conference from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. "The next two weeks are crucial. There's a lot of work that's got to be done, but we're getting there."

    Something I've always wondered about is whether very professional organizations (e.g. NASA) operate in the same way as software developers. Because when someone involved in Software says to the press, "We're prepared for launch," it usually means something a little different.

    I would hope this wouldn't be the case with NASA or scientists with similarily important jobs, but does this happen? I mean, they have bosses to answer to and deadlines to meet. Just curious.
    • but does this happen?

      Yes.

    • Something I've always wondered about is whether very professional organizations (e.g. NASA) operate in the same way as software developers. Because when someone involved in Software says to the press, "We're prepared for launch," it usually means something a little different.

      Not for all software organizations... just the ones that don't build critical systems. There are methods for building software that either doesn't contain bugs, or handles bugs gracefully... the problem is that they're extremely expen
    • It's probably one of the things NASA's PBMA (Process Based Mission Assurance) is supposed to address. But it might not be within the scope, I don't work there. ARES Corp PBMA [arescorporation.com]

  • Why not rescue HST then? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jump ( 135604 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @06:46AM (#12125690)
    So NASA decides a robot mission to rescue HST is not feasable, but the same time they develope this kind of mission for other purposes? Makes we wonder if NASA is just helping the Pentagon to build new SDI technology. Clearly, HST is not something the Bush administration is interested in. Instead he wants telescopes like SPITZER which are infrared cameras - ideal for observing the earth. I wonder how many infrared telescopes build for the secret service are already monitoring us...

    • Re:Why not rescue HST then? (Score:5, Funny)

      by whathappenedtomonday ( 581634 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @06:53AM (#12125704) Journal
      I wonder how many infrared telescopes build for the secret service are already monitoring us...

      You'd be surprised. Oh and please stop picking your nose and sit up straight. Sincerely, Department of Homeland Surveillance.

    • Makes we wonder if NASA is just helping the Pentagon to build new SDI technology.

      Ya think?

      KFG

    • So NASA decides a robot mission to rescue HST is not feasable, but the same time they develope this kind of mission for other purposes?

      That doesn't really surprise me. Satellites aren't built to be repaired. If they get damaged too badly they're dropped into the ocean. Launching the Shuttle into space is simply too expensive unless the satellite is really valuable. With the Columbia disaster, Shuttle launches just became too expensive to repair any satellites, and it has nothing to do with money.

    • Because a simple robotic rendezvous with a spacecraft is an entirely different feat than having a robotic rendezvous with HST that includes opening the doors, swapping out old hardware and replacing it with new hardware. It was even harder to do than the astronauts originally intended, at one point they had 5 of the 7 astronauts EVA trying to get the Hubble onto the shuttle arm.
    • you will see bush and the neo cons want to use space to gain and control the world militarily. they not only want to use space for surveillance, but for a platform for attack on other nations and organizations that bush sees as potential competitors.

      Read the above document.
    • Please try to get over the misconception that NASA is the only agency in the US that does things in space. NASA is a civil agency. It does not do military work. Most of its employees are not cleared. Military space work (like SDI aka BMDO aka MDA) is done through the Air Force and the Navy (primarily the Air Force). The Air Force has its own programs for demonstrating the kind of mission that NASA is doing with DART: look up XSS-11, and Orbital Express. One would imagine that Secret Service satllites would

  • I'm not sure why this is so significant (Score:4, Informative)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @06:50AM (#12125698) Journal
    At the moment, as far as I know, both the European ESA, with their ATV [esa.int] and the Russians, with their Progress [russianspaceweb.com] do this same thing, i.e. autonomously meeting and docking with ships in orbit (the ISS mainly). Apart from that, I can't imagine that the technology is all that spectacular that NASA wasn't able to do this in the past. Or is this a case of NASA wasting money in trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak?

    Is there some aspect to this that really is new?

    • Re:I'm not sure why this is so significant (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sampizcat ( 669770 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @07:00AM (#12125719)
      Yes, I think so actually. I'm starting to see the point... that no humans are involved.

      Think about this: What's the most expensive part of a space mission (apart from the launch)? Maintaining the humans on board once they're in space. Think about all the extra food, supplies, and all the space "wasted" on the astronauts. Imagine now if you could do away with them, and have machines do everything in space for you? Imagine if machines built the ISS? How much more space could be devoted to materials with each launch!

      And for those that scoff at the idea: Think of the mars rover. That was remotely controlled (correct me if I'm wrong). Why couldn't somebody remotely control a robot to perform a task? True, latency, but, a few seconds, depending on the altitude. Or even completely autonomously, as this article could lead to. Have a robot build a space station, all by itself - no human intervention whatsoever (not even relaying commands to ground control). Sounds pretty cool to me.

      Sampizcat

      • No, the cost is in designing and building a system that is safe for humans. The so called manned-rating makes things very close to ten times more expensive as compared to hardware that does not get close to an astronaut. Besides the mountain of paperwork, the hardware itself has to meet completely different requirements.

        The autonomy of spacecraft varies over a wide range. It is one thing to build a robot that has been told where to go, harder to build one that has to figure out what is what and where it sh

      • Think of the mars rover. That was remotely controlled (correct me if I'm wrong).

        It depends what you mean by "remotely controlled." The one-way light time between Earth and Mars varies from about 5 to 20 minutes, so you can't drive the rovers with a joystick. Also complicating the issue is that rover controllers no longer work around the clock like they did during the primary mission - it's too expensive to have people to have people work like that for 6+ months. Instead, rover commands are generated du

    • Because its not just a delivery vessel (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @07:19AM (#12125752) Homepage Journal
      A few people mentioned Russian cargo ships and such but miss the point. Delivery of cargo is just one optional mission for this device. The main objective seems to be remote servicing of satellites. As of right now that work is done by people if at all, most of the time it is just cheaper to replace the satellite in question. It could also be employed on a quick launch basis to survey a shuttle or other craft that suffered possible damage during launch. How about take oxygen or similar to such a damaged craft until a rescue can be performed?

      There are many possibilities. Repairing the hubble would be outside of its domain as you would now need to design satellites with remote servicing as part of their design. This could open the door for more modular (generic) satellites. Besides opening the door for more nations to own them it creates new avenues for businesses in the future.

    • In the news... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by quarkscat ( 697644 )
      Gee, why is this so significant?
      Well, try tying a few news articles together.

      (a) Bush revives the Star Wars program
      (b) Bush cuts NASA spending (HST)
      (c) NASA invests in robotic satellites
      (d) Bush appoints Star Wars exec to head NASA
      (e) NASA announces first robotic satellite

      Anyone that cannot add these up and come up
      with the correct answer -- the USA is fully
      engaged in the militarization of space, is one
      can short of a six-pack.

      • Re:In the news... (Score:3, Informative)

        by GileadGreene ( 539584 )
        the USA is fully engaged in the militarization of space

        They may well be. But NASA's mission has nothing to do with that. NASA is a civil agency. Military space work is done through the Air Force and the Navy (primarily the Air Force). The Air Force has its own programs for demonstrating the kind if mission that NASA is doing with DART: look up XSS-11, and Orbital Express.

      • (b) Bush cuts NASA spending (HST)

        Not to nit-pick, but Bush has actually increased NASA spending. It's one of the few non-defense portions of the government which have actually gotten increased funding under his watch.
        • Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument...
        • Perhaps Dubya has increased NASA funding --
          but not for the repair of the HST (Hubble
          Space Telescope). The real money is going
          into robotics, and the very same prime
          contractors that work for NASA also work
          (mainly) for the Department of Defense.
          Federal funds earmarked for "civilian"
          robotics space missions is fungible, as is
          the technology. A pretty neat way to hide
          the massive increase in military spending is
          to spend NASA money on technology that will
          transfer to the military. It is no mere
          coincidence that the
          • Hating Bush is all well and good, but could you elaborate more on your space robotics -> militarization connection? You seem to be stating it rather axiomatically, and I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.

            Disclaimer: I'm an avid roboticist and have done robotics research in the past. I'm fairly neutral on militarizing space, but am a very big advocate of developing robotic technologies, particularly because they're damned useful for pretty much any space-related activity.

    • Dart is not designed to be a working satellite. Dart is a technology proving platform. It is the first of 3 vehicles currently being developed. Dart, at least for now, is not intended to actually do any work on other satellites. This mission will include various tasks including velocity matching, station keeping, and collision avoidance. Supposedly, Dart should approach no closer than 5 meters to the DoD target satellite. Once Dart launches it receives no position or tracking updates from external sources (
      • A lot of good points, but "dropping rocks" from orbit is a lot harder than it looks. Small rocks wouldn't survive reentry, and large rocks are too hard to move to an impact trajectory. Remember, in order to alter the orbit of an object large enough to do damage in order to miss the Earth we would need years and notice and use of our most powerful energy sources. Unless we find a rock almost about to hit Earth anyway, it would be nearly impossible to do damage using rocks.

        This is a common enough thought

  • Hubble (Score:4, Interesting)

    by b0lt ( 729408 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @07:07AM (#12125730)
    Is there any way to use it to (attempt to) fix Hubble? There's not all that much risk, it would keep Hubble operational, and it would test robotic technology. Is the robot functional enough to carry out repairs?

    -b0lt
    • This new generation of robotic satellite does
      not have the capabilities necessary for the
      autonomous or remote repair of the HST (neither
      adaptability nor dexterity nor payload).
      This next-gen NASA robotic satellite is, however,
      capable of the interdiction and destruction of
      OPSes (Other Peoples' Satellites), its intended
      function.
    • This is a "technology validation" mission, i.e., TEST. NASA doesn't know if it really works or not, though NASA's engineers are confident. Besides, the key element of this test is

      (1)to rendezvous and dock with an arbitrary satellite autonomously,

      and not about unscrew the screws to take off panels and to remove and replace modular units with little human intervention. To fix the HST that hurdle needs to be cleared.

      Anyway, I surely hope DART works. [But I have this nudging feeling that pegasus's gonna miss

  • NASA had to change the name (Score:5, Funny)

    by azaris ( 699901 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @07:10AM (#12125736) Journal
    The original name was Lightweight Automated Weaponless Navigation Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology, but for some reason they shortened it to DART.

  • DART Acronym (Score:2, Insightful)

    by connah0047 ( 850585 )
    The spacecraft, called "DART" as an acronym for "Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous"

    And the "T" stands for...?

    • Re:DART Acronym (Score:2, Informative)

      by Nifrith ( 860526 )
      Yeah, I was confused by this. Reading the fine article however:
      "Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous Technology"
      Yeah. So. There.

  • Mistakes (Score:2, Funny)

    by bostonsoxfan ( 865285 )
    Well lets just hope they don't confuse meters and feet. We know what happens when NASA does that.

  • If... (Score:4, Funny)

    by JustOK ( 667959 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @08:06AM (#12125873) Journal
    If it was completely autonomous, wouldn't it set its own launch date?
  • to see it had GPS on board. Suprised because I thought GPS wouldn't work at that altitiude, i.e. possibly even ouside the ring of GPS satellites.

  • Dumb mission (Score:3, Interesting)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday April 03, 2005 @08:15AM (#12125889) Homepage Journal
    Wow, isn't $110 million a lot for that? I mean, say you were a commercial concern and you wanted to do something that was actually profitable in space. You could send a robot probe to one of those asteroids that circle the sun in orbits close to earth and mine it. At least a few of those asteroids have high quantities of platinum. Say your robot probe could mine a tonne of it and return it to earth. How much would that be worth? Oh, about $30 million. So how many tonnes would your robot probe have to return to earth to be profitable? It's a finite number and wouldn't even make up a significant fraction of the total mass of the asteroid. Sounds like a pretty simple project really. If you could send back enough loads you could afford to sent humans instead of robots and cut out all that pesky upfront R&D. Just grab yourself 5 SpaceX boosters, point and shoot.

    Oh well, I suppose China/India/Japan or commercial interests will get around to it sooner or later.

    • There's a lot of problems with this. First, do you know of any large asteroids made out of platinum orbiting close to the sun? There's some that contain significant amounts, but it's not like you can just grab a one ton chunk and expect it to contain 1 ton of platinum.

      Second, contrary to what you see in Armegeddon, asteroid mining techniques are not that advanced yet. By not advanced I mean non-existant. In fact, there's only been just one landing ever on an asteroid, and that actually something more of
      • Well yes, you would have to process the asteroid to get the platnium out, but it would be very low tech. The whole system is easy to design and build, no new technology is needed.
        Returning the payload is easy, there's a number of options, but a bunch of cheap aerosol boosters would be more than enough. Point it at the moon and let gravity do the rest. De-orbiting it once it got to earth orbit would be harder. For a commercial interest that is, de-orbiting with the shuttle would be simple.
        The mining prob
        • you seem to miss the important detail of physics. If you have that ton of platinum ready to go in the asteroid orbit, you now have to apply a delta-v to it, to put it on an earth intercept trajectory. that's gonna take a whole lotta energy that your little 1 ton asteroid miner just doesn't have. Assuming you found some magic, that does actually get you from asteroid trajectory to earth orbit for free, you are suggesting de-orbit with the shuttle. You just added 500 million to the cost of getting that st
          • The "magic" you desire is called gravity. It takes little energy to boost a tonne of material into a capture with the moon which will leave it in orbit of earth. I suggested using the shuttle as we were talking about what NASA could be doing. Obviously just modifying the orbit so that it enters the earth's atmosphere would be enough to de-orbit a tonne of material with little loss. A parachute will do to ensure it doesn't make a crater. As for where all this energy comes from: space is an energy rich p
            • like i said, it makes a great movie script. For reality tho, come back when the stuff you talk about is actually feasable with technology available.

              The low energy transfer trajectories you are suggesting will take years to reach destination. Factor time into your roi equation, and the economics just got a lot worse.

              De-orbiting a ton of material, with no heat shielding, and 'little loss'. You need to go read up a little on the physics of re-entry. One ton rocks hit our atmosphere on a regular basis.

              • Whatever, you're obviously more interested in nah-saying than actually thinking about the potential. You continue to talk about "rocks" entering the atmosphere, when I've made it clear that you'd be sending back almost 100% pure platinium, a metal which can go through heat shock with no ill effects.
  • > ...first robotic spacecraft...

    I have a problem seeing this as the "first robotic spacecraft". Sure, it's cool and all. But it's more of an example of progress in robotic spacecraft than it is a "first".

    Depending on how one defines "robotic", one can make the argument that ALL spacecraft are robotic, or that all non-manned spacecraft are robotic. After all, most/many spacecraft other than, say, Sputnik and similar "beepers" have had some degree of autonomastion and decision-making ability, however pri
  • Where'd the "T" come from? Demonstraion of Autonomous Rendezvous. There is no "T". Is anyone else bothered by this?
  • How is man to conquer space if we continue to send robots to do the job? Machines are supposed to take us there, not themselves there!

    Launching robots into space is like paying someone else to do your homework.

  • PBS (Score:1)

    by ananegg ( 772033 )
    I just saw a thing on The News Hour about DART........ If your wondering why I was watching The News Hour, I was bored and nothing else was on, sue me.
  • I wonder what the verdict will be should the technology performs better than expected during the close proximity testing.

    1. "Sir, we just collided with a $400 million satellite"
    2. Success!
  • how long before we can send robots with missiles up there... it's got to be obvious that nasa isn't just in the "exploration" business anymore... not that it's a bad thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close