I got a comment to this morning’s Hubble column from a “Steve Mickler” at the post announcing it. I thought it would be better to respond in a different post, because it gets into one small aspect of the column in much greater detail:

Just read your article in TCS and while its a fine piece of writing; I must take strong exception to your dismissal of telerobotic technology.

I wasn’t dismissing it in general–I was indicating skepticism for the purpose of this specific mission. A skepticism, for what it’s worth (if you’re into arguments from authority) that the National Academy of Sciences shares.

Firstly, using Skylab as a refutation of telerobots is bizarre and the relevance of the Solar Max repair mission is something of a stretch since it used old technology and did not include anything resembling the two armed, dual camera, anthropomorphic robot using 2000’s tech that was proposed. Since no comparable device has been tested on-orbit and given the absolute confidence expressed by the contractor based on ground tests, your conclusion seems premature.

My invocation of Skylab, and the other successful (some only by the skin of their teeth) repair missions was to point out that something almost always happens that’s unexpected, and difficult to anticipate enough to build in a telerobotic capability to handle it.

I have no doubt that the contractor has “absolute confidence” based on ground tests. So did the contractor who belatedly discovered that objects in zero gee don’t behave the same way that they do in a Weightless Environment Test Facility (because the viscosity of the water has effects that don’t occur in vacuum), or the contractor who designed the grappling mechanism that ended up not grappling the satellite. Such “absolute confidence,” in light of the history of space repair, goes beyond confidence, to hubris.

Also, development of telerobotics on-orbit is an enabling technology which can increase human mediated activity in space by orders of magnitude versus spacewalking astronauts. The flexibility of humans to respond to the unexpected is actually increased if a telerobot is their tool since it is able to do things that would be to risky for the human and since it can stay on station hundreds of times longer. Untill a hard shell type spacesuit with dextrous gloves is developed, humans will be severely limited vs. telerobots. With TR the number and variety of repair and reboost missions will greatly increase while the lead times and costs go way down.

I wrote nothing in my article to dispute this. I expressed no opinion on the general utility of continuing to advance telerobotics, and in fact am all in favor of it. I was simply pointing out that the chances of success in using it on Hubble were very low, in proportion to the costs, and the risks of screwing something up so that perhaps even a later crewed mission might not be able to fix it were non-zero. This is a useful technology, but not, in my opinion, one that’s ready for prime time on a critical system that was designed to be serviced by humans.

Admittedly there are many issues including the variable signal delay time to be solved but at the end of the day a new capability is developed not just a single repair accomplished.

Yes, and that’s not a trivial issue. It’s one of the things that makes the mission risky. I agree that if the mission is successful, it’s a huge step forward. I disagree that we should use a critical mission as a test for such a system, particularly given the high cost. Test it on ISS first. That’s one of the reasons that we supposedly built it.

Remember how long it took to get Hubble up there in the first place? Well that was done when the gov was in far better financial shape than now. I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Well, even if things go on schedule, I wouldn’t advise that…

Thomas James says that NASA might be starting to get serious about commercial support of ISS.

That’s the title of my piece at TCS this morning.

Jeff Foust has taken some pictures of the new annex to the National Air and Space Museum out by Dulles Airport. There are also interesting articles at today’s The Space Review by Sam Dinkin, about the prospects for O’Neillian space colonies (with a little historical perspective of the concept), and by Stephen Ashworth on the vital need for NASA to work cooperatively, rather than adversarially, with private enterprise. Finally, Jim Oberg has a first-hand account of how technical organizations become sloppy, with potentially deadly consequences.

Jeff Foust has taken some pictures of the new annex to the National Air and Space Museum out by Dulles Airport. There are also interesting articles at today’s The Space Review by Sam Dinkin, about the prospects for O’Neillian space colonies (with a little historical perspective of the concept), and by Stephen Ashworth on the vital need for NASA to work cooperatively, rather than adversarially, with private enterprise. Finally, Jim Oberg has a first-hand account of how technical organizations become sloppy, with potentially deadly consequences.

Jeff Foust has taken some pictures of the new annex to the National Air and Space Museum out by Dulles Airport. There are also interesting articles at today’s The Space Review by Sam Dinkin, about the prospects for O’Neillian space colonies (with a little historical perspective of the concept), and by Stephen Ashworth on the vital need for NASA to work cooperatively, rather than adversarially, with private enterprise. Finally, Jim Oberg has a first-hand account of how technical organizations become sloppy, with potentially deadly consequences.

Here’s a long, but interesting article about SpaceX and Elon Musk.

C’mon, Keith. What’s the point in passing on this tidbit if you’re not going to name names?

Who’s the administrator candidate? Who’s the former JSCer? This isn’t journalism–it sounds like a Cindy Adams gossip column.

I suppose the response will be that (s)he knows who (s)he is.

[Noon update]

Commenter Leland makes a good point:

Now others are left speculating on names of who is doing what to whom with the greatest likelihood of muddying the names of innocent people.

Knock it off indeed.

This could revolutionize interplanetary flight.

I didn’t expect the president to mention space last night, and he met my expectations. Reflexive Bush-hating space enthusiasts (you know who you are…) will of course claim that this is indicative of his lack of enthusiasm and support for his own new initiative, but I think that’s nonsense. I think that it’s more reflective of confidence in his ability to continue to execute it without having to rally the public behind it (something that it’s not clear that it’s possible to do). If anything, parading it in a SOTU address might simply draw fire from critics in a time of massive budget deficits.

I will continue to judge the president’s support by his actions, rather than public speeches. He got the full NASA budget passed last fall, using a rare threat of a presidential veto. The program is moving forward as quickly as it’s possible for a bureaucracy like NASA to make it happen, with concept studies underway, an RFP about to be released for the CEV, and plans for a Lead System Integrator to be selected this year. Ultimately, it’s hardware, not speeches, that will get us into space.