Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/20/2018 10:44 pmHe was kind and said "I have never done a walk around on a real Triple Seven" and my reply was "Fortunately for all of us, I have. many many many times. SAfe flights" Starliner is going to be an amazing vehicle...it will always have a pilot So now we need a pre-launch walk-around of the LV & SC? Leave it behind; does not apply. Yes, these SC will always have a "pilot" because someone has to be in command and ultimately responsible. Don't conflate that responsibility with the actions you perform piloting an aircraft. These are not aircraft, they are spacecraft.
He was kind and said "I have never done a walk around on a real Triple Seven" and my reply was "Fortunately for all of us, I have. many many many times. SAfe flights" Starliner is going to be an amazing vehicle...it will always have a pilot
Quote from: Negan on 08/20/2018 10:37 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/20/2018 10:07 pmfor all I know Musk has come onto the new thing with his touch screens...he is unique no airplane, nuclear control systems, oil field control (ie rigs off shore) or nuclear submarine...is using them...Doesn't the F-35 use touch screens?yeah and it also has the super helmet neither of which work well
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/20/2018 10:07 pmfor all I know Musk has come onto the new thing with his touch screens...he is unique no airplane, nuclear control systems, oil field control (ie rigs off shore) or nuclear submarine...is using them...Doesn't the F-35 use touch screens?
for all I know Musk has come onto the new thing with his touch screens...he is unique no airplane, nuclear control systems, oil field control (ie rigs off shore) or nuclear submarine...is using them...
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/20/2018 10:47 pmQuote from: Negan on 08/20/2018 10:37 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/20/2018 10:07 pmfor all I know Musk has come onto the new thing with his touch screens...he is unique no airplane, nuclear control systems, oil field control (ie rigs off shore) or nuclear submarine...is using them...Doesn't the F-35 use touch screens?yeah and it also has the super helmet neither of which work well Haven't seen any reported issues about F-35 touch screens. How about nuclear submarines. Looks like the Virginia Class uses them."There's no helm, either. The pilot - known as a helmsman on older subs - steers the $2 billion vessel using a joystick that resembles the controller from an old Atari video game system. He can also punch instructions onto a touch-screen control panel and set the boat on auto-pilot"https://pilotonline.com/news/military/article_ed1d9fd6-9005-5bd1-b2fb-3ce080a4a3ed.html
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/20/2018 10:47 pmQuote from: Negan on 08/20/2018 10:37 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/20/2018 10:07 pmfor all I know Musk has come onto the new thing with his touch screens...he is unique no airplane, nuclear control systems, oil field control (ie rigs off shore) or nuclear submarine...is using them...Doesn't the F-35 use touch screens?yeah and it also has the super helmet neither of which work well Haven't seen any reported issues about F-35 touch screens. How about nuclear submarines. Looks like the Virginia Class uses them.
"There's no helm, either. The pilot - known as a helmsman on older subs - steers the $2 billion vessel using a joystick that resembles the controller from an old Atari video game system. He can also punch instructions onto a touch-screen control panel and set the boat on auto-pilot"
Boeing have lot experience to draw one from all aircraft they've designed.
I think Boeing's approach to a user interface for avionics makes more sense.
>[astronaut Bob] Behnken said he looked forward to flying the more automated Dragon, a welcome relief compared to the complexity of the space shuttle."There were about 3,000 switches inside (the shuttle) and there was no situation that the astronauts couldn't make worse by touching the wrong switch at the wrong time," he said. "We're grateful that the next vehicle we're going to fly on is going to be a little bit more automated.">
The competition of ideas is a good thing, and we have to remember that reusable spacecraft of this type is a new thing (Shuttle was a different age/class), so no one really has good experience to draw from.It will likely take a couple of generations of this type of vehicle before we'll know for sure what type of approach (which may not be either of these two) works best.
I had a premonition of what a Millennial expect when they are tourist flying these things. Trevor Noah had a segment on a possible Apple car, which was illustrated by a very iPhone-ish body with wheels and him joking on how telling "Siri, take us to Houston" (or equivalent) would not end well.If it works out it looks like commercial users would expect a transition to a voice communication overlay as long as the craft can contact ground servers for a massive but cheap AI service.
Quote from: Torbjorn Larsson, OM on 08/21/2018 02:39 pmI had a premonition of what a Millennial expect when they are tourist flying these things. Trevor Noah had a segment on a possible Apple car, which was illustrated by a very iPhone-ish body with wheels and him joking on how telling "Siri, take us to Houston" (or equivalent) would not end well.If it works out it looks like commercial users would expect a transition to a voice communication overlay as long as the craft can contact ground servers for a massive but cheap AI service.It is a fact that autonomous control systems are getting better, and transportation manufacturers are adding more of them over time, not less, so the trend is clear.To me the choice that Boeing has made reflects a lack of trust that they understand all of the possible failure modes, and there is no way of knowing if they are right until they fly enough.For SpaceX, for the Dragon series of spacecraft specifically, they apparently feel that they understand all the possible failure modes, and what happens when their automated systems work and don't work. And again, there is no way to know if they are right until they fly enough.And I think it's too early to know whose approach is more inherently safe, especially since both spacecraft have different ways to fail and to respond to failure.Anxious to see both in action in order to see what the workload is like...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/21/2018 03:09 pmIt is a fact that autonomous control systems are getting better, and transportation manufacturers are adding more of them over time, not less, so the trend is clear.To me the choice that Boeing has made reflects a lack of trust that they understand all of the possible failure modes, and there is no way of knowing if they are right until they fly enough.For SpaceX, for the Dragon series of spacecraft specifically, they apparently feel that they understand all the possible failure modes, and what happens when their automated systems work and don't work. And again, there is no way to know if they are right until they fly enough.And I think it's too early to know whose approach is more inherently safe, especially since both spacecraft have different ways to fail and to respond to failure.Anxious to see both in action in order to see what the workload is like...I agree with that...its not lack of trust, its just prudent design AND it is enabling the inherent flexibility of people to "operate. boeings theory on automation in terms of problem solving is that it takes the system to a stable state...then waits for human guidance...
It is a fact that autonomous control systems are getting better, and transportation manufacturers are adding more of them over time, not less, so the trend is clear.To me the choice that Boeing has made reflects a lack of trust that they understand all of the possible failure modes, and there is no way of knowing if they are right until they fly enough.For SpaceX, for the Dragon series of spacecraft specifically, they apparently feel that they understand all the possible failure modes, and what happens when their automated systems work and don't work. And again, there is no way to know if they are right until they fly enough.And I think it's too early to know whose approach is more inherently safe, especially since both spacecraft have different ways to fail and to respond to failure.Anxious to see both in action in order to see what the workload is like...
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/21/2018 04:16 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 08/21/2018 03:09 pmIt is a fact that autonomous control systems are getting better, and transportation manufacturers are adding more of them over time, not less, so the trend is clear.To me the choice that Boeing has made reflects a lack of trust that they understand all of the possible failure modes, and there is no way of knowing if they are right until they fly enough.For SpaceX, for the Dragon series of spacecraft specifically, they apparently feel that they understand all the possible failure modes, and what happens when their automated systems work and don't work. And again, there is no way to know if they are right until they fly enough.And I think it's too early to know whose approach is more inherently safe, especially since both spacecraft have different ways to fail and to respond to failure.Anxious to see both in action in order to see what the workload is like...I agree with that...its not lack of trust, its just prudent design AND it is enabling the inherent flexibility of people to "operate. boeings theory on automation in terms of problem solving is that it takes the system to a stable state...then waits for human guidance...The Boeing approach assumes the human pilot will always have more information than autonomous systems will when an off-nominal situation occurs, and that the human pilot will be able to react quickly enough in response.Having said that, it still could be the case that the autonomous systems Boeing has created will always be able to handle the off-nominal situations that could come up, and that humans will never need to provide manual input. In other words, the autonomous vehicle team could end up surprising the human interactions team, and Boeing will later decide to simplify the manual controls available to human pilots.And having autonomous systems that are better than human pilots should be the goal, since that will increase safety and likely lead to reductions in overall cost to access space.
I would be uncomfortable saying that the human pilot would have "more information" because in Boeing world, the automation feeds information to the "human" (the pilot) in various ways...this is also how Boeing deals with drones BTW there is a human "somewhere".
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/20/2018 07:29 pmBoeing have lot experience to draw one from all aircraft they've designed.Exactly I think they probably considered touch screens but felt they would not be good to use while in a spacesuit as well as issues such as something accidentally getting triggered by something floating in the cabin coming into contact with the screen.
Quote from: Patchouli on 08/21/2018 01:29 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 08/20/2018 07:29 pmBoeing have lot experience to draw one from all aircraft they've designed.Exactly I think they probably considered touch screens but felt they would not be good to use while in a spacesuit as well as issues such as something accidentally getting triggered by something floating in the cabin coming into contact with the screen.It's not that one approach is better than the other, it's all about what your experience base is. In the case of Boeing, they have tons of experience doing things with hardware that provides an active pilot with the control he needs. On the other hand the experience base of the entire generation that is building their spacecraft is software based automation, controlled by touchscreens (think ipad and laptops), providing a passive pilot with the information he needs. People build what they know how to build.As to the comment about something floating in the cabin coming into contact with the screen, that's impossible. Touchscreens require a tactile touch, like a finger or other body part. For example think trying to type a text message on your ipad and touching the electronic keypad with a pencil point. Nothing happens - until you toss the pencil and use your finger. Not just anything will do. It must be a tactile touch, whether a finger or a tactile surface on a gloved fingertip.So both are equally proficient at doing what they are designed to do. The only important thing here is that NASA has certified both approaches so both spacecraft are good to go. I have my preference, but in the end it is irrelevant, so I won't mention it.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/21/2018 03:09 pmQuote from: Torbjorn Larsson, OM on 08/21/2018 02:39 pmI had a premonition of what a Millennial expect when they are tourist flying these things. Trevor Noah had a segment on a possible Apple car, which was illustrated by a very iPhone-ish body with wheels and him joking on how telling "Siri, take us to Houston" (or equivalent) would not end well.If it works out it looks like commercial users would expect a transition to a voice communication overlay as long as the craft can contact ground servers for a massive but cheap AI service.It is a fact that autonomous control systems are getting better, and transportation manufacturers are adding more of them over time, not less, so the trend is clear.To me the choice that Boeing has made reflects a lack of trust that they understand all of the possible failure modes, and there is no way of knowing if they are right until they fly enough.For SpaceX, for the Dragon series of spacecraft specifically, they apparently feel that they understand all the possible failure modes, and what happens when their automated systems work and don't work. And again, there is no way to know if they are right until they fly enough.And I think it's too early to know whose approach is more inherently safe, especially since both spacecraft have different ways to fail and to respond to failure.Anxious to see both in action in order to see what the workload is like...I agree with that...its not lack of trust, its just prudent design AND it is enabling the inherent flexibility of people to "operate. boeings theory on automation in terms of problem solving is that it takes the system to a stable state...then waits for human guidance...