https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/08/boeing-starliner-crew-spacecraft/By Chris Gebhardt
I think Boeing's approach to a user interface for avionics makes more sense.
I wonder how many of those buttons actually get used on a normal flight? My guess is (unless there is very little automation on the starliner) very very few.
By definition and per the requirements for the Commercial Crew Program, Starliner is perfectly capable of flying itself without any input from a crew up to the International Space Station and docking itself to the lab.
Quote from: Patchouli on 08/20/2018 06:56 pmI think Boeing's approach to a user interface for avionics makes more sense.Both are using glass to display virtually all information and to present menus to navigate to, and reserving hard buttons/switches for critical functions. The only apparent difference (that I see, anyway) is Boeing uses hard buttons (instead of touch) for navigating the display menus, and they have perhaps twice as many switches/buttons for critical functions. I'm sure there are also differences in the way information is displayed and menus are navigated, but we don't know about those yet.
A difference with most spacecraft is that you generally do not operate them by looking out the window. So your attention is entirely on the instrument panel and you do not have to "feel" for the buttons. And since the launch sequence is entirely automated (even for Boeing), there is no need to be able to hit the right switch while the engines are running, other than the big abort handle.In Apollo the systems were not very automated at all, so they had to count on Al Bean knowing where that "SCE" switch was located and be able to flip it while under thrust. These days, such things would be automated anyway.
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...
... But I’m inclined to think that further down the road it’ll be like Avis Rent-A-Car. You just get in, you don’t have the owner’s manual, and you drive. ...
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?
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: 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.
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 10:47 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.
>[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...
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.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/20/2018 06:47 pmhttps://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/08/boeing-starliner-crew-spacecraft/By Chris GebhardtBoeing produces Souyz version of spacecraft, 20 years behind today's technology.No flexibility to redesign, that flat screen gives you.
Boeing chose one way of doing things, SpaceX chose another. We will see how both fare over time.Generally speaking, folks here declaring that one CCP solution is better than the other are IMO in no position to declare so.Because they are not the folks actually working with those CCP solutions (looking at you TripleSeven).
Quote from: clongton on 08/21/2018 10:19 pmQuote 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.That's not exactly how a touchscreen works. If those are cap touch (like an iPad) any object that simulates a the change in capacitance like a finger touch can cause the screen to sense a "touch". This is why you can use a stylus on an iPad, or a special glove. However, there are some software workarounds to limit false touch readings, and there just aren't that many objects that can simulate a finger touch, especially if the contents of the capsule are screened to minimize them.Also, objects floating around can also depress a mechanical button (and with that there is much less sensitivity to the size or material properties of the object), so I don't see much of an advantage to either system in this regard.
So far SpaceX and Orbital (Northup Gruman) have launched to the ISS more that two dozen times with automated systems handling the 'piloting' on the trips. If there had been people on board those flights rather than cargo it would not have required any of them to take any active part.
Quote from: cbarnes199 on 08/22/2018 02:17 pmSo far SpaceX and Orbital (Northup Gruman) have launched to the ISS more that two dozen times with automated systems handling the 'piloting' on the trips. If there had been people on board those flights rather than cargo it would not have required any of them to take any active part.Someone would have had to hit the deploy parachutes button to attempt to survive on CRS-7 because the programmers didn't think of it? And all of them have had humans in the loop. Just on the ISS and on the ground remotely. Remotely piloting/operating on a manned spacecraft is silly IMO. Even self driving cars wouldn't control themselves. They would be told where to go and when presumably.
Berthing requires exactly the same position and velocity accuracy as docking, the only difference is that its centered about 15 meters under the station instead of in contact with the docking port. And abort safety is still a concern because you have humans on the ISS itself
It's easier to inaccurately press or doubletap a touch screen option, or have floating debris do so. In this case where the crews will have proper training, discreet switches seems to have many advantages, except for price.
Quote from: raketa on 08/22/2018 06:18 amBoeing produces Souyz version of spacecraft, 20 years behind today's technology.No flexibility to redesign, that flat screen gives you.Except that it’s not 20 year old technology, rather it is flight proven technology, integrated with some newer technology. This will also be the first crewed American vehicle that touches down on land without a massive runway, and with the flexibility and retrieval and reuse capability in a crew vehicle we have not had before, even with shuttle, so there’s a new capability, while the “other” vendor is dunking in the ocean, which is truly “old tech.”
Boeing produces Souyz version of spacecraft, 20 years behind today's technology.No flexibility to redesign, that flat screen gives you.
Generally speaking, folks here declaring that one CCP solution is better than the other are IMO in no position to declare so.Because they are not the folks actually working with those CCP solutions.
Quote from: brickmack on 08/27/2018 02:18 pmBerthing requires exactly the same position and velocity accuracy as docking, the only difference is that its centered about 15 meters under the station instead of in contact with the docking port. And abort safety is still a concern because you have humans on the ISS itselfI doubt this very much.
Quote from: John Santos on 08/27/2018 02:49 pmQuote from: brickmack on 08/27/2018 02:18 pmBerthing requires exactly the same position and velocity accuracy as docking, the only difference is that its centered about 15 meters under the station instead of in contact with the docking port. And abort safety is still a concern because you have humans on the ISS itselfI doubt this very much.You can doubt it all you want, but that doesn't change it from being true. Several more knowledgeable people on this forum have stated this many times.The difference in complexity is very small.
Oh come on. You don't think Nasa and SpaceX haven't thought of this already? Nasa is satisfied that both vehicles will be able to do the job asked of them and part of this is docking with the ISS and keeping the astros safe.Whether it's a physical button or a touch screen, this has already been evaluated in Nasa to the n'th degree and both, it appears, are acceptable to Nasa.Quote from: bad_astra on 08/27/2018 04:49 pmIt's easier to inaccurately press or doubletap a touch screen option, or have floating debris do so. In this case where the crews will have proper training, discreet switches seems to have many advantages, except for price.
