-
#1240 by zubenelgenubi on 07 May, 2024 20:30
-
Moderator:
Personal anecdotes regarding paper vs digital are off- topic. 3 posts deleted.
Extended discussion of reporters' biases and/or competence is also off-topic--probably better in General Discussion. -
#1241 by Athelstane on 07 May, 2024 20:59
-
Moderator:
Personal anecdotes regarding paper vs digital are off- topic. 3 posts deleted.
Extended discussion of reporters' biases and/or competence is also off-topic--probably better in General Discussion.
Thank you; duly noted. Obviously you may clean things up as you see fit. I had no intention of pursuing this point beyond my immediate response to Dan. Happy to move any further followups I might have over to General Discussion! -
#1242 by Jim on 07 May, 2024 21:08
-
. After that, maybe NASA and Boeing can find a way to cancel Starliner.
no reason for NASA to do that -
#1243 by Jim on 07 May, 2024 21:12
-
Some observations of today's launch attempt.
1. All the paper made it look old school. I'm not saying that won't work, and at least no one pulled out a line printer listing.
2. The crew didn't know what to do immediately when the scrub happened; they asked if they needed to do this or that as if they didn't know what step they were on or where to go in all that paper. I don't know if that is bad or okay.
3. I don't understand the sequence. At L-2 hours, the rocket is fully fueled, and the crew is in their seats. What's left? Seal the door and clear the pad or am I missing something?
1. the paper was used by management and not the launch team
2. which team?
3. final checks. -
#1244 by dsky on 07 May, 2024 21:23
-
Some observations of today's launch attempt.
1. All the paper made it look old school. I'm not saying that won't work, and at least no one pulled out a line printer listing.
2. The crew didn't know what to do immediately when the scrub happened; they asked if they needed to do this or that as if they didn't know what step they were on or where to go in all that paper. I don't know if that is bad or okay.
1 & 2. The major advantage to the approach SpaceX took of putting **EVERYTHING** online and available on the touchscreens. "Scrub? Go to Section 6 Event 3". Everything is instantly available. There, every step that needs to happen is clearly spelled out. No question about what to do. All previous spacecraft had paper manuals in several volumes that the crew had to pull out, search for the correct section, and only then could they address the situation.
I feel that these statements are too generic.
Pilots (aviation) have to-do items memorized for emergency situations, and Quick Reference Handbooks for situations that requires more steps, very easy to browse in paper (preferred in high dynamic conditions) and/or digital form (ECAM assisted). On the Space Shuttle the applicable book for a given mission phase contained most of what was needed in all contingencies, other books were for other phases (on Apollo it was similar): so they used one book each phase only. Troubleshooting procedures or other "big books" (like performance or configuration books) are better managed digitally (updates are much easier to manage, as easier is to keep books under configuration).
All this should be balanced with the reality of spaceflight.
At IAC Washington, in 2019, I tried the CST/Starliner mockup which let you fly the final approach to docking. I commented on the many switches, levers, knobs and pushbuttons (and the relevant cost) vs a more "flat" solution and the sales engineer smartly commented that in dynamic situations you need something to grasp. I tried to explain him that during launch, and entry/descent/landing, everything is automatic and there is very little a pilot can do, so most of the controls were to be used mostly while on orbit, when everything is slow and deliberate. I think he lost track of the discussion quickly, on the other hand it was also very crowded. The simulation was nice looking but limited only to translations, no rotations.
The point is: it is not only paper vs tablet, but also switches vs touchscreens, or even automation vs manual flying. Different faces of the same medal. To me one thing is simply evident: Starliner is designed pilot-centric (automation is an option), while Dragon is design automation-centric (piloting is an option). This is reminiscent of the Boeing vs Airbus cockpits debate in the aviation world and also the Shuttle vs Soyuz cockpit debate in the previous age of spaceflight.
Different choices are not necessarily good or bad, they are just different cultures. With different costs, economies, advantages, disadvantages. -
#1245 by SoftwareDude on 08 May, 2024 02:40
-
I brought the antiquated control system up here years ago; it's one of the many reasons people here hate me. But to recap, Boeing went with a computer system that cannot do the kind of I/O needed for the graphics we see on Dragon. Boeing's system supports only VGA, so they are stuck with a control system that looks like they are flying in the 1970s.Some observations of today's launch attempt.
1. All the paper made it look old school. I'm not saying that won't work, and at least no one pulled out a line printer listing.
2. The crew didn't know what to do immediately when the scrub happened; they asked if they needed to do this or that as if they didn't know what step they were on or where to go in all that paper. I don't know if that is bad or okay.
1 & 2. The major advantage to the approach SpaceX took of putting **EVERYTHING** online and available on the touchscreens. "Scrub? Go to Section 6 Event 3". Everything is instantly available. There, every step that needs to happen is clearly spelled out. No question about what to do. All previous spacecraft had paper manuals in several volumes that the crew had to pull out, search for the correct section, and only then could they address the situation.
I feel that these statements are too generic.
Pilots (aviation) have to-do items memorized for emergency situations, and Quick Reference Handbooks for situations that requires more steps, very easy to browse in paper (preferred in high dynamic conditions) and/or digital form (ECAM assisted). On the Space Shuttle the applicable book for a given mission phase contained most of what was needed in all contingencies, other books were for other phases (on Apollo it was similar): so they used one book each phase only. Troubleshooting procedures or other "big books" (like performance or configuration books) are better managed digitally (updates are much easier to manage, as easier is to keep books under configuration).
All this should be balanced with the reality of spaceflight.
At IAC Washington, in 2019, I tried the CST/Starliner mockup which let you fly the final approach to docking. I commented on the many switches, levers, knobs and pushbuttons (and the relevant cost) vs a more "flat" solution and the sales engineer smartly commented that in dynamic situations you need something to grasp. I tried to explain him that during launch, and entry/descent/landing, everything is automatic and there is very little a pilot can do, so most of the controls were to be used mostly while on orbit, when everything is slow and deliberate. I think he lost track of the discussion quickly, on the other hand it was also very crowded. The simulation was nice looking but limited only to translations, no rotations.
The point is: it is not only paper vs tablet, but also switches vs touchscreens, or even automation vs manual flying. Different faces of the same medal. To me one thing is simply evident: Starliner is designed pilot-centric (automation is an option), while Dragon is design automation-centric (piloting is an option). This is reminiscent of the Boeing vs Airbus cockpits debate in the aviation world and also the Shuttle vs Soyuz cockpit debate in the previous age of spaceflight.
Different choices are not necessarily good or bad, they are just different cultures. With different costs, economies, advantages, disadvantages. -
#1246 by sdsds on 08 May, 2024 05:07
-
Clarification please: did Boeing buy Atlas flights for Starliner without also buying the 'Wet Dress Rehearsal' add-on option?
-
#1247 by dsky on 08 May, 2024 08:37
-
I brought the antiquated control system up here years ago; it's one of the many reasons people here hate me.
Reference?But to recap, Boeing went with a computer system that cannot do the kind of I/O needed for the graphics we see on Dragon. Boeing's system supports only VGA, so they are stuck with a control system that looks like they are flying in the 1970s.
This is not necessarily a bad choice if you re-use computers already flight proven for flight control and systems management. Interfaces can be handled with a separate computer if you want them (balance the cost of a new development with that of the hardware and wiring of the switches-based solution) and Boeing did that, in part, using fancy military-grade displays (cool graphics IMHO, they do not look VGA to me). Again, it is an engineering culture thing, it can't be blamed from a technical viewpoint. It can be blamed on other aspects (like that of overall costs reduction, lack of technology advancement, and so on).
Do not forget that Boeing has touchscreen technology in the 777X and 787 (which includes also digital checklists!), but the cost of space qualification (and/or mass/size maybe) likely suggested a different approach. Has the final trade-off been performed by managers, or by engineers, or by pilots? That would be interesting to know.
BTW, the division between interface and functions was (it still is) masterfully exemplified in the Soyuz S/C, well before Dragon.
This is a very interesting topic, which is going off-topic for this thread. It would be great to have a place to discuss these things elsewhere in the forum. -
#1248 by Jim on 08 May, 2024 14:08
-
Do not forget that Boeinghas touchscreen technology in the777X and 787
which was the basis for Starliiner. -
#1249 by SoftwareDude on 08 May, 2024 16:54
-
For all I know, SpaceX could be using a similar architecture to what you are suggesting. The difference is vertical integration, down to customized Linux kernel and hardware even custom chips.I brought the antiquated control system up here years ago; it's one of the many reasons people here hate me.
Reference?But to recap, Boeing went with a computer system that cannot do the kind of I/O needed for the graphics we see on Dragon. Boeing's system supports only VGA, so they are stuck with a control system that looks like they are flying in the 1970s.
This is not necessarily a bad choice if you re-use computers already flight proven for flight control and systems management. Interfaces can be handled with a separate computer if you want them (balance the cost of a new development with that of the hardware and wiring of the switches-based solution) and Boeing did that, in part, using fancy military-grade displays (cool graphics IMHO, they do not look VGA to me). Again, it is an engineering culture thing, it can't be blamed from a technical viewpoint. It can be blamed on other aspects (like that of overall costs reduction, lack of technology advancement, and so on).
Do not forget that Boeing has touchscreen technology in the 777X and 787 (which includes also digital checklists!), but the cost of space qualification (and/or mass/size maybe) likely suggested a different approach. Has the final trade-off been performed by managers, or by engineers, or by pilots? That would be interesting to know.
BTW, the division between interface and functions was (it still is) masterfully exemplified in the Soyuz S/C, well before Dragon.
This is a very interesting topic, which is going off-topic for this thread. It would be great to have a place to discuss these things elsewhere in the forum. -
#1250 by dsky on 08 May, 2024 18:32
-
Do not forget that Boeinghas touchscreen technology in the777X and 787
which was the basis for Starliiner.
Jim,
are you sure Starliner uses the ECAM/EICAS (however it is called on the 777X/787) touchscreen technology, or it just uses the LCD display and related electronics? As far as I understood (and I do not have much information) interaction with the displays are via the multi-function pushbuttons around the bezel. Anyway this is definitely not VGA-style.
As an example, the MEDS cockpit of the Space Shuttle did use the same LCD displays of the 777, with symbols totally re-designed for the new application.
If they do not use the aviation style malfunctions and checklists functionalities, it is pretty clear why they resorted to paper checklists (again, old-style, but not necessarily bad) for nominal flight phases.
Anyway, I have also seen training photos in which they use iPads with checklists. Maybe they reserve these only for non dynamical phases of the flight.
-
#1251 by SoftwareDude on 08 May, 2024 18:55
-
The Atlas and the Starliner are rolled back. I assume the Starliner was exposed to the elements, don't know if it rained at all. Is there something Boeing must do to mitigate the moisture/valve infiltration problem?
-
#1252 by Jim on 08 May, 2024 19:38
-
The Atlas and the Starliner are rolled back. I assume the Starliner was exposed to the elements, don't know if it rained at all. Is there something Boeing must do to mitigate the moisture/valve infiltration problem?
it didn't rain -
#1253 by DigitalMan on 08 May, 2024 21:51
-
I wish it would rain, my plants are suffering.
Is ULA going do any additional checks during this rollback? -
#1254 by SoftwareDude on 09 May, 2024 02:03
-
Moisture doesn't have to come from rain.The Atlas and the Starliner are rolled back. I assume the Starliner was exposed to the elements, don't know if it rained at all. Is there something Boeing must do to mitigate the moisture/valve infiltration problem?
it didn't rain -
#1255 by Jim on 09 May, 2024 02:34
-
it has been dry
Moisture doesn't have to come from rain.The Atlas and the Starliner are rolled back. I assume the Starliner was exposed to the elements, don't know if it rained at all. Is there something Boeing must do to mitigate the moisture/valve infiltration problem?
it didn't rain -
#1256 by skater on 09 May, 2024 03:03
-
The Atlas and the Starliner are rolled back. I assume the Starliner was exposed to the elements, don't know if it rained at all. Is there something Boeing must do to mitigate the moisture/valve infiltration problem?
To change the valve, they need to depressurize the Centaur. Since it's pressure-supported, that means that they need to put it in some sort of mechanical support to prevent structural failure (BTW, they supposedly will not need to destack). That has to be done in the VIF. -
#1257 by JAFO on 09 May, 2024 04:04
-
Jim,
are you sure Starliner uses the ECAM/EICAS (however it is called on the 777X/787) touchscreen technology, or it just uses the LCD display and related electronics? As far as I understood (and I do not have much information) interaction with the displays are via the multi-function pushbuttons around the bezel. Anyway this is definitely not VGA-style.
As an example, the MEDS cockpit of the Space Shuttle did use the same LCD displays of the 777, with symbols totally re-designed for the new application.
If they do not use the aviation style malfunctions and checklists functionalities, it is pretty clear why they resorted to paper checklists (again, old-style, but not necessarily bad) for nominal flight phases.
Anyway, I have also seen training photos in which they use iPads with checklists. Maybe they reserve these only for non dynamical phases of the flight.
Don't bring up the 787 around Ross.
Both aircraft call them EICAS.
Neither aircraft use touchscreens at my company, although we're supposed to start getting 78s with touchscreens next year, maybe.
We have Memory items, and we also have a laminated checklist for a few Oh Shit items (Engine failure and driftdown, Evacuation, couple others).
77/78 closed loop checklists are a wonderful thing, they're designed for use by jetlagged pilots when the cumulative IQ of everyone on the flight deck doesn't hit double digits. Almost impossible to go wrong with them unless you insist on being stupid and digging yourself into a hole. Which is possible with paper or digital checklists.
I've, um, got some time in both.
(apologies to Mods, don't know if this helped or not) -
#1258 by ZachS09 on 09 May, 2024 04:24
-
The Atlas and the Starliner are rolled back. I assume the Starliner was exposed to the elements, don't know if it rained at all. Is there something Boeing must do to mitigate the moisture/valve infiltration problem?
That was less than three years ago. Starliner was never exposed to anything this time. -
#1259 by SoftwareDude on 09 May, 2024 06:20
-
Well, I asked Copilot for what it is worth, and here is what it said:The Atlas and the Starliner are rolled back. I assume the Starliner was exposed to the elements, don't know if it rained at all. Is there something Boeing must do to mitigate the moisture/valve infiltration problem?
That was less than three years ago. Starliner was never exposed to anything this time.QuoteYes, hydrazine can interact with atmospheric water vapor. Hydrazine is hygroscopic, meaning it readily absorbs moisture from the air1. When hydrazine comes into contact with atmospheric water vapor, it can react with carbon dioxide and oxygen present in the air... This interaction with atmospheric water vapor and other components of the air can contribute to the corrosion of metals, especially when the metal surface is coated with hydrazine. The presence of water vapor can accelerate the oxidation-reduction cycle, which is a key part of the corrosion process. Therefore, in environments where hydrazine is stored or used, it’s important to consider the potential for corrosion, especially if atmospheric moisture is present.
