-
NASA studies private jet control panels for Orion
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Feb, 2007 04:23
-
-
#1
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Feb, 2007 04:25
-
-
#2
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Feb, 2007 04:26
-
-
#3
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Feb, 2007 04:27
-
-
#4
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Feb, 2007 04:30
-
-
#5
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Feb, 2007 04:30
-
-
#6
by
renclod
on 27 Feb, 2007 07:07
-
Virtual Reality Goggles / Head Mounted Displays. Wrist attached keypad, touchpad and joystick.
CEV room is at a premium.
NASA Ames Research Center ?
-
#7
by
Jim
on 27 Feb, 2007 12:15
-
CEV room is not at a premium
-
#8
by
nacnud
on 27 Feb, 2007 12:20
-
Goggles or some other light weight external display might be worth looking at for extra redundancy if the fewer screens/larger area approach is taken.
-
#9
by
renclod
on 27 Feb, 2007 13:16
-
Jim - 27/2/2007 3:15 PM
CEV room is not at a premium
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/roomroom
A space that is or may be occupied: That easy chair takes up too much room
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/at+a+premiumIdiom:
at a premium
More valuable than usual, as from scarcity: Fresh water was at a premium after the reservoir was contaminated
CEV MASS certainly is "at a premium". CAPSULE MASS even more so.
"at a premium" = precious, too expensive to waste
Why fill the capsule with old style consoles and seats.
Commercially available head mount displays: 1.44 million pixels, 7 ounces, $1,199.00. Capability to view interlaced 3D Video in True Stereoscopic 3D.
I wonder what military grade head mount displays can do.
-
#10
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Feb, 2007 13:17
-
nacnud - 27/2/2007 1:20 PM
Goggles or some other light weight external display might be worth looking at for extra redundancy if the fewer screens/larger area approach is taken.
There's going to be more presentations to come on this element of Orion, so we'll look out for them.
-
#11
by
renclod
on 27 Feb, 2007 13:35
-
nacnud - 27/2/2007 3:20 PM
Goggles or some other light weight external display might be worth looking at for extra redundancy if the fewer screens/larger area approach is taken.
Cutting edge engineering would reserve the redundancy role to classic consoles and go with wearable HMI (Human Machine Interface) mainware. Make the CEV true 21st-centuryish .
-
#12
by
nacnud
on 27 Feb, 2007 14:05
-
Maybe, but this whole system has to come in on budget and time, it's not a research project. Apart from the Typhoon what other commercial systems are there out there?
-
#13
by
Jim
on 27 Feb, 2007 14:13
-
renclod - 27/2/2007 9:16 AM
Jim - 27/2/2007 3:15 PM
CEV room is not at a premium
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/room
room
A space that is or may be occupied: That easy chair takes up too much room
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/at+a+premium
Idiom:
at a premium
More valuable than usual, as from scarcity: Fresh water was at a premium after the reservoir was contaminated
CEV MASS certainly is "at a premium". CAPSULE MASS even more so.
"at a premium" = precious, too expensive to waste
Why fill the capsule with old style consoles and seats.
The mass of these displays are not that much and not an issue for this, neither is the volume. It is not using resources that are at a "premium"
The "flight crew" will still have to sit in the same places for window access and to use the volume more efficiently
-
#14
by
Jim
on 27 Feb, 2007 14:24
-
renclod - 27/2/2007 9:35 AM
nacnud - 27/2/2007 3:20 PM
Goggles or some other light weight external display might be worth looking at for extra redundancy if the fewer screens/larger area approach is taken.
Cutting edge engineering would reserve the redundancy role to classic consoles and go with wearable HMI (Human Machine Interface) mainware. Make the CEV true 21st-centuryish .
Not required. Also the displays are not just for when the crew is "flying" the vehicle. This is the 'whole" control center for the vehicle during all phases of the mission. Don't want to have to put on something just to look a one guage or to adjust the cabin temp. Especially when an alarm goes off, trying put on a headset to see the displays.
This is NOT like a fighter cockpit. The pilot in a fighter does only one thing, fly the plane. The CEV does many other things. Ascent, entry, and docking are like flying but most of the time in the mission is not spend at the "flight deck" Maybe an occasional glance at the status of the vehicle
The displays have to work with ISS launch and entry suits, no suits and eventually EVA suits. Having a traditonal displays is best for this
Also the hardware has to be able to endure a hard vacuum.
-
#15
by
STS Tony
on 27 Feb, 2007 15:19
-
Sure are beautiful jets, especially the Gulfstream.
-
#16
by
Rob in KC
on 27 Feb, 2007 17:12
-
Sure will look impressive side Orion when it's built.
-
#17
by
Nate_Trost
on 27 Feb, 2007 21:57
-
Anybody know what those Honeywell units cost in the standard aviation flavor? Do they have to be modified for thermal/vacuum parameters, or are they good as-is?
-
#18
by
Jason Davies
on 28 Feb, 2007 02:41
-
Sweet. I was impressed with the inside of the Shuttle, so this might look really cool with the double level approach for the six man crew.
-
#19
by
airausquin
on 21 Nov, 2007 14:25
-
Hello, I am doing some research on spacecrafts hand controllers, and the only reference I have found regarding the Orion CEV are the sample slides on the Private Jet Control Panels/Display Layout thread/article. These show an Apollo CM's type rotational and translationals hand controllers.
Does anyone have any reference to what is being considered for Orion and the new lander?
I am mainly interested in the lander controls (main engine / "hover" control)
Thanks in advance,
Alejandro Irausquin
Aeronautical Engineer
-
#20
by
tankmodeler
on 21 Nov, 2007 14:25
-
Alejandro,
While there might be some notional designs for the controllers for the Orion capsule out there, there is no real detail work taking place on the LSAM landers at the moment and won't be for several years. I'd bet there won't be a reasonable answer available for this question for another 5 years.
Paul
-
#21
by
Jim
on 21 Nov, 2007 14:25
-
knowing the Astronauts, the controllers will be the similar to the shuttle, which were similar to Apollo. The LM descent engine throttle was the translational controller and so the LSAM would probably be similar, which means it will be similar to the shuttle's.
So the picture you saw are most likely representative of the controllers that will be used
-
#22
by
airausquin
on 21 Nov, 2007 14:25
-
Thanks Paul and Jim!
That is what I guessed. I understand that the idea behind keeping the rotational control on the right is to make its operation similar to a plane control, while the translational control is kind of a throttle (which indeed, it is...)
The only "spacecraft" I have seen with a different arrangement is the SAVER, with replace the two controls in the MMU with an single selectable one for rotation and translation.
I have been toying with the idea of building a computer controller similar to the one covered by the US Patent 4555960, but it does seem too unconventional. A similar controller can been seen in the slideshow Maida_SVS.pdf.
Nevertheless, matching it with an accesory like the Nostromo keypad shown in
http://isis.arc.nasa.gov/publications/ACAWS_report_final.pdf seems to provide an interesting setup for spacecraft controls. The Nostromo will act like the Gulfstream's bizjet interface control. See
http://www.gulfstream.com/gulfstreamplaneview/pv_window.cfm?q=highA separate throttle lever like in the Space Shuttle will complete the setup.
All mentioned PDF documents are available by web search
Thanks again
Alejandro
-
#23
by
James Lowe1
on 21 Nov, 2007 14:26
-
airausquin - 21/11/2007 9:25 AM
Hello, I am doing some research on spacecrafts hand controllers, and the only reference I have found regarding the Orion CEV are the sample slides on the Private Jet Control Panels/Display Layout thread/article. These show an Apollo CM's type rotational and translationals hand controllers.
Merged it into that relevant thread, which links to that article and some slides from the presentation on L2.
-
#24
by
DaveS
on 21 Nov, 2007 14:27
-
airausquin - 21/11/2007 4:25 PM
The only "spacecraft" I have seen with a different arrangement is the SAVER,
It's SAFER(Simplified Aid For EVA Rescue).
-
#25
by
airausquin
on 21 Nov, 2007 15:56
-
DaveS - 21/11/2007 11:27 AM
It's SAFER(Simplified Aid For EVA Rescue).
Writting from memory, my mistake! Thanks for the correction.
I am astonished that I have not keep up with the MMU replacement by SAFER. Just learned about it about two weeks ago...
Alejandro
-
#26
by
Jim
on 21 Nov, 2007 17:12
-
airausquin - 21/11/2007 11:56 AM
DaveS - 21/11/2007 11:27 AM
It's SAFER(Simplified Aid For EVA Rescue).
Writting from memory, my mistake! Thanks for the correction.
I am astonished that I have not keep up with the MMU replacement by SAFER. Just learned about it about two weeks ago...
Alejandro
SAFER is not an MMU replacement. It is only what the name says, rescue device. Hence the reason for the single controller. SAFER is not intended to replace the MMU nor any of its capabilities. There is no need for a MMU
-
#27
by
airausquin
on 21 Nov, 2007 18:03
-
Jim - 21/11/2007 2:12 PM
SAFER is not an MMU replacement.
That somehow explain some doubts I have. I don't follow space shuttle activities closely, but not so as not being aware of a replacement like that. My comment was based on an article by NASAExplores found here:
http://media.nasaexplores.com/lessons/03-050/fullarticle.pdfhttp://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/f_saferspacewalk.htmlThe article is dated on 2003 and states the following:
"The MMU was used a total of nine times on three Space Shuttle missions in 1984, but has not been used since. Tethers, grips, and other restraints proved more than adequate for space walks in a Shuttle cargo bay, and the Canadarm robot arm proved itself ideal for recovery of satellites and other tasks outside the Shuttle."
-
#28
by
Andy USA
on 22 Nov, 2007 05:50
-
STS Tony - 27/2/2007 10:19 AM
Sure are beautiful jets, especially the Gulfstream.
When I get rich and buy one, I'll invite you over :laugh:
-
#29
by
Big Al
on 20 Jan, 2008 03:55
-
Will HUD (Head UP Displays) be part of their system? It could reduce the area required for plat panels.
-
#30
by
Jim
on 20 Jan, 2008 04:39
-
Big Al - 19/1/2008 11:55 PM
Will HUD (Head UP Displays) be part of their system? It could reduce the area required for plat panels.
Not really needed. Actually windows aren't really needed, landings aren't flown. Docking alignment is done by centerline television camera.
Also HUD is extra weight
-
#31
by
Thomas
on 25 Jan, 2008 14:48
-
What makes a piece of electronics vacuum friendly? I know cooling has a lot to do with it. The Soviets apparently never invested much in vacuum-proofing electronics, they just kept everything pressurized for the most part, even unmanned satellites. How vacuum-proof is most off the shelf, solid-state electronics. Being able to evacuate the entire capsule sure seems like a good way to save the enormous weight of an airlock, especially if EVA's are relatively few and far between.
-
#32
by
Jim
on 25 Jan, 2008 16:09
-
cold plates
-
#33
by
tankmodeler
on 25 Jan, 2008 16:24
-
Thomas - 25/1/2008 10:48 AM
What makes a piece of electronics vacuum friendly? I know cooling has a lot to do with it. The Soviets apparently never invested much in vacuum-proofing electronics, they just kept everything pressurized for the most part, even unmanned satellites. How vacuum-proof is most off the shelf, solid-state electronics. Being able to evacuate the entire capsule sure seems like a good way to save the enormous weight of an airlock, especially if EVA's are relatively few and far between.
Things to think about for vacuum use:
Non-metallic out gassing
lubricant/grease boil off
radiation hardening
Static charge drain
Heat dissipation
Vacuum embrittlement of insulators
capacitance/inductance changes
etc.
Paul
-
#34
by
JohnV
on 25 Jan, 2008 18:44
-
Nate_Trost - 27/2/2007 4:57 PM
Anybody know what those Honeywell units cost in the standard aviation flavor? Do they have to be modified for thermal/vacuum parameters, or are they good as-is?
The General Aviation units I am most familiar with run $4K and up (to whatever you want to spend), depending on capabilities, etc, etc. The only flight qualification issue I would be concerned with is vacuum, since that is not part of the standard FAA certification criteria. Vibration, thermal, and other environmental issues are already well tested.
Some models do put out a pretty impressive amount of heat, but given the glass flight experience on the shuttle I am sure they have data on dealing with this (and test data for vacuum operation I would assume).
- John
-
#35
by
renclod
on 25 Jan, 2008 20:02
-
Jim
- 27/2/2007 5:24 PM
renclod - 27/2/2007 9:35 AM
...reserve the redundancy role to classic consoles and go with wearable HMI (Human Machine Interface) mainware. ....
Not required. Also the displays are not just for when the crew is "flying" the vehicle. This is the 'whole" control center for the vehicle during all phases of the mission. Don't want to have to put on something just to look a one gauge or to adjust the cabin temp. Especially when an alarm goes off, trying put on a headset to see the displays.
This is NOT like a fighter cockpit. The pilot in a fighter does only one thing, fly the plane. The CEV does many other things. Ascent, entry, and docking are like flying but most of the time in the mission is not spend at the "flight deck" Maybe an occasional glance at the status of the vehicle
The displays have to work with ISS launch and entry suits, no suits and eventually EVA suits. Having a traditonal displays is best for this
Exactly, Jim. The CEV is not a fighter and not all crew members are pilots. They could all have one of these:
[OK, the helmet is not part of the HMI]
They could all interact with the avionics - no sitting at the "flight deck" is required. Just what you say: the CEV does many things, this is not a "fly the plane" paradigm.
As with integrating a monocular display with the EVA suit, there should be solutions. Right now I wonder, why didn't Dan Tani had one to help him quickly identify tags for all those SARJ parts. The spacecraft computers are always in close proximity so high speed comm is not an issue.
Let them all crew members have some 'net access (and some degree of privacy with it) during the long hours of coasting between critical events.
I think wearable human-machine-interfaces should play a big role for Orion and Altair.
-
#36
by
Jim
on 26 Jan, 2008 12:09
-
renclod - 25/1/2008 4:02 PM
1. They could all interact with the avionics - no sitting at the "flight deck" is required. Just what you say: the CEV does many things, this is not a "fly the plane" paradigm.
2. As with integrating a monocular display with the EVA suit, there should be solutions. Right now I wonder, why didn't Dan Tani had one to help him quickly identify tags for all those SARJ parts. The spacecraft computers are always in close proximity so high speed comm is not an issue.
.3 Let them all crew members have some 'net access (and some degree of privacy with it) during the long hours of coasting between critical events.
4. I think wearable human-machine-interfaces should play a big role for Orion and Altair.
1. Laptops will be everywhere
2. The suit is not made for it.
3. Laptops again
4. Minor role, if any it would be on the new EVA suits
-
#37
by
SpikeSpiegel
on 23 Feb, 2008 05:18
-
It seems to me that t he Flat panel/ glass cockpit is the only way to go. ho would want to wear a heads-up display for 2+ weeks in an oversize beach ball? Something "attached" to your head is going to be unwieldy, and constantly in the way.
The glass cockpit is an opportunity. Internal monitoring of spacecraft telemetry means you don't have to look at a screen, unless you need to change something. No mucking around in menu items when you have a gauge out of spec (or floating around to read them). Software knows when something is wrong, clears the screen, and takes you to that control.
Maybe I'm just living in a pipe dream of automated systems, and integration, but it seems that the evolution that was the Apollo flight computer should be applied here. Don't just do an "upgrade" to current systems flying in the shuttle, but something that could fly to the moon, and do a quake deathmatch with one processor behind its back.
Let the computer run the ship. Allow for human interaction or override. If needs be make the damn thing be able to fly itself to the moon, and land. We're going to need that for the lunar base.
Make the systems open source, so any program (NASA, USAF, ESA) can use it with minimal changes to the basic flight systems. Make it fly-by-wire.
rm -rf if this is the wrong place for this, or just pm if you think i'm just talking out my butt.
-
#38
by
simonbp
on 25 Feb, 2008 00:43
-
Jim - 26/1/2008 6:09 AM
1. Laptops will be everywhere
2. The suit is not made for it.
3. Laptops again
4. Minor role, if any it would be on the new EVA suits
"Laptops everywhere" is going to messy, and frankly unnecessary. I agree with renclod that augmented reality (head-mounted, networked displays) will be extremely useful for both Orion and Altair. They will be especially useful for lunar EVAs, providing the astros with life-support, location, and mission goals data. Basically, a better and higher-tech version of Bean and Conrad's wrist checklists...
Apparently JSC and LM are already looking at augmented reality for DEXTER:
http://www.primidi.com/2007/10/14.htmlSimon
-
#39
by
Jim
on 25 Feb, 2008 00:55
-
simonbp - 24/2/2008 8:43 PM
Jim - 26/1/2008 6:09 AM
1. Laptops will be everywhere
2. The suit is not made for it.
3. Laptops again
4. Minor role, if any it would be on the new EVA suits
"Laptops everywhere" is going to messy, and frankly unnecessary. I agree with renclod that augmented reality (head-mounted, networked displays) will be extremely useful for both Orion and Altair.
Simon
The crew isn't going to be wearing helmets for the bulk of the mission (<5%) . Laptops messy? Not for a few of them and if there is a wifi system.
-
#40
by
madscientist197
on 25 Feb, 2008 10:04
-
I don't think you can really ditch the laptops - I think it's probably a good idea to have lots of them. The astronauts need them for recording observations/impressions/thoughts post-EVA, reviewing manuals, emailing family, relaxation (one day off for a seven day lunar stay) etc. Heads-up displays may be useful for EVAs, but they are NOT input devices - you still have to have an input device mounted somewhere else. With HUDs I would also be concerned about issues such as vision obscuration and not being able to adjust the thing over 8 hour periods, I suspect they would be intrusive.
IMHO no-one here has made an argument for why HUDs would be superior to just mounting a computerised display/controller on a suit arm.
YMMV though...
-
#41
by
William Barton
on 25 Feb, 2008 11:37
-
simonbp - 24/2/2008 8:43 PM
Jim - 26/1/2008 6:09 AM
1. Laptops will be everywhere
2. The suit is not made for it.
3. Laptops again
4. Minor role, if any it would be on the new EVA suits
"Laptops everywhere" is going to messy, and frankly unnecessary. I agree with renclod that augmented reality (head-mounted, networked displays) will be extremely useful for both Orion and Altair. They will be especially useful for lunar EVAs, providing the astros with life-support, location, and mission goals data. Basically, a better and higher-tech version of Bean and Conrad's wrist checklists...
Apparently JSC and LM are already looking at augmented reality for DEXTER: http://www.primidi.com/2007/10/14.html
Simon
Although I am a geezer with fond memories of the dead past, I'm also a technogeezer. Much as I love laptops (and would have loved to have one in 1960!), I think they are a temporary paradigm that will come to be regarded as the technological emblem of our time. Neural induction technology is already here and will displace the screens before eyeballs, keycaps under fingers paradigm in the realitively near future. But not in time for Orion, given technological lag.
-
#42
by
MKremer
on 25 Feb, 2008 12:57
-
Laptops and whatever cards/storage are much easier to reboot/troubleshoot/exchange than helmet-mounted internal specialized hardware, especially if it's needed during a decompress or EVA emergency.
Redundancies are much easier to deal with using external equipment rather than internal, fixed-in-place hardware.
Spaceflight approved data processing hardware/communications/displays still aren't totally foolproof and 100% reliable, and even installing state-of-the-art on-orbit certified components into spacesuits and helmets that can't be immediately diagnosed and replaced during depressurized emergencies is flirting with disaster.
-
#43
by
Norm Hartnett
on 25 Feb, 2008 20:19
-
William Barton - 25/2/2008 4:37 AM
technogeezer
LOL, thanks, I can use that.
:cool: l
(l = a cane
)
-
#44
by
renclod
on 25 Feb, 2008 21:38
-
SpikeSpiegel
- 23/2/2008 8:18 AM
It seems to me that the Flat panel/ glass cockpit is the only way to go.
The amount of research currently done for military applications of head down / head up / head mounted displays is huge. Just search something like mae.pennnet.com to see what I'm talking about.
To not use this investment for human spaceflight's benefit would be... a waste.
Add speech recognition and we are even better.
Throw in finger/hand motion/acceleration detecting based input devices - and the virtual keyboard is just at the astronaut's glove reach.
Wearable human-machine-interfaces should be, by definition, lite and low power. We are talking about a head-mounted (may be see-through, may be motorized don/doff, may be redundant left/right eye) display of ~4 ounces/~100 grams, plus some wireless comm and power pack.
All your post about "pipe dream of automated systems and integration" still applies, even more so with wearable HMI. Nobody says dump the glass cockpit altogether. But, look: they will need to interact with the system:
- in the Orion capsule (short sleeve): mission related; personal/private related;
- while in orbital EVA suit (contingency); sun light or shadow;
- inside Altair's ascent module (descent and ascent phases);
- living inside Altair's surface habitat module (short sleeve);
- waiting in the airlock for pre-breath and for dust mitigation procedures;
- while working on the surface in lunar EVA suits; sun light or shadow.
-
#45
by
madscientist197
on 25 Feb, 2008 23:17
-
I think neural induction is just a little 'way out' at the moment. I suspect it will turn a lot of test subjects into vegetables before it manages to project high resolution displays into peoples minds. I look forward to the day when it works, but I'm not holding my breath.
There is good reason why speech recognition technology has not taken over everyone's desktops - it doesn't work that well and it's more tiring versus typing at a keyboard. Hand motion detection devices are not going to replace keyboards any time soon because they are not as versatile and they are an ergonomic nightmare (there is a reason why good keyboards are sprung). While I don't think keyboards are anywhere near optimal at the moment (e.g. Qwerty vs. Dvorak), they are the most versatile input devices we currently have.
-
#46
by
yoda
on 25 Feb, 2008 23:44
-
-
#47
by
renclod
on 29 Apr, 2008 12:15
-
-
#48
by
jeff.findley
on 29 Apr, 2008 17:48
-
renclod - 29/4/2008 8:15 AM
http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/bizops.cgi?gr=D&pin=22#129695
NASA/GRC is hereby soliciting information about potential sources for an Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Helmet Mounted Display (HMD).
:cool:
While cool, this is not needed for CEV including CEV missions to ISS.
My guess is that this is a few NASA researchers looking into potential technology to include in the next generation of lunar EVA suits. Those won't be needed for a *long* time.
Jeff
-
#49
by
renclod
on 29 Apr, 2008 22:51
-
http://procurement.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/129695-DRAFT-001-001.docExploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) EVA HMD Initial Phase Specifications
1. Shall mount inside of the ILC Dover Mark III technology demonstrator suit. The Mark III suit uses a 330 mm diameter hemispherical helmet bubble tilted at an angle of 55° The helmet bubble is approximately 6 mm thick. Available volume TBD. The Mark III suit is the closest available analogous suit for testing a head-mounted display.
2. The display system shall be helmet-mounted and decoupled from the user’s head. Decoupling the display from the head will eliminate the possibility of the display becoming misaligned from the user’s eye. Also, crewmembers have expressed a strong desire to keep head-mounted systems to an absolute minimum.
3. Shall be monocular - right eye. A monocular helmet-mounted display is lighter, less expensive, and simpler to align than a binocular display. They are also best suited for an informational display where there is intermittent viewing of the display.
4. Shall be a see-through display with external transmission >80%. This will allow the display not to obstruct the view of the user when the display is not in use.
5. Shall be positioned out of direct line of sight, approximately 30-45° below the horizontal line of sight. The display shall also be able to be positioned 30-45° right of the vertical center of the right eye. This will place the display out of the direct sight of the user.
6. Shall have as a minimum a monochrome display with at least 32 levels of grayscale; color is highly desirable. A minimum of 64 gray levels for color systems. HMD should be capable of displaying crew procedures and instructions, caution and warning system display, navigational information, and video display.
7. Shall have either a VGA or DVI input.
(Video Graphics Adapter or Digital Video Interface) This will allow the display to be connected to a standard PC for testing.
8. Shall have a cubic eye box 35 mm on each side minimum; 50 mm cube on each side desired. This will allow for the display system to be tolerant of head movement and also allow the display image to be easily located.
9. Shall have an apparent Field-of-View (FOV) - 40° diagonal desired, 30° diagonal minimum. A large field of view, when combined with the other system specifications, will allow for an easily readable display.
10. Should have an adjustable focus over a range of 1 m to infinity. If a fixed focus display is used, the display shall have a focused distance of approximately 1.5 m. Having an adjustable focus will allow the user to tailor the display for their most comfortable viewing distance. At a minimum, the display shall be focused slightly beyond arm’s length.
11. The final display optic shall project no more than 15 mm from the inner surface of the helmet bubble. Keeping the display optics close to the helmet bubble will prevent the display from impeding upon the suit volume.
12. Shall have an eye relief of 70 mm minus the amount which final display optic protrudes from the inner helmet surface. A large eye relief is needed to allow the display to be mounted on the helmet bubble and viewed with the user’s head at the back edge of the suit.
13. The display system’s electronics and optics that must reside in the helmet bubble shall not protrude any more than 25 mm from the surface of the helmet bubble. Electronics that must be located in the helmet volume must retain at least 90% of Inferior FOV and 60% of Temporal FOV. Keeping the display system close to the helmet bubble will prevent the display from impeding upon the suit volume.
14. Any external associated display support electronics shall be less than 230 cc, and less than 1.5 kg. Initial phase prototype may have external support electronics, but must be portable enough for field-testing.
15. Shall have a high contrast ratio of greater than or equal to 10:1. A high contrast ratio, when combined with the other system specifications, will allow for an easily readable display.
16. The display shall be able to increase its contrast ratio to a minimum of 100:1 by use of a variable, absorptive filter, or via increased source brightness as specified in Item 21.
17. Power < 15W desirable. On-suit power is extremely limited, especially during lunar EVAs.
18. Helmet-mounted mass < 200 g.
19. Resolution of 640 by 480 minimum; 1280 by 1024 desired. A high-resolution display, when combined with the other system specifications, will allow for an easily-readable display.
20. The apparent brightness of the display shall be adjustable from 50 to 200 fL minimum; 100 to 1800 fL desired. A bright display will allow it to be viewed in a variety of lighting conditions.
21. The display shall be able of short periods of higher apparent brightness at a minimum of 1000 fL. The display shall be able to operate at this higher brightness level for a minimum of five minutes. Sunlight readability is an important capability for EVA HMD. In lieu of high constant brightness, a short duration capability will allow more precise determination of readability in real-world conditions.
-
#50
by
synchrotron
on 30 Apr, 2008 11:14
-
NASA GRC is struggling with their role here. All the Centers are forced to grab territory to keep the other Centers at bay. This is, at least partially, a failure of NASA leadership to help the Centers define symbiotic roles and relationships. There's way too much Not-Invented-Here decision-making. These diversified centers need to become centers of excellence and not be constantly enmeshed in where the control of one program or the other is rotating around the country. Too much time spent landgrabbing not enough time and calendar days spent doing engineering.
Most importantly though, some these are terribly written requirements. They're specifying 'How' and not 'What'.
-
#51
by
renclod
on 26 May, 2008 21:12
-
Actually, the EVA suit with helmet mounted display is such old news. The CSSS (Constellation Space Suit System) pre-proposal mentions it since 7.30.2007 (see pic below) in the form of a Config 2 "HUD".
Interesting, the CSSS contract award is supposed to happen next month - June 2008 - out of JSC.
NASA contemplates a single space suit system with two configurations:
1- Launch, Entry and Abort / 0-G EVA (ISS mission)
2- Initial lunar surface EVA
Config 2 has the display as extra, also lighting .
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/csss/CSSS_PreProposal_Conf.ppthttp://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/csss/default.asp
-
#52
by
Westy
on 06 Sep, 2008 05:12
-
Have all the augmented reality displays, suit mounted controls and virtual keyboards you want, but when that (those) systems don't work or have glitches in them for whatever reason (BSOD anyone?) I'll take levers and light bulb indicators for critical systems anyday. Those systems being mentioned would probably be great for efficiency and saving time, but you'd still need a good amount of tried and true legacy components to make it safe. I don't think having a virtual cockpit rules out a fully functional one, or vice versa come to think of it.
-
#53
by
Jim
on 06 Sep, 2008 16:13
-
Have all the augmented reality displays, suit mounted controls and virtual keyboards you want, but when that (those) systems don't work or have glitches in them for whatever reason (BSOD anyone?) I'll take levers and light bulb indicators for critical systems anyday. Those systems being mentioned would probably be great for efficiency and saving time, but you'd still need a good amount of tried and true legacy components to make it safe. I don't think having a virtual cockpit rules out a fully functional one, or vice versa come to think of it.
Not so, even been in a modern fighter or airliner cockpit?
-
#54
by
quickshot89
on 09 Sep, 2008 12:16
-
things like intels Atom CPU would come in very handy here, low power requirements, but a decent spec on them
glass cokpits are the way for the CEV, legacy was replaced on the shuttle with the glass cockpit, so there is just no need for legacy IMO
-
#55
by
William Barton
on 09 Sep, 2008 13:08
-
I think neural induction is just a little 'way out' at the moment. I suspect it will turn a lot of test subjects into vegetables before it manages to project high resolution displays into peoples minds. I look forward to the day when it works, but I'm not holding my breath.
There is good reason why speech recognition technology has not taken over everyone's desktops - it doesn't work that well and it's more tiring versus typing at a keyboard. Hand motion detection devices are not going to replace keyboards any time soon because they are not as versatile and they are an ergonomic nightmare (there is a reason why good keyboards are sprung). While I don't think keyboards are anywhere near optimal at the moment (e.g. Qwerty vs. Dvorak), they are the most versatile input devices we currently have.
People like me are responsible for the improbable meme in which things like neural induction technology "turn people into vegetables," and it's almost certainly impossible for that to happen. It comes from the same era in which robots were incapacitated by presenting them with the Cretan Paradox. ("All Cretans are liar. I am a Cretan. I am telling you the truth.") The best rendition was in Fred Hoyle's "The Black Cloud," published almost half a centuray ago now. Current neural induction technology works roughly the same way a 1970s engine analyzer worked. So it's not like putting your head in a de-safed microwave oven. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it either, of course, but then I ain't young, and I'll consider myself lucky to see someone walk on the Moon once again. My guess is, it'll turn up in gaming first, right around the same time practical blindsight technologies reach the market.
-
#56
by
HIPAR
on 13 Sep, 2008 17:50
-
Heads Up displays are great for presenting flight situation data while you need to watch where your going; airplanes. Since we are going back to a 'Spam in a can' type spacecraft, with the possible exception of docking, there's not going to be much in the way of visual piloting associated with the missions.
Audio cues are fine when used sparingly otherwise they can be distracting. Speech recognition works better now than it ever has but isn't sufficiently reliable for safety critical applications. I wouldn't ride in the spacecraft if I needed to control it by neural induction .. that's a long time down the road.
I find laptops cumbersome. A keyboard is not a good input device for anything but text entry otherwise it gets in the operator's way. I've tried several laptop based systems for car and boat navigation and have always had difficulty placing the computer where I can easily see the screen. Laptops work best on your lap.
I think a control suite bases upon the Gulfstream style glass cockpit fits the bill perfectly.
--- CHAS
-
#57
by
khallow
on 20 Sep, 2008 03:08
-
-
#58
by
Jim
on 20 Sep, 2008 03:14
-
The concern I'd have with a touchscreen is 1) can it take hard blows either from small metal objects or things like kicking feet, and 2) if you break it, what is the backup plan?
1. Every command would take at least two separate inputs
2. use the next display ( there are between 3 to 6)
-
#59
by
MattMason
on 27 Aug, 2015 03:19
-
)