-
#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
-
)