On May 28 2020 06:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I still can't believe the touchscreens in the crew dragon. A 'we want it because it looks cool' decision should not be in a spacecraft. For precise control button panels are so much better. How can you correctly operate a touchscreen when something goes wrong and the whole thing is vibrating and shaking...
There are 3 segments of buttons on both sides for each astronaut just below the touchscreens. (pic of CD's cockpit simulator)
(and inside the capsule)
They can easily be overlooked inside the capsule, simply because those 3 touchscreens are quite big
On May 26 2020 17:31 Simberto wrote: There are a bunch of problems with the concept of a "map of the universe", but in general i would say that unless we figure something out in science that allows for superlumarity, never.
Problems:
Granularity. There is a lot of stuff in the universe, and the further away it is, the less easy the details are to see. For example, in our solar system, there are a bunch of asteroid belts. Do we need to chart every single asteroid? Or is it fine to just write "asteroid belt" onto our map? This gets harder the further out we go. Do we need to chart every single planet of a star system, or is it okay to just write "star system"? Do we need to chart every star system in a galaxy far, far away, or is it okay to just write "galaxy"? How small is the smallest thing that needs to be put into our map? What can be allowed to fall through the cracks?
Time. We see stuff with a lightspeed time lag. In our solar system, that is not a big problem, and leads to our information maybe being a few hours old. But it gets worse in other star systems or galaxies. One would expect a map to display how stuff is right now, or at least how it was at the same point in time. But for some things, we can only see how they were a few billion years ago. Stuff expands all the time, so some parts of the universe are impossible to ever observe. Even worse, due to special relativity it is actually impossible to establish a coherent "same time" framework.
Related to the last, there is Change. Stuff changes, and systems of many bodies can behave very unpredictable. Also, Supernovas are mostly unpredictable, so we cannot even see if that star which we only see how it looked like 50 million years ago still exists. Or complex interactions between lots of stuff in an asteroid belt.
The universe might be infinite. We are not sure. That alone would make a "map of the universe" impossible.
Without superluminal speed (which is very SciFi), there is no way to get anything resembling a "map of the universe", and even with superluminal speed, it is questionable.
I just wanted to thank you for your answer, it explained pretty much everything of my question; I wish I had had a teacher like you in school, that would have made everything more simple, obvious and pragmatic;
your answer makes me happy, because I understand things better now, and also sad, because I see we are no where near getting to that objective
On May 28 2020 06:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I still can't believe the touchscreens in the crew dragon. A 'we want it because it looks cool' decision should not be in a spacecraft. For precise control button panels are so much better. How can you correctly operate a touchscreen when something goes wrong and the whole thing is vibrating and shaking...
There are 3 segments of buttons on both sides for each astronaut just below the touchscreens. (pic of CD's cockpit simulator)
(and inside the capsule)
They can easily be overlooked inside the capsule, simply because those 3 touchscreens are quite big
Well yeah but these are the amounts of buttons for a massage chair not a spacecraft . They're also not nice clicky buttons or switches but the flat ones with no feedback.
Whole thing looks like a fisher price toy compared to Apollo + Show Spoiler +
I guess Sojuz does have a lot less operating panels than the above two so that is maybe a more fair comparison + Show Spoiler +
Still, to me it feels like the shitty modern 'simplicity' design philosophy that gave us laptops with only 1 USB port and phones with no audio port should not be transferred to something as serious as a spacecraft. I'm probably just too much of a hater on this topic though.
This guy is a fighter pilot but you would not know from this picture, as it could just as well be a insurance salesman using the in-flight entertainment system. It just looks so silly to me. + Show Spoiler +
On May 28 2020 06:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I still can't believe the touchscreens in the crew dragon. A 'we want it because it looks cool' decision should not be in a spacecraft. For precise control button panels are so much better. How can you correctly operate a touchscreen when something goes wrong and the whole thing is vibrating and shaking...
There are 3 segments of buttons on both sides for each astronaut just below the touchscreens. (pic of CD's cockpit simulator)
(and inside the capsule)
They can easily be overlooked inside the capsule, simply because those 3 touchscreens are quite big
Well yeah but these are the amounts of buttons for a massage chair not a spacecraft . They're also not nice clicky buttons or switches but the flat ones with no feedback.
Whole thing looks like a fisher price toy compared to Apollo + Show Spoiler +
I guess Sojuz does have a lot less operating panels than the above two so that is maybe a more fair comparison + Show Spoiler +
Still, to me it feels like the shitty modern 'simplicity' design philosophy that gave us laptops with only 1 USB port and phones with no audio port should not be transferred to something as serious as a spacecraft. I'm probably just too much of a hater on this topic though.
This guy is a fighter pilot but you would not know from this picture, as it could just as well be a insurance salesman using the in-flight entertainment system. It just looks so silly to me. + Show Spoiler +
Considering the massive amount of detail and bibles of safety stuff involved with spaceflight I'm pretty confident that those controls are good and functional even in the case of an emergency despite looking somewhat pretty.
On May 28 2020 06:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I still can't believe the touchscreens in the crew dragon. A 'we want it because it looks cool' decision should not be in a spacecraft. For precise control button panels are so much better. How can you correctly operate a touchscreen when something goes wrong and the whole thing is vibrating and shaking...
There are 3 segments of buttons on both sides for each astronaut just below the touchscreens. (pic of CD's cockpit simulator)
(and inside the capsule)
They can easily be overlooked inside the capsule, simply because those 3 touchscreens are quite big
Well yeah but these are the amounts of buttons for a massage chair not a spacecraft . They're also not nice clicky buttons or switches but the flat ones with no feedback.
Whole thing looks like a fisher price toy compared to Apollo + Show Spoiler +
I guess Sojuz does have a lot less operating panels than the above two so that is maybe a more fair comparison + Show Spoiler +
Still, to me it feels like the shitty modern 'simplicity' design philosophy that gave us laptops with only 1 USB port and phones with no audio port should not be transferred to something as serious as a spacecraft. I'm probably just too much of a hater on this topic though.
This guy is a fighter pilot but you would not know from this picture, as it could just as well be a insurance salesman using the in-flight entertainment system. It just looks so silly to me. + Show Spoiler +
Considering the massive amount of detail and bibles of safety stuff involved with spaceflight I'm pretty confident that those controls are good and functional even in the case of an emergency despite looking somewhat pretty.
Well if you compare another example of aerospace hardware, here's an evolution of the F-16 cockpit from 197x to now.
A lot more functions are compressed into fewer MFDs, so there's less pressure on pilots to remember where everything is.
presumably all key functions are immediately accessible, all secondary functions have maximum depths in trees and only non-critical functions are buried.
I'm also sure the onboard computer takes care of a lot of the need to do every minute thing as well. Technology has come a long way and the need to simplify stuff is mostly apparent when looking at the SpaceX vs Apollo or Space Shuttle cockpits. The vehicle can land itself, back where it launched, if it was required to. Don't need a lot of buttons for that.
So was the SN4 going to be tested and tested until failure to make way for SN5? That seems to be the way they do things so while it does kinda suck, I don't think it'll push them as far back, but it'll still be next year before the sub orbital.
No actually, life kind of got crazy during the latter half of the application window due to the coronavirus and I never got around to lining up five references. Also during my last flight I got a bit motion sick so I decided space is probably not for me lol. I'll stick to the troposphere for now.... when the weather permits.
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/CMWFmWKv9i3B14cXtJBOrlugCqU=/0x0:2040x1360/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:2040x1360):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12052445/lgrush_180813_2819_0018.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/astrotraining.jpg?w=1390&crop=1)
. They're also not nice clicky buttons or switches but the flat ones with no feedback.![[image loading]](https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow_lg/public/images/5128h.jpg?itok=0WPAzMv-)
![[image loading]](https://i0.wp.com/media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/001.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hDuv6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_bOtEEn_ljU/maxresdefault.jpg)
