4 ms·

>Astronauts lobbied against any and every automation for fear of being made redundant. Is that true? I would be extremely surprised if it was.

by xlm1717 11y ago

creshal 11y ago
The Shuttle could not be landed by autopilot until far into the 2000s. Astronauts insisted that there had to be something only humans could do. It wasn't until 2006 that one Shuttle was finally modified for full autopilot control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx#Remote_Control_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx#Remote_Control_Orbiter
- VLM 11y ago
  "Astronauts insisted that there had to be something only humans could do" Its been a common rationalization meme for many years because it feels so good. However the actual reason is during the entire mission everything is either unrecoverable due to equipment failure (see actual disasters) or happens slowly and/or reversibly enough that some combination of human and automatic controls can return to nominal. Except the landing gear. That deploys and you're done. Not like normal aviation gear where you can lift gear in flight. I would have to look at the L/D ratios and the heading alignment cones but it "feels likely" that an early deployment at any stage of the mission other than 15 seconds before landing means you're not landing on the runway. Everything else you can compensate for or have an abort mode or so "something". You can only lift the gear on the ground with support crew not wearing space suits removing a spring loaded lock and even then the shuttle doesn't have the plumbing to lift the gear. Simplicate and add lightness. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-gear.html http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/s... This is something that never really made it into sci fi books or fan fic or thrillers or whatever. If you want to trap a shuttle in orbit and make it un-deorbitable you don't need to take a fire axe to equipment racks or fire rifles or all kinds of hollywood idiocy, just push the gear down button and its all over, that's one ship that won't be landing without extensive spacewalk work. So... you don't need autoland capability unless a suicidal crewman or russian agent or whatever popped the gear, because you don't currently have a way to un-pop the gear... Pre ISS there were no failure modes that would result in the crew not being able to ride the orbiter down even if they had to be in suits (O2 failure or something). Post ISS if the O2 system failed rather than trying a landing in full pressure suits they'd probably have tried an auto-land... and guess about when they developed the autoland cable... In practice if it happened in orbit, perhaps attached to the ISS, someone would figure out and ship up some kind of weird levers for shuttle astronauts to use to re-lock the gear, then do an auto-landing and hope it works. Also I think you have to boot up the APU(s) first before pressing the button would do much of anything. Something to think about is the shuttle was originally sold to be all things to all people and the .mil probably didn't like the idea of the Russians being able to remotely steal a shuttle or remotely mission kill it. As a meta question why would you launch a manned mission if an unmanned mission would have worked just as well? And linked to above, if all you need is a "simple" 25 foot cable to autoland, why will the meme of "can't autoland" never die? Its like talking about mysql not having transactions, despite transactions having been added back in '95 or so.
  - celticninja 11y ago
    These days instead of sending up another shuttle with tools or parts they woukd probably try 3d printing something, at least while they waited for the launch.
dockd 11y ago
Read the novel "The Right Stuff" for more background. There was a disagreement as to whether astronauts would be pilots of their spacecraft or mostly along for the ride. I wonder if any of that desire was responsible for the Space Shuttle.
- troutwine 11y ago
  Also, Digital Apollo by David Mindell. Early on--being the late 50s and into the early 70s--the desire for pilot control was entirely the rational thing. Automation was very primitive and pretty much limited to doing the right thing only when the situation was nominal. Pilots are easily overwhelmed by tedium and a "pilot in the loop" design methodology prevailed at NASA. Basically that means if a human can do it, they should. The Soviet design took a different tack and invested more in automation, dooming some cosmonauts but being probably for the best long-term. Nowadays we know how to do some things very, very well--rendezvous--so heavy automation makes sense. In other areas that are more research projects pilot in the loop still makes sense. It's a tradeoff of efficiency for flexibility and fault tolerance.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    It looks to me, as an amateur observer, that the automation vs. pilot-in-the-loop debate is today not yet settled. The Air France crash into the Atlantic was entirely caused by pilots who were used to automation, and made a series of wrong decisions when it cut out on them, even though it cut out according to spec (i.e. it did not fail, just handed control to humans as designed). It's arguable that had human pilots been actively flying that plane the whole time, it would not have crashed.
    - troutwine 11y ago
      Absolutely. It'll never be settled, so long as human ambition pushes us into unknowns. You can automate what you understand perfectly and make trade-offs in areas where you don't, as above. Fascinating subject, really.
goodcanadian 11y ago
This is speculation, and my opinion only, but . . . Astronauts are highly intelligent individuals with science and engineering backgrounds, so I doubt that they were/are against technology and automation, per se. However, they also generally have pilot, particularly test pilot, backgrounds. The shuttles could not be considered mature technology by any stretch, so I suspect that the astronauts felt more comfortable being personally in control of a vehicle that could kill them than relying on an automated system. Despite (or rather because of) the fact that they work with the most cutting edge technology, test pilots are some of the most conservative people you will find. They need to be that way to stay alive.
pkamb 11y ago
> The first American into space is not going to be a chimpanzee. I want test pilots!

>Astronauts lobbied against any and every automation for fear of being made redundant. Is that true? I would be extremely surprised if it was.

by xlm1717 11y ago

>Astronauts lobbied against any and every automation for fear of being made redundant. Is that true? I would be extremely surprised if it was.

creshal 11y ago

The Shuttle could not be landed by autopilot until far into the 2000s. Astronauts insisted that there had to be something only humans could do. It wasn't until 2006 that one Shuttle was finally modified for full autopilot control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx#Remote_Control_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx#Remote_Control_Orbiter

VLM 11y ago
"Astronauts insisted that there had to be something only humans could do" Its been a common rationalization meme for many years because it feels so good. However the actual reason is during the entire mission everything is either unrecoverable due to equipment failure (see actual disasters) or happens slowly and/or reversibly enough that some combination of human and automatic controls can return to nominal. Except the landing gear. That deploys and you're done. Not like normal aviation gear where you can lift gear in flight. I would have to look at the L/D ratios and the heading alignment cones but it "feels likely" that an early deployment at any stage of the mission other than 15 seconds before landing means you're not landing on the runway. Everything else you can compensate for or have an abort mode or so "something". You can only lift the gear on the ground with support crew not wearing space suits removing a spring loaded lock and even then the shuttle doesn't have the plumbing to lift the gear. Simplicate and add lightness. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-gear.html http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/s... This is something that never really made it into sci fi books or fan fic or thrillers or whatever. If you want to trap a shuttle in orbit and make it un-deorbitable you don't need to take a fire axe to equipment racks or fire rifles or all kinds of hollywood idiocy, just push the gear down button and its all over, that's one ship that won't be landing without extensive spacewalk work. So... you don't need autoland capability unless a suicidal crewman or russian agent or whatever popped the gear, because you don't currently have a way to un-pop the gear... Pre ISS there were no failure modes that would result in the crew not being able to ride the orbiter down even if they had to be in suits (O2 failure or something). Post ISS if the O2 system failed rather than trying a landing in full pressure suits they'd probably have tried an auto-land... and guess about when they developed the autoland cable... In practice if it happened in orbit, perhaps attached to the ISS, someone would figure out and ship up some kind of weird levers for shuttle astronauts to use to re-lock the gear, then do an auto-landing and hope it works. Also I think you have to boot up the APU(s) first before pressing the button would do much of anything. Something to think about is the shuttle was originally sold to be all things to all people and the .mil probably didn't like the idea of the Russians being able to remotely steal a shuttle or remotely mission kill it. As a meta question why would you launch a manned mission if an unmanned mission would have worked just as well? And linked to above, if all you need is a "simple" 25 foot cable to autoland, why will the meme of "can't autoland" never die? Its like talking about mysql not having transactions, despite transactions having been added back in '95 or so.
- celticninja 11y ago
  These days instead of sending up another shuttle with tools or parts they woukd probably try 3d printing something, at least while they waited for the launch.

dockd 11y ago

Read the novel "The Right Stuff" for more background. There was a disagreement as to whether astronauts would be pilots of their spacecraft or mostly along for the ride. I wonder if any of that desire was responsible for the Space Shuttle.

troutwine 11y ago
Also, Digital Apollo by David Mindell. Early on--being the late 50s and into the early 70s--the desire for pilot control was entirely the rational thing. Automation was very primitive and pretty much limited to doing the right thing only when the situation was nominal. Pilots are easily overwhelmed by tedium and a "pilot in the loop" design methodology prevailed at NASA. Basically that means if a human can do it, they should. The Soviet design took a different tack and invested more in automation, dooming some cosmonauts but being probably for the best long-term. Nowadays we know how to do some things very, very well--rendezvous--so heavy automation makes sense. In other areas that are more research projects pilot in the loop still makes sense. It's a tradeoff of efficiency for flexibility and fault tolerance.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  It looks to me, as an amateur observer, that the automation vs. pilot-in-the-loop debate is today not yet settled. The Air France crash into the Atlantic was entirely caused by pilots who were used to automation, and made a series of wrong decisions when it cut out on them, even though it cut out according to spec (i.e. it did not fail, just handed control to humans as designed). It's arguable that had human pilots been actively flying that plane the whole time, it would not have crashed.
  - troutwine 11y ago
    Absolutely. It'll never be settled, so long as human ambition pushes us into unknowns. You can automate what you understand perfectly and make trade-offs in areas where you don't, as above. Fascinating subject, really.

goodcanadian 11y ago

This is speculation, and my opinion only, but . . . Astronauts are highly intelligent individuals with science and engineering backgrounds, so I doubt that they were/are against technology and automation, per se. However, they also generally have pilot, particularly test pilot, backgrounds. The shuttles could not be considered mature technology by any stretch, so I suspect that the astronauts felt more comfortable being personally in control of a vehicle that could kill them than relying on an automated system. Despite (or rather because of) the fact that they work with the most cutting edge technology, test pilots are some of the most conservative people you will find. They need to be that way to stay alive.

pkamb 11y ago

> The first American into space is not going to be a chimpanzee. I want test pilots!