7 ms·

The fundamental problem for me is the cognitive dissonance of needing to put a pilot into a machine where everything is mediated by a computer that doesn't need

The fundamental problem for me is the cognitive dissonance of needing to put a pilot into a machine where everything is mediated by a computer that doesn't need a pilot. The digital helmet projects what the pilot often sees from cameras, so the pilot isn't really looking through a window, but seeing through a digital camera. Targets are discovered by network interface to other planes. Geographic features are pre-loaded into the plan as a data file. The control inputs from the pilot have no predictable linear feedback, Instead they constantly adjust for various factors like wing slip or aerodynamic drag from the cannon being open. So the pilot isn't using his senses to decide what to do or his reflexes to control the plane. Why is the pilot in the plane?

AndrewKemendo 10y ago
Largely because of what we now call the Fighter Mafia. At the time they were the antidote to the "Bomber Mafia." However as time went on the ethos of the pilot and "airmanship" as the most important aspect of the Air Force continued to dominate. That said, there is an argument to be made for pink and squishy still in the cockpit - though too long to argue here and I'm not the right person to do it. However if anything, the amount that the AF has dedicated to UAV/RPA/UCAS operations over the last decade has really shown that if it works, the AF will do it regardless of where the flight control monkeys (derisive term for pilots) physically sit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
idlewords 10y ago
Note that this is also an excellent argument against human space flight.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Against human piloted space flight. There's no argument here against human passengers going off to explore.
- stordoff 10y ago
  It's certainly an argument for minimising human space flight (e.g. don't use manned flights for routine events / keep a minimal crew by placing the craft under computer control), but not eliminating it entirely: * Manned space flight, e.g. putting a man on Mars, is going to catch the public's attention more than unmanned flight, and IMO anything which helps popularise the sciences is generally a good thing. * Human space flight is a goal in itself. People have been exploring the Earth for centuries despite the risks, so exploring space (in person) is just an extension of that. There also may come a time where living off-planet may be necessary, or at least desirable, so having the knowledge to do so may be useful.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    To your first point, I think we've seen that robotic probes get people very excited about science, particularly when they can return high-quality photos and video. The best-case scenario for manned space flight in our lifetime is that we go to Mars. Robot probes, on the other hand, can go to some wild places in the solar system, including places that would be lethal to a human crew. And they do so at 1% of the cost of manned missions. I'd wager the excitement per dollar spent is higher for robot probes.
    - kodfodrasz 10y ago
      It is higher for you, perhaps, and for techies. The average person does not care at all about autonomous landing on an asteroid, despite the scientific and engineering feat it is. People cheered for the man landing on the moon, all over the world, even in the communist block, despite loosing the space race with that very event. Why? Because it was about people! Because the even the ordinary people could relate to the event.
      - gaius 10y ago
        Exactly. Unless people are actually going into space, there is no point in it at all, well beyond satellites anyway. Think about here on Earth. You can get high definition photo and video from anywhere on the planet. But people still love to travel. Because it's no substitute for the real thing.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  Not really (or at least, it depends on the situation). Space missions are often subject to all sorts of latency issues. Debugging a probe or rover that's multiple light-minutes away is no small feat, whereas debugging one that's a few light-seconds at most is much easier.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    NASA and JPL have an admirable track record of remote debugging at this point.
    - yellowapple 10y ago
      Indeed they do. Certainly not an ideal situation, though.
- robryan 10y ago
  It depends if they are there to pilot or they are there to go outside and build things. Most construction in space at this point is one off, robots probably aren't quite at the point where they can have robots perform any generalized construction required. Of course I don't think we should be placing humans in the loop unless they are required. Also a lot of the ISS work is experiments, each with their own setup and criteria. Obviously at some point this will be solved, but there is still the point of having humans in more places than just the Earth.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    You make a good point about construction in space. As far as ISS work experiments, I wonder if they are as automated as they could be. One of the odder requirements for experiments in the Shuttle was that they had to require human interaction. NASA didn't want to send a spaceship full of astronauts up to babysit fully automated experiments.
llukas 10y ago
Well, article mentions computer not being able to properly identify same target by merging different sensor data (it shows two targets instead). I'd say that reason alone warrants a pilot.
- apendleton 10y ago
  Sure, but the question wasn't "why is there a pilot?", it was "why is the pilot in the plane?" Making a judgment about sensor data could just as easily be done from elsewhere.
  - danmaz74 10y ago
    For a modern opponent, disrupting remote control is much easier than disabling in-plane controls...
  - kodfodrasz 10y ago
    Because networks are unreliable. Because of latency. I have read several articles about drone pilots. The latency is a really big issue, the biggest of all. Because of limited bandwidth. Because of jamming. Because pilots care better for the multimillion$ equipment if their life is also at stake. (This being the least important) Because while human life is at stake military and political leaders think twice before starting a war and sending in the fighters/bombers.
    - RantyDave 10y ago
      I think the equipment would not be anywhere near as expensive if it didn't have to protect people. Case in point: drones.
      - llukas 10y ago
        Yeah RQ-9 and RQ-4 have totally different costs than modern airplanes. Not.
- vitaminbandit 10y ago
tracker1 10y ago
Network latency and reliability are much worse between the plane and pilot when they're separated by a few hundred miles or more...

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

Largely because of what we now call the Fighter Mafia. At the time they were the antidote to the "Bomber Mafia." However as time went on the ethos of the pilot and "airmanship" as the most important aspect of the Air Force continued to dominate. That said, there is an argument to be made for pink and squishy still in the cockpit - though too long to argue here and I'm not the right person to do it. However if anything, the amount that the AF has dedicated to UAV/RPA/UCAS operations over the last decade has really shown that if it works, the AF will do it regardless of where the flight control monkeys (derisive term for pilots) physically sit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

idlewords 10y ago

Note that this is also an excellent argument against human space flight.

astrodust 10y ago
Against human piloted space flight. There's no argument here against human passengers going off to explore.
stordoff 10y ago
It's certainly an argument for minimising human space flight (e.g. don't use manned flights for routine events / keep a minimal crew by placing the craft under computer control), but not eliminating it entirely: * Manned space flight, e.g. putting a man on Mars, is going to catch the public's attention more than unmanned flight, and IMO anything which helps popularise the sciences is generally a good thing. * Human space flight is a goal in itself. People have been exploring the Earth for centuries despite the risks, so exploring space (in person) is just an extension of that. There also may come a time where living off-planet may be necessary, or at least desirable, so having the knowledge to do so may be useful.
- idlewords 10y ago
  To your first point, I think we've seen that robotic probes get people very excited about science, particularly when they can return high-quality photos and video. The best-case scenario for manned space flight in our lifetime is that we go to Mars. Robot probes, on the other hand, can go to some wild places in the solar system, including places that would be lethal to a human crew. And they do so at 1% of the cost of manned missions. I'd wager the excitement per dollar spent is higher for robot probes.
  - kodfodrasz 10y ago
    It is higher for you, perhaps, and for techies. The average person does not care at all about autonomous landing on an asteroid, despite the scientific and engineering feat it is. People cheered for the man landing on the moon, all over the world, even in the communist block, despite loosing the space race with that very event. Why? Because it was about people! Because the even the ordinary people could relate to the event.
    - gaius 10y ago
      Exactly. Unless people are actually going into space, there is no point in it at all, well beyond satellites anyway. Think about here on Earth. You can get high definition photo and video from anywhere on the planet. But people still love to travel. Because it's no substitute for the real thing.
yellowapple 10y ago
Not really (or at least, it depends on the situation). Space missions are often subject to all sorts of latency issues. Debugging a probe or rover that's multiple light-minutes away is no small feat, whereas debugging one that's a few light-seconds at most is much easier.
- idlewords 10y ago
  NASA and JPL have an admirable track record of remote debugging at this point.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    Indeed they do. Certainly not an ideal situation, though.
robryan 10y ago
It depends if they are there to pilot or they are there to go outside and build things. Most construction in space at this point is one off, robots probably aren't quite at the point where they can have robots perform any generalized construction required. Of course I don't think we should be placing humans in the loop unless they are required. Also a lot of the ISS work is experiments, each with their own setup and criteria. Obviously at some point this will be solved, but there is still the point of having humans in more places than just the Earth.
- idlewords 10y ago
  You make a good point about construction in space. As far as ISS work experiments, I wonder if they are as automated as they could be. One of the odder requirements for experiments in the Shuttle was that they had to require human interaction. NASA didn't want to send a spaceship full of astronauts up to babysit fully automated experiments.

llukas 10y ago

Well, article mentions computer not being able to properly identify same target by merging different sensor data (it shows two targets instead). I'd say that reason alone warrants a pilot.

apendleton 10y ago
Sure, but the question wasn't "why is there a pilot?", it was "why is the pilot in the plane?" Making a judgment about sensor data could just as easily be done from elsewhere.
- danmaz74 10y ago
  For a modern opponent, disrupting remote control is much easier than disabling in-plane controls...
- kodfodrasz 10y ago
  Because networks are unreliable. Because of latency. I have read several articles about drone pilots. The latency is a really big issue, the biggest of all. Because of limited bandwidth. Because of jamming. Because pilots care better for the multimillion$ equipment if their life is also at stake. (This being the least important) Because while human life is at stake military and political leaders think twice before starting a war and sending in the fighters/bombers.
  - RantyDave 10y ago
    I think the equipment would not be anywhere near as expensive if it didn't have to protect people. Case in point: drones.
    - llukas 10y ago
      Yeah RQ-9 and RQ-4 have totally different costs than modern airplanes. Not.
vitaminbandit 10y ago

tracker1 10y ago

Network latency and reliability are much worse between the plane and pilot when they're separated by a few hundred miles or more...