7 ms·

Love the new "Space" suits and the touch screen panel inside the capsule. This is going to be amazing. My prayers with the brave astronauts.

danbr 6y ago
The space suits, UI, design of it all feels exactly what I’ve though the future of space technology would be. Maybe not all the way there yet, but a great leap from hundreds of manual switches and raw aluminum of the shuttle era.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- avmich 6y ago
  > a great leap from hundreds of manual switches and raw aluminum of the shuttle era. Wonder if reliability of virtualized controls surpasses the one of dedicated hardware though. I suspect one of the reasons Apollo computers were all built with just one type of logical chip is the ability to replace faulty parts - one just need a single type of replacement. If for some reason touchscreen malfunctions, what options are left for the crew?
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > If for some reason touchscreen malfunctions, what options are left for the crew? First, the spacecraft is I believe fully automated. While there is the ability to pilot the craft manually using onboard controls, my understanding is that is already considered a backup or unusual scenario. As far as the touchscreens themselves, my understanding is there are four touchscreens total, and each can represent / control every aspect of the vehicle. So if a single touchscreen fails, the other 3 provide redundant access to necessary controls. Finally, the dragon capsule does have manual (non-touchscreen) joystick controls for the critical flight controls. So these systems have enough redundancy that a touchscreen failure should absolutely not jeopardize the flight.
    - EvanAnderson 6y ago
      I wonder if the touchscreens are made of diverse hardware types and run by different programs running on different types of CPUs. If it's all common hardware and a common code-base then one in-common hardware or software failure could still take them all down.
      - sxates 6y ago
        I know the space shuttle employed multiple redundant computers of differing hardware as failsafes. I can't imagine SpaceX didn't do the same thing.
        pbourke 6y ago
        The redundant computers were only one part of it. The Space Shuttle software engineering capability was on another level. https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
        kens 6y ago
        For redundancy, the Space Shuttle used five of the same computer (IBM AP-101). Four of them ran the same software, while the fifth ran independently-developed software in case a bug prevented the others from working.
    - avmich 6y ago
      > Finally, the dragon capsule does have manual (non-touchscreen) joystick controls for the critical flight controls. Joysticks are better, though some convenient indication is also required (the "screen" part, not the "touch" part). I'm sure the designers saw questions like that; I'm just curious about details.
  - kens 6y ago
    > I suspect one of the reasons Apollo computers were all built with just one type of logical chip is the ability to replace faulty parts The Apollo Guidance Computer was built with two types of chips: a 3-input NOR gate and a core memory sense amplifier. The reason to use just one logic chip was because ICs were very new at the time and there was very little reliability information. By standardizing on a small number of components, they could procure enough to determine and maintain quality. (See Journey to the Moon chapter 12.)
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  Having used (and been highly dissatisfied with) touch-based controls in cars I cannot imagine why touch-based controls for a spacecraft are a good idea. The ergonomics are terrible. Switches can certainly fail, with potentially dire consequences (see the Apollo 14 abort switch failure). I would assume the number of failure modes for touch-based interface hardware are vastly more. Touch controls are, no doubt, easily reconfigurable, which is probably great for profit margins. The idea of the human spaceflight industry applying "cost down" mentality to crew vehicles scares the heck out of me (and I'm not even flying in them). (I'm thinking about the Boeing MCAS mentality, but for spacecraft...)
  - nathan11 6y ago
    Isn't this attributable to needing to focus on driving and the controls being a secondary concern? The astronauts don't seem to have much more to focus on than the screens and controls in front of them.
luizfzs 6y ago
The space suit looks like it's made for a Halloween party. It looks kind of not flexible and fragile. The touch screen panel is surely very cool.
- smeeth 6y ago
  Right? Reading some of the comments here I thought I was going crazy - the suits look like they were made for a 2003 made-for-tv movie. Boeing suits look WAY better imo
  - luizfzs 6y ago
    I had to search. Yeah, Boeing's look like a real space suit.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - tibbydudeza 6y ago
      Probably made from leftover Tesla upholstery :).
  - ideals 6y ago
    At first I didn't really care for the SpaceX suit because I liked the raw look of the old NASA suits. But looking at it more, it reminds me of motorcycle leathers and that sleek look you get when your gear fits just right. Not a fan of Boeing suits tbh, it looks a bit like an arts and crafts project. Boeing suit: http://www.boeing.com/features/2017/01/space-suit-01-17.page http://www.boeing.com/features/2017/01/space-suit-01-17.page
    - smeeth 6y ago
      Very much agree about old NASA suits - especially the orange shuttle ones. I think it's important to discriminate between what the spacex suits look like in stylized prototypes and actually on people. Take this image for example: https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_uk/news/n/nasa-space/nasa-spacex-get-green-light-for-historic-crew-dragon-launch_2y5n.1200.jpg https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_uk/news/n/nasa-space/nasa-space...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mariushn 6y ago
Is the touch screen usable during lift-off / landing? I'm thinking gravity (4+g?) and trepidations is making it hard to touch a specific spot. Or, maybe there isn't much to do manually during this phase, and for the little things there are some classic controls.
- mlindner 6y ago
  There's physical buttons and handles as well for manual abort and what not.
- Koshkin 6y ago
  Can't be worse than touchscreens in a tank: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a19087/russias-t-14-tank-with-touchscreen/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a1908...
  - cevn 6y ago
    oops.. fat fingered the target again..
  - rlt 6y ago
    The lag on that touchscreen is bothering the hell out of me. It reminds me of crappy in-flight entertainment systems. Is it physically turning a camera, or is it just that bad?
- orbital-decay 6y ago
  It's both. They have a handle below the screen precisely for this reason. [1] You can grab it and press the buttons below/tap the lower part of the screen above with your thumb. This seems much more reasonable and pragmatic than the sci-fi looking mockup they originally presented. [2] Although my understanding is that it's probably not a huge problem, because Soyuz introduced the stick to push the buttons only in its later variants. Also, judging from the photos, they seem to have their button covers supported by the frame. In 2003, there was an incident when a cosmonaut inadvertently fired RCS thrusters on the Soyuz attached to the station, simultaneously pushing several buttons with his foot while loading the spacecraft with cargo to be returned to Earth, crushing the protective caps that were pressing against the (relatively flimsy) case. The thrusters fired for quite some time until a ground operator noticed it and turned them off remotely. After that, the covers in Soyuz were redesigned to press against the frame. Seems like that incident has been learned from in Crew Dragon as well. [1] https://imgur.com/KyAaQS0 https://imgur.com/KyAaQS0 [2] https://imgur.com/pTYfAew https://imgur.com/pTYfAew
JKCalhoun 6y ago
Hate the helmets. Sorry. I think the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo cool was that the hardware was completely lacking in design: it was as practical as a carburetor and as stylish. And that's why we liked them.
- Koshkin 6y ago
  At least there is no face lighting inside them. (Or is there??)
  - dylan604 6y ago
    Don't worry, there will be in the suit for Tom Cruise
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      A photonic force field to keep the Thetans away.

danbr 6y ago

The space suits, UI, design of it all feels exactly what I’ve though the future of space technology would be. Maybe not all the way there yet, but a great leap from hundreds of manual switches and raw aluminum of the shuttle era.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
avmich 6y ago
> a great leap from hundreds of manual switches and raw aluminum of the shuttle era. Wonder if reliability of virtualized controls surpasses the one of dedicated hardware though. I suspect one of the reasons Apollo computers were all built with just one type of logical chip is the ability to replace faulty parts - one just need a single type of replacement. If for some reason touchscreen malfunctions, what options are left for the crew?
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > If for some reason touchscreen malfunctions, what options are left for the crew? First, the spacecraft is I believe fully automated. While there is the ability to pilot the craft manually using onboard controls, my understanding is that is already considered a backup or unusual scenario. As far as the touchscreens themselves, my understanding is there are four touchscreens total, and each can represent / control every aspect of the vehicle. So if a single touchscreen fails, the other 3 provide redundant access to necessary controls. Finally, the dragon capsule does have manual (non-touchscreen) joystick controls for the critical flight controls. So these systems have enough redundancy that a touchscreen failure should absolutely not jeopardize the flight.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    I wonder if the touchscreens are made of diverse hardware types and run by different programs running on different types of CPUs. If it's all common hardware and a common code-base then one in-common hardware or software failure could still take them all down.
    - sxates 6y ago
      I know the space shuttle employed multiple redundant computers of differing hardware as failsafes. I can't imagine SpaceX didn't do the same thing.
      - pbourke 6y ago
        The redundant computers were only one part of it. The Space Shuttle software engineering capability was on another level. https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
      - kens 6y ago
        For redundancy, the Space Shuttle used five of the same computer (IBM AP-101). Four of them ran the same software, while the fifth ran independently-developed software in case a bug prevented the others from working.
  - avmich 6y ago
    > Finally, the dragon capsule does have manual (non-touchscreen) joystick controls for the critical flight controls. Joysticks are better, though some convenient indication is also required (the "screen" part, not the "touch" part). I'm sure the designers saw questions like that; I'm just curious about details.
- kens 6y ago
  > I suspect one of the reasons Apollo computers were all built with just one type of logical chip is the ability to replace faulty parts The Apollo Guidance Computer was built with two types of chips: a 3-input NOR gate and a core memory sense amplifier. The reason to use just one logic chip was because ICs were very new at the time and there was very little reliability information. By standardizing on a small number of components, they could procure enough to determine and maintain quality. (See Journey to the Moon chapter 12.)
EvanAnderson 6y ago
Having used (and been highly dissatisfied with) touch-based controls in cars I cannot imagine why touch-based controls for a spacecraft are a good idea. The ergonomics are terrible. Switches can certainly fail, with potentially dire consequences (see the Apollo 14 abort switch failure). I would assume the number of failure modes for touch-based interface hardware are vastly more. Touch controls are, no doubt, easily reconfigurable, which is probably great for profit margins. The idea of the human spaceflight industry applying "cost down" mentality to crew vehicles scares the heck out of me (and I'm not even flying in them). (I'm thinking about the Boeing MCAS mentality, but for spacecraft...)
- nathan11 6y ago
  Isn't this attributable to needing to focus on driving and the controls being a secondary concern? The astronauts don't seem to have much more to focus on than the screens and controls in front of them.

luizfzs 6y ago

The space suit looks like it's made for a Halloween party. It looks kind of not flexible and fragile. The touch screen panel is surely very cool.

smeeth 6y ago
Right? Reading some of the comments here I thought I was going crazy - the suits look like they were made for a 2003 made-for-tv movie. Boeing suits look WAY better imo
- luizfzs 6y ago
  I had to search. Yeah, Boeing's look like a real space suit.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tibbydudeza 6y ago
    Probably made from leftover Tesla upholstery :).
- ideals 6y ago
  At first I didn't really care for the SpaceX suit because I liked the raw look of the old NASA suits. But looking at it more, it reminds me of motorcycle leathers and that sleek look you get when your gear fits just right. Not a fan of Boeing suits tbh, it looks a bit like an arts and crafts project. Boeing suit: http://www.boeing.com/features/2017/01/space-suit-01-17.page http://www.boeing.com/features/2017/01/space-suit-01-17.page
  - smeeth 6y ago
    Very much agree about old NASA suits - especially the orange shuttle ones. I think it's important to discriminate between what the spacex suits look like in stylized prototypes and actually on people. Take this image for example: https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_uk/news/n/nasa-space/nasa-spacex-get-green-light-for-historic-crew-dragon-launch_2y5n.1200.jpg https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_uk/news/n/nasa-space/nasa-space...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mariushn 6y ago

Is the touch screen usable during lift-off / landing? I'm thinking gravity (4+g?) and trepidations is making it hard to touch a specific spot. Or, maybe there isn't much to do manually during this phase, and for the little things there are some classic controls.

mlindner 6y ago
There's physical buttons and handles as well for manual abort and what not.
Koshkin 6y ago
Can't be worse than touchscreens in a tank: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a19087/russias-t-14-tank-with-touchscreen/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a1908...
- cevn 6y ago
  oops.. fat fingered the target again..
- rlt 6y ago
  The lag on that touchscreen is bothering the hell out of me. It reminds me of crappy in-flight entertainment systems. Is it physically turning a camera, or is it just that bad?
orbital-decay 6y ago
It's both. They have a handle below the screen precisely for this reason. [1] You can grab it and press the buttons below/tap the lower part of the screen above with your thumb. This seems much more reasonable and pragmatic than the sci-fi looking mockup they originally presented. [2] Although my understanding is that it's probably not a huge problem, because Soyuz introduced the stick to push the buttons only in its later variants. Also, judging from the photos, they seem to have their button covers supported by the frame. In 2003, there was an incident when a cosmonaut inadvertently fired RCS thrusters on the Soyuz attached to the station, simultaneously pushing several buttons with his foot while loading the spacecraft with cargo to be returned to Earth, crushing the protective caps that were pressing against the (relatively flimsy) case. The thrusters fired for quite some time until a ground operator noticed it and turned them off remotely. After that, the covers in Soyuz were redesigned to press against the frame. Seems like that incident has been learned from in Crew Dragon as well. [1] https://imgur.com/KyAaQS0 https://imgur.com/KyAaQS0 [2] https://imgur.com/pTYfAew https://imgur.com/pTYfAew

JKCalhoun 6y ago

Hate the helmets. Sorry. I think the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo cool was that the hardware was completely lacking in design: it was as practical as a carburetor and as stylish. And that's why we liked them.

Koshkin 6y ago
At least there is no face lighting inside them. (Or is there??)
- dylan604 6y ago
  Don't worry, there will be in the suit for Tom Cruise
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    A photonic force field to keep the Thetans away.