7 ms·

What a masterpiece of UX/UI. Holyshit. So many amazing details. Notice how the texture of the trim knob is different than other controls. When cost is no barri

What a masterpiece of UX/UI. Holyshit. So many amazing details. Notice how the texture of the trim knob is different than other controls. When cost is no barrier, you can have mechanical switches, toggles, flip-off guards, various shapes and sizes of knobs, levers, color coding, hazard markings, etc. - all made from top notch materials and you bet, the haptics were totally engineered for best possible way to reduce ambiguity. Aesthetics take a back seat. Also, props to the narrator. She was to the point and well informed. I hope UI/UX designers (even for web design), industrial designers, architects, ergonomicists, HMI designers be inspired from this with one major take away - stop putting personal taste, aesthetics, decoration, marketing, etc. before functionality and pragmatism. Especially those working in vehicle interior design - people need to realize we drive a deadly 2-ton machine on our roads. Make no mistake, modern regression of UI in cars is because of bean counters - touchscreens are vastly cheaper than physical encoders/switches/toggles, especially automotive grade ones. [1] Can you imagine if you had to flip a toggle switch to turn bluetooth on in your car? I know you're smiling from just the thought of it. People make the case that UI needs to be simple for people to use at the expense of density, but remember - we already look at the world which is very messy and navigate it without a problem. Millions navigate through airports. People knew how to use Yellow Pages (extreme density) and telephone books. Making UI more understandable is orthogonal to information density. Unrelated: It is a shame that SpaceX's dragon crew cockpit design ditched all this in favor of a more sexier (arguable) looking sci-fi aesthetics. IMO it looks like a cheap movie set including the space suits. [1] https://www.mouser.com/ALPS/Electromechanical/Encoders/_/N-39xfc?P=1z13wb5 https://www.mouser.com/ALPS/Electromechanical/Encoders/_/N-3...

starpilot 6y ago
SpaceX said Dragon would probably be safer if it were fully automated, but they added more opportunities for human control to appease NASA/astronauts.
trynewideas 6y ago
> Also, props to the narrator. She was to the point and well informed. For context, in addition to her career as a fighter pilot and squadron commander, Col. Themely was commander of the 80th Flying Training Wing in 2017 and 2018, which encompassed the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program (ENJJPT),[1] "the world's only multi-nationally manned and managed flying training program chartered to produce combat pilots for NATO".[2] She retired in October 2018. [1] https://www.sheppard.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1566640/themely-takes-final-flight-with-80th-ftw/ https://www.sheppard.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/156... [2] https://www.sheppard.af.mil/Library/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/367537/euro-nato-joint-jet-pilot-training-program-enjjpt/ https://www.sheppard.af.mil/Library/Fact-Sheets/Display/Arti...
scott_s 6y ago
> When cost is no barrier, And when operator training time and effort is extremely high.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Pushing back on this a little bit :) - A semi-truck's UI (dashboard) is only a tad bit more complex than a car. The operator training part has to do more with the domain of knowledge (how to back up the trailer, for e.g.) than with the UI. IMO UI can be "complex" and yet understandable if the layout is logical, everything is labelled and the domain is already understood. We all know what Turn on bluetooth means. Whether it is hidden in 4 level deep menu in a touchscreen or immediately accessible with a toggle switch makes no difference IMO. In fact, I would argue that a toggle switch is easier than digging into Menu > Vehicle Settings > Entertainment > Phone > Bluetooth. More importantly, it is discoverable. Please don't dig too much into the bluetooth thing, it is just a example that I want to use to make the more general point.
  - scott_s 6y ago
    I don't disagree with your response, but I disagree with what I understand to be your initial point: the primary reason that the F-15's interface is this particular way is because cost was not a barrier. While that is part of it, I don't think it's most of it. I pointed out operator training time, which is assumed to be huge. But there's also a fundamental difference between a fighter pilot and someone driving a car. For a fighter pilot, everything they have to be able to do has to be at a hand's reach in a second. This is an operational requirement for both the "fighter" and "pilot" sides. Driving a car is different; there are many tasks that normal car drivers don't need to do while driving. It's okay for them to do them parked, after fiddling with a bunch of other stuff. My point: it's not just cost which determines the difference, but training and task requirements.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      > It's okay for them to do them parked, after fiddling with a bunch of other stuff. Point noted. Commercial airplanes also have that in the form a FMS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system A menu system just like cars except no touchscreens, although I heard that's changing.
avalys 6y ago
> Especially those working in vehicle interior design - people need to realize we drive a deadly 2-ton machine on our roads. This sounds very smart and serious, which must be why someone makes the same point in literally every discussion of a control interface for some kind of vehicle - but I challenge you to provide evidence that fixable UX problems in modern automobiles have led to an increase in accident rates. In fact, most modern vehicles use touchscreens to solve the very problem that you are supposedly concerned about. Rather than a complicated cockpit full of individual buttons and switches to control every single function, most modern cars have a few easy-to-find buttons and switches for functions you might want to access while driving (i.e. radio volume, climate temperature, fan speed), and use the touchscreen to hide all the more complicated and lesser-used settings out of the way! Do you really think that putting your grandmother into a car that resembled that F-15 cockpit would be a safer option? What happens if she forgets where the button is to, say, turn on the A/C compressor? Is she going to read every single label while cruising down the highway at 75 mph?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  > hide all the more complicated and lesser-used settings out of the way! Why? Just looking at more stuff makes you nervous? Ever been to a library? Ever cooked a meal? Ever walked outside your house? The world is full of complex "UI". This is a total bullshit minimalism case designers make to satiate their own personal taste. I would like to see data that proves that "seeing" more stuff impedes the ability to operate something. Hiding stuff is detrimental, I would argue. The hierarchy of menus is equally as complicated as a dashboard of logically laid out "containers", each box decidated to a specific group of functions. It is exactly the same! Your vision system scans through the top level hierachy (Climate Control, Radio, Vehicle Settings, Navigation), then focusing in on individual controls (akin to sub-menu items). The benefits are massive - immediate control, haptics feedback, muscle memory, etc. Negatives a minor and can be addressed - cost, reliability and durability (wearing off labels for example). The problem is - if you look at ALPS catalog of encoders, they are rapidly going up in prices because automotive manufacturers are ditching them and they don't have enough volume to sustain production and keep costs down. If we had invested in this industry, we would have kept the costs down too. The sad thing is, they are discontinuining a lot of physical controls. > Do you really think that putting your grandmother into a car that resembled that F-15 cockpit would be a safer option? What happens if she forgets where the button is to, say, turn on the A/C compressor? Is she going to read every single label while cruising down the highway at 75 mph? Actually yes. Thank god we have knobs and buttons left for A/C controls. Why didn't hide that in the menus? Apart from a few cars, most cars have physical controls for climate and radio. Grandma's kitchen is probably 10x complicated than car UI. She does just fine.
zokier 6y ago
I do point out that the F-15 cockpit is from the 70s and it shows. Modern pits are far less physical, more glass: https://fighterjetsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/F-35-Cockpit.jpg https://fighterjetsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/F-35...
- trynewideas 6y ago
  Broader angles show there are still plenty of physical controls in that F-35 cockpit, including on the HOTAS, which remains the primary control surface. https://youtu.be/hmnkcP-sJHk?t=521 https://youtu.be/hmnkcP-sJHk?t=521
- bch 6y ago
  What’s the consensus on interfacing w/ glass vs physical, esp with respect to haptics and usability in various conditions (warm/cold hands, gloves on/off, bright/dim lighting, combat situations...)? Edit: /ht `mulmen for “combat” hint!
  - mulmen 6y ago
    This is a great question but you forgot under (or on!) fire.
  - stevehawk 6y ago
    Touchscreens are taking over General aviation. Everyone has an opinion on it. It’s really nice in smooth conditions and terrible in any kind of thermal, chop, or turbulence as far as I’m concerned.
  - yutyut 6y ago
    I’ve flown birds with steam gauges and birds with glass cockpits. I’ve got about 800 hours in my current glass aircraft. Here’s a photo that I didn’t take: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/75/6f/b7756f8346efff30b2f6ed7fffa2d9ec.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/75/6f/b7756f8346efff30b2f6... You can see the MFD’s have buttons on the top and bottom used to navigate menus and sub menus. I found that after 100 or so hours I didn’t even have to read a menu’s title but rather through muscle memory knew the “keystrokes” required to get to it, even if it’s 3 or 4 sub-menus deep. All of our ordnance and critical aircraft systems (starting engines, putting out fires, arming weapons, hyds, etc) are controlled by the little square buttons you see on the left and right of the MFD’s and the controls themselves contain shortcut buttons to allow us to perform common tasks without taking hands off the controls. Glass is king but if something is coming off my aircraft or if I’m starting or shutting down an engine I want to touch a physical button. Coming from a software background, I’m fairly impressed with the UX of the cockpit.
dvt 6y ago
Keep in mind that cockpit "user interfaces" have also been refined for more than a century now (which is kind of crazy to think about). For example, as the Colonel mentions, the "pickle switch" has remained more or less unchanged for 75 years. Web design is merely in its infancy compared to aviation :)
- baddox 6y ago
  More importantly, they require a lot of intense training to use. Most people doing web design do not have the luxury of putting a vast array of functionality flat on the page and knowing that your users will be trained and intimately aware of each and every function.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    I really want to challenge this notion. Just having a lot of information on the page is, I am arguing, not as big of a problem as we make it out to be. I already gave several counter examples of this. I am arguing that: Making the UI understantable is orthogonal to information density. Of course, it is possible to have a complete unorganized mess of information plopped on the screen with no rhyme or reason behind the layout, but a well designed and logically grouped UI full of information isn't going to make it difficult to use.
    - grawprog 6y ago
      I'm not sure about that. Information on a single page with only a mouse or finger input is limited to only the things directly visible. Add in even one mechanical input system, say a keyboard, and the amount of information easily accessible from a single page increases dramatically The problem with modern web UI's and UI's in general is that they're optimized for a minimum amount of inputs at one time, usually one, that is directly accessible in a visible way. This I think, is what most people are actually complaining about when they complain about 'mobile centric ui's or touchscreen inputs. The greater the number of direct inputs available for any given single screen, the higher the information density and usability can be. Touchscreen and mouse centric designs ie. most modern web design, are designed with one, maybe two direct inputs, correlating only with things directly visible on the screen, at a time.
zoomablemind 6y ago
Physical switches also seem to require more deliberate action, unlike the touch controls, where the the act of touching is not much different from an accidental touch. It's interesting to learn that F-22 side-stick had to be modded to add more physical deflection movement vs. a sensitive but nearly monolith handle. This was requested by the pilots accustomed to effort feedback common to earlier gen of the planes.
Animats 6y ago
Notice what's not there. There are very few controls related to aircraft system management. Fuel quantity and hydraulic pressure are about it. No voltmeters, ammeters, fuel flow rate, etc. Didn't even see an exhaust gas temperature or engine RPM gauge. The fighter pilot needs to be focused on fighting the enemy, not managing the hardware. For comparison, see the job of the B-29 flight engineer.[1] [1] https://youtu.be/R5D1f_1XU8w https://youtu.be/R5D1f_1XU8w
- stevehawk 6y ago
  I don’t mean to squash your point, but I don’t believe a lot of those bits matter on a turbine vs piston. But you are absolutely correct, any plane with a FADEC or equivalent allows for the pilot to dedicate brain power to other things and it’sa great luxury, if not safety device (because the pilot can focus elsewhere).
  - Animats 6y ago
    Right. In newer planes, there are lots of warnings of system troubles, but not much that has to be constantly checked. In early F-15s, there was a panel with 16 cautions and warnings that could light up. That's probably on one of the screens now.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > The fighter pilot needs to be focused on fighting the enemy, not managing the hardware. And in contrast to a civilian airliner, when shit hits the fan, the pilot can eject....
mongojunction 6y ago
You'd expect her to be well informed... she's a Colonel with 3400 hours in high performance jets. I didn't know there were women pilots and colonels flying these craft. The only clear idea about high profile women in the services was them being accepted into marines. This was so cool!
muzika 6y ago
The final goal of the SpaceX crew dragon is for it to do everything automatically. Pilots are there basically for backup only. In a fighter jet, the whole plane is like an extension of the pilot’s body - completely different UX is needed for each.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Good point, that makes sense. I presume it will be completely autonomous for when average Joe will get to ride it just like a plane ride we have today.
- walrus01 6y ago
  Once a falcon 9 second stage has burnt all its fuel, a crew dragon is left in LEO with very limited delta v budget remaining. To intercept the space station it needs to be launched into a very specific inclination and at a certain time. It's very much unlike a jet that has a thousand km or more of range and freedom to change direction and altitude at will. Unlike a fighter aircraft or multi role strike aircraft that might need to change directions or mission on the fly, or extend its mission on a spur of the moment decision by refueling from a tanker, the crew dragon mission is planned out meticulously to the tiniest thruster detail in advance. Not that military missions are not also planned down to the smallest detail, but systems are also designed to work within the needs of a rapidly changing tactical environment based on opposing force actions. Aircraft intended for tactical roles that can be air to air, air to ground strike, radar suppression, etc, need a great deal more flexibility.
perl4ever 6y ago
>we already look at the world which is very messy and navigate it without a problem Well, when it comes to complex and confusing environments, it's better to be in a "TWISTY LITTLE MAZE OF PASSAGES, ALL DIFFERENT" than a "MAZE OF TWISTY LITTLE PASSAGES, ALL ALIKE".
SamReidHughes 6y ago
The SpaceX cockpit’s control setup also saves weight. I suppose it also saves cost that could be better put into rocket development too.
sschueller 6y ago
Meanwhile this stupid idea from Tesla to use touchscreens for everything is starting to spread to other car makers. Why do we always have to take steps back?
- tim333 6y ago
  Tesla also just became the world's most valuable car company by market cap in spite of being unprofitable. Fancy looking tech is sexy I guess.
ramblerman 6y ago
You are glazing over a huge piece of the puzzle though. A Touch screen UI can be upgraded without changing any hardware. No new knob panel.

starpilot 6y ago

SpaceX said Dragon would probably be safer if it were fully automated, but they added more opportunities for human control to appease NASA/astronauts.

trynewideas 6y ago

> Also, props to the narrator. She was to the point and well informed. For context, in addition to her career as a fighter pilot and squadron commander, Col. Themely was commander of the 80th Flying Training Wing in 2017 and 2018, which encompassed the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program (ENJJPT),[1] "the world's only multi-nationally manned and managed flying training program chartered to produce combat pilots for NATO".[2] She retired in October 2018. [1] https://www.sheppard.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1566640/themely-takes-final-flight-with-80th-ftw/ https://www.sheppard.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/156... [2] https://www.sheppard.af.mil/Library/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/367537/euro-nato-joint-jet-pilot-training-program-enjjpt/ https://www.sheppard.af.mil/Library/Fact-Sheets/Display/Arti...

scott_s 6y ago

> When cost is no barrier, And when operator training time and effort is extremely high.

systemvoltage 6y ago
Pushing back on this a little bit :) - A semi-truck's UI (dashboard) is only a tad bit more complex than a car. The operator training part has to do more with the domain of knowledge (how to back up the trailer, for e.g.) than with the UI. IMO UI can be "complex" and yet understandable if the layout is logical, everything is labelled and the domain is already understood. We all know what Turn on bluetooth means. Whether it is hidden in 4 level deep menu in a touchscreen or immediately accessible with a toggle switch makes no difference IMO. In fact, I would argue that a toggle switch is easier than digging into Menu > Vehicle Settings > Entertainment > Phone > Bluetooth. More importantly, it is discoverable. Please don't dig too much into the bluetooth thing, it is just a example that I want to use to make the more general point.
- scott_s 6y ago
  I don't disagree with your response, but I disagree with what I understand to be your initial point: the primary reason that the F-15's interface is this particular way is because cost was not a barrier. While that is part of it, I don't think it's most of it. I pointed out operator training time, which is assumed to be huge. But there's also a fundamental difference between a fighter pilot and someone driving a car. For a fighter pilot, everything they have to be able to do has to be at a hand's reach in a second. This is an operational requirement for both the "fighter" and "pilot" sides. Driving a car is different; there are many tasks that normal car drivers don't need to do while driving. It's okay for them to do them parked, after fiddling with a bunch of other stuff. My point: it's not just cost which determines the difference, but training and task requirements.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    > It's okay for them to do them parked, after fiddling with a bunch of other stuff. Point noted. Commercial airplanes also have that in the form a FMS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system A menu system just like cars except no touchscreens, although I heard that's changing.

avalys 6y ago

> Especially those working in vehicle interior design - people need to realize we drive a deadly 2-ton machine on our roads. This sounds very smart and serious, which must be why someone makes the same point in literally every discussion of a control interface for some kind of vehicle - but I challenge you to provide evidence that fixable UX problems in modern automobiles have led to an increase in accident rates. In fact, most modern vehicles use touchscreens to solve the very problem that you are supposedly concerned about. Rather than a complicated cockpit full of individual buttons and switches to control every single function, most modern cars have a few easy-to-find buttons and switches for functions you might want to access while driving (i.e. radio volume, climate temperature, fan speed), and use the touchscreen to hide all the more complicated and lesser-used settings out of the way! Do you really think that putting your grandmother into a car that resembled that F-15 cockpit would be a safer option? What happens if she forgets where the button is to, say, turn on the A/C compressor? Is she going to read every single label while cruising down the highway at 75 mph?

systemvoltage 6y ago
> hide all the more complicated and lesser-used settings out of the way! Why? Just looking at more stuff makes you nervous? Ever been to a library? Ever cooked a meal? Ever walked outside your house? The world is full of complex "UI". This is a total bullshit minimalism case designers make to satiate their own personal taste. I would like to see data that proves that "seeing" more stuff impedes the ability to operate something. Hiding stuff is detrimental, I would argue. The hierarchy of menus is equally as complicated as a dashboard of logically laid out "containers", each box decidated to a specific group of functions. It is exactly the same! Your vision system scans through the top level hierachy (Climate Control, Radio, Vehicle Settings, Navigation), then focusing in on individual controls (akin to sub-menu items). The benefits are massive - immediate control, haptics feedback, muscle memory, etc. Negatives a minor and can be addressed - cost, reliability and durability (wearing off labels for example). The problem is - if you look at ALPS catalog of encoders, they are rapidly going up in prices because automotive manufacturers are ditching them and they don't have enough volume to sustain production and keep costs down. If we had invested in this industry, we would have kept the costs down too. The sad thing is, they are discontinuining a lot of physical controls. > Do you really think that putting your grandmother into a car that resembled that F-15 cockpit would be a safer option? What happens if she forgets where the button is to, say, turn on the A/C compressor? Is she going to read every single label while cruising down the highway at 75 mph? Actually yes. Thank god we have knobs and buttons left for A/C controls. Why didn't hide that in the menus? Apart from a few cars, most cars have physical controls for climate and radio. Grandma's kitchen is probably 10x complicated than car UI. She does just fine.

zokier 6y ago

I do point out that the F-15 cockpit is from the 70s and it shows. Modern pits are far less physical, more glass: https://fighterjetsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/F-35-Cockpit.jpg https://fighterjetsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/F-35...

trynewideas 6y ago
Broader angles show there are still plenty of physical controls in that F-35 cockpit, including on the HOTAS, which remains the primary control surface. https://youtu.be/hmnkcP-sJHk?t=521 https://youtu.be/hmnkcP-sJHk?t=521
bch 6y ago
What’s the consensus on interfacing w/ glass vs physical, esp with respect to haptics and usability in various conditions (warm/cold hands, gloves on/off, bright/dim lighting, combat situations...)? Edit: /ht `mulmen for “combat” hint!
- mulmen 6y ago
  This is a great question but you forgot under (or on!) fire.
- stevehawk 6y ago
  Touchscreens are taking over General aviation. Everyone has an opinion on it. It’s really nice in smooth conditions and terrible in any kind of thermal, chop, or turbulence as far as I’m concerned.
- yutyut 6y ago
  I’ve flown birds with steam gauges and birds with glass cockpits. I’ve got about 800 hours in my current glass aircraft. Here’s a photo that I didn’t take: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/75/6f/b7756f8346efff30b2f6ed7fffa2d9ec.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/75/6f/b7756f8346efff30b2f6... You can see the MFD’s have buttons on the top and bottom used to navigate menus and sub menus. I found that after 100 or so hours I didn’t even have to read a menu’s title but rather through muscle memory knew the “keystrokes” required to get to it, even if it’s 3 or 4 sub-menus deep. All of our ordnance and critical aircraft systems (starting engines, putting out fires, arming weapons, hyds, etc) are controlled by the little square buttons you see on the left and right of the MFD’s and the controls themselves contain shortcut buttons to allow us to perform common tasks without taking hands off the controls. Glass is king but if something is coming off my aircraft or if I’m starting or shutting down an engine I want to touch a physical button. Coming from a software background, I’m fairly impressed with the UX of the cockpit.

dvt 6y ago

Keep in mind that cockpit "user interfaces" have also been refined for more than a century now (which is kind of crazy to think about). For example, as the Colonel mentions, the "pickle switch" has remained more or less unchanged for 75 years. Web design is merely in its infancy compared to aviation :)

baddox 6y ago
More importantly, they require a lot of intense training to use. Most people doing web design do not have the luxury of putting a vast array of functionality flat on the page and knowing that your users will be trained and intimately aware of each and every function.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I really want to challenge this notion. Just having a lot of information on the page is, I am arguing, not as big of a problem as we make it out to be. I already gave several counter examples of this. I am arguing that: Making the UI understantable is orthogonal to information density. Of course, it is possible to have a complete unorganized mess of information plopped on the screen with no rhyme or reason behind the layout, but a well designed and logically grouped UI full of information isn't going to make it difficult to use.
  - grawprog 6y ago
    I'm not sure about that. Information on a single page with only a mouse or finger input is limited to only the things directly visible. Add in even one mechanical input system, say a keyboard, and the amount of information easily accessible from a single page increases dramatically The problem with modern web UI's and UI's in general is that they're optimized for a minimum amount of inputs at one time, usually one, that is directly accessible in a visible way. This I think, is what most people are actually complaining about when they complain about 'mobile centric ui's or touchscreen inputs. The greater the number of direct inputs available for any given single screen, the higher the information density and usability can be. Touchscreen and mouse centric designs ie. most modern web design, are designed with one, maybe two direct inputs, correlating only with things directly visible on the screen, at a time.

zoomablemind 6y ago

Physical switches also seem to require more deliberate action, unlike the touch controls, where the the act of touching is not much different from an accidental touch. It's interesting to learn that F-22 side-stick had to be modded to add more physical deflection movement vs. a sensitive but nearly monolith handle. This was requested by the pilots accustomed to effort feedback common to earlier gen of the planes.

Animats 6y ago

Notice what's not there. There are very few controls related to aircraft system management. Fuel quantity and hydraulic pressure are about it. No voltmeters, ammeters, fuel flow rate, etc. Didn't even see an exhaust gas temperature or engine RPM gauge. The fighter pilot needs to be focused on fighting the enemy, not managing the hardware. For comparison, see the job of the B-29 flight engineer.[1] [1] https://youtu.be/R5D1f_1XU8w https://youtu.be/R5D1f_1XU8w

stevehawk 6y ago
I don’t mean to squash your point, but I don’t believe a lot of those bits matter on a turbine vs piston. But you are absolutely correct, any plane with a FADEC or equivalent allows for the pilot to dedicate brain power to other things and it’sa great luxury, if not safety device (because the pilot can focus elsewhere).
- Animats 6y ago
  Right. In newer planes, there are lots of warnings of system troubles, but not much that has to be constantly checked. In early F-15s, there was a panel with 16 cautions and warnings that could light up. That's probably on one of the screens now.
mschuster91 6y ago
> The fighter pilot needs to be focused on fighting the enemy, not managing the hardware. And in contrast to a civilian airliner, when shit hits the fan, the pilot can eject....

mongojunction 6y ago

You'd expect her to be well informed... she's a Colonel with 3400 hours in high performance jets. I didn't know there were women pilots and colonels flying these craft. The only clear idea about high profile women in the services was them being accepted into marines. This was so cool!

muzika 6y ago

The final goal of the SpaceX crew dragon is for it to do everything automatically. Pilots are there basically for backup only. In a fighter jet, the whole plane is like an extension of the pilot’s body - completely different UX is needed for each.

systemvoltage 6y ago
Good point, that makes sense. I presume it will be completely autonomous for when average Joe will get to ride it just like a plane ride we have today.
walrus01 6y ago
Once a falcon 9 second stage has burnt all its fuel, a crew dragon is left in LEO with very limited delta v budget remaining. To intercept the space station it needs to be launched into a very specific inclination and at a certain time. It's very much unlike a jet that has a thousand km or more of range and freedom to change direction and altitude at will. Unlike a fighter aircraft or multi role strike aircraft that might need to change directions or mission on the fly, or extend its mission on a spur of the moment decision by refueling from a tanker, the crew dragon mission is planned out meticulously to the tiniest thruster detail in advance. Not that military missions are not also planned down to the smallest detail, but systems are also designed to work within the needs of a rapidly changing tactical environment based on opposing force actions. Aircraft intended for tactical roles that can be air to air, air to ground strike, radar suppression, etc, need a great deal more flexibility.

perl4ever 6y ago

>we already look at the world which is very messy and navigate it without a problem Well, when it comes to complex and confusing environments, it's better to be in a "TWISTY LITTLE MAZE OF PASSAGES, ALL DIFFERENT" than a "MAZE OF TWISTY LITTLE PASSAGES, ALL ALIKE".

SamReidHughes 6y ago

The SpaceX cockpit’s control setup also saves weight. I suppose it also saves cost that could be better put into rocket development too.

sschueller 6y ago

Meanwhile this stupid idea from Tesla to use touchscreens for everything is starting to spread to other car makers. Why do we always have to take steps back?

tim333 6y ago
Tesla also just became the world's most valuable car company by market cap in spite of being unprofitable. Fancy looking tech is sexy I guess.

ramblerman 6y ago

You are glazing over a huge piece of the puzzle though. A Touch screen UI can be upgraded without changing any hardware. No new knob panel.