5 ms·

> 40 years ago we did this stuff on the freakin' Moon. ... > In the "freakin' Moon" example, the human pilot still had to handle the tricky part. Since you'r

> 40 years ago we did this stuff on the freakin' Moon. ... > In the "freakin' Moon" example, the human pilot still had to handle the tricky part. Since you're apparently well aware that the Apollo missions were conducted with manual docking and landing, why bring it up? Especially given the relative simplicity of "final approach" on the moon, given the lower gravity, zero wind speed, and slower pace, I don't understand what your point is.

CamperBob2 13y ago
Just pointing out that it's not valid to argue that this stuff is impossible, or even impractical.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  What "stuff", though? The moon landings were conducted by a human brain in control of a (mostly[1]-)fully-functional machine. How does that translate to fully automated landing of an atmospheric aircraft already experiencing a malfunction? [1] Actually, the Eagle did experience a computer malfunction that almost caused an abort to the landing before an engineer said they could ignore it. You want a computer to judge for itself whether it can still safely fulfill its mission while malfunctioning? For further terror, consult the Apollo 12 lightning strike. When the computer is FUBAR, how do you propose it fix itself?
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    So, just to make sure I don't misrepresent your position, you're saying that the people who built and programmed this hardware ( http://www.space.com/16878-mars-rover-landing-sky-crane-guide.html http://www.space.com/16878-mars-rover-landing-sky-crane-guid... ) couldn't safely land a 777 in SFO (or, for that matter, an A320 in the Hudson) any day of the week. Is this the case?
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      What part of the skycrane experienced serious damage or malfunction that the software corrected for? The whole point is we're not talking about when things go according to plan. For that matter, how many times has the skycrane been used? What is its safety record? If you go ask the guys at JPL how many times out of 1000 they think it'll work perfectly, what will they say? Incidentally, not cool moving goalposts.
      - CamperBob2 13y ago
        Sigh. Yes, you're right. Nothing went wrong during the Curiosity landing, so I can therefore not use it as an example of successful flight automation. You win this one, it looks like. GG.
csirac2 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1

CamperBob2 13y ago

Just pointing out that it's not valid to argue that this stuff is impossible, or even impractical.

nknighthb 13y ago
What "stuff", though? The moon landings were conducted by a human brain in control of a (mostly[1]-)fully-functional machine. How does that translate to fully automated landing of an atmospheric aircraft already experiencing a malfunction? [1] Actually, the Eagle did experience a computer malfunction that almost caused an abort to the landing before an engineer said they could ignore it. You want a computer to judge for itself whether it can still safely fulfill its mission while malfunctioning? For further terror, consult the Apollo 12 lightning strike. When the computer is FUBAR, how do you propose it fix itself?
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  So, just to make sure I don't misrepresent your position, you're saying that the people who built and programmed this hardware ( http://www.space.com/16878-mars-rover-landing-sky-crane-guide.html http://www.space.com/16878-mars-rover-landing-sky-crane-guid... ) couldn't safely land a 777 in SFO (or, for that matter, an A320 in the Hudson) any day of the week. Is this the case?
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    What part of the skycrane experienced serious damage or malfunction that the software corrected for? The whole point is we're not talking about when things go according to plan. For that matter, how many times has the skycrane been used? What is its safety record? If you go ask the guys at JPL how many times out of 1000 they think it'll work perfectly, what will they say? Incidentally, not cool moving goalposts.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      Sigh. Yes, you're right. Nothing went wrong during the Curiosity landing, so I can therefore not use it as an example of successful flight automation. You win this one, it looks like. GG.

csirac2 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1