I love all these RUclips engineers that think they know better than NASA, Lockheed, SpaceX, and Blue Origin. They are all flying glass cockpits in space.
The only thing I'm worried about is that with gloves on, the astronauts will have more difficulty hitting buttons on the screen, and might even hit 2 by accident.
I think it's important to explain how this interface was engineered to be reliable for the environments that it will see and the faults that may occur. I'm sure that both software and hardware have come together to create something that's much more than a large ipad. People need to appreciate that.
I used to hate flying glass cockpit. Until I hit about 100 hours, I really felt like it was more natural than switches. Not to mention the software updates and reliability.
So what happens if there's a computer malfunction? Glass cockpits are sexy but they are all or nothing affairs. At the very least make that system double redundant and triple redundant would be better. And make sure that it still works even if half of the service module got blown out the side. Thx.
I see a problem with the screen based system, If said screen were to fail to display or if it were to gain some sort of damage during a mission what then? I still think physical switches are needed if some of the equipment were to fail just as a backup. though it looks really cool it still has a few issues, but none the less I'm glad that Nasa is taking the time to explore space even with budget cuts. The space program has brought us many of the technologies we use today! Good luck to you guys at Nasa!
Key functions will always have hard wired switches. But who knows, considering it's "fly-by-wire" maybe they will have an app and some tablets with them in case something does fail. Or secondary screens to plug in over the damaged ones. edit: certainly no more stickers over the switches.
This whole new Orion spacecraft is supposed to be the latest and greatest for our manned space program but to me, it seems like we are taking a step BACK. Didn't we jump forward with the design of the Space Shuttle? Why wouldn't we be using a similar design which entails a big ship with plenty of room to move around in and a cargo bay that could be used to bring new equipment up with it or bring stuff back. We now have this new Orion capsule, which looks very similar to the Apollo space craft, and it has barely any room to move around in and seems very limiting. It just seems very strange to have gone with a design that we first started out with during the Apollo days instead of utilizing a design that expands on the shuttle designs. Is this a backwards step?
My recollection of the shuttle is that the cargo bay was very rarely used to bring stuff back; it was generally home for the spacehab / spacelab, which is pointless now that NASA has the ISS. As for taking stuff up into orbit, it flew too low to be an effective satellite launch system. It was handy for ISS modules, but conventional Proton and Soyuz boosters seem to be doing that job just fine. I mean, the shuttle was impressive - but what's the point? The central idea of an economically reusable vehicle didn't pan out, remove that and the shuttle had no raison d'etre.
Many people don't understand that the Shuttle was only designed as a cargo carrier for low earth orbit. It had no capability to go to the moon or to Mars. The Orion capsule is only one small element of an entire Mars mission. To go to Mars, the mission would also include a "Deep Space Habitat", which most likely would be launched separately from Orion. See the attached Wikipedia link, which also includes a link to the Deep Space Habitat: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
Your clearly ignorant in the field of space travel so I won't be harsh. The Space Shuttle had only one purpose, to deliver things to low earth orbit. It was far to massive to go anywhere else. The more mass you have, the more fuel you need to propel that mass someplace (The moon, Mars) It's not that we're taking a step back with Orion, it's a step forward. The Space Shuttle was never taking us anywhere besides low orbit. As of now a small command module is the most efficient way to do it that we know of. The shuttle though perhaps more complex than Orion simply can't go to Mars. It's too heavy and doesn't support a crew long enough. It's transfer module would need to be massive, and asymmetric docking would make it impossible to control.
You're right, Isaiah Phillip , I was ignorant of the details of the designs and after looking into it and educating myself, I now know why the Orion design is being used for deep space travel rather than something like the shuttle. Thanks for not being "harsh." There was a reason why I questioned my own response, because I was looking for others to give me information on why Orion was the better option and people like you have done so and that means I have now been educated on the subject.
GSMSfromFV A Space Habitat is being built by Bigelow and to be tested on the ISS soon. He also has two other modules in orbit for a few years already ! The module can also be mated to the Orion for long missions. A Space Based Nuclear Power for a mission to Mars will take ten years to develop with help from the US Navy. This can power the VASIMR engine for faster and safer trip time to Mars and beyond. This will also help NASA to "Live Off the Land". Back to the Moon to Stay and onto Mars. Eyes UP and lights down, tjl Sent by Win7Pro64 w/ADSL
And i think that all we (non astronauts that are interested in those thigs) want is a addon for orbiter like NASSP (NASSP was Apollo simulation with full panel and emulated AGC)!!! But anyway i think that NASA could make a PC Orion's control panel simulation and release it so everyone could try.
Instead of a virtual switches I case of a power failure or other problem occurs. Why not change the design of the seats? Maybe a netting designs or a screen type seats? It would be somewhat flexiable, but sturdy.
The same thing that would have happened if the power shorts out with physical switches. Toggle switch is just as useless if you have no power. One of the main objectives of EFT-1 was to test Orion's glass cockpit in extremes of radiation, and it passed through the fiery gauntlet victorious. Further, I have no doubt there would be fuel cell backups if something should happen to the solar panels. One thing is for sure, Glass Cockpit eliminates the virtual SEA of wiring strung out through the spacecraft. Remember Apollo 1?
Why there is no such a game? Damn I would love to play it. Hardcore NASA Simulator. You can run events with not solved problems and put it into the game and let's have people figure it out the solution. There could be tons of features ... maybe one day
How cool would it be for the ESA and NASA to fully develop the space station into a space vehicle factory in addition to its research? Orion should be able to dock and refuel there instead of coming back to earth. Fuel would go farther as there would be no need to escape Earth's Gravity. Our spread into space should be in hops too with more stations and colonies farther our. I hope Mars One exceeds anyone's dreams.
The idea of weight saving was the same argument Joe Shea made in nixing a quick opening hatch for Apollo 1. Reliance on computer display based MDC's is not sound. There should at least be a basic flight, navigation and environmental control redundancy system in case. Or is this system "unsinkable"?
This looks like something for transit to and from the ISS, but to go to the Moon it looks a little tight, although roomier than the Apollo spacecraft, 3 days is doable in it, but a 6 month trip to Mars in that thing! You can't sit for 6 months, and where would you keep the food, at 4 pounds per person per day. Excuse me but where is the bathroom? They must be planning to attach it to something much larger for a Martian excursion or they won't sell many tickets. For a trip to the Moon or Mars they should send 2 habitat modules ahead, not just for feasibility but to psychologically benefit the travelers. They will have a home to go to waiting for them and a spare if something goes wrong. Also if two astronauts need time apart, they can go to different habitats for awhile to chill out.
A Mars (or asteroid) mission would have to include an additional hab module for crew and supplies. I personally think that Mars is out of the question with this spacecraft.
Ted Judah Why is mars out of the question? The orion docks with a habitat module, a landing module, and a Mars transfer stage. It's actually kind of simple. (Expensive, but simple)
Isaiah Phillip Thanks. They didn't cover that in the video. I am reading Robert Zubrin's "A Case for Mars" and generating fuel on Mars for the return trip to Earth seems like the cheapest smartest way to go. With long stays for astronauts to explore the Martian terrain and determine the long term effects of Martian living. Sending astronauts to orbit Mars without landing and return home seems like the most expensive way to gain the least knowledge. Why has NASA apparently ignored Zubrin's ideas?
Larry D NASA seems to be favoring an Apollo like mission for Mars , i'm not sure how it compares with Zubrin's ideas price wise. But it doesn't really on generating fuel on the surface which means it might be the less risky option. They basically just need a larger version of the Apollo LEM that's designed for low density atmospheric reentry. Sending astronauts to orbit and return is the cheapest option but like you said they'll also learn the least. Only time will tell, they've projected a Mars landing for 2030-35, and we haven't even seen plans for the transfer or descent craft.
I hope they don't use that computer ribbon cable that is in every commercial display unit. They could have 0% access to "switches" if the glass monitor failed. Oo nooooo
Just like they would have zero functionality out of switches if something went wrong in the miles of wiring behind the panels. There is always a risk, no matter what you use. But so far, Glass Cockpit has been successful in both the Soyuz and ISS, and their limited addition to the latter Shuttle flights. And surely on long-duration flights, there would be replacement parts/screens available for just such a possibility.
That's rather a small space for a mission to Mars, isn't it? Four guys crammed into a small tin can for like eight months or more could get ugly. In other words.....any news of the development of the transfer compartment?
The Orion capsule is only one small element of an entire Mars mission. To go to Mars, the mission would also include a "Deep Space Habitat", which most likely would be launched separately from Orion. See the attached Wikipedia link, which also includes a link to the Deep Space Habitat: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
The inside isn't fleshed out yet. You're looking at only a basic preliminary design at this point. They have yet to include storage and scientific equipment. Those plain walls won't be plain for long.
I am 66. I watched all the space program thru the 60 and 70's. We aren't racing with russia again, so i will NEVER see 6 astronauts going to orbit the moon in this capsule. Just give up NASA
The radiation and micrometeorite hazards of space could pose a threat to computers and various peripherals ( displays ). A computerized display should be used only to give measurement readings and status indications but should not be allowed to regulate systems or control the spacecraft in any way. That should be done manually using old fashioned mechanical switches and dials and levers. Even the craft's guidance and attitude control thrusters should be manually controlled. Too many things can go wrong when using software controlled integrated circuits or glass cockpit systems.
You can get radiation hardened electronics. Micrometeorites, well I think you've got bigger problems than a broken flatscreen. But like anything critical aerospace, it had better be redundant or you're asking for trouble.
I sure am glad the astronauts use helmets because in the Orion spacecraft it looks like you could get kicked in the face with those seats like that!!! I would have put all their heads toward the center and their feet towards the walls.
Or auto-pilot kicks in and returns them safely. I'm certain NASA weighs the possibility of screen freezes or crashes and wouldn't use a system that couldn't handle the job. This is NASA people not an Android tablet.
False Profit There's also manual switches for any of the major critical functions. And it's like people forget the fact that manual switches can also break too, they aren't infallible.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I love all these RUclips engineers that think they know better than NASA, Lockheed, SpaceX, and Blue Origin. They are all flying glass cockpits in space.
Another step in the RIGHT direction! Just amazing!
The only thing I'm worried about is that with gloves on, the astronauts will have more difficulty hitting buttons on the screen, and might even hit 2 by accident.
I wonder how the touchscreen system guards against inadvertent touches?
Mission back to the moon! YES! Let us return, and never stop and go far far beyond.
I think it's important to explain how this interface was engineered to be reliable for the environments that it will see and the faults that may occur. I'm sure that both software and hardware have come together to create something that's much more than a large ipad. People need to appreciate that.
I used to hate flying glass cockpit. Until I hit about 100 hours, I really felt like it was more natural than switches. Not to mention the software updates and reliability.
So what happens if there's a computer malfunction? Glass cockpits are sexy but they are all or nothing affairs. At the very least make that system double redundant and triple redundant would be better. And make sure that it still works even if half of the service module got blown out the side. Thx.
I see a problem with the screen based system, If said screen were to fail to display or if it were to gain some sort of damage during a mission what then? I still think physical switches are needed if some of the equipment were to fail just as a backup. though it looks really cool it still has a few issues, but none the less I'm glad that Nasa is taking the time to explore space even with budget cuts. The space program has brought us many of the technologies we use today! Good luck to you guys at Nasa!
I agree very well said. GO NASA
i think for critical functions it will have actual switches, like SpaceX dragonV2.
I know. There need to be redundancies for this tech.
Key functions will always have hard wired switches.
But who knows, considering it's "fly-by-wire" maybe they will have an app and some tablets with them in case something does fail. Or secondary screens to plug in over the damaged ones.
edit: certainly no more stickers over the switches.
Samuel Smeltzer What if they lost power?
What about missions to Jupiter's Europa and Saturn's Enceladus too?
Reminds me a great deal of the screens on Star Trek: Enterprise.
Amazing how science fiction is becoming reality, again!
Where are they going to put the Toilet?
Music credit: Owl City "Fireflies"??? I can only assume NASA got permission to use the song...
I can only imagine the mental fortitude required to travel for months in space considering the size of that cockpit.
Can't quite go on a "morning" jog akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey.
This whole new Orion spacecraft is supposed to be the latest and greatest for our manned space program but to me, it seems like we are taking a step BACK. Didn't we jump forward with the design of the Space Shuttle? Why wouldn't we be using a similar design which entails a big ship with plenty of room to move around in and a cargo bay that could be used to bring new equipment up with it or bring stuff back.
We now have this new Orion capsule, which looks very similar to the Apollo space craft, and it has barely any room to move around in and seems very limiting. It just seems very strange to have gone with a design that we first started out with during the Apollo days instead of utilizing a design that expands on the shuttle designs. Is this a backwards step?
My recollection of the shuttle is that the cargo bay was very rarely used to bring stuff back; it was generally home for the spacehab / spacelab, which is pointless now that NASA has the ISS. As for taking stuff up into orbit, it flew too low to be an effective satellite launch system. It was handy for ISS modules, but conventional Proton and Soyuz boosters seem to be doing that job just fine.
I mean, the shuttle was impressive - but what's the point? The central idea of an economically reusable vehicle didn't pan out, remove that and the shuttle had no raison d'etre.
Many people don't understand that the Shuttle was only designed as a cargo carrier for low earth orbit. It had no capability to go to the moon or to Mars. The Orion capsule is only one small element of an entire Mars mission. To go to Mars, the mission would also include a "Deep Space Habitat", which most likely would be launched separately from Orion. See the attached Wikipedia link, which also includes a link to the Deep Space Habitat:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
Your clearly ignorant in the field of space travel so I won't be harsh. The Space Shuttle had only one purpose, to deliver things to low earth orbit. It was far to massive to go anywhere else. The more mass you have, the more fuel you need to propel that mass someplace (The moon, Mars) It's not that we're taking a step back with Orion, it's a step forward. The Space Shuttle was never taking us anywhere besides low orbit. As of now a small command module is the most efficient way to do it that we know of. The shuttle though perhaps more complex than Orion simply can't go to Mars. It's too heavy and doesn't support a crew long enough. It's transfer module would need to be massive, and asymmetric docking would make it impossible to control.
You're right, Isaiah Phillip , I was ignorant of the details of the designs and after looking into it and educating myself, I now know why the Orion design is being used for deep space travel rather than something like the shuttle. Thanks for not being "harsh." There was a reason why I questioned my own response, because I was looking for others to give me information on why Orion was the better option and people like you have done so and that means I have now been educated on the subject.
GSMSfromFV A Space Habitat is being built by Bigelow and to be tested on the ISS soon. He also has two other modules in orbit for a few years already ! The module can also be mated to the Orion for long missions. A Space Based Nuclear Power for a mission to Mars will take ten years to develop with help from the US Navy. This can power the VASIMR engine for faster and safer trip time to Mars and beyond. This will also help NASA to "Live Off the Land". Back to the Moon to Stay and onto Mars.
Eyes UP and lights down, tjl Sent by Win7Pro64 w/ADSL
Orion: Cockpit
And i think that all we (non astronauts that are interested in those thigs) want is a addon for orbiter like NASSP (NASSP was Apollo simulation with full panel and emulated AGC)!!!
But anyway i think that NASA could make a PC Orion's control panel simulation and release it so everyone could try.
Instead of a virtual switches I case of a power failure or other problem occurs. Why not change the design of the seats? Maybe a netting designs or a screen type seats? It would be somewhat flexiable, but sturdy.
What happens if the power shorts out, or if the solar panels become externally disabled?
The same thing that would have happened if the power shorts out with physical switches. Toggle switch is just as useless if you have no power. One of the main objectives of EFT-1 was to test Orion's glass cockpit in extremes of radiation, and it passed through the fiery gauntlet victorious. Further, I have no doubt there would be fuel cell backups if something should happen to the solar panels.
One thing is for sure, Glass Cockpit eliminates the virtual SEA of wiring strung out through the spacecraft. Remember Apollo 1?
Why there is no such a game? Damn I would love to play it. Hardcore NASA Simulator. You can run events with not solved problems and put it into the game and let's have people figure it out the solution. There could be tons of features ... maybe one day
How cool would it be for the ESA and NASA to fully develop the space station into a space vehicle factory in addition to its research? Orion should be able to dock and refuel there instead of coming back to earth. Fuel would go farther as there would be no need to escape Earth's Gravity. Our spread into space should be in hops too with more stations and colonies farther our. I hope Mars One exceeds anyone's dreams.
The idea of weight saving was the same argument Joe Shea made in nixing a quick opening hatch for Apollo 1. Reliance on computer display based MDC's is not sound. There should at least be a basic flight, navigation and environmental control redundancy system in case. Or is this system "unsinkable"?
Looks like the interface design they had for Star Trek: Enterprise
I really wanna come
This looks like something for transit to and from the ISS, but to go to the Moon it looks a little tight, although roomier than the Apollo spacecraft, 3 days is doable in it, but a 6 month trip to Mars in that thing! You can't sit for 6 months, and where would you keep the food, at 4 pounds per person per day. Excuse me but where is the bathroom? They must be planning to attach it to something much larger for a Martian excursion or they won't sell many tickets. For a trip to the Moon or Mars they should send 2 habitat modules ahead, not just for feasibility but to psychologically benefit the travelers. They will have a home to go to waiting for them and a spare if something goes wrong. Also if two astronauts need time apart, they can go to different habitats for awhile to chill out.
A Mars (or asteroid) mission would have to include an additional hab module for crew and supplies. I personally think that Mars is out of the question with this spacecraft.
They don't use toilets in space.
Ted Judah Why is mars out of the question? The orion docks with a habitat module, a landing module, and a Mars transfer stage. It's actually kind of simple. (Expensive, but simple)
Isaiah Phillip Thanks. They didn't cover that in the video. I am reading Robert Zubrin's "A Case for Mars" and generating fuel on Mars for the return trip to Earth seems like the cheapest smartest way to go. With long stays for astronauts to explore the Martian terrain and determine the long term effects of Martian living. Sending astronauts to orbit Mars without landing and return home seems like the most expensive way to gain the least knowledge. Why has NASA apparently ignored Zubrin's ideas?
Larry D NASA seems to be favoring an Apollo like mission for Mars , i'm not sure how it compares with Zubrin's ideas price wise. But it doesn't really on generating fuel on the surface which means it might be the less risky option. They basically just need a larger version of the Apollo LEM that's designed for low density atmospheric reentry. Sending astronauts to orbit and return is the cheapest option but like you said they'll also learn the least. Only time will tell, they've projected a Mars landing for 2030-35, and we haven't even seen plans for the transfer or descent craft.
I hope they don't use that computer ribbon cable that is in every commercial display unit. They could have 0% access to "switches" if the glass monitor failed. Oo nooooo
Just like they would have zero functionality out of switches if something went wrong in the miles of wiring behind the panels. There is always a risk, no matter what you use. But so far, Glass Cockpit has been successful in both the Soyuz and ISS, and their limited addition to the latter Shuttle flights. And surely on long-duration flights, there would be replacement parts/screens available for just such a possibility.
That's rather a small space for a mission to Mars, isn't it? Four guys crammed into a small tin can for like eight months or more could get ugly. In other words.....any news of the development of the transfer compartment?
The Orion capsule is only one small element of an entire Mars mission. To go to Mars, the mission would also include a "Deep Space Habitat", which most likely would be launched separately from Orion. See the attached Wikipedia link, which also includes a link to the Deep Space Habitat:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
***** Is that the only reason? ;)
How cute! He think NASA is gonna beat SpaceX to Mars! I predict that NASA will be the first to return astronauts from Mars alive.
It looks so primitive compared to the SpaceX mockup, but it was designed by an MD/PhD.
LOL…all they really needed were some college video game designers !
The inside isn't fleshed out yet. You're looking at only a basic preliminary design at this point. They have yet to include storage and scientific equipment. Those plain walls won't be plain for long.
I am 66. I watched all the space program thru the 60 and 70's. We aren't racing with russia again, so i will NEVER see 6 astronauts going to orbit the moon in this capsule. Just give up NASA
Я конечно не профессионал, но по-моему от союза он отличается лишь тем что капсула многоразовая :)
Good luck if there's a power failure.
The radiation and micrometeorite hazards of space could pose a threat to computers and various peripherals ( displays ). A computerized display should be used only to give measurement readings and status indications but should not be allowed to regulate systems or control the spacecraft in any way. That should be done manually using old fashioned mechanical switches and dials and levers. Even the craft's guidance and attitude control thrusters should be manually controlled. Too many things can go wrong when using software controlled integrated circuits or glass cockpit systems.
That was my first thought!
I think they thought about that but I still do agree with you.
You know, "NASA", i think they know their job....
Oh no! NASA forgot this thing was going to space! .. No I'm pretty sure they have designed it for space.
You can get radiation hardened electronics. Micrometeorites, well I think you've got bigger problems than a broken flatscreen. But like anything critical aerospace, it had better be redundant or you're asking for trouble.
I sure am glad the astronauts use helmets because in the Orion spacecraft it looks like you could get kicked in the face with those seats like that!!! I would have put all their heads toward the center and their feet towards the walls.
Your ui wil crash and 4 people will die.
Or auto-pilot kicks in and returns them safely. I'm certain NASA weighs the possibility of screen freezes or crashes and wouldn't use a system that couldn't handle the job. This is NASA people not an Android tablet.
False Profit There's also manual switches for any of the major critical functions. And it's like people forget the fact that manual switches can also break too, they aren't infallible.
Touch screen interface. God help you. But its might be the only way we can afford this jaunt.
+hardrays They're not touch. They use soft keys on the edge.
*There's going to be another Lost in Space TV show after this heap of junk starts flying*
Ever had an iPhone touch screen crack? F%$^&!!!
lets hope they don't get the touch from the same manufacturer
No. I don't think this touch screen console is a good idea. our smartphones are stupid as hell. Touch phones respond very stupidly. Hardware is best.