posted 05-31-2020 03:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by RocketmanRob:
Is that the new mission control model?

---

posted 05-31-2020 03:49 PM               

Question: since, nowadays, voice communications can be multiplexed with control (and other) signals, is there an operational reason for which SpaceX uses its own version of Apollo-era Quindar tones?

posted 05-31-2020 05:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by NavySpaceFan:
Okay, what was that piece of music they played...

---

"Eyes Wide Open" from album "Front Ends & Setups, Vol 1" by Warner Chappelle Production Music. Composer, Lisle Moore.

posted 05-31-2020 06:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by NavySpaceFan:
...the silver border is for U.S. Air (Space?) Force with gold for U.S. Navy/U.S. Marine Corps naval aviation.

---

posted 05-31-2020 06:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
SpaceX has chosen to staff its own mission control...

---

posted 05-31-2020 09:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
SpaceX has chosen to staff its own mission control

---

posted 06-01-2020 06:55 AM               

The significance of the SpaceX system is that they bring raw materials and off the shelf parts in one end of their factory and push a crew rated space flight system, including the flight suits, out the other end. That the first stage, crew module, and fairings are reusable, and for a cost lower than NASA currently pay to overseas launch providers.

posted 06-01-2020 07:31 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
...both relied heavily on automatic systems.

---

posted 06-01-2020 09:07 AM               

When nerves and apprehension turn into exhilarating pride.

posted 06-01-2020 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by oly:
SpaceX never aimed for their system to be the state of the art, progressive, or revolutionary, they aimed to design a system that was cost-effective, safe, and reusable. Looking cool and progressive was a byproduct of their inventiveness.

---

Now human pilots are fantastic at doing stuff they do all the time (proficiency); and in extrapolating actions into unplanned situations within environments where they have experience. Traditionally NASA astronauts maintained proficiency in T-38s (and helicopters during Apollo). Overlaid on top of that was simulation on the ground, and in flight (STA and special T-38s for shuttle). For the moon something extra was also required — experience of an alien environment. That was provided by the LLTV. All of that is needed to make a human pilot an asset not a liability.

Trips to Mars of several months duration and stays in the cramped confines and microgravity environment of the ISS are both extremely hostile to attempting to maintain skilled pilot qualifications. They degrade human abilities is ways that we still don't fully understand. Add to that severely limiting crew mission capability by having to hold open specialist pilot berths when crew size is very small. The time for the specialist pilot astronaut may be temporarily at an end. I stress temporarily, because I personally believe a really good pilot always beats a computer. I know I can. Or, if they're still designated as "pilots", they'll be spending most of their training and mission on other tasks. That's just a different way of saying the same thing.

Incidentally, these reasons are very similar to why SP Korolev originally preferred automated systems. I think NASA were absolutely right not to go that way for Apollo, it’s really only four or five days from last training flight on Earth to Tranquility Base. Mars isn't.

posted 06-01-2020 01:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by oly:
SpaceX never aimed for their system to be the state of the art, progressive, or revolutionary...

---

SpaceX sees the role of humans in human spaceflight differently than past efforts. Musk, as the company's chief engineer, has said that flying humans should be no different than flying mice to the space station. They are live cargo.

To Musk, that is the definition of progress. Yes, the Crew Dragon can be flown manually, but per the company's flight rules, the crew only becomes involved if both the on board computers and the ground is unavailable. Crew intervention is a last resort.

posted 06-01-2020 05:41 PM               

Another comparison might be Tesla's (and other companies') pursuit of driverless cars. Eventually, the Uber or Lyft you call will be the car itself, no driver needed.

posted 06-01-2020 06:18 PM               

Future astronauts may not need the flying skills as much but they will definitely need the Mark Watney skills. There are good engineers, good mechanics and good computer people. Astronauts leaving LEO will need to be it all.

posted 06-01-2020 06:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mercsim:
...and then there are pilot/mechanics that can fly AND fix anything. Those are much rarer.

---

To Robert’s point, there is not much correlation between SpaceX's approach and modern transport aircraft. I'm not sure how you compare "passengers know nothing about their qualifications," when anybody flying on a Dragon would certainly know the qualifications of the person "flying" it. And it is widely known that any pilot in command on an airline roster is required to hold an Air Transport Pilot license.

Additionally, aircraft are manually flown routinely for every takeoff, many approaches, and most landings. The enroute automation only reduces workload (in most cases) of doing mundane straight and level flying for long hours. We have a long way to go — generations — before the traveling public is willing to get on a "pilotless" aircraft, or even a single pilot aircraft, and there is no ground controlled flying capability.

posted 06-02-2020 06:51 PM               

Dragon 2 was designed to be flown by its on board computers and by the ground, no crew needed (and to that point, the same model spacecraft that is being used to fly astronauts will now also fly uncrewed missions with cargo).

posted 06-02-2020 06:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejectr:
I believe all the spacecraft, from Mercury to the present had auto or manual control. Same as Endeavour. It's just a choice on when you want or need to use it.

---

In aviation you see similar developments, where cables are replaced by fly-by-wire that increasingly depend on computers to translate the pilot's intention as indicated by a yoke or stick movement into what the flight controls movement should be. So, as the reliability of all this automation increases, it is used more and more to make manual less and less really manual, to the point where the role of human intervention is limited by the constraints within that preprogrammed framework.

Until you get to a point where the question arises what benefit there is to having human intervention at all. I am not saying we are there yet, but I think it is the inevitable outcome of the trend in technology.

posted 06-02-2020 09:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Therefore, it is possible we will see commercial (non-NASA) crewed flights without a veteran pilot on board. It is possible (if not likely) that the passengers may be given some training on using Dragon's controls...

---

Comms fail. Mechanical systems fail. Automation fails. I hope the federal authorities, even with their liberal "hands off" approach to helping this industry get going, never sign off on this insanity.

No doubt, in decades to come, there will be advances in technology and society that may allow this to be a reality, but that's not here yet.

posted 06-02-2020 10:08 PM            

Sending an automated cargo ship to space is not and will never be the same as sending a ship full of humans, particular those who have the net worth to afford such a trip.

Engineers are really really smart people in general, and invent amazing things. But the greatest trap they can fall into is the fallacy that one can engineer out failure. I’ve read period comments from prominent figures that the shuttle was engineered to be very fault tolerant, yet it only took a cold-stiffened O-ring, and a chunk of loose ET foam to destroy two of them.

posted 06-02-2020 10:43 PM               

There may be, as you say, many who will not want to fly on a spacecraft without a crew. There may be others, though, who are as informed but who will decide that a staffed flight control room is a suitable backup for the autonomous systems (and their decision need not have anything to do with Elon Musk).

As noted earlier, SpaceX has said such decisions will be left to their customers. If their customers want to fly a pilot, as NASA has decided to do, then SpaceX will support that. If another customer wants to fly without one, well, that is why SpaceX designed Dragon to be capable of autonomous flight.

posted 06-03-2020 01:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...the Demo-2 Falcon 9 first stage landing and arriving back at the port

---

posted 06-03-2020 03:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
I said technology AND society. There is something in the human psyche that is comforted, reassured by having a human brain to intervene when technology fails.

---

Using aviation as an example is also flawed, there is an expanding fleet of autonomous drones in operation and chances are that the next generation of fighter aircraft will be pilotless.

Civil aviation is also investigating pilotless aircraft, as well as the current trend of reducing the training pilots go through (ICAO Multicrew Pilots License) now sees aircrew skip many steps of pilot training, spend more time in simulators, and the introduction of single pilot commercial airline operations is being seriously considered. The next generation of airliners may also be pilotless.

Companies are investing heavily in pilotless drone development for Uber in the sky, and more than one company is developing the next generation of autonomous cars (and driverless buses and taxis are under trial in several countries).

Automated systems have been controlling vehicle traffic management systems for years, the mining industry has driverless trains, trucks, heavy machinery, and hazard avoidance.

Back to rockets and spacecraft, there is still a human with their finger on the self destruct button should a launch go off nominal, and I don't believe this person is required to undergo years of aircrew and astronaut training. Launch abort systems have been automated for years because the reaction times during a launch vehicle failure are far better than human reactions.

Automated spacecraft system inputs can use far less propellant than human controlled inputs, and the navigation can be more precise.

posted 06-03-2020 06:28 AM               

Dubai and New Zealand have pilotless flying taxis under trial, and pilotless aircraft are being pushed by both Airbus and Boeing.

Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz and shuttle flew the majority of their missions using automated systems, and the Apollo lunar module was also flown by computer for the majority of each mission. It is not a huge leap to fly a crewed mission autonomously, none of the current or upcoming vehicles have manual control as the primary flight system.

posted 06-03-2020 08:16 AM            

And indeed the Russians did, but at the cost of the space race. This wasn't the one factor, but Russia's struggle to have reliable rendezvous systems was something that hurt their chances of achieving a lunar landing and impacted the reliability of early Soyuz missions. NASA instead built on the skill set of its astronauts and turned those tasks over to the people flying the vehicles from the start.

There was a downside to this for NASA as well. The decision to design the shuttle as a system that had to be flown manned made STS-1 a massive risk to the point of hubris. During DM-2's countdown I kept in the back of my head "this is not as risky as STS-1 — Falcon 9 and Dragon have flown unmanned."

However, time has changed and technology has evolved to allow for automated control over more critical phases of spaceflight. It certainly is a good idea to have a human who can respond to a problem aboard. However, greater automation must occur if you are going to see spaceflight become more routine, otherwise the training space-fliers will continue need to be limited to fairly specific and limited pool of individuals.