Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:And that's why there are still pilots on airplanes, although in reality, the number of accidents that would be avoided be eliminating cockpit errors probably exceeds the number avoided by a pilot taking effective emergency action. Computers are better pilots than humans.

Unfortunately, when the automated systems replace a highly skilled, highly trained, and experienced pilot... you are still left with a human in the cockpit. That is the programmer (or team) who actually wrote the code that controls the systems. None of whom have their 'butt in a sling' when something goes wrong. Maybe they were hung over when they wrote the key subroutine, failed to initialize a variable because they had to sneak off for a third cup of coffee before 8AM, or had one hit too many on that joint at lunch time and decided to snooze the afternoon away instead of testing all of the possible failure conditions. No. If it were me, I want that person on the controls knowing that we all live or die together. Do people always make the correct decisions? Of course not, but I would rather my life be in the hands of someone with as much to lose as I have, rather than place my life in the hands of the programmer sitting in his recliner watching the latest sitcom while the kids raid the fridge and the dog pisses on the carpet. Just saying is all...

Guest wrote:Just saying is all...

All you've really done is commit a straw man fallacy.

Guest wrote:Do people always make the correct decisions? Of course not, but I would rather my life be in the hands of someone with as much to lose as I have, rather than place my life in the hands of the programmer sitting in his recliner watching the latest sitcom while the kids raid the fridge and the dog pisses on the carpet. Just saying is all...

You don't have a choice. The systems have simply become too complex for human pilots. There is no way that a human can react quickly enough and manage all the systems.

People will command the aircraft and spacecraft, but they won't pilot them in any conventional sense. Nobody is going to have their hands on a stick, because there will be no stick. Even automobiles will be this way in the not too distant future. Computers are better at it, and our systems will be safer for it.

And personally, I'd rather my airplane was flown by the software and hardware created by a large team of expert engineers than by a single pilot who might be having a bad day.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Guest wrote:Do people always make the correct decisions? Of course not, but I would rather my life be in the hands of someone with as much to lose as I have, rather than place my life in the hands of the programmer sitting in his recliner watching the latest sitcom while the kids raid the fridge and the dog pisses on the carpet. Just saying is all...

You don't have a choice. The systems have simply become too complex for human pilots. There is no way that a human can react quickly enough and manage all the systems.

People will command the aircraft and spacecraft, but they won't pilot them in any conventional sense. Nobody is going to have their hands on a stick, because there will be no stick. Even automobiles will be this way in the not too distant future. Computers are better at it, and our systems will be safer for it.

And personally, I'd rather my airplane was flown by the software and hardware created by a large team of expert engineers than by a single pilot who might be having a bad day.

But hey, even if you aren't a stoned programmer, you'll probably still enjoy this scene from the (very funny) short film, Thumb Wars: The Phantom Cuticle ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlXXoq7N4UQ

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

I thought I would mention that there is a typographical error in the explanation in which it currently states "United Launch Aliance Delta IV Heavy rocket" but the 'Aliance' should be 'Alliance'. I first thought 'Aliance' may be the US spelling but when I looked at the links in the explanation it was clear that it should be 'Alliance'. I appreciate that it may be obvious it is a typographical error but it could cause confusion in future when the APOD is still in the archive but the links are no longer live.

PS. The explanation currently states "Friday at 7:05am ET" but it should perhaps be better to have stated EST not ET, as ET could be EST or EDT without knowing otherwise.

PPS. Orion is my favourite constellation, so I like the name.

subject of a giant discussion in the office that changed the software on the 777 flight control laws that put the pilot back in the loop as " final authority "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FKAIrb0fQ

Saw inside the module and would say Moon, OK, beyond to Mars or beyond, too claustrophobic.

ta152h0 wrote:subject of a giant discussion in the office that changed the software on the 777 flight control laws that put the pilot back in the loop as " final authority "

These sort of discussions will continue for a long time yet.

It's worth noting, however, that the pilot of a 777 has no direct control of the flight surfaces. He may be the "final authority" in certain senses, but it's still the electronics that are actually flying the plane. And they will not allow certain things to happen, even if the pilot tries to do them, and that cannot be overridden.

BMAONE23 wrote:Saw inside the module and would say Moon, OK, beyond to Mars or beyond, too claustrophobic.

No one is going to be stuck in the Orion capsule during a flight to Mars. From the Orion Wikipedia page...

While NASA offers that the Orion capsule will be a part of some future manned Mars mission, with only 80 cu. ft. of living space per crew member, it is clearly only intended as a "near Earth delivery vehicle", to deliver astronauts in the vicinity of Earth to some yet to be designed interplanetary transfer ship, designed to transport future Mars astronauts on their 16 month round trip to Mars.

Rob

Chris,
Not just the, not just soam-in-the-can Gemini astronauts, but the Apoloo crews too, had autonomy. Or was Apollo 13, the film, wrong? Memory tells me that it was one of that crew who adjusted the positioning of the capsule and fired the rockets to re-align them for Earth entry. Or was all that done by Houston Control?

What will happen when it's "Orion, do you have a problem?"
Or, Orion's near Mars orbit and 20 minutes away. Mars Curiosity has autonomy, and did for the landing. Yes, it's a robot, but there could be three humans in there, dying (?) to take control.

John

JohnD wrote:Chris,
Not just the, not just soam-in-the-can Gemini astronauts, but the Apoloo crews too, had autonomy. Or was Apollo 13, the film, wrong? Memory tells me that it was one of that crew who adjusted the positioning of the capsule and fired the rockets to re-align them for Earth entry. Or was all that done by Houston Control?

Where did I suggest otherwise?

What will happen when it's "Orion, do you have a problem?"

Most likely, everyone will die. Because that's the usual result of a serious problem in space. However, it its a survivable problem, automation will probably help. There's no reason to think that an Apollo 13 type accident today wouldn't be better handled with automation than any human pilot could manage.

Or, Orion's near Mars orbit and 20 minutes away. Mars Curiosity has autonomy, and did for the landing. Yes, it's a robot, but there could be three humans in there, dying (?) to take control.

No human could perform that landing. If the landing automation failed, there would be nothing humans inside could do about it.

Note, also, the important difference between "autonomy" in the sense of making command and navigation decisions, and "autonomy" in the sense of actually piloting a spacecraft.

Chris Peterson wrote:

What will happen when it's "Orion, do you have a problem?"

Most likely, everyone will die. Because that's the usual result of a serious problem in space. However, it its a survivable problem, automation will probably help. There's no reason to think that an Apollo 13 type accident today wouldn't be better handled with automation than any human pilot could manage.

Perhaps more likely would be: "Ah, Mars, she is beautiful. Here we come." [Final transmission.] Then we are left on Earth to deal with all of the conspiracy theories and never really find out what happened.

Isn't Orion just a capsule ? They need a spider also to land and take off again, right ?

Chris Peterson wrote: Note, also, the important difference between "autonomy" in the sense of making command and navigation decisions, and "autonomy" in the sense of actually piloting a spacecraft.

Yes, I would agree that even in "Apollo 13" the navigation calculations and recommendations appear to have been done on the ground, while the piloting was done by the capsule crew. Is that what you meant?

But it's said that the computer on board the Apollo lunar lander had the capacity of a small handheld calculator, and clearly the crew of that had great (complete?) piloting and navigation autonomy. Computing power has vastly increased while size has decreased, so would at least as much autonomy apply to a Mars lander, let alone a the new Orion?

John

JohnD wrote:Yes, I would agree that even in "Apollo 13" the navigation calculations and recommendations appear to have been done on the ground, while the piloting was done by the capsule crew. Is that what you meant?

But it's said that the computer on board the Apollo lunar lander had the capacity of a small handheld calculator, and clearly the crew of that had great (complete?) piloting and navigation autonomy. Computing power has vastly increased while size has decreased, so would at least as much autonomy apply to a Mars lander, let alone a the new Orion?

I'd expect most future spacecraft to have no control stick. The Apollo 13 capsule was still flown manually (which even with a very skilled pilot, was still nearly impossible, and nearly a failure... certainly there was a good deal of luck involved in the success of that mission). Were an identical accident to occur with a modern control system, nobody would have their hand on a stick, nobody would be directly controlling thrusters. Course adjustments and attitude control would be entirely automatic.

Hard to say how a lander would be designed. Probably, full automation would be the norm. An aerodynamic lander might offer more manual control than a rocket lander. Neither would probably offer any manual control during the earlier part of the re-entry process, but it's possible that some manual input would be accepted in the final landing stages. In the long run, though, not even that.

I think computer automation is largely taken for granted. Everyone has had a bad experience with a computer bug so it's easy to get caught in the idea that computer bugs are normal rather than the exception. I mean sure, there are poorly tested software out there but if you have a dedicated group of engineers working for years on something, they can make it amazingly sophisticated. A highly sophisticated computer system is not something than many people are able to appreciate because it happens silently. Indeed, if the user is able to forget the computer is there, it's probably a sign of great engineering.