Love the new "Space" suits and the touch screen panel inside the capsule. This is going to be amazing. My prayers with the brave astronauts.
Or, maybe there isn't much to do manually during this phase, and for the little things there are some classic controls.
Also, judging from the photos, they seem to have their button covers supported by the frame. In 2003, there was an incident when a cosmonaut inadvertently fired RCS thrusters on the Soyuz attached to the station, simultaneously pushing several buttons with his foot while loading the spacecraft with cargo to be returned to Earth, crushing the protective caps that were pressing against the (relatively flimsy) case. The thrusters fired for quite some time until a ground operator noticed it and turned them off remotely. After that, the covers in Soyuz were redesigned to press against the frame. Seems like that incident has been learned from in Crew Dragon as well.
If I remember right, all the important controls are done with buttons and a joystick, while h touch screens are only for informational displays.
The touch screen panel is surely very cool.
Boeing suits look WAY better imo
Not a fan of Boeing suits tbh, it looks a bit like an arts and crafts project.
Boeing suit: http://www.boeing.com/features/2017/01/space-suit-01-17.page
I think it's important to discriminate between what the spacex suits look like in stylized prototypes and actually on people. Take this image for example: https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_uk/news/n/nasa-space/nasa-space...
Non haptic controls in critical systems like cars, planes, and rockets are an insane fad.
Navigation is a fairly fixed function. I doubt these astronauts are going to installing new apps on their way to orbit...
Interestingly offshore sailboat racers (IMOCA 60 class for instance) prefer keyboards and thumb ball mice. They’re not pulling g’s, but they experience some pretty extreme motion from waves.
That's not the case in a space ship. Additionally, piloting a space craft is infinitely more complicated. Just take a look at the Apollo 11 control module[1]. I think having a single place where you receive all your information and react to it is way better than having to memorize the location and function of thousands of physical elements.
[1] https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/apollo-11-3....
If those guys had also space flight experience and could review all the engineering done on the capsule, that would be the way to do it.
Oh, that is exactly what happens.
SpaceX isn't to the point in this endeavor where they should be worrying about making things look "sexy". If there isn't an objective improvement in doing something in a non-flight-tested way then I'd be highly suspicious.
Comparing to Apollo, I can imagine that being able to impose some hierarchy on the controls could be beneficial (rather than having all 566 switches laid out across the cabin), and the reliability is probably better than one dedicated switch per control, since the control can be used on any of the several touch screens.
Apollo 14 nearly failed due to a faulty switch. Apollo 12 was saved by flipping a switch that was not well known. Are there other incidents where the controls were critical? In general it seems like when the astronauts are in a hurry you've probably already got major issues, and being able to find the control out of the hundreds (or thousands) is probably more important than being able to flip it with your eyes closed.
Sci-fi UI/UX was developed in a short time under pressure when movies were being made. The authors did not consider literally anything about the implications such as ergonomics, cost, reliability, discoverability, etc. Literally zero research behind it. It was not an engineering project by any stretch of the meaning.
Sci-fi aesthetic is the cancer of our society propelled by big budget films and cultural impact worldwide. It has absolutely no place in space exploration.
All this is decoration and marketing. Personally, I also hate the new space suit design, it looks like a movie set than those badass suits astronauts used to wear. They screamed of technical prowess, not aesthetics. Emerging aesthetics were absolutely badass: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Tim_Kopr...
SpaceX/NASA are preparing the suiting up process right now. It looks like a low budget bad sci-fi movie: https://i.imgur.com/MzdPwD6.png
To say 'sci-fi aesthetic is the cancer of our society' is empty hyperbole. The sci-fi aesthetic mirrors the age in which we live. Additionally, which sci-fi aesthetic is so ruinous? Is it Star Wars with all it's switch, levers, and knobs? Is it 2001 and Star Trek with display monitors everywhere? Is it Blade Runner or Alien with a decayed future? What is this cancer causing your histrionic invective?
I am also willing to bet, SpaceX UI designers have never even touched this document: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19940023266
We both have limited information.
I assume that the professionals at SpaceX and NASA have prioritized safety and usability, while also introducing a sci-fi vibe. This is a reasonable position.
You, however, take a conspiracy theory (the literal definition) angle that SpaceX have reduced the safety and usability of their module in order to look cooler. Do you see why this is not a reasonable position with the information that we have?
I think that's my main grumpy objection. May be I am just old.
I also found your dismissal as "conspiracy" a low blow. How can I engage in a productive discussion when the other party dismisses your entire proposition as a conspiracy theory - you don't seem to see any issues with that?
Maybe conspiracy theory was too harsh, but I stand by heavily calling you out for hatching this idea with minimal evidence beyond "grumpy objections" to a sci-fi vibe.
You'd also have to ignore the PR benefits, which certainly corresponds to more money down the line.
Wonder if reliability of virtualized controls surpasses the one of dedicated hardware though.
I suspect one of the reasons Apollo computers were all built with just one type of logical chip is the ability to replace faulty parts - one just need a single type of replacement. If for some reason touchscreen malfunctions, what options are left for the crew?
First, the spacecraft is I believe fully automated. While there is the ability to pilot the craft manually using onboard controls, my understanding is that is already considered a backup or unusual scenario.
As far as the touchscreens themselves, my understanding is there are four touchscreens total, and each can represent / control every aspect of the vehicle. So if a single touchscreen fails, the other 3 provide redundant access to necessary controls.
Finally, the dragon capsule does have manual (non-touchscreen) joystick controls for the critical flight controls.
So these systems have enough redundancy that a touchscreen failure should absolutely not jeopardize the flight.
Joysticks are better, though some convenient indication is also required (the "screen" part, not the "touch" part). I'm sure the designers saw questions like that; I'm just curious about details.
The Apollo Guidance Computer was built with two types of chips: a 3-input NOR gate and a core memory sense amplifier. The reason to use just one logic chip was because ICs were very new at the time and there was very little reliability information. By standardizing on a small number of components, they could procure enough to determine and maintain quality. (See Journey to the Moon chapter 12.)
Switches can certainly fail, with potentially dire consequences (see the Apollo 14 abort switch failure). I would assume the number of failure modes for touch-based interface hardware are vastly more.
Touch controls are, no doubt, easily reconfigurable, which is probably great for profit margins. The idea of the human spaceflight industry applying "cost down" mentality to crew vehicles scares the heck out of me (and I'm not even flying in them). (I'm thinking about the Boeing MCAS mentality, but for spacecraft...)
I think the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo cool was that the hardware was completely lacking in design: it was as practical as a carburetor and as stylish. And that's why we liked them.