MOCR telemetry screens
Peter Smith
screen displays. I realise there's a lot of detail which would help
enormously:
E.G.
Screen refresh rate (2, 1, 0.5, 0.1 seconds?)
Horisontal and vertical caharacter size (40x80?)
Actual parameters monitored (eg for Ecom or Booster)
Stability of displayed info
Common display 'glitches' which occur with transient LOS
- Im sure some people here will have a few hints.
I am using Qbasic which gives a nice white-on black display of
non-proportional characters and is fairly straightforward to program the
variable numerical readouts.
So, why am I doing this?
I went to see David Sander on the weekend and was very impressed with
the progress of MCS so far. Most of the out-door and orbital CG is
nearing completion and the quality and attention to detail and acuracy
is highly impressive.
The MOCR scenes are yet to be filmed, but plans are well advanced. I
offered to have a go at developing some telemetry screen readouts, but
now I want to get that as true to the authentic article as possible,
rather than just have a screen of columns of variable random numbers
(the cheater's way out!) Given what I have seen of MCS so far a
realistic screen will fit nicely with the rest of the work.
Anyway, if you have any clues please post them. All I know so far is
what I have glimpsed in the Apollo-13 movie. TIA.
- Peter
Joe Durnavich
>I have been trying to simulate some Gemini/Apollo era MOCR telemetry
>screen displays. I realise there's a lot of detail which would help
>enormously:
>E.G.
>Screen refresh rate (2, 1, 0.5, 0.1 seconds?)
>Horisontal and vertical caharacter size (40x80?)
>Actual parameters monitored (eg for Ecom or Booster)
>Stability of displayed info
>Common display 'glitches' which occur with transient LOS
> - Im sure some people here will have a few hints.
>
>I am using Qbasic which gives a nice white-on black display of
>non-proportional characters and is fairly straightforward to program the
>variable numerical readouts.
The MOCR displays look like vector displays meaning they draw the
characters and graphics with lines rather than with dots as with the
more common raster display.
--
Joe Durnavich
James Summers
wrote:
Gemini and early Apollo used charactron (sp?) tubes to generate the
displays. These shot the electron beam through a mask with the
letters/numbers punched in it, then reaimed the resultant formed
character to the proper place on the screen. The fixed information
was supplied by a "background slide" which was optically merged with
the dynamic data. This was then focused on a TV camera.
-----------------------
James Summers
IBM-ret, "old space guy".
Apollo 201, 202, 203, 204, 1, & 9 Support. Apollo 13 "back room".
James Summers
<psm...@SpamBlock.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>I have been trying to simulate some Gemini/Apollo era MOCR telemetry
>screen displays. I realise there's a lot of detail which would help
>enormously:
>E.G.
>Screen refresh rate (2, 1, 0.5, 0.1 seconds?)
I'm trying to remember the telemetry refresh rate, but can't. The
trajectory data was: Launch & orbit maneuvers - .5 second, on orbit -
12 seconds, reentry - 6 seconds.
>Horisontal and vertical caharacter size (40x80?)
These were variable. The character was was variable and each
character could be place just about anywhere on the screen.
Peter Smith
> Joe Durnavich <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >The MOCR displays look like vector displays meaning they
> >draw the characters and graphics with lines rather than
> >with dots as with the more common raster display.
> >
> generate the displays. These shot the electron beam
> through a mask with the letters/numbers punched in it,
> then reaimed the resultant formed character to the proper
> place on the screen. The fixed information was supplied
> by a "background slide" which was optically merged with
> the dynamic data. This was then focused on a TV camera.
I think that would be beyond me to program the display to simulate a
vector or charactron display.
Fortunately, MCS is the von Braun vision from the early 50's of space
development by the mid 60's. As the detail of video display technology
is not a part of this vision, I will assume that raster display
technology is available. :) I hope that doesn't raise serious
objections.
What I really need is plausible data to display. Say for example the
Booster screen. (Or other screens if you have info?)
The MCS/Colliers rocket used a first stage of 51 engine chambers which
are possibly in clusters of three. Four of these clusters are verniers.
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/surfacesrendered/SaturnSchem1.html
So for each chamber or cluster I imagine there would be telemetry for
temperature,
fuel rate,
gimbal angle of verniers,
stage separation pyros,
ullage burns,
Anything else? Am I way off track? TIA.
- Peter
Julian Bordas
I say yes to sensors for each chamber etc. etc. I could imagine the
MOCR would display NON NOMINAL data to several screens on a rotating
basis. other wise having a screen for each chamber would be an over
kill
I could be wrong but !
--
Julian Bordas.
I do not live in Zambezi. :-)
Peter Stickney
How's this for a quick human factors thing:
With so many motors to keep track of, tabular displays are right out.
The main display is a set of "Idiot Lights", each one representing a
motor/chamber (I'm not getting into that one!) or cluster of same.
There's an auxiliary display, as well. When the controller wants
details on a particular motor/cluster he used a light gun to select
the area of interest. The detailed display could either be tabular,
or some set of bar graphs with the limits picked out.
It should look good, and should be self-explanatory enough to allow
the audience to know what's going on.
This technology certainly existed at the time. I'm modelling the
ideas on the displays and computers used for the SAGE Air Defence
System. All it could have taken was some thought and keeping the IBM
FSQ-7 line open a bit longer.
Oh, and if you need instrument panel stuff for the Orbiter, might I
suggest looking at the cockpit layout of the COnvair F-106. It was
pretty much the same setup as was used on the X-15 and Lockheed
Blackbirds.
--
Pete Stickney Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.
OM
Stickney) wrote:
>Oh, and if you need instrument panel stuff for the Orbiter, might I
>suggest looking at the cockpit layout of the COnvair F-106. It was
>pretty much the same setup as was used on the X-15 and Lockheed
>Blackbirds.
...Are you serious? The declassified shots I've seen of the OXCART
line of cockpits show a cacauphony of switches and analog guages that
has almost -zero- a degree of intuitive layout. I really, truly, hope
that at least some evidence of ergonomics go into this hypothetical
layout.
` OM
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
James Summers
Stickney) wrote:
<snip>
>How's this for a quick human factors thing:
>With so many motors to keep track of, tabular displays are right out.
>The main display is a set of "Idiot Lights", each one representing a
>motor/chamber (I'm not getting into that one!) or cluster of same.
>There's an auxiliary display, as well. When the controller wants
>details on a particular motor/cluster he used a light gun to select
>the area of interest. The detailed display could either be tabular,
>or some set of bar graphs with the limits picked out.
>It should look good, and should be self-explanatory enough to allow
>the audience to know what's going on.
>
>This technology certainly existed at the time. I'm modelling the
>ideas on the displays and computers used for the SAGE Air Defence
>System. All it could have taken was some thought and keeping the IBM
>FSQ-7 line open a bit longer.
Light pens/guns were not used by NASA in the MOCR in those days.
The controllers had panels of pushbuttons (SMEKs - System Manual Entry
Keys ?????) which they used to select what displays were shown on
their screens. The actual entry of data into the ground computers was
done via ASR-33 teletypes and was done by the "computer controllers".
David Sander
>
> Oh, and if you need instrument panel stuff for the Orbiter, might I
> suggest looking at the cockpit layout of the COnvair F-106. It was
> pretty much the same setup as was used on the X-15 and Lockheed
> Blackbirds.
In the "Man Conquers Space" timeline, the orbiters are flying from
1959 onwards, though they receive constant upgrades throughout their
lifespan. The flight deck design (which is already complete) has
elements from Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, plus one instrument that is
derived from one depicted in the Disney "Man in Space" program.
It's going to be a little weird seeing an Apollo-style DSKY (computer
pad and display), Flight Director Attitude Indicator (8-ball) and EMS
(Entry Monitor System) in a cockpit with a glasshouse canopy and
older-style control stick.
David
Peter Stickney
Yes, I understand that, but the MOCR guys in teh real world didn't have to
deal with the, uhm, what was it, 51 motors on the first stage.
If we're bending history to that extent, should we not just bend it a
bit further? How do you get the data you need, but keep the system
simple enough that a human controller can monitor and react promptly
enough?
The technology was there, and available. The effort wasn't required
for the real thing, certainly.
But it would make some neat pictures.
Peter Stickney
OM <om@RE_MOVE_THIS.ccsi.com> writes:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:27:37 GMT, p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
>>Oh, and if you need instrument panel stuff for the Orbiter, might I
>>suggest looking at the cockpit layout of the COnvair F-106. It was
>>pretty much the same setup as was used on the X-15 and Lockheed
>>Blackbirds.
>
> line of cockpits show a cacauphony of switches and analog guages that
> has almost -zero- a degree of intuitive layout. I really, truly, hope
> that at least some evidence of ergonomics go into this hypothetical
> layout.
The Oxcarts weren't so bad... Try a Brit jet, like a Hunter, sometime!
Take a look at an F-106's tape-type instrument panel. (Not the way
early "round eye"/"steam gage" models. The Radar display is at center
top, the Attitude Indicator ball below, the Horizontal situation
display (Nav indicator) below that, and the moving map display
at the bottom. Flight info (Airspeed, Mach, altitude and climb) are on
moving vertical tape (Think digital, but with a bit better feel)
displays flanking the attitude indicator. System controls & backup
instuments on the left, and engineinstruments and the caution panel on
the right. A similar design was bandied about for the X-20.
Lockheed always did have a problem with cockpit ergonomics. I think
the only one they got right was teh F-104A.
David Sander
>
> Take a look at an F-106's tape-type instrument panel. (Not the way
> early "round eye"/"steam gage" models. The Radar display is at center
> top, the Attitude Indicator ball below, the Horizontal situation
> display (Nav indicator) below that, and the moving map display
> at the bottom. Flight info (Airspeed, Mach, altitude and climb) are on
> moving vertical tape (Think digital, but with a bit better feel)
> displays flanking the attitude indicator. System controls & backup
> instuments on the left, and engineinstruments and the caution panel on
> the right. A similar design was bandied about for the X-20.
Just found a pic from a website
http://www.aerofiles.com/f106-cockpit.jpg
The vertical tape thingies are something I've not seen before (I'm
more familiar with spacecraft flight decks than aircraft flight decks
:-P ). How did this design compare to more "conventional" types as far
as pilots were concerned?
The reason why I ask is, though I'm fairly close to finalizing the
final layout of the "Man Conquers Space" orbiter's flight deck, my
inexperience with certain details regarding layout may end up having
some instrumentation where it might not belong - something I don't
want to have happen, as I'm keen to have anyone who's even remotely
familiar with aircraft/spacecraft look at this thing and go: "Oooh
yeah!". I'm sticking closely to the Apollo flight deck layout on the
CDR's side, as if it were designed for only one crewmember's access
and not three's (since there's only the one CDR/pilot). The
instrumentation ordinarily handled by the CMP and LMP (during ascent)
on Apollo is mostly elsewhere in the cabin of the orbiter, though
status lights for the power buses are present on the flight deck too
(in Apollo these are situated above the middle couch). If it's just a
case of ergonomics, then I may very well just play around with some of
the more peripheral stuff, keeping the 8-ball Attitude Indicator and
EMS fairly central.
Here's a doozy though: on the Apollo CM flight deck, to the right of
the left-hand couch (CDR on ascent), there are 5 lamp-lit circles
indicating the firing of the 5 engines of first the first and then the
second stages of the Saturn V rocket. A failure of any engine during
firing is indicated by the flashing and extinguishing of a
corresponding lamp. This enables the CDR to see which engine is
playing up, and with the help of mission control make a decision on
whether to abort, make adjustments, or whatever other contingency is
decided or required at that point in the ascent mode.
The giant rocket being depicted in "Man Conquers Space" has *51*
engines in its first stage, 12 of which are outboard verniers (4 banks
of 3). Would it be practical or not to dedicate a section of the
flight deck to a similar display to that of Apollo - but with 51 small
lamps for first stage, 34 for the second stage, and 5 for third stage/OMS.
The thing is that with the failure of *one* outboard on a Saturn V,
the IU would make the entire stack make serious levels of adjustment -
especially in the early stages of ascent - something the CDR with his
hand on the abort command would *really* want to know about. With 51
engines on the MCS rocket, if any one engine failed, it would
certainly be nowhere near as drastic. Would the CDR Pilot of the MCS
rocket really need to know about one chamber failure, even if it was
an outboard vernier (when there's another two on the same bank) by
instrumentation being as specific as that, or would it be better to
leave that sort of information to the "Booster" consoles back at
mission control so that any adjustments FIDO feels need to be made can
be relayed (or even telemetered) back up? Even for the second stage,
there's still 34 engines (12 verniers in 4 banks of 3) to deal with.
So, if the answer is: it would be better leaving the MCC to deal with
it, what - if any - instrumentation would the CDR/Pilot be left with
to indicate the engines are firing properly at all? Just a G-meter?
Something else?
David
Derek Lyons
>In the "Man Conquers Space" timeline, the orbiters are flying from
>1959 onwards, though they receive constant upgrades throughout their
>lifespan. The flight deck design (which is already complete) has
>elements from Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, plus one instrument that is
>derived from one depicted in the Disney "Man in Space" program.
I'd bet that the upgrades would be done in 'batches' and only every
3-5 years. (Training and maintenance issues.)
>It's going to be a little weird seeing an Apollo-style DSKY (computer
>pad and display), Flight Director Attitude Indicator (8-ball) and EMS
>(Entry Monitor System) in a cockpit with a glasshouse canopy and
>older-style control stick.
Which era cockpit is this then?
D.
------------------------------
Proprietor, Interim Books http://www.interimbooks.com
USS Henry L. Stimson homepage http://www.interimbooks.com/derek/655/
Derek on Books http://www.interimbooks.com/derek/books/
------------------------------
David Sander
>
> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >In the "Man Conquers Space" timeline, the orbiters are flying from
> >1959 onwards, though they receive constant upgrades throughout their
> >lifespan. The flight deck design (which is already complete) has
> >elements from Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, plus one instrument that is
> >derived from one depicted in the Disney "Man in Space" program.
>
> I'd bet that the upgrades would be done in 'batches' and only every
> 3-5 years. (Training and maintenance issues.)
Yup
> >It's going to be a little weird seeing an Apollo-style DSKY (computer
> >pad and display), Flight Director Attitude Indicator (8-ball) and EMS
> >(Entry Monitor System) in a cockpit with a glasshouse canopy and
> >older-style control stick.
>
> Which era cockpit is this then?
MCS is dated 1969, so the cockpit would be late 1960s (when I say
"older-style control stick", I mean older-style from today's point of
view - it will not be the control stick of Apollo or even shuttle - it
will be that of many military aircraft from the 60s (wheel and column)).
David
OM
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>It's going to be a little weird seeing an Apollo-style DSKY (computer
>pad and display), Flight Director Attitude Indicator (8-ball) and EMS
>(Entry Monitor System) in a cockpit with a glasshouse canopy and
>older-style control stick.
...And considering the German origins of the project, a relief tube
from a ME-109 :-)
David Sander
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 01:20:24 GMT, David Sander
> <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >It's going to be a little weird seeing an Apollo-style DSKY (computer
> >pad and display), Flight Director Attitude Indicator (8-ball) and EMS
> >(Entry Monitor System) in a cockpit with a glasshouse canopy and
> >older-style control stick.
>
> ...And considering the German origins of the project, a relief tube
> from a ME-109 :-)
I didn't know they had relief tubes - I would have thought staring
down the barrel of a Spitfire or a Hurricane a "relief trap door"
might have been more appropriate :-P
David
OM
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>OM wrote:
>> ...And considering the German origins of the project, a relief tube
>> from a ME-109 :-)
>
>I didn't know they had relief tubes - I would have thought staring
>down the barrel of a Spitfire or a Hurricane a "relief trap door"
>might have been more appropriate :-P
...My pop used to build balsa planes in his youth, and always added
relief tubes to every plane he made at the insistance of a local who
was an AAC pilot. He claimed that all fighters had relief tubes, but
AFAIK that could have been jock banter.
Henry Spencer
David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>The giant rocket being depicted in "Man Conquers Space" has *51*
>engines in its first stage, 12 of which are outboard verniers (4 banks
>of 3). Would it be practical or not to dedicate a section of the
>flight deck to a similar display to that of Apollo - but with 51 small
>lamps for first stage, 34 for the second stage, and 5 for third stage/OMS.
You'd certainly need to make the lamps smaller, but I'd think it would be
practical.
>With 51 engines on the MCS rocket, if any one engine failed, it would
>certainly be nowhere near as drastic. Would the CDR Pilot of the MCS
>rocket really need to know about one chamber failure...
He might not care a whole lot about it, but he'd want to know. And if
*multiple* chambers were out, he would most urgently want to know whether
there was a pattern to the failures, so he could diagnose the problem. A
51-lights display, although a little physically awkward, does sound like
the right way to do it.
>...or would it be better to
>leave that sort of information to the "Booster" consoles back at
>mission control so that any adjustments FIDO feels need to be made can
>be relayed (or even telemetered) back up?
Careful here. In the MCS world, routinely-operating spaceships might be
rather less dependent on a large control room on the ground... if only
because manning that control room is expensive, and there might be more
than one ship flying at a time. I'd expect more emphasis on making data
available to the pilot directly, as is normal on aircraft, and less on
having large control-room crews routinely involved in every flight.
(Also, the ground facilities might be called "Flight Support" rather
than "Mission Control". Again, think aircraft: the pilot is in control.)
--
When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
OM
wrote:
>In article <3AEE29EA...@bigpond.net.au>,
>David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>The giant rocket being depicted in "Man Conquers Space" has *51*
>>engines in its first stage, 12 of which are outboard verniers (4 banks
>>of 3). Would it be practical or not to dedicate a section of the
>>flight deck to a similar display to that of Apollo - but with 51 small
>>lamps for first stage, 34 for the second stage, and 5 for third stage/OMS.
...I might also suggest that instead of positioning the idiot lights
in the same arrangement as their placement on the stages, you simply
have them arranged in rows and separated by stages. Remember, this
ship comes from the 50's, where ergonomics was as virgin a territory
as rock & roll.
>You'd certainly need to make the lamps smaller, but I'd think it would be
>practical.
...David, have optical fibers been introduced in your ATL, or are they
still a secret that Bell labs hasn't yet released from their study of
the Roswell UFOs?
>(Also, the ground facilities might be called "Flight Support" rather
>than "Mission Control". Again, think aircraft: the pilot is in control.)
"...Calling Baronka....calling Baronka....moon dust is forming on the
wings...over..."
Ben Hallert
engine, that each lamp illuminates a digit? If you choose to create this as a
practical effect, you need only print the number layout on a transparency (if
you run it through a printer a few times you can print a bunch of opaque black
layers wherever the numbers are not supposed to be and have a single coat of
white for the digits themselves). Doing it this way also lets you use just a
couple of light sources to simulate a full green display, and you can use an
orange or red LED in a little cardboard cone to simulate 3-4 engine outs
without needing to provide over 50 dedicated lamps, each in a shielded
compartment.
On the subject of aerodynamics, we all know that the pointy shape of the WvB
shuttle would have melted on re-entry. I have a suggestion for fixing this
without altering the look of the shuttle: Add a deployable aerospike segment
from the nose, just like this one used on the Trident II missile:
http://www.fortunepaint.com/photo_library/trident_lineart_low.jpg
The aerospike is a simple device that creates a shockwave through which your
craft passes and absorbs the brunt of the heating (instead of your hull). You
can use an aerospike like this to simulate a blunt nosed re-entry vehicle
without actually having one, making the WvB shuttle adhere to re-entry physics
without changing that oh so pretty pointy-ness.
Justin Wigg
news:vpptet4rtgkfmsfim...@4ax.com...
> ...My pop used to build balsa planes in his youth, and always added
> relief tubes to every plane he made at the insistance of a local who
> was an AAC pilot. He claimed that all fighters had relief tubes, but
> AFAIK that could have been jock banter.
As the Bf-109 only had a range of around 700km (425mi) with even the later
G-10 and K models, I would think that as long as you remembered "to go"
before you left, you'd be able to make it through the flight without soiling
yourself.
However, if there was a P-51D or Spitfire Mk. IX bearing down on you with
guns blazing, it might not matter if you went before you left or not... :-)
--
He who laughs last... | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
...thinks slowest. | Reply: justi...@yahoo.com
David Sander
>
> In article <3AEE29EA...@bigpond.net.au>,
> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >The giant rocket being depicted in "Man Conquers Space" has *51* engines
> >in its first stage, 12 of which are outboard verniers (4 banks of 3).
> >Would it be practical or not to dedicate a section of the flight deck
> >to a similar display to that of Apollo - but with 51 small lamps for
> >first stage, 34 for the second stage, and 5 for third stage/OMS.
>
> You'd certainly need to make the lamps smaller, but I'd think it would be
> practical.
I've been thinking the same.
> >With 51 engines on the MCS rocket, if any one engine failed, it would
> >certainly be nowhere near as drastic. Would the CDR Pilot of the MCS
> >rocket really need to know about one chamber failure...
>
> He might not care a whole lot about it, but he'd want to know. And if
> *multiple* chambers were out, he would most urgently want to know whether
> there was a pattern to the failures, so he could diagnose the problem. A
> 51-lights display, although a little physically awkward, does sound like
> the right way to do it.
OK
> >...or would it be better to
> >leave that sort of information to the "Booster" consoles back at
> >mission control so that any adjustments FIDO feels need to be made can
> >be relayed (or even telemetered) back up?
>
> Careful here. In the MCS world, routinely-operating spaceships might be
> rather less dependent on a large control room on the ground... if only
> because manning that control room is expensive, and there might be more
> than one ship flying at a time. I'd expect more emphasis on making data
> available to the pilot directly, as is normal on aircraft, and less on
> having large control-room crews routinely involved in every flight.
>
> (Also, the ground facilities might be called "Flight Support" rather
> than "Mission Control". Again, think aircraft: the pilot is in
> control.)
Which goes a little way to justifying my idea that the MCC should be
small - like the size of the Mercury MCC. I like the idea of the CDR
having a bit more autonomy than the real astronauts actually had/have,
but I'm still having an MCC if only to monitor and guide big missions
like the lunar fleet or the Mars landing.
David
David Sander
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2001 14:54:36 GMT, he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
> wrote:
>
> ...I might also suggest that instead of positioning the idiot lights
> in the same arrangement as their placement on the stages, you simply
> have them arranged in rows and separated by stages.
It might be argued that having the layout of the engines might make
analysis of flight adjustments easier when it comes to making snap
decisions by the pilot. The thing is, the second stage layout can be
superimposed on the first stage layout and some of the lamps re-lit
after staging.
>
> Remember, this ship comes from the 50's, where ergonomics was as
> virgin a territory as rock & roll.
Partly. But also consider the interior has been made over a few times,
and MCS covers pretty much the whole 1960s. Much of the
instrumentation is Gemini/Apollo style.
On a side note: Guard-Lee, the makers of the spacecraft props for E2M
can't help me with flight deck instrumentation for MCS. They still
have their Block I CM, singed and all, but they consider a project
where I'm asking for a DSKY, ADI Ball and EMS only to be too small and
not worth their while. Poot. Looks like I'll be building all of
*that*, too :-(
> >You'd certainly need to make the lamps smaller, but I'd think it would
> >be practical.
>
> ...David, have optical fibers been introduced in your ATL, or are they
> still a secret that Bell labs hasn't yet released from their study of
> the Roswell UFOs?
I don't see why optical fibres can't feature somewhere, though I'll
stick with incandescent bulbs for this one - I know what I have to do now.
David
David Sander
>
> On the subject of aerodynamics, we all know that the pointy shape of the
> WvB shuttle would have melted on re-entry. I have a suggestion for
> fixing this without altering the look of the shuttle: Add a deployable
> aerospike segment from the nose, just like this one used on the Trident
> II missile:http://www.fortunepaint.com/photo_library/
> trident_lineart_low.jpg
> The aerospike is a simple device that creates a shockwave through which
> your craft passes and absorbs the brunt of the heating (instead of your
> hull). You can use an aerospike like this to simulate a blunt nosed
> re-entry vehicle without actually having one, making the WvB shuttle
> adhere to re-entry physics without changing that oh so pretty pointy-
> ness.
A nice idea. I'll have a deeper look into that and see if it gels with
everything else.
Thanks for the suggestion.
David
OM
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>OM wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 1 May 2001 14:54:36 GMT, he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...I might also suggest that instead of positioning the idiot lights
>> in the same arrangement as their placement on the stages, you simply
>> have them arranged in rows and separated by stages.
>
>It might be argued that having the layout of the engines might make
>analysis of flight adjustments easier when it comes to making snap
>decisions by the pilot. The thing is, the second stage layout can be
>superimposed on the first stage layout and some of the lamps re-lit
>after staging.
...Nono, I'm not argueing against the logic of such a layout, David.
What I'm pointing out is that in the time frame you're setting MCS,
such layouts weren't exactly standard because there weren't any
multiple engine configs that needed more than one or two warning
lights. By my reasoning, it's quite probable that for the first VBEs
the lights would have been arranged by rows. Depending on how many
VBE's have been built and flown prior to MCS would help determine
whether or not some pilot went "Uh, Wernher, about that display..."
>> Remember, this ship comes from the 50's, where ergonomics was as
>> virgin a territory as rock & roll.
>
>Partly. But also consider the interior has been made over a few times,
>and MCS covers pretty much the whole 1960s. Much of the
>instrumentation is Gemini/Apollo style.
...Gemini, yes, which was basically good old Century Series readouts.
Apollo was a somewhat different breed, with tape guages to allow for
more readouts in the same area.
>On a side note: Guard-Lee, the makers of the spacecraft props for E2M
>can't help me with flight deck instrumentation for MCS. They still
>have their Block I CM, singed and all, but they consider a project
>where I'm asking for a DSKY, ADI Ball and EMS only to be too small and
>not worth their while. Poot. Looks like I'll be building all of
>*that*, too :-(
...I guess I should ask the direct question here: when MCS takes
place, how many VBEs have launched, and how many Block models have
preceeded this particular one?
...Which, of course, brings us to the MCS ATL version of the A1 fire:
"...Sadly, the Von Braun Express line of rockets was innaugurated with
a tragedy. A fire during a systems checkout took the lives of the
nation's first and only astro-chimps, Bonzo, Ham and Enos. Luckily,
the capsule was redesigned for safety, and astronauts Alan Sheppard,
Gus Grissom, and Deke Slayton became the first men in space!"
>I don't see why optical fibres can't feature somewhere, though I'll
>stick with incandescent bulbs for this one - I know what I have to do now.
...Which still doesn't answer the question as to whether fibers for
lighting purposes were available in the ATL. Or at least some decent
plexi light piping.
Derek Lyons
>On a side note: Guard-Lee, the makers of the spacecraft props for E2M
>can't help me with flight deck instrumentation for MCS. They still
>have their Block I CM, singed and all, but they consider a project
>where I'm asking for a DSKY, ADI Ball and EMS only to be too small and
>not worth their while. Poot. Looks like I'll be building all of
>*that*, too :-(
Have you considered fielding out some of the construction?
Peter Stickney
David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>>
>> Take a look at an F-106's tape-type instrument panel. (Not the way
>> early "round eye"/"steam gage" models. The Radar display is at center
>> top, the Attitude Indicator ball below, the Horizontal situation
>> display (Nav indicator) below that, and the moving map display
>> at the bottom. Flight info (Airspeed, Mach, altitude and climb) are on
>> moving vertical tape (Think digital, but with a bit better feel)
>> displays flanking the attitude indicator. System controls & backup
>> instuments on the left, and engineinstruments and the caution panel on
>> the right. A similar design was bandied about for the X-20.
>
> Just found a pic from a website
> http://www.aerofiles.com/f106-cockpit.jpg
> The vertical tape thingies are something I've not seen before (I'm
> more familiar with spacecraft flight decks than aircraft flight decks
>:-P ). How did this design compare to more "conventional" types as far
> as pilots were concerned?
Every "Six" pilot I worked with liked them. (They were also used on
the F-105 and the F-12, the interceptor flavor of teh Lockheed
Blackbird.) They give precise info, much like a digital display, but
also show the trend info at a glance, like an analog. With them
flanking the Attitude Indicator (8-ball), the pilot's scan was real
simple. The Airspeed and Altitude stuff were right in his view when
he was watching the AI. Of course, things like course, pitch and roll
commands were also indicated by moving "bugs" and pointers on the SI
and HSI. It all got superceded by HUDs, a bit later. The same type
of information, but you don't have to be head down to read it.
>
> The reason why I ask is, though I'm fairly close to finalizing the
> final layout of the "Man Conquers Space" orbiter's flight deck, my
> inexperience with certain details regarding layout may end up having
> some instrumentation where it might not belong - something I don't
> want to have happen, as I'm keen to have anyone who's even remotely
> familiar with aircraft/spacecraft look at this thing and go: "Oooh
> yeah!". I'm sticking closely to the Apollo flight deck layout on the
> CDR's side, as if it were designed for only one crewmember's access
> and not three's (since there's only the one CDR/pilot). The
> instrumentation ordinarily handled by the CMP and LMP (during ascent)
> on Apollo is mostly elsewhere in the cabin of the orbiter, though
> status lights for the power buses are present on the flight deck too
> (in Apollo these are situated above the middle couch). If it's just a
> case of ergonomics, then I may very well just play around with some of
> the more peripheral stuff, keeping the 8-ball Attitude Indicator and
> EMS fairly central.
Well, the Apollo layout's pretty O.K., but a von Braun Shuttle is as
much an airplane as anything else. Aerodynamic flight would dominate
the Pilot's panel. Most of the instrumentation would be able to
double anyway. I've got a picture hre of the X-20 (Dyna-Soar) mockup
panel. The main instrument is an ADI (Attitude/Direction Indicator)
8-ball, flanked by vertical tapes for speed & altitude, and with a
horizontal tape for direction. There was an EMS display below that.
I still like the idea of a Moving Map display, though. It would come
in handy diring an abort or away from home landing.
If you like, I'll try to scare up a scanner and send some pics &
diagrams. (Mine's kinda dead, right now) It wouldn't be too hard to
thrash it out, I'm sure.
Oh, yeah, my creaky old copy of _Across the Space Frontier_
shows two guys up under the canopy. The Guy In Back could be the
Flight Engineer, as well as the Copilot. More systems
monitoring/control stuff, and less outside view.
As a bit of a digression,
Thumbing through a bit more, WvB gives a landing speed if 65 mph (56
kts/102 KPH) That thing would be a real floater on landing! with
typical brakes, the landing rollout would be about 1500 feet, once it
touched down. Even the Lockheed Constellation landed at about 80
mph, with a landing didtance over a 50 ft obstacle of 2400 ft.
You could put that thing down in any cow pasture. (Empty, of course.)
A smaller wing would have probably been a good idea. Landing speeds
of 100 kts (115 mph/185 KPH) were quite acceptable for heavy airliners
or bomber types in the early '50s, with the ability to use a 3,000 ft
runway.
Don't change a thing, though. I kind of like the idea of an Orbiter
turning final behind a Piper Cub.
<Snip - so many rocket motors, so little panel space >
> So, if the answer is: it would be better leaving the MCC to deal with
> it, what - if any - instrumentation would the CDR/Pilot be left with
> to indicate the engines are firing properly at all? Just a G-meter?
> Something else?
I think the light matrix is a good idea, you just need more of them!
What would be very important would be not so much the failure of a
single engine, in this case, but failure patterns. You know:
Did an Engine quit? Did a Bank of Engines quit? Is it one of the
gimballed banks? Is there a failure in a Pump Bay, or is there a fire
where it shouldn't be? Are any of the gimballed banks reaching their
limits?
Coded lights would give it all at a glance. I'd vote for them.
You would only need one matrix, since you're only firing one stage at
a time.
Peter Stickney
OM <om@RE_MOVE_THIS.ccsi.com> writes:
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 08:48:53 GMT, David Sander
> <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>OM wrote:
> relief tubes to every plane he made at the insistance of a local who
> was an AAC pilot. He claimed that all fighters had relief tubes, but
> AFAIK that could have been jock banter.
No, they certainly do - but consider that the temperature at 30,ooo ft
is going to be down around -55 (F or C, it doesn't matter) As soon as
you use the tube, it'll freeze, and the stuff ends up on the floor.
(I've seen -55, back home in the Mts. The really hard part is
chipping the dog off the fire hydrant) The tubes on jets have a
little pressure lock thingie. Nowadays they use piddle packs -
plastic containers with an almost absorbent filling.
Given some of the legendary Lancet airticlea abot Vacuum Cleaners &
embarrasing injuries, I don't even eant to _think_ about thinking
about the ramifications of a releif tube on a spaceship.
"One copy of the Saturn Shuttle Relief Tube is My Thing, Baby!", by
Austin Powers, now on eBay.
David Sander
>
> In article <3AEE29EA...@bigpond.net.au>,
> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>
> > How did this design compare to more "conventional" types as far
> > as pilots were concerned?
>
> Every "Six" pilot I worked with liked them. (They were also used on
> the F-105 and the F-12, the interceptor flavor of teh Lockheed
> Blackbird.) They give precise info, much like a digital display, but
> also show the trend info at a glance, like an analog. With them
> flanking the Attitude Indicator (8-ball), the pilot's scan was real
> simple. The Airspeed and Altitude stuff were right in his view when
> he was watching the AI. Of course, things like course, pitch and roll
> commands were also indicated by moving "bugs" and pointers on the SI
> and HSI. It all got superceded by HUDs, a bit later. The same type
> of information, but you don't have to be head down to read it.
Is it conceivable that a HUD like the current shuttle has for the
pilot on approach and landing could have been used in this era?
> Well, the Apollo layout's pretty O.K., but a von Braun Shuttle is as
> much an airplane as anything else. Aerodynamic flight would dominate
> the Pilot's panel. Most of the instrumentation would be able to
> double anyway. I've got a picture hre of the X-20 (Dyna-Soar) mockup
> panel. The main instrument is an ADI (Attitude/Direction Indicator)
> 8-ball, flanked by vertical tapes for speed & altitude, and with a
> horizontal tape for direction. There was an EMS display below that.
> I still like the idea of a Moving Map display, though. It would come
> in handy diring an abort or away from home landing.
>
> If you like, I'll try to scare up a scanner and send some pics &
> diagrams. (Mine's kinda dead, right now) It wouldn't be too hard to
> thrash it out, I'm sure.
Ooh yes please!
Unless someone has any online references they can recommend...
> Oh, yeah, my creaky old copy of _Across the Space Frontier_
> shows two guys up under the canopy. The Guy In Back could be the
> Flight Engineer, as well as the Copilot. More systems
> monitoring/control stuff, and less outside view.
The original "Block I" had a giant glasshouse canopy, mainly for Earth
obs. The guy right behind the pilot is the navigator, with data
acquisition/communications and systems engineer further behind the
navigator, and then the passengers down below.
> As a bit of a digression,
> Thumbing through a bit more, WvB gives a landing speed if 65 mph (56
> kts/102 KPH) That thing would be a real floater on landing! with
> typical brakes, the landing rollout would be about 1500 feet, once it
> touched down. Even the Lockheed Constellation landed at about 80
> mph, with a landing didtance over a 50 ft obstacle of 2400 ft.
> You could put that thing down in any cow pasture. (Empty, of course.)
> A smaller wing would have probably been a good idea. Landing speeds
> of 100 kts (115 mph/185 KPH) were quite acceptable for heavy airliners
> or bomber types in the early '50s, with the ability to use a 3,000 ft
> runway.
> Don't change a thing, though. I kind of like the idea of an Orbiter
> turning final behind a Piper Cub.
My landing sequence at the moment doesn't have the orbiter's
trajectory flaring out enough. I was thinking of using the space
shuttle's landing profile, since I reckon this thing's aerodynamic
properties are on par with the STS (i.e. similar to a pair of pliers
... "sinks like a brick" etc). Any ideas on where any trajectory data
(ideally an altitude vs time graph) might be available?
> <Snip - so many rocket motors, so little panel space >
> > So, if the answer is: it would be better leaving the MCC to deal with
> > it, what - if any - instrumentation would the CDR/Pilot be left with
> > to indicate the engines are firing properly at all? Just a G-meter?
> > Something else?
>
> I think the light matrix is a good idea, you just need more of them!
> What would be very important would be not so much the failure of a
> single engine, in this case, but failure patterns. You know:
> Did an Engine quit? Did a Bank of Engines quit? Is it one of the
> gimballed banks? Is there a failure in a Pump Bay, or is there a fire
> where it shouldn't be? Are any of the gimballed banks reaching their
> limits?
> Coded lights would give it all at a glance. I'd vote for them.
> You would only need one matrix, since you're only firing one stage at
> a time.
Yup - I've pretty much decided that's the way to go.
David
Doug...
news:091oc9...@Mineshaft.att.net...
>
> (snip)
>
> Given some of the legendary Lancet airticlea abot Vacuum Cleaners &
> embarrasing injuries, I don't even eant to _think_ about thinking
> about the ramifications of a releif tube on a spaceship.
Well, um, actually, on Apollo, while you could just piss in a bag and then
dump the bag overboard, you could also insert your penis into a condom-like
device attached to a relief tube with a valve in it, open the valve to space
(not necessarily fully, but enough for a significant pressure differential),
and just let go. In fact, since you didn't want the condom to pop off
because of fluid backpressure, you would open the valve a crack just before
you'd insert the penis, an get a little flow going into the suction of the
device before actually getting the thing all the way on. The end of the
tube was ringed with electric heaters to keep it from freezing up as the
urine flew out into space. (Dumping a urine bag was similar, except they
hooked the bag and not themselves to the device.)
This was discussed in sometimes painful detail in some of the Apollo
debriefings. I was rather amused that the Apollo 14 crew didn't just call
it the urine transfer device or whatever it was actually called. They
called it Myrtle.
Doug
David Sander
>
> On Wed, 02 May 2001 00:09:11 GMT, David Sander
> <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >OM wrote:
> >>
> >> Remember, this ship comes from the 50's, where ergonomics was as
> >> virgin a territory as rock & roll.
> >
> >Partly. But also consider the interior has been made over a few times,
> >and MCS covers pretty much the whole 1960s. Much of the
> >instrumentation is Gemini/Apollo style.
>
> ...Gemini, yes, which was basically good old Century Series readouts.
> Apollo was a somewhat different breed, with tape guages to allow for
> more readouts in the same area.
Yup - but the Apollo CM was mature technology by late 1967 - the MCS
orbiter is mature by 1962.
> >On a side note: Guard-Lee, the makers of the spacecraft props for E2M
> >can't help me with flight deck instrumentation for MCS. They still
> >have their Block I CM, singed and all, but they consider a project
> >where I'm asking for a DSKY, ADI Ball and EMS only to be too small and
> >not worth their while. Poot. Looks like I'll be building all of
> >*that*, too :-(
>
> ...I guess I should ask the direct question here: when MCS takes
> place, how many VBEs have launched, and how many Block models have
> preceeded this particular one?
The version that takes the crew up for the first lunar landings (1963)
is STS-11 and 12, which uses a Block II. the system used for the Mars
crews and supplies (1968) is STS-132, 133, 133A and 135, flying on
Block IIIs.
> ...Which, of course, brings us to the MCS ATL version of the A1 fire:
>
> "...Sadly, the Von Braun Express line of rockets was innaugurated with
> a tragedy. A fire during a systems checkout took the lives of the
> nation's first and only astro-chimps, Bonzo, Ham and Enos. Luckily,
> the capsule was redesigned for safety, and astronauts Alan Sheppard,
> Gus Grissom, and Deke Slayton became the first men in space!"
Actually, the first craft up is the Baby Space Station, occupied by
three rhesus monkeys. One is strapped in to a chair with all sorts of
monitoring equipment placed on and in its body. The other two are free
to move around the cabin, and all three are monitored on TV. Their
reactions to space are measured, as is the outside environment. The
Baby space station is essentially wired up the gazoo inside and out.
After the craft's lifespan (about a week, IIRC), the monkeys are put
to sleep with a fast-acting lethal gas, and the craft is de-orbited
without a heatshield.
In as far as I wish to have a decent level of authenticity, I am
loathe to have the MCS equivalent of Apollo 1 or 51-L. I don't feel
they help the story along, especially when I feel there is enough
suspense and goshwow in both the lunar and Mars landings (and even
just rendezvous with the space station).
> >I don't see why optical fibres can't feature somewhere, though I'll
> >stick with incandescent bulbs for this one - I know what I have to do
> >now.
>
> ...Which still doesn't answer the question as to whether fibers for
> lighting purposes were available in the ATL. Or at least some decent
> plexi light piping.
I will not be using fibre optics or light piping. The only lighting
used for flight decks will be incandescent bulbs, with small
fluorescent lights used for cabin floods.
I expect the same will apply to he instrumentation used in mission control.
David
David Sander
>
> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >On a side note: Guard-Lee, the makers of the spacecraft props for E2M
> >can't help me with flight deck instrumentation for MCS. They still
> >have their Block I CM, singed and all, but they consider a project
> >where I'm asking for a DSKY, ADI Ball and EMS only to be too small and
> >not worth their while. Poot. Looks like I'll be building all of
> >*that*, too :-(
>
> Have you considered fielding out some of the construction?
I have, which is why I rang Guard-Lee - given their track record with
E2M. They consider my needs too small, unless I give them the whole
cockpit to build, which I don't believe the budget could afford (in
spite of the generous contributions made so far).
My next enquiry will be with Global Effects, since Max Ary at Kansas
Cosmosphere is too busy to talk to me, but I'm beginning to feel like
I'm wasting my time trying with these guys since I'm aiming for
comparatively little. Tom at Guard-Lee even recommended I speak to the
guys who made (make) the ADI balls for the shuttles, but I believe
such instrumentation would be beyond the humble means of the MCS
budget. As the ADI ball design is a fairly unique one for spacecraft,
I'll probably have to make my own and be done with it.
I already have one fellow making certain props for me, and I am only
able to afford what he is doing, as he doesn't want money for it. I
still have so little cash to work with, and I'm having to scrimp on
that to afford the DVD manufacturing and distribution.
I have a lot of reference materials so making stuff is not a problem.
The issue then becomes one of my running out of time, since I can't be
everywhere building everything at once.
David
OM
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >On a side note: Guard-Lee, the makers of the spacecraft props for E2M
>> >can't help me with flight deck instrumentation for MCS. They still
>> >have their Block I CM, singed and all, but they consider a project
>> >where I'm asking for a DSKY, ADI Ball and EMS only to be too small and
>> >not worth their while. Poot. Looks like I'll be building all of
>> >*that*, too :-(
>>
>> Have you considered fielding out some of the construction?
>
>I have, which is why I rang Guard-Lee - given their track record with
>E2M. They consider my needs too small, unless I give them the whole
>cockpit to build, which I don't believe the budget could afford (in
>spite of the generous contributions made so far).
...While I understand the desire for accuracy, you may need to resort
to cannibalizing, modifying, and otherwise doing a bit of Romulan
engineering to get something that looks approximately the same, but at
least looks good. Remember, you're dealing with an ATL, so there's
going to be some deviations that are acceptable.
Henry Spencer
OM <om@RE_MOVE_THIS.ccsi.com> wrote:
>...I might also suggest that instead of positioning the idiot lights
>in the same arrangement as their placement on the stages, you simply
>have them arranged in rows and separated by stages. Remember, this
>ship comes from the 50's, where ergonomics was as virgin a territory
>as rock & roll.
Ergonomics actually got its start in WW2, when people started noticing
that guys who switched back and forth between different types of aircraft
had a lot of trouble because the instruments and controls weren't
standardized. Agreed, it wasn't strongly developed in the 1950s, but it
wasn't totally absent either. Four-engined aircraft, for example,
normally had four throttles and four columns of engine instruments, with
layout matching the engines. (On the B-52, with eight engines, things
really got a bit crowded.) It wouldn't be a big leap from that to a
"mimic display" for the engine layout.
For extra points, make it the Mother Of All Radio-Button Systems: the
lights are also pushbuttons, and when you push the button for an engine,
that engine is connected to a single set of dials and controls. You'd
need something like a flashing light to alert you to engine abnormalities,
but this way you could investigate such a warning without needing one
panel per engine.
OM
wrote:
>For extra points, make it the Mother Of All Radio-Button Systems: the
>lights are also pushbuttons, and when you push the button for an engine,
>that engine is connected to a single set of dials and controls. You'd
>need something like a flashing light to alert you to engine abnormalities,
>but this way you could investigate such a warning without needing one
>panel per engine.
"...Well, we'd have avoided the abort, but the pully string on the
engine selector dial broke, and..."
Henry Spencer
David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> ...It all got superceded by HUDs, a bit later. The same type
>> of information, but you don't have to be head down to read it.
>
>Is it conceivable that a HUD like the current shuttle has for the
>pilot on approach and landing could have been used in this era?
HUDs evolved out of reflector gunsights, which go back rather farther...
I'm not sure just when the first HUDs appeared. My gut feeling is that
it's barely plausible but pushing it.
>My landing sequence at the moment doesn't have the orbiter's
>trajectory flaring out enough. I was thinking of using the space
>shuttle's landing profile, since I reckon this thing's aerodynamic
>properties are on par with the STS (i.e. similar to a pair of pliers
>... "sinks like a brick" etc)...
It ought to be considerably better, given the long nearly-straight wings.
You'd have to really work at it to make it glide as poorly as the shuttle
orbiter. And without the prior experience of things like the X-15, that
would probably have been considered too dangerous.
Derek Lyons
>For extra points, make it the Mother Of All Radio-Button Systems: the
>lights are also pushbuttons, and when you push the button for an engine,
>that engine is connected to a single set of dials and controls. You'd
>need something like a flashing light to alert you to engine abnormalities,
>but this way you could investigate such a warning without needing one
>panel per engine.
FWIW, the Polaris fire control system used just such a rig circa 1960,
so it's not inconcievable that an MCS era craft could have one.
Interim Books
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>Peter Stickney wrote:
>> In article <3AEE29EA...@bigpond.net.au>,
>> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>
>The original "Block I" had a giant glasshouse canopy, mainly for Earth
>obs. The guy right behind the pilot is the navigator, with data
>acquisition/communications and systems engineer further behind the
>navigator, and then the passengers down below.
>
>> > So, if the answer is: it would be better leaving the MCC to deal with
>> > it, what - if any - instrumentation would the CDR/Pilot be left with
>> > to indicate the engines are firing properly at all? Just a G-meter?
>> > Something else?
>>
>> I think the light matrix is a good idea, you just need more of them!
I think I've caught an error in concept here.... So far everyone
appears to be using the Apollo CSM a the model for the consoles.
That's a wrong path to follow. At first glance it appears correct, 3
men doing roughly the same mission... But with orders of magnitude
more console space available, and a *very different* data flow! (No
MOCR, or at least one very reduced in it's role. Crew far more
specialized.)
All the pilot needs is enough lights to answer two simple questions;
-Do I have enough thrust?
-Am I stable in attitude?
Detailed info comes vox from the Flight Engineer.
Analysing the systems flow even rescues OM's beloved map display....
It moves to the Navigators console, he programs and operates it, the
Pilot 'flies the needles' which are driven by that display.
I submit that a 707 cockpit is the one that needs to be studied.
D.
-------
Visit our search engine! http://www.interimbooks.com/pagescout/
-------
Interim Books | 322 Pacific Ave | Bremerton, WA | 98337
fair...@hurricane.net | (360) 377-4343 | http://www.interimbooks.com/
Peter Stickney
David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>>
>> In article <3AEE29EA...@bigpond.net.au>,
>> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>>
>> > How did this design compare to more "conventional" types as far
>> > as pilots were concerned?
>>
>> Every "Six" pilot I worked with liked them. (They were also used on
>> the F-105 and the F-12, the interceptor flavor of teh Lockheed
>> Blackbird.) They give precise info, much like a digital display, but
>> also show the trend info at a glance, like an analog. With them
>> flanking the Attitude Indicator (8-ball), the pilot's scan was real
>> simple. The Airspeed and Altitude stuff were right in his view when
>> he was watching the AI. Of course, things like course, pitch and roll
>> commands were also indicated by moving "bugs" and pointers on the SI
>> and HSI. It all got superceded by HUDs, a bit later. The same type
>> of information, but you don't have to be head down to read it.
>
> Is it conceivable that a HUD like the current shuttle has for the
> pilot on approach and landing could have been used in this era?
Well, not really. Although NACA did do some work on proto HUD-like
systems in the mid '50s. In a lot of way's the realiest HUDs were the
reflector gunsights on WW2 aircraft. These used collimating lenses
and tilted combining glasses to project an image of teh sight reticle
in fromt of the pilot or gunner. (The Brit Mk X1V bombsight also did
this, as well.) This was a lot easier then trying to sqint through a
ring sight, or use a telescope (The real old fashined way). Later in
the war, the reticle was made movable to allow for "Pulling lead",
target range, etc. using stadiametric ranging and gyroscopes. Late
'50s sights also presented the same information, but also in some
cases provided some attitude reference (roll, mostly). Not quite
there yet for flight path direction, I'd say. I'll see what I can put
together.
I've a selection of representative cockpit diagrams, that I'll try to
get scanned in a few days. I'll mail them down, we can try taking
them apart.
>
>> As a bit of a digression,
>> Thumbing through a bit more, WvB gives a landing speed if 65 mph (56
>> kts/102 KPH) That thing would be a real floater on landing! with
>> typical brakes, the landing rollout would be about 1500 feet, once it
>> touched down. Even the Lockheed Constellation landed at about 80
>> mph, with a landing didtance over a 50 ft obstacle of 2400 ft.
>> You could put that thing down in any cow pasture. (Empty, of course.)
>> A smaller wing would have probably been a good idea. Landing speeds
>> of 100 kts (115 mph/185 KPH) were quite acceptable for heavy airliners
>> or bomber types in the early '50s, with the ability to use a 3,000 ft
>> runway.
>> Don't change a thing, though. I kind of like the idea of an Orbiter
>> turning final behind a Piper Cub.
>
> My landing sequence at the moment doesn't have the orbiter's
> trajectory flaring out enough. I was thinking of using the space
> shuttle's landing profile, since I reckon this thing's aerodynamic
> properties are on par with the STS (i.e. similar to a pair of pliers
> .... "sinks like a brick" etc). Any ideas on where any trajectory data
> (ideally an altitude vs time graph) might be available?
Wouldn't happen, with the WvB shape you're using. That big wing makes
it behave more like a sailplane than a rock. I've a bit of free time
coming up, I'll reverse engineer the low speed aerodynamics and plug
it into one of my flight sims. If I can, I think I'll try an Abort
profile, as well. It should be fun. The SGI's just sitting around,
anyway.
Peter Stickney
Interim Books <fair...@hurricane.net> writes:
> On Wed, 02 May 2001 05:11:47 GMT, David Sander
> <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>Peter Stickney wrote:
>>> In article <3AEE29EA...@bigpond.net.au>,
>>> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>>
>>The original "Block I" had a giant glasshouse canopy, mainly for Earth
>>obs. The guy right behind the pilot is the navigator, with data
>>acquisition/communications and systems engineer further behind the
>>navigator, and then the passengers down below.
>>
>>> <Snip - so many rocket motors, so little panel space >
>>> > So, if the answer is: it would be better leaving the MCC to deal with
>>> > it, what - if any - instrumentation would the CDR/Pilot be left with
>>> > to indicate the engines are firing properly at all? Just a G-meter?
>>> > Something else?
>>>
>>> I think the light matrix is a good idea, you just need more of them!
>
> I think I've caught an error in concept here.... So far everyone
> appears to be using the Apollo CSM a the model for the consoles.
> That's a wrong path to follow. At first glance it appears correct, 3
> men doing roughly the same mission... But with orders of magnitude
> more console space available, and a *very different* data flow! (No
> MOCR, or at least one very reduced in it's role. Crew far more
> specialized.)
I agree that the main instrument concept should be "Aircraft" rather
than "Spacecraft". Most of teh instruments will work well as "dual
use" sustems - there wasn't much difference between an Apollo ADI and
a fighter's ADI, for example.
>
> All the pilot needs is enough lights to answer two simple questions;
>
> -Do I have enough thrust?
> -Am I stable in attitude?
>
> Detailed info comes vox from the Flight Engineer.
Yep. That's where the light matrix comes in - Green for O.K, Yellow
for gimbal limits, say, red for fore outside the places where fire
ought to be, and dark for not running, say. They engines aren't
throttled, so they're either developing full thrust or aren't,
basically. The light pattern will convey enough information to the
pilot to allow him to make the necessary Go/No Go decisions.
The details can be left to the FE.
>
> Analysing the systems flow even rescues OM's beloved map display....
> It moves to the Navigators console, he programs and operates it, the
> Pilot 'flies the needles' which are driven by that display.
No, leace the moving map up with the Pilot. There's no need for a
separate Navigator, and if you're aborting, it helps to know where the
mountains are, and your position in relation to the field.
The glide performance of the orbiter makes any commercial airport a
valid abort field.
>
> I submit that a 707 cockpit is the one that needs to be studied.
Interesting point, but the 707 was set up as a 3 crew bird. (Pilot,
Co-Pilot, and FE. One of the reasons for that is that teh FE slot was
used to break in new pilots.) And, in fact, it didn't have to be.
The 707 precurser, the KC-135, had a 2 crew cockpit. (Well, a separate
NAV, but he stayed in back.) That worked fine. My take is that a flight
crew of Pilot and Flight Engineer would be sufficient.
Besides, a single pilt cockpit is wasier to mock up, and Looks Cool on
screen.
One of the thing that really impressed me about _2001, A Space
Odyssey_, was the presentation of teh displays in the cockpits of the
various spacecraft. If yo were interested, you knew instantly what
was going on, qithout explanation. It also seems to be one the things
that pretty much happened in real life, that way as well. After all,
teh only Psychotic computer I _know_ of is the one at the Department
of Motor Vehicles.
OM
Summers) wrote:
>Light pens/guns were not used by NASA in the MOCR in those days.
...A note about the light pens from those days: they were available on
a few terminal designs - most from IBM, natch - as early as 1965,
which is the earliest design I've actually seen as well as used. The
problem was that the resolution for the screens was about half what
was actually used for displays in the MOCR. Ergo, they could have been
used, but there would have been a lot less room for data to be
displayed on the screen.
CIP: During my RJE and terminal room installation work on the Balcones
Research Center''s Cray X-MP-24, we had a choice as to whether or not
to use the IBM terminals with or without the light pens. With the pens
and the required buffer zone for the active zones, the terminals would
have been reduced to an effective 64 columns of usable text area. Most
of our programmers wanted 80 columns because that's what they were
used to, and "only a broke college freshman with a Trash-80 Model I
would approve of such a layout!"
Derek Lyons
>In article <c8f0fto5j93kos976...@4ax.com>,
> Interim Books <fair...@hurricane.net> writes:
>> All the pilot needs is enough lights to answer two simple questions;
>>
>> -Do I have enough thrust?
>> -Am I stable in attitude?
>>
>> Detailed info comes vox from the Flight Engineer.
>Yep. That's where the light matrix comes in - Green for O.K, Yellow
>for gimbal limits, say, red for fore outside the places where fire
>ought to be, and dark for not running, say. They engines aren't
>throttled, so they're either developing full thrust or aren't,
>basically. The light pattern will convey enough information to the
>pilot to allow him to make the necessary Go/No Go decisions.
>The details can be left to the FE.
The light matrix is *way cool* and *way, way, way too much
information*. The pilot needs almost none of the information you
suggest.
>> Analysing the systems flow even rescues OM's beloved map display....
>> It moves to the Navigators console, he programs and operates it, the
>> Pilot 'flies the needles' which are driven by that display.
>No, leace the moving map up with the Pilot. There's no need for a
>separate Navigator, and if you're aborting, it helps to know where the
>mountains are, and your position in relation to the field.
David specified a Navigator... And the moving map requires the pilot
to go 'heads down' at about the wrong time. (IMHO)
>Interesting point, but the 707 was set up as a 3 crew bird. (Pilot,
>Co-Pilot, and FE. One of the reasons for that is that teh FE slot was
>used to break in new pilots.)
The craft as specified here *is* a three man bird.
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >On a side note: Guard-Lee, the makers of the spacecraft props for E2M
>> >can't help me with flight deck instrumentation for MCS. They still
>> >have their Block I CM, singed and all, but they consider a project
>> >where I'm asking for a DSKY, ADI Ball and EMS only to be too small and
>> >not worth their while. Poot. Looks like I'll be building all of
>> >*that*, too :-(
>>
>> Have you considered fielding out some of the construction?
>
>I have, which is why I rang Guard-Lee -
I meant to members of the NG, who may be willing to work for free...
David Sander
> >>
> >> Have you considered fielding out some of the construction?
> >
> >I have, which is why I rang Guard-Lee -
>
> I meant to members of the NG, who may be willing to work for free...
No, I haven't, simply because I am loathe to rely on "free" work. That
said, volunteers to do certain things would certainly be appreciated
(especially those with access to certain places and have a good camera...).
David
Peter Stickney
el...@hurricane.net (Derek Lyons) writes:
> p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>In article <c8f0fto5j93kos976...@4ax.com>,
>> Interim Books <fair...@hurricane.net> writes:
>>> All the pilot needs is enough lights to answer two simple questions;
>>>
>>> -Do I have enough thrust?
>>> -Am I stable in attitude?
>>>
>>> Detailed info comes vox from the Flight Engineer.
>>Yep. That's where the light matrix comes in - Green for O.K, Yellow
>>for gimbal limits, say, red for fore outside the places where fire
>>ought to be, and dark for not running, say. They engines aren't
>>throttled, so they're either developing full thrust or aren't,
>>basically. The light pattern will convey enough information to the
>>pilot to allow him to make the necessary Go/No Go decisions.
>>The details can be left to the FE.
>
> The light matrix is *way cool* and *way, way, way too much
> information*. The pilot needs almost none of the information you
> suggest.
I respectfully disagree. What seems to be needed is information that
the pilot can use to make abort decisions and such. (Remember, the
control philosophy is more pilot-centric than Ground contol stuff.)
There's 3 things in the Power section that can cause this:
Enough Engines not running
Engines no longer able to steer
Fire in the airframe.
With so many motors, the scale of the problems occurring is important,
and the "balance" if you will of failures is critical.
Remember, too, the the WvB Express ends up with 9G acceleration peaks
at the end of the First and Second stage burns. (None of your
namby-pamby 3G shuttle stuff here, bucko!) The display has to be
something that shows the pilot what's happening without having to try
to read gages or push buttons to call up details. And the Pilot has
to make that decision. If he had to rely on voice comm with the FE,
it would take too long.
As far as I know, however, the exact details are rather moot, since
we're seeing successful, fully functioning launches. (I think). In
that case, it's Green Lights all the way. and we'll hash the rest of
the stuff out in the bar, on napkins, the way Engineering is Supposed
to Be Done. :)
>
>>> Analysing the systems flow even rescues OM's beloved map display....
>>> It moves to the Navigators console, he programs and operates it, the
>>> Pilot 'flies the needles' which are driven by that display.
>>No, leace the moving map up with the Pilot. There's no need for a
>>separate Navigator, and if you're aborting, it helps to know where the
>>mountains are, and your position in relation to the field.
>
> David specified a Navigator... And the moving map requires the pilot
> to go 'heads down' at about the wrong time. (IMHO)
Well, it depends on where you put the map. High Speed reconnaisance
aircraft have an Optical Viewfinder that sits at the top of the panel,
just below the windshield. Since we don't need an Air Intercept Radar
for the WvB, the Nav stuff can go there. I'd think thet the onboard
Navigator's job would be more into refining the Orbital Stuff. You
know, fine tuning the rendesvous, keeping track of abort locations,
and calculating the re-entries. Given that this is the early '60s,
when 2-seat fighters (And SPacecraft) were crewed bt Aircraft
Commanders and Pilots, rather than Pilots and System Operators,
because no self-respecting Pilot was going to be an Operator, then
calling one of the Guys in Back the Navigator rather then the Orbital
Mechanic seems to fit. The Navigator gives options, but the Pilot is
flying the Aerospacecraft.
>
>>Interesting point, but the 707 was set up as a 3 crew bird. (Pilot,
>>Co-Pilot, and FE. One of the reasons for that is that teh FE slot was
>>used to break in new pilots.)
>
> The craft as specified here *is* a three man bird.
Yeah, but it's still one pilot. On the 707, pilot management duties
are split between the 2 pilots. We don't have that. THere's only one
pilot, so there's only one set of flight instruments, rather than 2
sets. We also don't need the engine instruments, as you point out
above, so the central stack of instruments, and the Throttle Quadrant
in the center console goes, too. Now we've got what's pretty much a
standard issue single-pilot cockpit. There might be a throttle or
go-button for the 3rd stage rocket motors, but the burn programming
and setups would be performed by the Flight Engineer. Most of teh
real complicated Heavies, (The B-36, C-97, C-124, and the B-49) used
this setup. The Pilot just pushed the Go-Lever, and the FE kept the
details in order.
Besides, it gives the FE something to do.
OM
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
OM: David, here's those surplus Japanese ejection seats I promised
you!
DS: Uh...waitaminit, cobber! This is an orange crate!
OM: Yep. And there's a grenade inside each of them, too!
DS: What??????
OM: Yep. Did my research too. Found how the Japs did their ejection
seats in WWII for the Zeros in the back page of a copy of _Air Farce_
magazine. Bob Stevens' "There I Was" had the illustration right there.
DS: Look, I know I wanted to show that some of the VBE was contracted
out to foreign firms, but...
OM: Speaking of which, here's the saran wrap for the windows...
OM
>
>David
Henry Spencer
Peter Stickney <p-sti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Analysing the systems flow even rescues OM's beloved map display....
>> It moves to the Navigators console, he programs and operates it, the
>> Pilot 'flies the needles' which are driven by that display.
>
>No, leace the moving map up with the Pilot. There's no need for a
>separate Navigator, and if you're aborting, it helps to know where the
Whether you need a separate Navigator seat depends on whether you have an
inertial navigation system. It was the advent of compact, reliable
inertial systems that removed navigators from commercial aircraft, just in
time for the 707's three-man cockpit. If you're going to start flying
these babies in the mid-50s, then quite possibly they don't have INS, or
at least didn't start out with INS, in which case you most definitely do
need a navigator.
Peter Stickney
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <a8npc9...@Mineshaft.att.net>,
> Peter Stickney <p-sti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> Analysing the systems flow even rescues OM's beloved map display....
>>> It moves to the Navigators console, he programs and operates it, the
>>> Pilot 'flies the needles' which are driven by that display.
>>
>>No, leace the moving map up with the Pilot. There's no need for a
>>separate Navigator, and if you're aborting, it helps to know where the
>>mountains are, and your position in relation to the field...
>
> Whether you need a separate Navigator seat depends on whether you have an
> inertial navigation system. It was the advent of compact, reliable
> inertial systems that removed navigators from commercial aircraft, just in
> time for the 707's three-man cockpit. If you're going to start flying
> these babies in the mid-50s, then quite possibly they don't have INS, or
> at least didn't start out with INS, in which case you most definitely do
> need a navigator.
IIRC, the first application for an INS was the Snark - This took some
time to dope out, but the INS effort started back in the early '50s.
According to some of my sources, the first INS guided Snark flew in
November 56. This was the Nortronics INS that used a Kollsman Star
Tracker to correct for drift.
Let's also see... the SM-78 Jupiter used an ABMA developed/Sperry
built INS, and it flew in '57. The SM-75 Thor used an AC ACheiver
INS, in about the same era. Atlas started out aith the GE/Burroughs
Radio-Inertial system, which was also used on Titan I, and switch to a
Bosch Arma full INS with the Atlas D. Lets see- Rgulus II used the
ACheiver, and flew in May '56. IIRC, Redstone used a fully inertial
system too. I do know that Corporal used a radio-beacon doppler
system.
It's certainly not a correction, but it seems that an INS,
with, perhaps a doppler backup would have been available. Another
option is a hyperbolic system like Loran or Shanicle. Those would
probable require an operator, but had been in service a long time.
(Air Force tactical Bombers from about 1950 were set up to use Loran
and Shoran. The Martin XB-51 and the B-57 used the Nav as a Shoran
operator.) I like the idea of the Orbital Mechanic as a crew member.
FOr the Nuke powered Jovian ships, they can be bunked with the Quantum
Mechanics.
Derek Lyons
subthread.
p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>Given that this is the early '60s,
>when 2-seat fighters (And SPacecraft) were crewed bt Aircraft
>Commanders and Pilots, rather than Pilots and System Operators,
>because no self-respecting Pilot was going to be an Operator, then
>calling one of the Guys in Back the Navigator rather then the Orbital
>Mechanic seems to fit. The Navigator gives options, but the Pilot is
>flying the Aerospacecraft.
But it's *not* the early 60's when the VBE is first crewed up. It's
the late to mid 50's. Bomber crews, the more likely model, are set up
rather differently.
Derek Lyons
And the light matrix is all but useless for making the determination
of this balance... It's impossible to read a matrix that big, fast
enough, especially if there are multiple failures. (On a matrix like
that, especially during first stage flight, telling the difference
between say eleven lights out and thirteen lights out would be all but
impossible. He'd still have to go to the G-meter or other indication.
Ditto for gimbal alarms.)
It should be simple to rig a circuit that tells the pilot if he has
enough thrust and enough control authority.
If he gets an alarm, and the lights indicate that he doesn't, he
aborts immediately.
If he gets an alarm, and the lights indicate he does, then he works
with the FE to determine the appropriate response.
David Sander
>
> Splitting reply into multiple bits, so each topic gets it's own
> subthread.
>
> p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter Stickney) wrote:
> >Given that this is the early '60s,
> >when 2-seat fighters (And SPacecraft) were crewed bt Aircraft
> >Commanders and Pilots, rather than Pilots and System Operators,
> >because no self-respecting Pilot was going to be an Operator, then
> >calling one of the Guys in Back the Navigator rather then the Orbital
> >Mechanic seems to fit. The Navigator gives options, but the Pilot is
> >flying the Aerospacecraft.
>
> But it's *not* the early 60's when the VBE is first crewed up. It's
> the late to mid 50's. Bomber crews, the more likely model, are set up
> rather differently.
The cabin I am constructing is the Block II, which is 1962. I will
also include a glimpse of the Block III, which is 1967.
I am envisaging the sort of responsibilities that went with Apollo -
the CDR monitors the ascent systems, while another crewmember is
responsible for electrical and life support systems etc.
David
OM
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>The cabin I am constructing is the Block II, which is 1962. I will
>also include a glimpse of the Block III, which is 1967.
...This is the one with all the yellow padding in the galley, the
first to have a stewardess on board, and a Pan Am logo on the outside
:-)
>I am envisaging the sort of responsibilities that went with Apollo -
>the CDR monitors the ascent systems, while another crewmember is
>responsible for electrical and life support systems etc.
"Gordo, I've got good news and bad news. The good news is that you're
going to the Moon after all. The bad news is that after that buzz
stunt you pulled on Walt Williams, you're going to be PLO(*) for the
entire flight..."
...Joking aside, are you planning on including historical figures as
they might have been depicted had the VBE been built, or are you going
the Baxter route and reassigning cartoon character names to real
people?
OM
(*) PLO - Permanent Latrine Officer, natch.
David Sander
>
> ...Joking aside, are you planning on including historical figures as
> they might have been depicted had the VBE been built, or are you going
> the Baxter route and reassigning cartoon character names to real
> people?
That's a secret :-P
David
Peter Stickney
el...@hurricane.net (Derek Lyons) writes:
> Splitting reply into multiple bits, so each topic gets it's own
> subthread.
>
>
> p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>Given that this is the early '60s,
>>when 2-seat fighters (And SPacecraft) were crewed bt Aircraft
>>Commanders and Pilots, rather than Pilots and System Operators,
>>because no self-respecting Pilot was going to be an Operator, then
>>calling one of the Guys in Back the Navigator rather then the Orbital
>>Mechanic seems to fit. The Navigator gives options, but the Pilot is
>>flying the Aerospacecraft.
>
> But it's *not* the early 60's when the VBE is first crewed up. It's
> the late to mid 50's. Bomber crews, the more likely model, are set up
> rather differently.
Well, lets see what bomber crews looked like, at that time, not
including Gunners:
B-36 Pilot, Copilot, Nav, Radar Nav, EWO 1, EWO 2, FE 1, FE 2, 2
Relief Pilots, 1 Releif Nav, 1 Relief FE (And, most likely, a brace of
Philippine Messboys, a Disk Jockey, and a Re-enlistment NCO)
The -36 is cheating. It was crewed more like a ship than an airplane.
It probabky had the most complex powerplant installation ever used
operationally, and stayed aloft of 30 hours at a stretch, without
refuelling. The Engineers could crawl out into the wing to work on
the engines in flight.
XB-51 - An experimental High Speed Tactical Bomber - Pilot & Nav
B-57 - Jet Tactical Bomber - Pilot & Nav
B-47 - Pilot, Copilot/Gunner, and Nav/Bomb/EWO
YB-49 - Pilot, Copilot,FE,Nav, Radar Nav, and Radio Op
Note - the B-49 was essentially a single pilot airplane - the Copilot
couldn't take off or land the aircraft.
B-52 - Pilot, Copilot, Nav, Radar Nav, and EWO.
B-58 - Pilot, Nav/Bomb and EWO/Gunner, who also did some FE stuff.
Now, the Radar Navs are the Bombardiers. I presume that we won't need
them. Ditto for the Electronic Warfare Officers. Radio Ops were
going away - The B-49 was a WW 2 bomber with jets grafted on.
Actually, the duty splitup between the Pilot & FE of the B-49 is worth
looking at - The pilot had teh flight instruments, of course, but
engine instruments were limited to duplexed (2 engined per)
tachometers. The Pilot had only 2 throttles, one for the left side
quad and one for the right. The center console had indicator lights
for over-G and FCS failure conditions, and the autopilot controls
(Which were pretty neat, basically a small joystick that commanded the
AP much like a video game.) The FE had the full set of engine
instruments, listed as rows, stacked vertically, from top to bottom:
First Row:
Duplexed Bearing Temperature Indicators, 4@ - The J35 jet used Farm
Machinery Bearings that didn't hold up - These aren't normal.
Second Row:
Duplexed Oil Temperature Indicators, 4@
Duplexed Fuel Pressure Indicators, 4@
Third Row:
Duplexed Oil Pressure Indicators, 4@
Duplexed Exhaust Gas Temperature Indicators, 4@
4th RowL
Engine Tachometers, 8@
Below that was the Fire Warning and Extinquisher Control Panel, which
was a circular matrix of colored lights.
The FE also had a quadrant of throttles for each engine.
So it's kinda like a ship (Sub :)), the Helm rings up the Engine Room
on the telegraph to set power, and the Black Gang has to make it
happen.
The Engineer also had full panels for Electrical Power Management,
Environmental (Pressurizaion/Heating/Cooling) and Fuel
Management. (The fuel system was a real lashup) Quite a busy guy.
This sort of arrangement went away Real Fast, however. Crew
Coordination couldn't keep up with jet speeds, let alone a rocket.
Not, the WvBE won't need Bombardiers or EWOs, and the Navigators were
mostly there because we didn't think that the Russians would be Nice
Guys and leave their radio beacons turned on during a Global Nuclear
War. I don't think that those conditions would apply. The FEs, when
they existed, were tending complicated engine installations with lots
of fiddly bits (My B-36 manual is about 1500 pages - mostly for the
FE's duties. Off the top of my head, a B-36 FE dealt with Throttle
Setting, (Manifold Pressure), RPM (Prop Pitch), Mixture, Ignition
timing, Cooling Fan speed, and Turbosupercharger selection and control
(There were 2 turbos/engine. At low alts, none or one would be used,
bringing the other on line as altitude increased.) Multiply these by
6. (For each engine) The 4 jets had a fuel valve, a start button, and
a trottle, each.
On the WvB express, engine control would consist of selecting thrust
level by selecting which motors to run, setting the timer to turn them
off, (No throttles, after all), and pushing a button to open the
propellant valves to light things off. Either they run or they don't,
Of course, it's mostly fun arguing this stuff out. It's David's show,
and he knows how he wants it.
Peter Stickney
Makes sense. Don't overlook that other than when ascending or
floating free, the thing is very much an airplane. In fact, with its
expected appreach and landing profile, it's more like a sailplane. It
spends a lot of time flying down through the air, and that's going to
dominate the panel.
Peter Stickney
I don't agree, If one side goes dark or one gimballed sector light
up, you act. One thing that will be important in the Abort mode is
"Which way do I turn to avoid the Fireball/Debris Cloud/etc." Knowing
what's dead gives that at a glance (Turn to the Bright Side, Luke!)
> It should be simple to rig a circuit that tells the pilot if he has
> enough thrust and enough control authority.
Possible. But it won't look as cool
> If he gets an alarm, and the lights indicate that he doesn't, he
> aborts immediately.
>
> If he gets an alarm, and the lights indicate he does, then he works
> with the FE to determine the appropriate response.
I don't see that happening fast enough, especially under the G loads
predicted. Riding that thing is like sitting in a croquet ball when
somebody does that "Put the other ball next to it & Whack it with the
Clown Hammer" thingie.
OM
Stickney) wrote:
>Of course, it's mostly fun arguing this stuff out. It's David's show,
>and he knows how he wants it.
...Don't remind him of this, Peter. It could go to his head:
"...And now...The Vegemite Hour of Adventure presents: 'Captain VBE'!!
Starring Paul Hogan as Captain "Uncle Croc" VBE! With Mel Gibson as
1st Officer Max "Madman" Patriot! And Elle McPhereson as Curves, the
Venusian Navigator! And today's special guest villain - Yahoo Serious,
as the Medusan Marauder!"
OM
Mike Flugennock
(Peter Stickney) wrote:
> In article <3af25549...@news.seanet.com>,
> el...@hurricane.net (Derek Lyons) writes:
> Well, lets see what bomber crews looked like, at that time, not
> including Gunners:
>
> B-36 Pilot, Copilot, Nav, Radar Nav, EWO 1, EWO 2, FE 1, FE 2, 2
> Relief Pilots, 1 Releif Nav, 1 Relief FE (And, most likely, a brace of
> Philippine Messboys, a Disk Jockey, and a Re-enlistment NCO)
> The -36 is cheating. It was crewed more like a ship than an airplane.
> It probabky had the most complex powerplant installation ever used
> operationally, and stayed aloft of 30 hours at a stretch, without
> refuelling. The Engineers could crawl out into the wing to work on
> the engines in flight...
Whoa. Was there some provision for that built into the aircraft? You know,
like EVA Handholds on the sides of a CSM?
--
"...you were caught with your hands in the till
but you still got to swallow your pill
as you slip and you slide down the hill
on the blood of the people you killed!" --John Lennon.
_______________________________________________________________
Mike Flugennock, fluge...@sinkers.org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, http://www.sinkers.org
Dale
wrote:
>>The Engineers could crawl out into the wing to work on
>> the engines in flight...
>
>Whoa. Was there some provision for that built into the aircraft? You know,
>like EVA Handholds on the sides of a CSM?
Umm, I think the route they took was *inside* the wing. LOL :)
Dale
Henry Spencer
Peter Stickney <p-sti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Now, the Radar Navs are the Bombardiers. I presume that we won't need
>them. Ditto for the Electronic Warfare Officers. Radio Ops were
>going away - The B-49 was a WW 2 bomber with jets grafted on.
That again was technological -- the Radio Operators went away because of
the switch from Morse Code to voice radios.
>Not, the WvBE won't need Bombardiers or EWOs, and the Navigators were
>mostly there because we didn't think that the Russians would be Nice
>Guys and leave their radio beacons turned on during a Global Nuclear
>War...
Global Nuclear War wasn't the only navigator issue -- airliners had
navigators too, until INSes arrived. Many of the early radio navaids
were not 100% available and reliable, especially on long overwater runs.
David Sander
>
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 18:19:16 GMT, p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
> >Of course, it's mostly fun arguing this stuff out. It's David's show,
> >and he knows how he wants it.
>
> ...Don't remind him of this, Peter. It could go to his head:
>
> "...And now...The Vegemite Hour of Adventure presents: 'Captain VBE'!!
> Starring Paul Hogan as Captain "Uncle Croc" VBE! With Mel Gibson as
> 1st Officer Max "Madman" Patriot! And Elle McPhereson as Curves, the
> Venusian Navigator! And today's special guest villain - Yahoo Serious,
> as the Medusan Marauder!"
LOL - I'm keeping that :-)
In all seriousness, I'm thinking about a book or booklet to accompany
the DVD, and I'd really like to know people's thoughts on including
some of this s.s.h. correspondence in it - after all, much of what you
guys have written here is not only so helpful, but also very
entertaining in its own right :-)
David
OM
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>OM wrote:
>> "...And now...The Vegemite Hour of Adventure presents: 'Captain VBE'!!
>> Starring Paul Hogan as Captain "Uncle Croc" VBE! With Mel Gibson as
>> 1st Officer Max "Madman" Patriot! And Elle McPhereson as Curves, the
>> Venusian Navigator! And today's special guest villain - Yahoo Serious,
>> as the Medusan Marauder!"
>
>LOL - I'm keeping that :-)
...Note that those were the only Oz entertainers I could think of on
short notice. Having thought about it, I could have added "Music by
Men at Work and the Bee Gees!", but how many people are aware of the
Bee Gees having lived in Oz for a while?
>In all seriousness, I'm thinking about a book or booklet to accompany
>the DVD, and I'd really like to know people's thoughts on including
>some of this s.s.h. correspondence in it - after all, much of what you
>guys have written here is not only so helpful, but also very
>entertaining in its own right :-)
...Only if you preserve my particular colorful expressions intact :-P
David Sander
>
> On Sat, 05 May 2001 02:57:36 GMT, David Sander
> <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >In all seriousness, I'm thinking about a book or booklet to accompany
> >the DVD, and I'd really like to know people's thoughts on including
> >some of this s.s.h. correspondence in it - after all, much of what you
> >guys have written here is not only so helpful, but also very
> >entertaining in its own right :-)
>
> ...Only if you preserve my particular colorful expressions intact :-P
Are you kidding? That's part of your charm! :-)
David
Peter Stickney
flv43...@sinkers.org (Mike Flugennock) writes:
> In article <afmuc9...@Mineshaft.att.net>, p-sti...@worldnet.att.net
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
>> In article <3af25549...@news.seanet.com>,
>> el...@hurricane.net (Derek Lyons) writes:
>
>> Well, lets see what bomber crews looked like, at that time, not
>> including Gunners:
>>
>> B-36 Pilot, Copilot, Nav, Radar Nav, EWO 1, EWO 2, FE 1, FE 2, 2
>> Relief Pilots, 1 Releif Nav, 1 Relief FE (And, most likely, a brace of
>> Philippine Messboys, a Disk Jockey, and a Re-enlistment NCO)
>> The -36 is cheating. It was crewed more like a ship than an airplane.
>> It probabky had the most complex powerplant installation ever used
>> operationally, and stayed aloft of 30 hours at a stretch, without
>> refuelling. The Engineers could crawl out into the wing to work on
>> the engines in flight...
>
> Whoa. Was there some provision for that built into the aircraft? You know,
> like EVA Handholds on the sides of a CSM?
Tunnels in the wing spars. In fact, if you ever view the movie
"Strategic Air Command", Harry Morgan, playing one of the FE, pops in
from one of the wing hatches. While you couldn't do a full overhaul,
you could reach the accessory sections of the engines. The B-36 was
more than huge. The wing roots are about 12 feet thick. As was
normal prewar thinking for Super-Heavies, in-flight access to the
engines was expected, and designed in. The cabin did have to be
depressurized to do this. Maybe it could count as an EVA. Oh, yeah,
back then, the Radar Navs (Bombardiers) had to go back into the bomb
bays and assemble the weapons in flight. Real waponeers did it by
hand, I guess.
Peter Stickney
Please feel free to use mine - I try not to post stuff I don't want
repeated. (I may forget, but Google never does)
I've been called up North for some Family stuff - I should be able to
get you a representative sample of contemporary cockpit scans
(including the X-15 and X-20)
Since this thread's also been poking me about the flight
characteristice of the WvBE Orbiter, (It's not a Space Shuttle, coming
in - more like a cross between a DC-3 and the Northrop X-4)
I've been backtracing it's salient characteristics and hacking on of
my tame flight sims to model it. If you like, I'll gen up some data
in "Pilot Report" format, (along with whatever justification for my
assumptions I can work up) and post those too, if anybody's interested.
Peter Stickney
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <afmuc9...@Mineshaft.att.net>,
> Peter Stickney <p-sti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Now, the Radar Navs are the Bombardiers. I presume that we won't need
>>them. Ditto for the Electronic Warfare Officers. Radio Ops were
>>going away - The B-49 was a WW 2 bomber with jets grafted on.
>
> That again was technological -- the Radio Operators went away because of
> the switch from Morse Code to voice radios.
>
>>Not, the WvBE won't need Bombardiers or EWOs, and the Navigators were
>>mostly there because we didn't think that the Russians would be Nice
>>Guys and leave their radio beacons turned on during a Global Nuclear
>>War...
>
> Global Nuclear War wasn't the only navigator issue -- airliners had
> navigators too, until INSes arrived. Many of the early radio navaids
> were not 100% available and reliable, especially on long overwater runs.
Well, I don't recall too many Navigators on 707s, and they didn't get
INSs until late in the game. Navigator Crew when they were used, were
used on flights that required Celestial Nav, like the grind out to
Hawaii in the late '40s/Early '50s, adn for flying in Darkest Africa
or other such places. With the advent of the worldwide Loran chains,
and Loran boxes shart enough to do their own integrating, Navs
disappeared. There were/are other self-contained Nav systems that
weren't INSs. Teh Doppler Navigator, used on the F-105 adn B-58, come
to mind, adn the Kollsman Star Tracker, as well. And, there's always
the good old-fashioned Thumb on the Chart & Stopwatch. That's how the
Tactical Fighter guys did it until the mid-'60s.
David Sander
>
> Since this thread's also been poking me about the flight
> characteristice of the WvBE Orbiter, (It's not a Space Shuttle, coming
> in - more like a cross between a DC-3 and the Northrop X-4)
> I've been backtracing it's salient characteristics and hacking on of
> my tame flight sims to model it. If you like, I'll gen up some data
> in "Pilot Report" format, (along with whatever justification for my
> assumptions I can work up) and post those too, if anybody's interested.
Hoooooo yeah! I don't have the tools here to do that, so I'd be
*really* interested in what you might come up with!
David
Mike Flugennock
wrote:
D'ahh ha ha ha d'ohh. You and me both.
Thanks; I thought "into" was a typo.
argh.
Mike Flugennock
> OM wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 04 May 2001 18:19:16 GMT, p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter
> > Stickney) wrote:
> >
> > >Of course, it's mostly fun arguing this stuff out. It's David's show,
> > >and he knows how he wants it.
> >
> > ...Don't remind him of this, Peter. It could go to his head:
> >
> > "...And now...The Vegemite Hour of Adventure presents: 'Captain VBE'!!
> > Starring Paul Hogan as Captain "Uncle Croc" VBE! With Mel Gibson as
> > 1st Officer Max "Madman" Patriot! And Elle McPhereson as Curves, the
> > Venusian Navigator! And today's special guest villain - Yahoo Serious,
> > as the Medusan Marauder!"
>
> LOL - I'm keeping that :-)
And, what about those singing professors from the University of Wallamaloo?
David Sander
>
> And, what about those singing professors from the University of
> Wallamaloo?
You mean Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, Michael and Bruce?
Ah yes, the University of Woolloomooloo - an esteemed establishment
dedicated to the study of the effects of consumption of fermented
beverages on the human system ... fearless, selfless heroes prepared
to sacrifice themselves to the greater cause and offer their own
bodies as test subjects...
No mention of rocket fuel yet ... but give them time...
:-P
David
Justin Wigg
news:afmuc9...@Mineshaft.att.net...
> B-52 - Pilot, Copilot, Nav, Radar Nav, and EWO.
Don't forget the BUFF's gunners. The B-52H's had tail gunners as recently
as the Gulf War didn't they? (The 52's were used to launch cruise missiles
at Iraq and Kuwait.)
--
He who laughs last... | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
...thinks slowest. | Reply: justi...@yahoo.com
Jorge R. Frank
<3AF5E5C7...@bigpond.net.au>:
Ethanol makes a dandy rocket fuel, and it's a fermented beverage to boot...
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Henry Spencer
Peter Stickney <p-sti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Global Nuclear War wasn't the only navigator issue -- airliners had
>> navigators too, until INSes arrived. Many of the early radio navaids
>> were not 100% available and reliable, especially on long overwater runs.
>
>Well, I don't recall too many Navigators on 707s, and they didn't get
Hmm, my recollection was that 707s had INS pretty much from the start,
but my references aren't adequate to verify this.
>...With the advent of the worldwide Loran chains,
>and Loran boxes shart enough to do their own integrating, Navs
>disappeared...
Okay, so it's the same general picture even if my memory of the details
was wrong: they went away because the technology eliminated the need.
>There were/are other self-contained Nav systems that
>weren't INSs. Teh Doppler Navigator, used on the F-105 adn B-58, come
>to mind, adn the Kollsman Star Tracker, as well...
The B-58 had inertial and Doppler and star tracking... *and* a navigator!
(Admittedly, the inertial stuff wasn't good enough to be stand-alone; it
needed drift corrections from the other sensors.)
The military hung onto navigators much longer, because of wanting to
operate in faraway areas, in the presence of active opposition, with
limited or no ground support. (There was an incident a few years ago when
a Hercules lost its inertial systems, I forget just how, on an Antarctic
resupply run... in an area poorly served by Loran and too close to the
south magnetic pole for magnetic compasses to work well. The navigator
was a *very* busy guy for the rest of that flight.)
Peter Stickney
"Justin Wigg" <justi...@yahoo.com> writes:
> "Peter Stickney" <p-sti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:afmuc9...@Mineshaft.att.net...
>> B-52 - Pilot, Copilot, Nav, Radar Nav, and EWO.
>
> Don't forget the BUFF's gunners. The B-52H's had tail gunners as recently
> as the Gulf War didn't they? (The 52's were used to launch cruise missiles
> at Iraq and Kuwait.)
I'd thought I'd said that I was leaving out dedicated Gunners. I
don't think there's a requirement for them on the WvB Express... yet.
Maybe in the sequel. The BUFF did a lot more than just launch Cruise
Missiles in the Gulf - on the first couple of nights, they were going
in at 200-300 feet as part pf the Airfield Eradication Program.
(Think about this... - They wings stick about about 100 feet on a side -
200ft AGL in a B-52 is _very_ little margin for error)
Gunners were eliminated from the crews in '92-'93, I think.
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>> Splitting reply into multiple bits, so each topic gets it's own
>> subthread.
>>
>> p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>> >Given that this is the early '60s,
>> >when 2-seat fighters (And SPacecraft) were crewed bt Aircraft
>> >Commanders and Pilots, rather than Pilots and System Operators,
>> >because no self-respecting Pilot was going to be an Operator, then
>> >calling one of the Guys in Back the Navigator rather then the Orbital
>> >Mechanic seems to fit. The Navigator gives options, but the Pilot is
>> >flying the Aerospacecraft.
>>
>> But it's *not* the early 60's when the VBE is first crewed up. It's
>> the late to mid 50's. Bomber crews, the more likely model, are set up
>> rather differently.
>
>The cabin I am constructing is the Block II, which is 1962. I will
>also include a glimpse of the Block III, which is 1967.
>
My point still stand.... Manning will more likely be based on Bomber
practice, *not* Fighter practice, given the date the program starts.
Current Astronaut Office attitudes, practices, and preferences date
from from Ike's decision to use test pilots for MISS (Man In Space
Soonest).
Derek Lyons
>The military hung onto navigators much longer, because of wanting to
>operate in faraway areas, in the presence of active opposition, with
>limited or no ground support. (There was an incident a few years ago when
>a Hercules lost its inertial systems, I forget just how, on an Antarctic
>resupply run... in an area poorly served by Loran and too close to the
>south magnetic pole for magnetic compasses to work well. The navigator
>was a *very* busy guy for the rest of that flight.)
Which is why even the USS Seawolf (SSN-21), with ESGN and GPS
capability, still has a guy trained to use a sextant. Technical toys
do fail, and tend do so at the worst possible time.
OM
wrote:
>he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
>>The military hung onto navigators much longer, because of wanting to
>>operate in faraway areas, in the presence of active opposition, with
>>limited or no ground support. (There was an incident a few years ago when
>>a Hercules lost its inertial systems, I forget just how, on an Antarctic
>>resupply run... in an area poorly served by Loran and too close to the
>>south magnetic pole for magnetic compasses to work well. The navigator
>>was a *very* busy guy for the rest of that flight.)
>
>Which is why even the USS Seawolf (SSN-21), with ESGN and GPS
>capability, still has a guy trained to use a sextant. Technical toys
>do fail, and tend do so at the worst possible time.
...And, speaking from experience, there's a certain level of pride
when you can use a map, sextant and nautical tables to determine
position and plot courses within less than .05% of computer-based
accuracy. Even with just the sextant, such techniques served sailors
for centuries.
Gordon Davie
> In article <flv43nn0zk-04...@204.156.22.202>,
> flv43...@sinkers.org (Mike Flugennock) writes:
> > In article <afmuc9...@Mineshaft.att.net>,
p-sti...@worldnet.att.net
> > (Peter Stickney) wrote:
> >> The -36 is cheating. It was crewed more like a ship than an airplane.
> >> It probabky had the most complex powerplant installation ever used
> >> operationally, and stayed aloft of 30 hours at a stretch, without
> >> refuelling. The Engineers could crawl out into the wing to work on
> >> the engines in flight...
> >
> > Whoa. Was there some provision for that built into the aircraft? You
know,
> > like EVA Handholds on the sides of a CSM?
>
> Tunnels in the wing spars.
Jeffries tubes!
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> One of the thing that really impressed me about _2001, A Space
> Odyssey_, was the presentation of teh displays in the cockpits of the
> various spacecraft. If yo were interested, you knew instantly what
> was going on, qithout explanation. It also seems to be one the things
> that pretty much happened in real life, that way as well. After all,
> teh only Psychotic computer I _know_ of is the one at the Department
> of Motor Vehicles.
I recently attended a talk in Chicago by Frederick I. Ordway III, technical
advisor on *2001: A Space Odyssey*. He'd been in the space business before
there was a space business, and had just completed a book on
extraterrestrial intelligence, when he had dinner with Arthur C. Clarke in
New York. Clarke urged Kubrick to hire Ordway and his artist pal Harry
Lange, and soon they were moving to England.
Ordway served as jack-of-all-space on the research and design of all the
sets, models, etc. "I wasn't an expert on hibernation, but I knew who was.
I wasn't an expert on food in space, but I knew people who were." He
traveled around to various companies and universities, and got expert advice
about future possibilities in the technologies the film would portray.
The essential reason for the quality Peter mentions: "Everything had to
work. We didn't know where Stanley would point his camera. It could be
anywhere on the set." For this reason, every button and display in the
spacecraft has a plausible function, every bump and knob on the spacesuits
has a reason for its appearance.
This is different, I think, from the usual Hollywood
let's-put-three-square-yellow-buttons-over-here philosophy of spaceship set
design. And it's one of the subtle things that gives *2001* its impact.
It does mean that the crew built a lot of stuff you scarcely see in the
film. Every panel and workstation Dave Bowman jogs past is carefully
designed. The film shows a food-heating station and some computer displays
aboard the *Discovery*, but you don't see anything of the astronomy
workstation...
Ordway showed a fascinating short film made to show theatre owners several
months before the release, with the message "Here's this big space epic
we're making, with lots of accurate science in it." Not a glimpse of apes
nor psychedelia appears, but we see a lot about props and sets from the
middle part of *2001*. I liked the dollhouse-size centrifuge model they
built to plan the big Vickers centrifuge set. One item that never made it
into the final cut, a briefcase computer with integrated phone, video, and
printer, got a laugh from the audience-- probably because it looked so
1983-retro.
Ordway's talk was followed by a showing of a newly-restored print of *2001*.
All in all, it was a great evening.
Ordway and Lange's gang were facing problems similar to the one David Sander
is solving: How will the pilots fly this spaceship? What information will
they need? What functions must the controls provide? (And I daresay they
will be interested in learning about David's solutions. Ordway is a pioneer
of space history, and a former colleague of von Braun's.)
The sets were destroyed, but Ordway has a lot of photos and drawings in his
collection. Some of this stuff is on display at the Art Institute of
Chicago for a few months, by the way, in "2001: Building for Space Travel"
<http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/space.html>. Coolest items: a 1/48th
model of von Braun's orbiter, standing on its tail ready for launch, and a
model of Peenemuende facilities used by the RAF for planning bombing raids.
The exhibit closes in October and moves to the Seattle Museum of Flight in
December.
For Fred Ordway's account of making the film, see
<http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0075.html>.
--
___ O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/
/ / - ~ -~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
/__// \ (_) (_) / | \
| | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
\ /
- - Internet: hig...@fnal.gov
~ New! Improved! Now with THREE great neutrino flavors!
OM
<g.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > Whoa. Was there some provision for that built into the aircraft? You
>know,
>> > like EVA Handholds on the sides of a CSM?
>>
>> Tunnels in the wing spars.
>
>Jeffries tubes!
<WHAP!>
OM
<hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>I recently attended a talk in Chicago by Frederick I. Ordway III, technical
>advisor on *2001: A Space Odyssey*.
...You lucky shit :-P
>The essential reason for the quality Peter mentions: "Everything had to
>work. We didn't know where Stanley would point his camera. It could be
>anywhere on the set." For this reason, every button and display in the
>spacecraft has a plausible function, every bump and knob on the spacesuits
>has a reason for its appearance.
...The thing that sucks regarding Kubrick's paranoia over unauthorized
sequels is that a lot of the good data regarding just how things
worked never got released to the public. This is one of the reasons I
was so pissed when this one jerkwad beat me on that TMP flight manual
last week. From his own admission in e-mail, he just wants to own the
thing, and has no interest in sharing the data whatsoever.
>This is different, I think, from the usual Hollywood
>let's-put-three-square-yellow-buttons-over-here philosophy of spaceship set
>design. And it's one of the subtle things that gives *2001* its impact.
...Best example of the three-squares methodology has to be "Space:
1999", where we have a direct, deliberate knockoff of "2001" with
consoles that have absolutely no true ergonomic, logical or aesthetic
design. Then again, on a low budget, three blank squares can mean
"Stun, Heat, Kill" one week, and the next week "Tingle, Massage,
Orgasm".
(On a side note, as Rick will attest, the TNG consoles were designed
so that any console could serve any purpose thanks to reconfigurable
LCD touch panels. Yeah, they were simply color gels that were swapped
out, but that's the magic of TV :-))
>It does mean that the crew built a lot of stuff you scarcely see in the
>film. Every panel and workstation Dave Bowman jogs past is carefully
>designed. The film shows a food-heating station and some computer displays
>aboard the *Discovery*, but you don't see anything of the astronomy
>workstation...
...I wonder if Fred kept any of the documents regarding what went into
what station? I'd love to get that over to Underman for his archives.
>Ordway showed a fascinating short film made to show theatre owners several
>months before the release, with the message "Here's this big space epic
>we're making, with lots of accurate science in it." Not a glimpse of apes
>nor psychedelia appears, but we see a lot about props and sets from the
>middle part of *2001*. I liked the dollhouse-size centrifuge model they
>built to plan the big Vickers centrifuge set. One item that never made it
>into the final cut, a briefcase computer with integrated phone, video, and
>printer, got a laugh from the audience-- probably because it looked so
>1983-retro.
...From Underman's 2001:
http://www.underview.com/2001/lifestyle/lifestyle.html
...I'd swear that the damn thing probably has an Osborne logo on it
somewhere :-)
>Ordway's talk was followed by a showing of a newly-restored print of *2001*.
...Which will be even more impressive once it gets to DVD. Between
that and the TMP restoration, that'll make -three- DVD's I actually
own. All hail DiVX and CladDVD :-)
>All in all, it was a great evening.
...I'd believe it. Again, you lucky shit :-P
>Ordway and Lange's gang were facing problems similar to the one David Sander
>is solving: How will the pilots fly this spaceship? What information will
>they need? What functions must the controls provide? (And I daresay they
>will be interested in learning about David's solutions. Ordway is a pioneer
>of space history, and a former colleague of von Braun's.)
...If only we could get David and Fred talking again, or get Parker to
design a pen for MCS :-)
>Coolest items: a 1/48th model of von Braun's orbiter, standing on its tail ready for launch,
...To which David will no doubt nitpick to death :-)
>and a model of Peenemuende facilities used by the RAF for planning bombing raids.
"...Und offer here ve haf der koncentration kamps...ach! Did I say
koncentration kamps? Nein! My mistake! I meant to say hotel facilities
for der workers! Da, das ist vat I meant to say!"
David Sander
>
> On Tue, 8 May 2001 14:40:59 -0500, Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>
> >I recently attended a talk in Chicago by Frederick I. Ordway III,
> >technical advisor on *2001: A Space Odyssey*.
>
> ...You lucky shit :-P
>
> > The essential reason for the quality Peter mentions: "Everything had
> > to work. We didn't know where Stanley would point his camera. It
> > could be anywhere on the set." For this reason, every button and
> > display in the spacecraft has a plausible function, every bump and knob
> > on the spacesuits has a reason for its appearance.
That's pretty much the approach I'm taking with the MCS materials I'm
building. I figure it works better that way ... regardless of the fact
that it takes longer and costs more to accomplish.
> > This is different, I think, from the usual Hollywood
> > let's-put-three-square-yellow-buttons-over-here philosophy of
> > spaceship set design. And it's one of the subtle things that gives
> > *2001* its impact.
>
> ...Best example of the three-squares methodology has to be "Space:
> 1999", where we have a direct, deliberate knockoff of "2001" with
> consoles that have absolutely no true ergonomic, logical or aesthetic
> design. Then again, on a low budget, three blank squares can mean
> "Stun, Heat, Kill" one week, and the next week "Tingle, Massage,
> Orgasm".
Low budget doesn't automatically mean that though. Here I am with the
tiniest fraction of the budget "Space: 1999" enjoyed and yet I'm
making the effort :-)
> ...I wonder if Fred kept any of the documents regarding what went into
> what station? I'd love to get that over to Underman for his archives.
AIUI Fred did hang on to a quantity of documents.
> > Ordway showed a fascinating short film made to show theatre owners
> > several months before the release, with the message "Here's this big
> > space epic we're making, with lots of accurate science in it."
Ah yes - the so-called "clandestine film". He claimed Kubrik
eventually wanted it destroyed too, but smuggled a copy into hiding to
preserve *something*, given everything else was soon ashes.
> > Not a glimpse of apes nor psychedelia appears, but we see a lot about
> > props and sets from the middle part of *2001*. I liked the
> > dollhouse-size centrifuge model they built to plan the big Vickers
> > centrifuge set.
Yes - brilliant.
> > Ordway's talk was followed by a showing of a newly-restored
> > print of *2001*.
>
> ...Which will be even more impressive once it gets to DVD.
I'm wondering whether Ordway's "clandestine" behind-the-scenes film
might make it to the DVD as well ... I saw it at the WorldCon (my
first and last foray into the bizarre and grotesque world of
science-fiction fandom) back in 1985 when it was in Melbourne (that's
Melbourne, Victoria, not Melbourne, Florida). Fred did his talk, and
it was a genuine pleasure to meet the man afterwards. The film was
*fascinating* though I would have *loved* it if it had included some
of the deleted scenes, like the school excursion on the Moon, or the
slit-scan version of the aliens...
> > Ordway and Lange's gang were facing problems similar to the one David
> > Sander is solving: How will the pilots fly this spaceship? What
> > information will they need? What functions must the controls provide?
> > (And I daresay they will be interested in learning about David's
> > solutions. Ordway is a pioneer of space history, and a former
> > colleague of von Braun's.)
I have to say treating the solutions as engineering rather than
what-might-look-okay-on-camera is far more satisfying than putting the
three buttons there and airily suggesting they are "Tingle, Massage,
Orgasm" :-P . The downside is that I don't have the contacts, time or
budget to take the problem to - say - Rockwell (Boeing) at Downey, or
the engineers at Langley and have them come back with something that
would impress one and all. As it stands, I am scrutinizing the Apollo
flight deck, and (hopefully) using the same solutions they came up
with for the problems they encountered and adapting that to the MCS shuttle.
> ...If only we could get David and Fred talking again, or get Parker to
> design a pen for MCS :-)
Actually, I've *tried* to contact Fred, but he doesn't answer his
email, so I've basically had to give up. If he doesn't want to
communicate with me, then <shrug> there's not a lot I can do about it.
If I was making this as a feature film, I'd certainly be talking to
some companies about custom design and product placement. As it
stands, those whom I *have* talked to are not interested since this is
a short film, so I've had no joy there at all.
> > Coolest items: a 1/48th model of von Braun's orbiter, standing on
> > its tail ready for launch,
>
> ...To which David will no doubt nitpick to death :-)
And why not? :-P
Are there any pix of this thing anywhere?
David
LooseChanj
news:ihmgftcgij02j33ru...@4ax.com...> >Jeffries tubes!
>
> <WHAP!>
Was he wearing a red shirt? I can't tell from here...
--
LooseChanj
news:3AF8947B...@bigpond.net.au...
> I have to say treating the solutions as engineering rather than
> what-might-look-okay-on-camera is far more satisfying than putting the
> three buttons there and airily suggesting they are "Tingle, Massage,
> Orgasm" :-P .
I now humbly request that you include three buttons labeled "Tingle,
Massage, & Orgasm" in your film. Thank you. :-)
--
Derek Lyons
>I saw it at the WorldCon (my first and last foray into the bizarre
>and grotesque world of science-fiction fandom)
Sadly between Star Wars and TNG fandom has pretty much gone to hell in
a handbasket. What's left has become a grotesque parody of itself.
FIJAGH anyhow....
David Sander
ROTFLMAO!
YES! I'll do it! Just for you guys, as a tribute to s.s.h.!
:-)
David
LooseChanj
> LooseChanj wrote:
> > I now humbly request that you include three buttons labeled "Tingle,
> > Massage, & Orgasm" in your film. Thank you. :-)
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> YES! I'll do it! Just for you guys, as a tribute to s.s.h.!
Now the question is, do you slip it in subtly, or actually make a small
snippet of dialogue referencing the labeling.
Astronaut 1: <looking hopeful> Hey, what's this one do...?
Astronaut 2: You *sure* you wanna know?
--
Peter Stickney
OM <om@RE_MOVE_THIS.ccsi.com> writes:
> On Tue, 8 May 2001 17:36:49 +0100, "Gordon Davie"
> <g.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>> > Whoa. Was there some provision for that built into the aircraft? You
>>know,
>>> > like EVA Handholds on the sides of a CSM?
>>>
>>> Tunnels in the wing spars.
>>
>>Jeffries tubes!
>
> <WHAP!>
Thank You, sir. Please allow me to reimburse you for the damage to
your bat.
Peter Stickney
el...@hurricane.net (Derek Lyons) writes:
> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Derek Lyons wrote:
>>>
>>> Splitting reply into multiple bits, so each topic gets it's own
>>> subthread.
>>>
>>> p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>> >Given that this is the early '60s,
>>> >when 2-seat fighters (And SPacecraft) were crewed bt Aircraft
>>> >Commanders and Pilots, rather than Pilots and System Operators,
>>> >because no self-respecting Pilot was going to be an Operator, then
>>> >calling one of the Guys in Back the Navigator rather then the Orbital
>>> >Mechanic seems to fit. The Navigator gives options, but the Pilot is
>>> >flying the Aerospacecraft.
>>>
>>> But it's *not* the early 60's when the VBE is first crewed up. It's
>>> the late to mid 50's. Bomber crews, the more likely model, are set up
>>> rather differently.
>>
>>The cabin I am constructing is the Block II, which is 1962. I will
>>also include a glimpse of the Block III, which is 1967.
>>
>
> My point still stand.... Manning will more likely be based on Bomber
> practice, *not* Fighter practice, given the date the program starts.
> Current Astronaut Office attitudes, practices, and preferences date
> from from Ike's decision to use test pilots for MISS (Man In Space
> Soonest).
If you don't mind my probing, Derek, _why_ a Bomber? and, more to the
point, why a Heavy Bomber? With the passing of Reciprocating Engines,
the Flight Engineers went away. Other than 1 conversion, (The YB-49
jet Flying Wing) here weren't any Flight Engineers on Air Force
Jets. (Except the VC-137s, which were off-the-shelf 707s). The
Express is a Single Pilot beast, and a look at high performance single
pilot airplanes (Including the Navy, of course) Gives up crews of
Pilot/Aircraft Commander, and Nav/Bomb/Circuit Breaker Resetter.
(Although I recall the children's book based on the Collier's
stuff... They had some large crew running down Crew Duties... Things
like "I'm the First Engineer - I turn on the Heat." and "I'm the
Engineer's Assistant, I'm here to turn off the heat." That sort of thing.)
Even granting the need for a Navigator and Engineer - I'll buy that -
The Nav is calculating Rendesvous, and Reentry options, and
programming computers & other NAV stuff, and the Engineer is keeping
the systems happy & setting up motor selections & burn times for the
next maneuver - Let's look at what a Pilot's instrument panel would
have on it. Most of the complication of a Big Jet Pilot's panel is
powerplane stuff - duplicated instruments for each engine, fuel
management stuff, and systems thingies (Hydraulics, Electrics, etc.)
The flight/Nav instruments are pretty much the same on any airplane of
similar performance. The "Basic Panel" (Attitude, Altitude, Airspeed,
Rate of Climb, Direction) are going to be the same no matter what.
So it's going to be fighter looking anyway. Now, even on aircraft
with dedicated Navs, the Pilot has a full set of instruments for
Navaids, and Map Displays, and such. The Nav may be setting up
parameters for the instruments, but the Pilot gets to see it all, even
if only on a repeater.
Let's looka at what was available in the early '60s, for
instrumantation concepts - The single seat Fighter-Interceptors had
come up with an excellent model for high performacne single seat
cockpits, with the maximum inforamtion in the smallest space. HUDS
were starting to appear - The first operational HUD was on the North
American A3J/A-5 Vigilante, adn was first tested in 1959. (The
Vigilante also was one of the first manned aircraft with INS - it used
the system developed for the Navaho.)
I just recently (Like Today) was adble to pull the detailed cockit
diagrams for the F-106 from the Pilot's Handbook. As soon as I can
glom onto a scanner that works, I'll scan 'em , adn a bunch of other
panels as well - (F-12, SR-71, F-86D, F-4, B-47, B-58, X-15 and X-20)
and we can hash them out.
Now what I'd suggest for the Moon Landers is a setup like a post-
Albacore sub. Two stations, with duplicated controls, although most
of the time, each Helmsman is handling one axis of manuverability.
Since it doesn't have to be flown in an atmosphere, I'd imagine a
more shiplike setup would do.
OM
wrote:
...It's funny you should bring that up. On the TMP bridge, those funky
chairs that the movie Enterprise got were supposed to be able to
vibrate and massage out fears and aches, especially when the Klingons
were attacking en masse. On the other hand, they also had these arm
rests that slapped down over one's lap to hold you in your chair when
the ship pitched to starboard.
The problem there, in case nobody notices, is that when Kirk's arm
rests flop down, they basically rack him in the nuts.
OM
wrote:
...Actually, it used to be a *white* shirt, but...
OM
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>That's pretty much the approach I'm taking with the MCS materials I'm
>building. I figure it works better that way ... regardless of the fact
>that it takes longer and costs more to accomplish.
....So, does that mean the three yellow squares will at least have
logical names written on them? :-P
>I'm wondering whether Ordway's "clandestine" behind-the-scenes film
>might make it to the DVD as well
...Word I have is that it will not. Which is a damn shame, too.
>I have to say treating the solutions as engineering rather than
>what-might-look-okay-on-camera is far more satisfying than putting the
>three buttons there and airily suggesting they are "Tingle, Massage,
>Orgasm" :-P
...Oh, in other words, you're going actually show the atachments that
perform the tasks, instead of just labeling buttons? Won't that put
MCS into at least an adult rating?
>Actually, I've *tried* to contact Fred, but he doesn't answer his
>email, so I've basically had to give up. If he doesn't want to
>communicate with me, then <shrug> there's not a lot I can do about it.
...Anyone else have a contact for Fred?
>> > Coolest items: a 1/48th model of von Braun's orbiter, standing on
>> > its tail ready for launch,
>>
>> ...To which David will no doubt nitpick to death :-)
>
>And why not? :-P
...I hate to admit this, David, but as much as I would have loved to
have seen the VBE actually fly, I'm still partial to the Moonbase
Alpha Eagles, as unaerodynamic as they were :-/
OM
wrote:
...Now, if those buttons are located next to the Zero-Gee Toilet
instructions that David will include as a tribute to "2001", we'll
*really* scare the pants off the MPAA if they notice it :-)
"Hey Mike! The relief tube is humming again..."
Interim Books
Stickney) wrote:
>The Express is a Single Pilot beast, and a look at high performance single
>pilot airplanes (Including the Navy, of course)
Single pilot != Single Crew. A simple but very important point....
The other important point is that David's spec calls for a three man
crew.
>Now what I'd suggest for the Moon Landers is a setup like a post-
>Albacore sub. Two stations, with duplicated controls, although most
>of the time, each Helmsman is handling one axis of manuverability.
It's not quite that simple.... :^) The Helmsman usually controls the
rudder and fairwater or bow planes, the Planesman controls the stern
planes. The two planes and independent and interdependent... The
stern planes control the ships angle, the fairwater planes control the
ships depth. The angle can also make the hull act as wing, and the
status of the ship's trim and weight dialed in by the Diving officer
also factor in, as does the ship's speed. Despite the low-level
descriptions of a submarine 'flying through the water' as an aircraft
does through air, they don't really.
>Since it doesn't have to be flown in an atmosphere, I'd imagine a
>more shiplike setup would do.
Hmmm... I dunno. The Express will spend very little of it's time in
powered flight, (including orbital and plane changes), so I don't know
how appropriate that is.
D.
-------
Visit our search engine! http://www.interimbooks.com/pagescout/
-------
Interim Books | 322 Pacific Ave | Bremerton, WA | 98337
fair...@hurricane.net | (360) 377-4343 | http://www.interimbooks.com/
Peter Stickney
Interim Books <fair...@hurricane.net> writes:
> On Wed, 09 May 2001 04:35:35 GMT, p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>>The Express is a Single Pilot beast, and a look at high performance single
>>pilot airplanes (Including the Navy, of course)
>
> Single pilot != Single Crew. A simple but very important point....
> The other important point is that David's spec calls for a three man
> crew.
No. but the Pilot still is going to need all of the information
required for "That Pilot Stuff" Today's installment will be two-crew
high performance aircraft - The A-5. the SR-71, the F-4, and the
F-111. The setup is still basically the same. At a broad level, my
take on the WvB Express crew is, basically, Stick Actuator, Number
Cruncher, and Black Gang. The Pilot's in command, and flies the thig
in atmosphere. The Nav is keeping track of the Abort options on the
way up, and doing the Orbital Mechanic Stuff while in space.
Basically, in the Space Station case, he's conning the rendesvous, up
to the last little part of actual contact. He's the main Guy for the
onboard computers, and his systems are driving the Pilot's displays.
He also gets to calculate the burns and trajectories for re-entry.
The Systems Guy makes sure that it's all running O.K., and sets up the
burn sequences the Nav calculates. In orbit, the Pilot really doesn't
do much - maybe he can be the one to push the button.
Basically, so far, I'm seeing teh Pilot's station as pretty much the
same as any other single-pilot cockpit, but without the Engine
Instruments and the Fuel Management stuff. Thake those away, and
there isn't much difference between a fighter and bomber cockpit.
The Nav Station is much like that on an A-5, or SR-71. There's the
Nav System panel, (INS or Whatever), the computer stuff, Displays &
DSKYs, etc. and how about a peroscopic Optical Viewer, like on the
U-2. This was used to both look at teh ground track, and take star
shots. It seems appropriate.
The Engineer Station is engine management, mostly some matrix to
select what motors will fire, since there's no throttle, and a timer
to kick 'em off after they're done. Of course, there's the Fuel,
Electric, Hydraulic and Environmental stuff.
>
>>Now what I'd suggest for the Moon Landers is a setup like a post-
>>Albacore sub. Two stations, with duplicated controls, although most
>>of the time, each Helmsman is handling one axis of manuverability.
>
> It's not quite that simple.... :^) The Helmsman usually controls the
> rudder and fairwater or bow planes, the Planesman controls the stern
> planes. The two planes and independent and interdependent... The
> stern planes control the ships angle, the fairwater planes control the
> ships depth. The angle can also make the hull act as wing, and the
> status of the ship's trim and weight dialed in by the Diving officer
> also factor in, as does the ship's speed. Despite the low-level
> descriptions of a submarine 'flying through the water' as an aircraft
> does through air, they don't really.
Sounds more like a Big Wet Iron Blimp. Hmm... Earth-Moon Ferry crews
being trained at Lakehurst... That would be neat.
>
>>Since it doesn't have to be flown in an atmosphere, I'd imagine a
>>more shiplike setup would do.
>
> Hmmm... I dunno. The Express will spend very little of it's time in
> powered flight, (including orbital and plane changes), so I don't know
> how appropriate that is.
The trickiest thing for the Earth-Moon shuttles is the Lunar landing,
but that doesn't happen fast. I'll stick to the Saturn Shuttle for now.