[HN Gopher] Saving the shuttle simulator-"It was an artifact tha...
___________________________________________________________________
Saving the shuttle simulator-"It was an artifact that needed to be
preserved"
Author : rbanffy
Score : 140 points
Date : 2021-12-12 12:39 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| phire wrote:
| Shame that they don't have the resources to restore the original
| computers.
|
| Maybe I'm weird, but the details of the computers and however
| they were producing the graphics with mid-70s technology is
| actually more interesting to me than the simulator itself.
|
| Are they using computer graphics by that point? Or are they stuck
| with computer-controlled cameras over over physical models?
|
| Edit: Found some high-level documentation of the whole computer
| systems[1]. Based on the description of the visual system on page
| 117, it looks like has specialised hardware for lit, flat-shaded
| polygonal graphics.
|
| [1] https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980NASCP2150..113O
| lodovic wrote:
| They should just leave the simulator as-is and accept that it
| cannot be restored together with all the mission control
| infrastructure. Keep it as a museum artefact. And then build a
| new simulator from scratch with modern flat panels and a big
| PC, for people to use.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Or just throw flat panels at the current simulator, hook it
| up and let people take a ride for money.
|
| While it's a imperfect preservation from a historical
| standpoint giving a lot of people the opportunity to
| experience it would help preserve it for the future.
|
| Museums often struggle with this. Some historically
| interesting piece of whatever languishes and then eventually
| gets chucked whereas something that's more completely
| unremarkable and low value and common enough to let people
| actually interact with it winds up being the star of their
| collection.
| bredren wrote:
| It would be really cool if there was a replica shuttle and
| mission control simulator using modern techniques and
| software.
|
| But then it would also offer an arcade style version that
| the general public could just flip switches to try out.
|
| I'm guessing the general public would not be able to follow
| the sequences needed to make the original approachable or
| fun.
|
| I proposed a interactive art piece for Burning Man that
| offered this "follow the sequence by flipping switches and
| hitting buttons" game.
|
| But then the pandemic hit became one of the worst ideas
| possible.
|
| Here's the concept video I put together:
|
| https://youtu.be/HpekTizfdf8
| jacquesm wrote:
| Mid 60's technology, actually.
| rbanffy wrote:
| IIRC, there were companies running pure CGI simulators in the
| 70's, so that could be the out of the window imagery for the
| astronauts. I'd love to know more about the software (and,
| mostly, what appeared on the three MFDs of the original
| shuttles, as well as detailed images of the glass-cockpit MFDs
| that are on this simulator.
|
| IIRC, the original ones were not raster displays, but long-
| persistence X-Y displays.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > Shame that they don't have the resources to restore the
| original computers.
|
| With adequate documentation, they could be emulated, at least
| at the input/output level.
|
| Would be fun then to add new missions to an old simulator :-)
| EmilyHATFIELD wrote:
| If you like this kind of stuff check out CuriousMarc's youtube
| channel, he does great in-depth explanations of his
| restorations
| Pr0GrasTiNati0n wrote:
| pity they didn't think that about the moon lander....Don
| Pettit:"but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful
| process to build it back again"
| clarkrinker wrote:
| Tried to land the 3rd party Shuttle sim at the Air and Space
| museum in Seattle this weekend. Glide ratio of 4.5/1 it's just
| falling out of the sky.
|
| Crashed it like nine times
| jhbadger wrote:
| Extremely odd sentence from the article: "Unfortunately, shortly
| after this, the university unexpectedly lost control of this
| building." Er, what? Was there a revolution?
| birdyrooster wrote:
| The building wasn't tethered down and flew away into space.
| MisterTea wrote:
| Obviously the university did not own the building and the lease
| was not renewed.
| unreal37 wrote:
| Or perhaps another department needed the building for another
| purpose.
| amelius wrote:
| Houston, we have a problem ...
| thanatos519 wrote:
| Actually the engineers had warned the university that they were
| going to lose control of the building, but management wouldn't
| listen.
| nexuist wrote:
| Although you probably meant it in jest, one of the buildings at
| my alma mater is actually named after a professor who led a
| coup against a previous president (some 100ish years ago) and
| became the president himself until he died from a heart attack
| in one of the dining halls.
| wjp3 wrote:
| Years ago I worked as a software tester in the Mission Control
| Center. This was in simpler times, before 9-11. On lunch breaks I
| would wander the campus and poke my head in areas to see what was
| up. Many times employees would give me an impromptu tour of the
| area. One of these times was this full-motion shuttle simulator.
| They were about to take it on a test run, and asked me if I
| wanted to go along for the ride. It was an amazing experience,
| and one of many fond memories of working there.
| dghughes wrote:
| I was going to be pedantic and say isn't that technically the
| Orbiter simulator. But I guess they'd also be doing stuff on the
| way up while it was attached to the rockets.
| jsrcout wrote:
| The article comments have quite a bit of additional information
| on the sim. Interesting reading.
| mzs wrote:
| > I'm not an astronaut, just a commercial pilot, but I was
| fortunate enough to "fly" the shuttle simulator about 12 years
| ago. It was an amazing experience. When the tech strapped us in
| tight and showed where the airsick bags were, I knew it was
| going to get interesting. It's just like an airline simulator
| (pretty sure it was built by the same company), except it tilts
| 90 degrees for launch. I observed a few launches in the
| "jumpseat". They were doing real work and testing an anomaly
| that occurred on a previous shuttle mission to see how it would
| affect systems in various abort scenarios. It really shakes a
| lot during launch, but obviously there is only 1g max. It's on
| hydraulics and by pushing over and dropping, it feels like you
| are decelerating or going weightless, if only for a few
| seconds.
|
| > After the real work was done, they let me shoot a couple of
| approaches into Kennedy. It has an intuitive Heads Up Display,
| similar to what some 737s have. The control stick was quite
| unique however. It sits between your legs like a fighter jet
| and it's fly-by-wire with an unusual activation mechanism that
| I can't really describe. It was very sensitive so you have to
| make short inputs, almost flying it with just 2 fingers. It's
| just like flying an approach in an airplane except you were
| coming in at 250-300 kts most of the way, you were flying a
| 18.5 degree glide path (normal plane is 3 degrees), and there
| was no 2nd chance . The HUD guidance plus the approach lights
| at Kennedy made it very easy to fly an approach. I had no
| trouble landing safely, but it was nearly impossible to get a
| "greaser". I think I bounced one and floated one. I left
| Buidling 5 with the biggest grin on my face that day
|
| - Gman737 - DEC 10, 2021 10:24 AM
|
| https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/saving-the-shuttle-s...
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| > you were flying a 18.5 degree glide path (normal plane is 3
| degrees), and there was no 2nd chance
|
| Yeah, the Shuttle was such a bad glider that they trained
| pilots using a business jet with gear down and _reverse
| thrust._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Training_Aircraft
| Animats wrote:
| What happened to the Shuttle simulator at NASA Ames? NASA has a
| huge Vertical Motion Simulator (60 feet vertically, 40 feet
| horizontally) at Ames, with interchangeable cabs. They had a
| Shuttle cab for that.
|
| Keeping the cockpit lights on is about as far as it usually goes.
| The Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos has some aircraft where
| the cockpit lights are lit, but that's all. The Museum of Flight
| in Seattle used to try to keep some of their planes in flyable
| condition, but as the Boeing retirees die off, that's become
| harder.
| cube00 wrote:
| _> The internal illumination for all those switch panels was
| accomplished via 1,600 tiny incandescent bulbs that were soldered
| onto printed circuit boards on the backs of the panels._
|
| That's a strange design decision given it'd be known that those
| incandescent bulbs would need regular replacement.
|
| It's a shame they went with a static display rather then add a
| "ride" aspect. While some may argue this is a museum not a theme
| park, the more engaging it is the more people will visit and
| learn.
| phire wrote:
| It wouldn't really have the reliability to be a ride.
|
| Theme park rides are designed from scratch for high-uptime
| usage. Like real aircraft, something like this probably
| required several hours of maintenance for every hour of
| "flight-time" back in the day.
| rbanffy wrote:
| It was often said the the shuttle was more rebuildable than
| reusable.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > It's a shame they went with a static display rather then add
| a "ride" aspect.
|
| This simulator is over 50 years old; anyone actively using it,
| especially unsupervised, would cause damage.
|
| I mean I'm all for someone building a newer and more resilient
| simulator, or reproducing it in VR, but at this point this is a
| genuine museum piece and the focus should be on conservation,
| not entertainment.
| geoffeg wrote:
| > This simulator is over 50 years old; anyone actively using
| it, especially unsupervised, would cause damage.
|
| The Delta museum near the Atlanta airport has an old, full-
| motion, level D 737 flight simulator anyone can pay to "fly".
| A operator joins you in the simulator and sets up and
| operates the simulator for you. $425 gets you 45 minutes and
| it seems to stay relatively busy.
|
| I would imagine the operator of a Space Shuttle simulator
| could charge quite a bit more for the opportunity to fly one
| of the most famous aircraft ever built.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| It would be cheaper to pay someone like CAE to build a modern
| hardware space-shuttle simulator if you wanted rides. Then it
| would be easy to replace parts, since they actively maintain
| hundreds of aircraft simulators.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >This simulator is over 50 years old; anyone actively using
| it, especially unsupervised, would cause damage.
|
| It's expensive and takes up a lot of space. Letting people
| use it, even if they can't truly "fly" it, is probably the
| best shot it has at having any staying power in its new home.
| Sure that'll probably require some motor, lightbulb and
| upholstery replacements over time but it should be fine as
| long as they stay on top of it.
|
| When the museum comes under hard times a decade or more in
| the future, after the novelty has worn off, being a cost
| positive attraction vs a cost neutral use of space that could
| be used for something that can attract people is likely the
| difference between the simulator staying or going.
| nradov wrote:
| Incandescent bulbs can be very reliable when run below the
| rated voltage. The color temperature will be a bit lower but
| they last a long time.
| leeter wrote:
| They are also incredibly tolerant to current/voltage spikes
| because they are purely resistive, which makes them ideal for
| situations when power could be 'interesting' as they will
| still function unless they are run well beyond normal limits.
| So when it's more important that it just works, it's not a
| bad design.
|
| Also soldering them would be least of the cost concerns for
| the shuttle program, which had much bigger and nastier cost
| centers.
| bumby wrote:
| I think the concern with soldering goes beyond just cost.
| Vibrations and micro-gravity do have a lot of concerns when
| it comes to shorting and other reliability issues.
| _moof wrote:
| Just doing some quick back-of-the-napkin math, 1,600 miniature
| bayonet sockets potentially add up to hundreds of pounds of
| mass. That may have been a factor in the decision to solder the
| bulbs directly onto the boards. Especially when replacement
| probably required disassembling panels, so the soldering isn't
| really time worth saving. Just a guess though, and the
| significance varies quite a bit depending on where you set the
| slider for "mass of one socket." Still, it's the same order of
| magnitude that they shaved off when they decided not to paint
| the external tank, so it's plausible.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The simulator was designed in the days when white LEDs did not
| yet exist, and likely the time on display is well in excess of
| what it normally would have gone through when in use as a
| training device.
| moron4hire wrote:
| I don't think GP's comment was about the use of incadescent
| bulbs, I think it was about _soldering_ them onto the board.
| jacquesm wrote:
| In vibration sensitive applications that makes perfect
| sense.
| moron4hire wrote:
| I mean, yeah, I wasn't in the room when the Space Shuttle
| was built. I don't know the "surprising level of detail"
| involved. I guess it's a round-about way of saying, "I'd
| like to know what those details were to understand _why_
| having to desolder burnt-out bulbs is better than using a
| spring-loaded, locking fitting. "
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| i dont know that burnt out bulbs are a problem: you can
| trade reliability for efficiency: don't burn the bulb at
| its brightest and it's unlikely it will burn out
| jacquesm wrote:
| While it is always possible that a whole army of experts
| would miss something so obvious as the existence of
| spring loaded locking fittings (aka banjonet bulbs), the
| safe assumption is that they thought of it and rejected
| it for valid reasons. Vibration is a very nasty problem.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| The shuttle experiences severe vibration during launch. You
| don't want your indicator lights shaking loose during
| launch, so therefore they should be soldered.
| kingcharles wrote:
| LEDs were available at the time the shuttles were built, but
| were they considered _too_ new to take a bet on?
|
| Also, I'm bummed they replaced them because LEDs have a very
| different feel.
| [deleted]
| phire wrote:
| The only thing you would be using LEDs for in the late 70s
| would be indicator lights and 7-segment displays. The only
| colors available are red, green and yellow, and they wen't
| bright enough to illuminate dials, instrument panels or
| cockpits. Even if they did use LEDs where they made sense,
| they would still need hundreds of incandescent bulbs.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > LEDs were available at the time the shuttles were built
|
| Assembly of Endeavour, the final STS to be built, was
| completed in 1990. Blue LEDs appeared in 1993 and white ones
| several years alter. During the shuttle era, LEDS were
| invariably red, green and yellow. I'd be surprised if those
| colours were considered suitable for general illumination of
| flight instrumentation.
| Maursault wrote:
| > Blue LEDs appeared in 1993
|
| Then it is interesting that my father's 1989 Wolfsburg
| Edition Jetta has a blue LED in the dash
|
| "The first blue-violet LED using magnesium-doped gallium
| nitride was made at Stanford University in 1972 by Herb
| Maruska and Wally Rhines, doctoral students in materials
| science and engineering." [1]
|
| "In August 1989, Cree introduced the first commercially
| available blue LED based on the indirect bandgap
| semiconductor, silicon carbide (SiC)." [2]
|
| What you must be thinking of: "Two years later, in 1993,
| high-brightness blue LEDs were demonstrated by Shuji
| Nakamura of Nichia Corporation using a gallium nitride
| growth process." [3]
|
| [1,2,3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-
| emitting_diode#blue_LE...
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Blue LEDs were not in commercial products in the 1980s,
| even if the technology existed. Perhaps due to cost, I
| don't really know, but I was there and remember it well.
| In the 90s, companies went nuts with blue LEDs using them
| as power indicators in everything.
| madengr wrote:
| I remember buying one in high school (1989 or 1990) for
| $15 from Digikey. It was in a clear package and put off
| barely any light, but it was a BLUE LED!
| Maursault wrote:
| You are simply mistaken. Volkswagen used blue LED in
| their 1989 model year dash, models presumably available
| in 1988. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snld2cT83qg&t=1m56s
| kube-system wrote:
| I think _you_ might be mistaken. Those are lenses that
| are shaped like LEDs but there are bulbs behind them.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqpyc8huRLE&t=20s
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| god bless youtube, what a specific piece of history to
| have a reference for
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| Clearly I was referring to commercial off-the-shelf
| products rated for aerospace use, not experimental lab
| prototypes.
|
| Regarding your father's car, I'd suggest the indicator in
| question is either an after-market addition, or an
| original incandescent mini-bulb behind a blue plastic
| filter. The latter was a common way to implement coloured
| dashboard lights back then.
| Maursault wrote:
| > Clearly I was referring to commercial off-the-shelf
| products rated for aerospace use, not experimental lab
| prototypes.
|
| Except for "clearly," then sure. I should have known
| because when most people talk about LED they mean
| "hardened for aerospace LED." Right? Come on.
|
| > Regarding your father's car
|
| Nope. Volkswagen used what anyone would recognize as an
| ordinary blue LED in their 1989 model year dash, along
| with ordinary red, green & yellow LEDs.
| sslayer wrote:
| I thought it was a strange restoration decisions to replace
| them, this was built before led's were around.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'm curious what it looks like on the outside. That must be quite
| the rig it is sitting on.
| pomian wrote:
| What a well written article, pleasure to read; summarising a cool
| project with a passionate team working to accomplish the goal of
| preservation. For others interested in space flight computers and
| simulators, in case you haven't read it, there is a great book
| that came out a few years ago about writing the code for the
| Apollo program. Specifically the landing module computer and
| simulator. The book is also a wonderful look into the work teams,
| their dynamics, characters, and a brief glimpse into the politics
| and culture of the world around them as they frenetically worked,
| to get to the moon. Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir. by
| Don Eyles. Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir
| Maxburn wrote:
| Adding The Lone Star Flight Museum to my places to visit some
| day.
| ianvorbach wrote:
| This is awesome. Back in 2014, Bezos ran an expedition to recover
| Apollo engines from the Atlantic and restore them too:
| https://www.bezosexpeditions.com/updates.html
| throwaway45897 wrote:
| It's so weird to see this on HN.
|
| As a student, this simulator was just another piece of junk
| collecting dust at the Riverside campus at Texas A&M. The storage
| building itself was an old WWII hanger, and was mostly used by
| student groups for constructing design projects, with access to
| the adjacent (long-retired) runway space for testing.
|
| The amount of legacy/surplus aerospace hardware stored in that
| hanger was overwhelming. I don't think I fully appreciated it at
| the time. Most of it is probably cleared out by now. Small world
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-13 23:01 UTC)