[HN Gopher] Software Engineering Within SpaceX
___________________________________________________________________
Software Engineering Within SpaceX
Author : theanirudh
Score : 512 points
Date : 2020-06-03 14:38 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (yasoob.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (yasoob.me)
| yasoob wrote:
| Hi guys! I am the author of this article. Excited to see it on
| the first page :)
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| This was cool!
|
| Thanks for sharing that with us.
|
| I'd be interested in finding out how they iterate. I'm absolutely
| positive that they do.
| thoughtpalette wrote:
| Off topic but we share the same name. Except I'd be
| ChrisMarshallCHI.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I met another Chris Marshall that worked for Kodak, back in
| the 1990s. Have you ever worked for Kodak?
| tectonic wrote:
| Good writeup! In general, the direction in modern aerospace is to
| use COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) parts with redundancy and
| failback for radiation hardening.
|
| If you're into this sort of thing, I co-write a weekly newsletter
| about the space industry and often talk about software.
| https://orbitalindex.com
| sq_ wrote:
| Thank you so much for the Orbital Index! I've been subscribed
| for a while now, and I look forward to it every week. Great
| content!
| yasoob wrote:
| I just went through the last issue and enjoyed it quite a lot.
| Good stuff :)
| ThisIsTheWay wrote:
| Just FYI but OI has become a great resource for me and my team
| to maintain situational awareness on what's going on in the
| industry. Thanks for all you do!
| Symmetry wrote:
| I'd worry that the COTS approach might be fine for dealing with
| cosmic rays within the Van Allen belt but it might not be
| sufficient to deal with the solar wind if you're going to GEO
| or Mars.
| junon wrote:
| Sounds neat, first newsletter I've voluntarily subscribed to
| since I was a child. Looking forward to the next issue.
| aphextron wrote:
| >SpaceX also made use of Chromium and JavaScript for Dragon 2
| flight interface. I am not sure how that passed the
| certification. I assume it was allowed because for every mission-
| critical input on the display, there was a physical button
| underneath the display as well
|
| I think that's all the validation we need for HTML/CSS/JS as the
| best tool for UI development nowadays. I wonder if there was
| actual shared code from the Dragon UI used in their online
| docking simulator. How neat.
| riscy wrote:
| It's unlikely that the flight interface is anywhere as nearly
| complex and flexible as a desktop UI needs to be.
|
| Astronauts do not need a screen reader or other accessibility
| features; nor does the UI need the ability to resize for
| different monitors or play nice with the window manager, etc.
|
| Mission-critical UI's are also deliberately simple control
| panels that send commands to some other process. In comparison,
| Electron apps often try to do everything in JS, which can lead
| to efficiency problems for heavy-duty tasks.
| dawnerd wrote:
| > nor does the UI need the ability to resize for different
| monitors
|
| I can see this being the case in the future though
| [deleted]
| yetihehe wrote:
| At least in space screen orientation change detection is no
| longer relevant.
| cbanek wrote:
| Upon thinking about this, it seems like it's a different
| problem in that the people are moving while the screen is
| not. So maybe the screen should have a camera and try to
| adjust the direction to the way the person is facing?
| Obviously if the screen is upsidedown that's not great.
|
| (I don't think that anyone does this, but it's a neat
| thought.)
| Kinrany wrote:
| What happens when multiple people are looking at it from
| different directions, as if it was a table?
| cbanek wrote:
| Then it has to start a pacman game! (I used to love those
| tables with the games in them that you can play from the
| person across from you)
| yetihehe wrote:
| I would suggest some manual switch (software or
| hardware), so that you can rotate displayed image as
| required, not yourself. Like a selector with 4 buttons,
| you click the one which is currently up for you and
| display respects that.
| Scarblac wrote:
| This would finally enable a window manager feature I have
| always wanted: "focus on the window I am looking at".
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| This sort of exists, actually... use hover focus and
| eViacam (https://eviacam.crea-si.com/) together. Of
| course, that doesn't give you separate control of the
| mouse, but I'm not sure that's a bug.
| btown wrote:
| The pilot interface, though, is not just for executing single
| actions; it's for executing against complicated checklists,
| some of which may be less familiar to pilots, some of which
| may even be uploaded asynchronously from the ground (for
| instance, consider the unorthodox procedures developed for
| the Apollo 13 astronauts), and some of which may be
| concurrently ongoing.
|
| This lends itself _extremely_ well to hypertext [0] and to
| interface components such as collapsible sections of text,
| being able to display multiple procedures simultaneously,
| being able to resize them relative to a dashboard of
| diagnostics (if not a window manager, a split-screen), and
| placing the button(s) required to execute a step directly
| near that step without needing to manually resize boxes when
| this is requested. Browser technology is exactly the stack
| that has solved all these problems!
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext
| dgritsko wrote:
| > Astronauts do not need a screen reader or other
| accessibility features
|
| In space, no one can hear your screen? Sorry, I couldn't
| resist.
| amelius wrote:
| Funny thing is that a modern web browser is probably closer to
| "rocket science" than the software of an actual rocket.
| [deleted]
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| It also depends on what these screens are really used for.
|
| The Dragon capsule can operate without any input from the
| astronauts onboard, so it's not completely clear to me whether
| these screens are usedfor anything beyond _showing_ what is
| going on.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Correct they can dock to ISS and return fully automatic
| without astronauts being involved. However the touch controls
| allow to take over, if need or safety protocol require to.
|
| SpaceX has a marketing version of the control interface in
| this simulator: https://iss-sim.spacex.com/ How closely that
| resembles the actual interface I don't know. The astronauts
| claimed the simulator they used matched reality quite
| closely.
| attilakun wrote:
| What are the sources for the claim that they use Chromium and
| JavaScript? Is it the 5 year old StackExchange post? Things
| might have changed since then.
| amw-zero wrote:
| This is one data point. Saying that that's all of the
| validation that we need for web technologies being the best way
| to make a UI is really only proof that statistical significance
| and science currently has no place in the software industry.
| It's just a fashion show.
| bdcravens wrote:
| If it's the only app, with a known configuration, with
| presumably no general Internet access, and a simplified UI,
| with redundant physical buttons for all functionality, yes,
| it's probably a good choice.
| discreteevent wrote:
| I wouldn't agree with that. Nothing has changed. You should
| still ask yourself why am I using this in my context. Could
| save yourself a lot of trouble and make more money. If we were
| to follow SpaceX we would also be using C#, knockout.js and
| labview for everything.
| bkanber wrote:
| To be fair, I can't think of anything better than LabVIEW for
| rapid prototyping and development of complex sensor
| interfaces.
| cryptonector wrote:
| The consensus regarding automobiles and touch interfaces is
| starting to form that they are just a bad idea.
|
| Physical switches, knobs, toggles, buttons -- these things can
| be activated using one's hands _without_ needing to coordinate
| with sight, meaning, our eyes can stay on the road.
|
| There is no road to keep your eyes on in space though, so
| needing to coordinate hands and eyes is clearly not that big a
| problem for the Dragon, and might even be better than lots of
| physical inputs: you can cram more virtual inputs into the same
| area by using menus and what not, and that might make it easier
| to navigate one's way around them. Then again, complex menus
| might make things worse in an emergency. There's not that much
| for the astronauts to do in Dragon though, so it's probably all
| OK.
| mrfusion wrote:
| I wish we could invent some kind of haptic interface for
| touch screens. The flexibility of a touch screen is great but
| very hard to find things without looking.
| amelius wrote:
| Even on a physical keyboard it's difficult to find things
| without looking if you don't know yet where they are.
|
| The problem with touch screens is that they change what you
| can touch all the time. If you'd fix that, you might as
| well install a physical interface.
| VMisTheWay wrote:
| As someone that works in Auto on buttons and works with the
| head unit team, you are incorrect.
|
| The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to
| screens. Sure you might have a few models that remove the
| screen, but these are cheap cars with limited features.
|
| You literally can't have a button for every car feature.
|
| And if your car doesn't have all the features, you won't sell
| well.
|
| And if you disagree with all of this, you probably aren't the
| type of person to drop 40k-50k on a new car. You'd be happy
| with a 2014 car for 10k.
| throwaway_pdp09 wrote:
| > The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to
| screens
|
| You're confusing a benchmark with... something else. And I
| really dislike my new-ish MP3 player with it's damn screen
| that I have to keep looking at to operate, to do anything.
|
| > And if your car doesn't have all the features
|
| My MP3 player has a ton of features and I don't need 90% of
| them. I want it to do one job well - play my music and a
| few other basic controls, just like my old, physically-
| operated MP3 player did. I don't want awesome UX/UI
| bullshit to get in the way, I just want it to do its job.
|
| (plz excuse rant)
| Fogest wrote:
| That's your opinion and an old-school one at that. The
| vast majority of customers do not want something that
| basic.
| throwaway_pdp09 wrote:
| That is my opinion which is why I kept on saying "I". I
| see nothing wrong _at all_ with 'old-school'. There are
| too many self proclaimed UI/UX "experts" who keep
| screwing things up for people (edit: I'll restate that:
| fucking over their users). I only want what works.
|
| > The vast majority of customers do not want something
| that basic.
|
| And you accuse me of 'opinion'. Well, provide evidence of
| this claim.
| BeetleB wrote:
| While your comment is valid to the the person you
| responded to, consider:
|
| My older car with no touch screen has a custom stereo
| installed - everything with physical buttons. And it can
| do more than my other car with a touchscreen. Its
| Bluetooth capabilities are superior. I can set it not to
| auto-play, etc.
|
| Yes, no need to go old school. But no, you don't need a
| touchscreen to get a radio/stereo with better features.
| throwaway_pdp09 wrote:
| I think we agree. I'm not against newer, I'm against
| worse.
| filoleg wrote:
| This. There will always be a niche of people who want
| barebones single-purpose old-school experience out of any
| given device.
|
| Goes for literally anything, from cars to phones to music
| equipment. I definitely fall into this category for some
| of the things myself. However, it is important to
| remember that this is not representative at all of what
| the majority prefers.
| throwaway_pdp09 wrote:
| This is a better post than its parent, and in some cases,
| sure I agree. I can't argue with someone who wants the
| new & shiny, if it works for them, great. But it's being
| pushed on us so such luddites as myself have no choice
| any more - it's all touchscreens now. It's become
| marketing driven. The choice is gone.
|
| > this is not representative at all of what the majority
| prefers
|
| I was very careful to not to project my desires on others
| in my original post, but you're telling me about what
| "majority prefers". So back this up. I don't think you
| can.
| filoleg wrote:
| >you're telling me about what "majority prefers". So back
| this up.
|
| Do you see dedicated single-purpose barebones MP3 players
| having a high demand? Or do people just use their
| smartphones for that purpose? When you walk into a room
| and ask people if they would find an MP3 player device
| useful and would like to get one, what answer do you
| expect to hear?
|
| Also, try asking the same question from people about
| smartphones vs. single-purpose cellphones. Yes, there is
| obviously a niche of people who want to "disconnect" and
| not have to deal with smartphones. But they are in a tiny
| minority.
|
| While market isn't a perfect representation of what
| people want, it is a great proxy, in a lot of cases. And
| for this situation specifically, it looks like the market
| has clearly expressed what consumers want.
| throwaway_pdp09 wrote:
| I asked you to back this up with actual figures. Please
| do so. Now...
|
| > Do you see dedicated single-purpose barebones MP3
| players having a high demand?
|
| I can't buy them. When I looked for a new one, there was
| none available I could find. I did ring the companies
| too. There's no choice so actual demand is difficult to
| ascertain.
|
| Smartphones... OK, that's a good point.
|
| > what answer do you expect to hear?
|
| Irrelevant - give me figures, not asking what I expect to
| get. Facts please. And if you read the comments here,
| there's quite a few expressing preference for physical
| controls.
|
| > But they [non-smartphone users] are in a tiny minority.
|
| A minority or a tiny minority? Give me figures please.
| Don't just talk at me, throwing words around. Facts
| please. And BTW I'm one of these minorities. FYI.
|
| > it looks like the market has clearly expressed what
| consumers want
|
| What's your job?
| filoleg wrote:
| >What's your job?
|
| It is on my HN profile, I write code for living.
|
| >Facts please.
|
| The fact that you called up a bunch of companies, and
| none of them were producing dedicated barebones MP3
| players, kind of speaks for itself. If there was a
| significant demand, why wouldn't they jump on this easy
| money-making opportunity, given that they would have
| pretty much no competitors?
|
| >give me figures, not asking what I expect to get.
|
| I don't have numbers, and neither do you. In the absence
| of actual numbers, anecdotal evidence is the second best
| thing. Do you have anecdotal evidence of talking to an
| average person and asking whether they would be willing
| to pay for a dedicated MP3 player? I do, which is why I
| asked you to imagine how that scenario would play out in
| real life.
|
| If your scenario played out the opposite of mine, then we
| would be at a stall, as anecdotal evidence is nothing
| against opposing anecdotal evidence, only factual numeric
| evidence can beat anecdotal evidence. But if it played
| out the same, I feel like it would only act in support of
| my hypothesis.
|
| I can also bring out hard factual numbers for the sales
| numbers of dedicated MP3 players going down as smartphone
| proliferation increased, if you want, but you probably
| already know how those numbers look.
| throwaway_pdp09 wrote:
| > The fact that you called up a bunch of companies, and
| none of them were producing dedicated barebones MP3
| players, kind of speaks for itself.
|
| Not really. From here
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23405591
|
| "It is fascinating just how poorly modern touch
| interfaces do compared to older vehicles" with a response
| of
|
| "I can't figure out how to turn the HVAC system on in a
| newish car"
|
| This proves that the market is demanding worse
| interfaces, otherwise why would people have to deal with
| them?. That's how your argument goes, and it's bunk.
| Remember the cries of pain over windows 8? That's because
| people liked pain. The market spoke, right?
|
| > I don't have numbers, and neither do you.
|
| Then again I only spoke for myself. Whereas you "...this
| is not representative at all of what the majority
| prefers" & "it looks like the market has clearly
| expressed what consumers want" believe you can speak for
| others. Nope. Facts please.
|
| > I can also bring out hard factual numbers for the sales
| numbers of dedicated MP3 players going down as smartphone
| proliferation increased, if you want, but you probably
| already know how those numbers look.
|
| Irrelevant. I spoke about dedicated MP3 players, and if
| you'd bothered to read what I said, I actually said yours
| was a good point. Still, dedicated MP3 players have a
| market because they are still being sold -
| https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-
| alias%3... So a market for them still exists. It's not
| about smartphones vs dedicated MP3 players, this is about
| interfaces and choice.
| filoleg wrote:
| >"I can't figure out how to turn the HVAC system on in a
| newish car"
|
| That says nothing about touchscreen interfaces
| themselves, it says about their poor implementation in
| certain cars. Just like touchscreen interfaces on phones,
| they were all various degrees of trash for daily usage,
| until iPhone came out with touchscreen-oriented UI and
| lead by example of what touchscreen-oriented UIs for
| phones are supposed to be, as opposed to just regular
| phone UI with touchscreen functionality bolted on.
|
| A similar thing can be observed in cars. I had so many
| hellscape-ish experiences with touchscreens in cars, I
| can rant about those for days. But then I had an
| opportunity to extensively test its implementation in
| Tesla cars, and it was extremely pleasant.
|
| Not that your criticism of touchscreens in modern cars is
| invalid, it totally is valid. Touchscreen interface
| implementation in modern cars, on average, is totally
| inferior to the older physical control interface
| implementation. Which makes sense, as we had over half a
| century to perfect that.
|
| However, as demonstrated by the Tesla interface I
| experienced (hybrid touchscreen+physical controls on the
| steering wheel), those issues are not inherent to all
| touchscreen interfaces. The other manufacturers just need
| to catch up (for some of them, I can already seem them
| being very close). You cannot just bolt a touchscreen
| onto the interface designed with physical controls in
| mind and call it a day. Because that's pretty much why
| those touchscreen interfaces in most modern cars are
| awful to use.
| throwaway_pdp09 wrote:
| I'm not down on touchscreens, just when they're
| misapplied, as you've indicated. And maybe markets indeed
| don't always deliver what the user wants, at least not at
| first. I think we've reached some agreement here.
| elsonrodriguez wrote:
| I've pasted this before, but there's a middle ground
| between touch screens and buttons:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6YYun90S8g&feature=youtu.b
| e...
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Where does the proliferation of features end and concern
| for public safety begin?
| moduspol wrote:
| It might happen when statistics actually show cars with
| touchscreens are measurably less safe.
|
| It'd be even safer if we removed the radio all together,
| and banned any physical controls that aren't on the
| steering wheel (to ensure you don't have to take your
| hand off the wheel to use them).
|
| Why do we only care about public safety in one
| circumstance but not the other?
| drusepth wrote:
| >Why do we only care about public safety in one
| circumstance but not the other?
|
| Outside of armchair theorists online, I'm not convinced
| anyone in charge of car design actually cares about car
| safety at all.
|
| Car accidents are the leading cause of death for people
| age 15-29 and the second leading cause of death for
| people age 5-14. Nearly 3,300 people die every day in car
| accidents, and double that number are permanently
| disabled.
|
| If people actually cared about car safety, it feels like
| these numbers would have gone down in the last 30 years.
| They haven't. [1]
|
| [1] https://i.imgur.com/FE6lZu4.png
| moduspol wrote:
| They probably have gone down per capita, right? We just
| have a lot more people than we did 30 years ago. A car
| built today is certainly safer than one from 30 years
| ago.
|
| My hope is that driverless cars end up solving this
| faster than we otherwise could politically, but obviously
| that may be a bit ambitious.
| rblatz wrote:
| The Navy went big in touch screens and is rolling that
| back. Mazda, by no means a luxury brand, is abandoning
| touch screens. I think touch screens will stick around for
| tasks that aren't routinely done while driving, but there
| will be a massive correction away from touchscreen as the
| only interface to the car.
| Fiahil wrote:
| Higher-end units are using a "control knob" to navigate on
| the screen. "Touching" is for "lower-end" vehicles.
|
| So, as a matter of fact, yes, you can have _one_ button for
| every car feature.
| setpatchaddress wrote:
| Well, Mazda is going in the opposite direction.
|
| More and bigger screens are certainly the way of the future
| for most cars/SUVs, but I'd advocate strongly for a large
| set of ergonomic, reassignable hard controls. The best
| thing about the Tesla Model 3 controls is the configurable
| control gadget on the steering wheel (though I wish they'd
| used better materials -- feels absurdly cheap in a $50k
| car).
| ohazi wrote:
| > The consensus regarding automobiles and touch interfaces
| is starting to form that they are just a bad idea.
|
| > The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to
| screens.
|
| The fact that everyone is _moving_ to screens because they
| 're flashy and cheap ($/feature) doesn't automatically make
| them a good idea.
|
| GP _is_ correct. The consensus from a safety and usability
| perspective is that touchscreens in cars are a bad idea.
| Fuck the bean counters.
| trixie_ wrote:
| All that matters is what sells. Create a car with tons of
| buttons and switches today, go out of business tomorrow.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That's why we can't have nice things, only things that
| are barely fit for purpose.
| csours wrote:
| Disclaimer, I work for GM, any thoughts or opinions are
| solely my own. I do not work on car user interface.
|
| I agree that anything you need to do while driving should be
| a physical interface, but some of the 3D haptic stuff looks
| really cool.
|
| I don't think touch screens are going away because the
| display is so valuable, and there's so much stuff that is
| non-critical that you can configure from a touch screen.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I don't think critical vs noncritical is the important
| distinction for cars. It's distracting vs not distracting.
| The physical knobs and stuff in my car I don't have to look
| for to use. A touchscreen button requires much more careful
| finding and pressing since you can't just root around for
| it.
| hirundo wrote:
| Why not a voice menu? In addition to a physical interface.
| For most functions recognizing just a handful of words
| would do the job, like <wakeup word>, one, two, three ....
| You could shut off the air conditioner like
| you: "hello hal" hal: "say one for radio, two for air
| cond..." you: "two" hal: "say..." you:
| "three"
|
| You wouldn't want a voice recognition app to steer or
| brake, but it would be reliable enough for changing the
| radio station or toggling overdrive. Are there high end
| cars that have voice control stock?
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| Almost all high end cars have voice recognition for many
| years.
|
| The universal impression I get is that it sucks.
| csours wrote:
| I can use Google Assistant with Android Auto via
| bluetooth/usb in my truck and when bluetooth isn't
| screwing up, it works great.
| jjeaff wrote:
| And you can't put customized ads on a physical switchboard.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Of course you can. If it has any form of display, it can
| display customized ads. Some radio stations manage to put
| ads on the 14-segment display that is supposed to show
| the station name and/or frequency.
|
| And if it doesn't, there is always room for a sticker.
| Buy a new laptop and you are going to see half a dozen
| ads before you even turn it on: on the box, on leaflets
| inside the box, and in the form of stickers,... It seems
| that only Apple doesn't play that game, but the privilege
| is expensive.
| avmich wrote:
| > Some radio stations manage to put ads on the 14-segment
| display that is supposed to show the station name and/or
| frequency.
|
| We can talk about hardware protection against ads. The
| hardware would need to recognize allowed data - like
| station name and frequency - and reject disallowed, like
| attempts to make a running text. This will limit
| functionality; maybe it's worth it.
|
| We can talk about software protection - when user
| controls some layer of software. We can implement it as a
| type system, with the same result (only now we can modify
| the software layer if we need). Type system which makes
| ads non-representable looks like a nice solution.
|
| Guilty myself in writing a game resembling Tetris on a
| 8-segment display (blocks moving horizontally), so yes,
| people can be inventive...
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Touch feedback would be a massive improvement. I've seen
| countless patents about them but in practice, all we get
| are vibrators.
|
| The only convincing tactile feedback I've experienced is in
| the MacBook trackpad, even the much publicized "Taptic
| Engine" of the iPhone feels like a vibrator. And while the
| MacBook trackpad is convincing at emulating clicks, it is
| the only thing it does.
| derefr wrote:
| Have you tried the "HD Rumble" feature of Nintendo Switch
| games? It's about on the same level as the "Taptic
| Engine", but it's been made use of for a far-larger
| variety of use-cases, so it's helpful to get a real sense
| of what the possibilities are of that level of tech.
| rurban wrote:
| When I visited the SRI and NASA UI design groups in the
| early 90ies, any feedback if touch, force, audio even
| smell was being considered and implemented. Touch and
| force feedback was extremely advanced there, nothing ever
| made it outside. They even had early versions of Google
| Glass, so that they can work hands free.
|
| But those SpaceX touchscreens are very bad UI design.
| Would not make it in any car or plane. Those buttons need
| to be physical. Remind me on the Apple touch bar, when
| you need to use it at 3g.
| csours wrote:
| I don't have first hand experience with this, and I'm not
| endorsing it, but it sure looks cool to me:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VkcyvtMXI
| varjag wrote:
| For infotainment, touchscreens are a huge help, no debate
| really. Anyone doubting this should get a refresher by
| inputing a street name with a twist dial.
| joshvm wrote:
| Mission/emergency critical buttons on dragon are physical
| (things like chute release) - there is a row of switches
| underneath the panel.
|
| https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2018/08/2...
| tyingq wrote:
| The picture looks like those don't have any tactile
| feedback either. Though maybe just the picture.
| s_y_n_t_a_x wrote:
| There's clearly a seam around the buttons allowing them
| to be depressed along with an internal light.
|
| Looks like most car hazard light buttons.
|
| If we're going to speculate based on a picture lets go
| with the most likely that the physical buttons do have
| tactile feedback lol.
| tyingq wrote:
| Zoom in and look at the left side group of buttons. Is
| that a clear overlay that flips down or something?
|
| That may be why it looks flat to me.
| plttn wrote:
| Yeah, they're all covered with safety covers to avoid
| bumping.
| pugworthy wrote:
| Keep in mind you might be operating them with a spacesuit
| gloved hand. I'm not sure how thick/solid they are, but
| there would be a decreased sense of physical tactile
| feedback.
|
| Looking at the left panel, I'm guessing you first select
| the function you want (Water Deorbit, Deorbit Now,
| Breakout, Depress Response, Suppress Fire, Fire
| Response), then click either Execute or Cancel. Lights on
| the switches help you know what is selected.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > so needing to coordinate hands and eyes is clearly not that
| big a problem for the Dragon
|
| Two things. During ascent the g load on the passengers is
| steadily increasing. By the time you're 6:30 into the burn,
| you'll be experiencing about 2.5g, and just before MECO at
| about 8:15 into the burn you're close to 3.2g. I'm not sure
| using a touch screen in a high-g environment is a good idea.
|
| Second thing, right after MECO you're suddenly very close to
| 0-g. Which is a fun ride to be sure, but _everything else_ in
| the cabin is suddenly weightless as well. Items have a
| tendancy to start floating around the cabin and knocking into
| things.
|
| > There's not that much for the astronauts to do in Dragon
| though, so it's probably all OK.
|
| When everything is going according to plan.. there isn't much
| to do. This isn't the scope you want to design for, though.
| itsspring wrote:
| > I'm not sure using a touch screen in a high-g environment
| is a good idea.
|
| Agreed. All of the events during this time are fully
| automatic. If the astronauts needed to personally abort for
| a reason that ground control did not see, I saw what
| appeared to be a physical abort switch that needed to be
| turned and pulled (but I could be wrong)
| inamberclad wrote:
| Hand-eye coordination is actually quite difficult shortly
| after reaching microgravity. You're so trained compensate for
| the weight of your arm that you'll hit above where you expect
| when you reach for things. The opposite goes for landing
| again.
| bkanber wrote:
| My car has a holographic HUD that displays on the windshield,
| and responds to hand and voice gestures. (The HUD is
| _awesome_, but the gesture recognition is hit or miss at
| present).
|
| I agree with you that touchscreens in autos are garbage.
| However I don't agree that physical or haptic switches are
| the _only_ solution. I think touchscreens in autos were just
| a technical stepping stone towards something new, like this
| combo of holographic/gesture/voice control UI.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Do you have to take your focus off the road and mirrors in
| order to use the HUD? If so then it's dangerous.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _There is no road to keep your eyes on in space_
|
| The "road" are the instruments. Having the instruments be
| directly intractable with makes sense on a rocket.
|
| I agree with you in respect of cars.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Everything is automated though. There's almost nothing for
| astronauts to do except pull an abort handle. Instruments
| and telemetry are shared with ground control, and anyways,
| they don't need the astronauts to touch anything unless
| there is so much instrumentation to present that the
| astronauts have to page through it.
| gibolt wrote:
| What consensus? Bad interfaces on low-end touch screens are
| terrible, but plenty of Tesla owners would take the screen
| over the plethora of physical knobs.
|
| Volume and vehicle control/steering are the main inputs where
| physical makes sense.
| codenesium wrote:
| After riding as a passenger in a Tesla I was shocked at how
| often the driver looked down at the screen and not at the
| road.
| baja_blast wrote:
| Can you watch movies on that screen while driving?
| olex wrote:
| No, Theater mode (full-screen Youtube, other apps and
| games) and video playback in the browser are only
| available when the car is parked.
| m0xte wrote:
| Same experience here. Model 3 is absolutely terrible for
| this. My father actually kerbed his and screwed up the
| alloys looking at the screen.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| As a Tesla owner I completely agree. I really like what
| Ford did on the new Mach-E. They unabashedly 'stole' the
| touchscreen idea, then iterated. Now I want the smaller,
| wider LCD in front of the driver, and the big knob at the
| bottom of the center touchscreen. Maybe Tesla can copy
| that idea and iterate it some more... add some
| programmable buttons along the bottom or something ;-)
| gibolt wrote:
| You have physical volume knobs on the steering wheel.
| That is less distracting than any reach to the console.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| For some things, absolutely, but for the times when you
| need to interact with things on the screen that are more
| complicated than simple volume, a knob is still a pretty
| great option to have.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Here's a sample:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23408738
|
| which links
|
| https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/mazda-getting-
| rid-....
|
| https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/08/a-lesson-for-
| autom....
|
| https://www.automobilemag.com/news/touchscreen-needs-go/
|
| https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/should-gestures-and-
| spe....
|
| https://jalopnik.com/touchscreens-in-cars-have-been-a-
| failur....
|
| That consensus.
| goshx wrote:
| Do you have a source about the said "consensus"? It sounds
| more like resistance to change than an actual rationale.
|
| You have always had the need to look at the buttons, like
| reaching out to the radio.
|
| From my experience, the majority of people who drive a car
| with touch interfaces don't want to look back to old
| fashioned buttons.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| A study from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory showed
| that all drivers in the study had a critical reaction time
| degradation when interacting with Android Auto and Apple
| Car play.
|
| > "The increase in reaction time when interacting with
| either system using touch was higher than previously
| measured forms of impairment, including texting and hand-
| held calls".
|
| It's a small sample size N=20 but their conclusion was that
| interacting with these touch infotainment systems created a
| reaction time degradation that was 4x worse than the
| reaction time of a drunk driver (80mg of alcohol per
| 100ml).
|
| They followed up this study with a call for urgent shifting
| in the auto industry to voice controlled infotainment
| systems.
|
| [0] "Interacting with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay when
| driving", R Ramnath, N Kinnear, S Chowdhury, T Hyatt, March
| 2020.
|
| https://trl.co.uk/reports/interacting-android-auto-and-
| apple...
| karatestomp wrote:
| > You have always had the need to look at the buttons, like
| reaching out to the radio.
|
| Aside from others' comments that one needn't look at
| buttons & knobs one has memorized, also:
|
| 1) one does not need to look _as long_ at buttons and knobs
| as a screen to locate the desired control, because they do
| not change position. One also never needs to navigate a
| menu to perform a basic task. The closest most come is
| having a button that cycles AM /FM and channel presets.
|
| 2) it's possible to combine the fixed-location advantage of
| buttons and knobs with visual and tactile differentiation
| that reduces or eliminates the need to look at the controls
| even further. Some cars do this, but a really great example
| is the Nintendo Gamecube controller, which was clearly
| designed by someone who'd watched a young child try to
| remember what all the buttons on earlier consoles (SNES,
| N64, Playstation, perhaps) were used for. Size
| differentiation, most-used buttons in the most-accessible
| positions, larger, and highlighted by color, less-used ones
| smaller with diminishing vividness of color the less-
| important they were. A clear hierarchy of importance
| differentiated by color, size, shape, and feel. Auto makers
| don't ever _fully_ embrace this because it results in a UI
| that doesn 't look they way they want it to, but for
| maximum safety, they should.
|
| A very, very consistent touchscreen UI could use some of
| this to great effect to reduce the harm that they cause,
| but they'd have to _almost never_ screw with placement,
| appearance, or behavior of UI elements, all of which would
| need to be perfectly consistent and just about never
| change, which in practice probably means never receiving
| updates because there aren 't a lot of teams that can
| resist fiddling with looks & behavior (this is a problem
| that plagues _all_ web and frequently-updated software, and
| if you don 't think it's a big one or causing some serious
| irritation and reduced-utility in computing in the wild
| then try watching someone who's not extremely "computer
| savvy" use their computer or phone for a while). They'd
| also need to radically simplify their UIs and work very
| hard on reducing latency and improving interaction accuracy
| (touch, then nothing happens for a second or two, is
| _extremely_ confusing to non-computer-nerds, and it 's 100x
| worse if it's not _consistently_ precisely that
| unresponsive--sometimes instant, sometimes 1s delay,
| sometimes 5s delay, is the _absolute worst_ way a UI can
| behave)
| afterburner wrote:
| With physical controls, you can verify using touch (ie
| without sight) that you are touching the correct control,
| and _then_ activate it.
|
| With touch controls, as soon as you've touched it, you've
| activated it.
|
| And touch screens have very few ways to verify your
| position by touch, since it's a large flat screen. Controls
| with a plethora of knobs and sliders have all kinds of
| terrain that you can use by touch to verify your position.
| cryptonector wrote:
| > Do you have a source about the said "consensus"?
|
| https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/mazda-getting-
| rid-... https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/08/a-lesson-
| for-autom...
| https://www.automobilemag.com/news/touchscreen-needs-go/
| https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/should-gestures-and-
| spe... https://jalopnik.com/touchscreens-in-cars-have-been-
| a-failur...
|
| I've seen so many of these go by that I had to do the very
| same search that you could have made instead of asking for
| sources.
|
| Asking for sources when a trivial search at your fingertips
| will yield them can come across as rude and lazy. Please
| make a better effort in the future.
| mlyle wrote:
| > From my experience, the majority of people who drive a
| car with touch interfaces don't want to look back to old
| fashioned buttons.
|
| Many automakers that had touch-heavy interfaces are moving
| back towards physical controls, both because of market
| demand and evolving industry safety considerations.
|
| e.g. https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-
| is-pur... https://jalopnik.com/honda-follows-mazda-by-
| ditching-some-to...
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/06/17/ford-
| my...
|
| I have no problem with touch controls in general, but
| replacing a volume knob I can find blindly with a
| relatively small pair of "Vol+" and "Vol-" touch targets is
| mildly infuriating. It's OK as the driver because there is
| an actual tactile control on the steering wheel, but
| downright unpleasant as a passenger.
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| It is fascinating just how poorly modern touch interfaces
| do compared to older vehicles. As an example, with older
| cars with vacuum controlled HVAC, the sliders and such
| were very, very "notchy" and you could change all the
| settings without taking an eye off the road. In the
| 80s/90s the buttons change to electrical instead of
| mechanical and you start needing to glance, due to the
| lack of haptic feedback. Fast forward to the modern era,
| and you generally have no way to control anything (other
| than the volume) without a full look at the touch screen,
| plus a longer look to make sure your finger hits the
| touch target.
|
| I will admit that the touch screen in my new VW is
| fashionable and I love all the data screens -- but I have
| had near-misses due to having to stare at the screen to
| do stuff like hit touch targets for changing my spotify
| playlist. It has nothing to do with responsiveness either
| -- the screen has no perceptible lag, its all to do with
| lack of haptics / feel.
|
| edit: I drive both an early 90s truck and a late 2010s
| car. I don't miss the touch screen when I drive the
| truck, I only miss Spotify / Google Maps.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I can't figure out how to turn the HVAC system on in a
| newish car.
|
| My old one has a slider labeled "Heat" and "Defrost".
| Never had problems with that.
| moduspol wrote:
| Those automakers did not have competitive touch
| interfaces.
|
| And there's still room on the steering wheel for knobs
| for the most common controls, and voice control is often
| available.
| nitrogen wrote:
| I strongly dislike voice control. Speech is a high-
| latency, low-bandwidth, error-prone medium. A button is a
| button. One bit, clear unambiguous.
|
| Tactile controls can become so thoroughly integrated in
| muscle memory that well-designed tools and machines
| (including cars) feel like an extension of thought. Think
| "volume up", it just happens automatically from thought
| to fingers to buttons.
|
| Compare that to a multi-word speech command that requires
| perfect diction and phrasing over a span of five seconds.
| That's five seconds of distraction, longer if the command
| has to be repeated, vs milliseconds for the button.
| moduspol wrote:
| I agree, and the voice control implementations I've seen
| leave a lot to be desired. But they do work without
| taking your eyes off the road, or hands off the steering
| wheel.
|
| I think the most common commands can all be mapped to
| buttons on the steering wheel, which similarly is as
| close to possible as "negligible reduced driving capacity
| to use" without the tediousness of voice control.
|
| But I do think the theoretical safety benefits of
| physical buttons that are not on the steering wheel as
| compared to touchscreens for features beyond the ones
| commonly used while driving are probably overstated.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Part of pilot training in the old days in the Air Force
| was the pilot was blindfolded, and the instructor would
| call out a control's name, and the pilot had to put his
| hands on the control.
|
| Or he wouldn't be rated to fly the airplane.
|
| In an airliner, the critical controls are all uniquely
| shaped, so the pilot knows by the feel which is which.
| goshx wrote:
| One of the issues with those automakers is that their
| interfaces are in general unresponsive and slow. The one
| in my BMW sucked. The Jaguar I-PACE is very slow as well.
|
| Tesla got this right with both the touch screen and the
| physical buttons on the steering wheel for things like
| volume control.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > One of the issues with those automakers is that their
| interfaces are in general unresponsive and slow. The one
| in my BMW sucked. The Jaguar I-PACE is very slow as well.
|
| > Tesla got this right with both the touch screen and the
| physical buttons on the steering wheel for things like
| volume control.
|
| Perhaps there's an auto manufacturer or two that got it
| right. However, I've never driven a car with physical
| buttons that got it wrong. When I used to shop for cars
| in those days, I _never_ had to consider if those buttons
| were compatible with me. Now when I buy for a newer car,
| it 's an added headache to consider, and one that I've
| not seen add any real value. Going on a test drive really
| will not tell me enough about whether the interface is
| good. And worst of all, _whether it is or isn 't affects
| my safety_.
| filoleg wrote:
| >Perhaps there's an auto manufacturer or two that got it
| right. However, I've never driven a car with physical
| buttons that got it wrong.
|
| You gotta give it some time, because modern physical
| control interfaces in cars had over half a decade to
| evolve to reach this point. With regard to touchscreen
| interfaces in cars, it simply feels like those are still
| stuck somewhere in the pre-iPhone era of touchscreen
| interfaces for phones in terms of usability compared to
| physical controls.
| throwaway4220 wrote:
| My 2006 honda civic navigation had a good mix of touch
| and physical buttons, that is almost no-look. What I find
| funny though is that since it's a resistive touch and has
| a beep for every button (after a lag of course), i get
| "haptic feedback"
| mlyle wrote:
| Your comment has nothing to do with what I stated. As I
| mentioned already, I do have a tactile steering wheel
| control for volume. But even the experience for a
| passenger adjusting volume sucks compared to a knob.
|
| And my touch screen, in general, is snappy enough.
| drusepth wrote:
| The passenger doesn't need to keep their eyes on the
| road, though. It seems to me like the benefits of being
| able to cram a million more things (as needed) into a
| screen outweighs the downsides of having to glance at a
| screen if you're not familiar with it.
|
| I prefer touch controls both as a driver and a passenger.
| I even use a Halo keyboard (effectively just another
| screen, with no "real" buttons) on my laptop. It takes
| some getting used to, but eventually becomes second
| nature -- and then you open up huge new areas of
| functionality that aren't possible with physical buttons
| and knobs.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I don't want a million controls on my car.
| Koshkin wrote:
| You have to give it to modern car tech though. This is
| how one would start Ford Model T: _While out of the
| driver's seat, the driver would need to pull the choke,
| located near the right front fender. At the same time,
| the driver had to turn the crank lever one-quarter turn
| clockwise to prime the carburetor. The crank lever was
| located beneath the radiator at the front of the auto.
| Next, the driver had to jump into the car, insert the key
| into the ignition, and turn it. Immediately, the driver
| had to move the timing stalk up and move the throttle
| stalk down to set the idle correctly. Pulling the hand
| brake back would place the car into neutral. The next
| step necessitated getting back out of the car to turn the
| hand crank a half-turn. This turn of the crank would
| actually start the engine._
|
| http://www.thebenzbin.com/early-car-starters
|
| (I do miss the ability to jump-start a car using a crank
| lever.)
| goshx wrote:
| I disagree that it "has nothing to do with what [you]
| stated", as the user experience also influences demand,
| and I still think Tesla got it right with the touch
| screen available for passengers to change the volume and
| the tactile steering wheel control. Do you drive a Tesla?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I drive a Tesla.
|
| I lost the ability to have my text messages read to me,
| or to respond by dictating them. For a short time there
| was a half-implementation from Tesla that was in no way
| comparable to CarPlay, but it stopped working for me a
| couple months ago and I haven't been able to convince it
| to start working again.
|
| I also used to be able to select music to play, and it
| didn't require jumping through a bunch of hoops to find
| it. Now my choices is the streaming that Tesla includes,
| or Spotify, and the Spotify interface is _awful_. I
| bought a subscription and tried it out, thinking I could
| switch from Apple Music, but after failing repeatedly to
| get the Spotify in the car to see playlists I created on
| my phone, and growing weary of Spotify on my phone or
| computer defaulting to playing out in the car even when I
| had been inside for hours, I gave up on that.
|
| I also used to use Waze, or Google Maps, or Apple Maps,
| depending on what I felt worked best. Thankfully the maps
| built in to the Tesla aren't awful, but the interface is
| not without its quirks.
|
| Tesla could solve this by supporting CarPlay and Android
| Auto, but they won't, because they need us to have a
| reason to pay for the premium data subscription.
| goshx wrote:
| I'm not sure what all of this has to do with the touch
| screen conversation, but I feel you. It will all be
| solved with software updates eventually if enough people
| send formal complaints.
| filoleg wrote:
| > I lost the ability to have my text messages read to me,
| or to respond by dictating them
|
| Out of curiosity, which Tesla? Because iirc there was a
| firmware update pushed out closer to the end of last
| year, which added that functionality (both having texts
| read and being able to respond by dictating), and I
| thought it went out for all Tesla cars.
|
| The only reason I asked about the specific model you
| drive is because I know that some older Model S and X
| cars receive slightly different versions of firmware
| updates than newer ones like Model 3, but afaik the
| differences are usually related to autopilot/FSD
| features, not to UX features like this.
| mlyle wrote:
| > and I still think Tesla got it right with the touch
| screen available for passengers to change the volume and
| the tactile steering wheel control.
|
| That's not a super relevant point in response to me
| mentioning that my car has a touch screen available for
| passengers to change the volume and a tactile steering
| wheel control, and that I don't like it.
| goshx wrote:
| There is no way for it to be more relevant than it is.
|
| I am telling you that what you don't like in your car, I
| think that Tesla got it right. How is that not relevant?
| What kind of response are you expecting?
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| Yeah, I was a touchscreen skeptic until I got my model 3:
| all the controls I care about while driving have physical
| controls on the steering wheel and, if I absolutely need
| to fiddle with the touchscreen, I can enable autopilot,
| which is safe enough compared to distracted driving.
| anewdirection wrote:
| I would argue activating autopilot while distracted is
| not only counter to teslas instruction, but criminally
| negligent. Please either drive, or take an uber, for the
| rest of us.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| So, when the road is well-marked and I'm adjusting the
| AC, you'd rather have nothing keeping my car in the lane?
| My hands are on the steering wheel, and I'm paying
| attention to the road, I just know that I'm going to be
| spending some amount of time looking at a screen to
| change a setting.
|
| This isn't "I'm tweeting and using social media and
| thwarting the attention sensors" it's "I know my
| attention is going to be divided between maintaining my
| lane and adjusting the temperature/picking a new station
| so I'm going to take steps to avoid drifting out of my
| lane into other cars"
| dejj wrote:
| Would be awesome to use voice commands mapping physical
| controls. Say, "Ok, Tesla, put AC control on slider 1".
| This also keeps the kids in back from messing with the AC
| (dads appreciate).
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| "Autopilot" here is basically adaptive cruise control +
| lane assist, which are both technologies available from
| nearly every manufacturer at this point. I'm not talking
| about the beta Full Self Driving features.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| > You have always had the need to look at the buttons, like
| reaching out to the radio.
|
| Definitely not true. My last car had all physical buttons,
| and I could easily, by feel, use all of them with one hand
| while keeping my eyes on the road and the other hand on the
| wheel. When you've been driving a vehicle for years you get
| very used to its controls. Plus, on a lot of these cars
| some of the most common radio controls (like volume and
| change frequency) are right on the wheel beneath your
| thumbs.
| Geezus_42 wrote:
| I drove a Prius where EVERYTHING was controlled a non-
| tactile touch panel. It was one of the most infuriating
| experiences with a car in my life and far more distracting.
|
| In comparison my car has physical buttons and dials. If I
| want to adjust the temperature while driving I don't need
| to look away from the road, I just grab the dial and turn
| it a few clicks, same with sterio volume. I know
| approximately where the dials are so I can reach in the
| general area and know what I'm doing with out looking
| because there is something physical to grab.
| irrational wrote:
| Both of my cars are old enough that they don't have a
| screen. I don't need to look at the buttons to use the
| radio, turn on defrost, adjust the A/C, etc. It is all
| muscle memory. I can do it all blindfolded. But on those
| occasions when I rent a car that has a touchscreen it
| drives me crazy. There is literally no way to use it
| without taking my eyes off the road and looking at the
| screen. It seems like a huge safety issue. It has convinced
| me to never buy a car with a touch screen. If there are no
| newer cars without a touch screen, I will just buy older
| used cars.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > You have always had the need to look at the buttons, like
| reaching out to the radio.
|
| I never look at those buttons, and I switch stations _all
| the time_. In fact, the radio is my standard example of
| where touch screens fail and are hazardous.
|
| Just like with a phone that has physical buttons - I would
| dial numbers without looking at the phone.
|
| In the car I have that doesn't have a touch screen, I don't
| think I ever look for any button - be it climate control,
| emergency lights, etc.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > You have always had the need to look at the buttons, like
| reaching out to the radio.
|
| When the controls are in fixed positions, you only need to
| look at them a few times, before you memorize their
| positions. It also helps if they're shaped differently,
| like knobs and dials in addition to buttons.
|
| Using the example of a radio, I used to be able to do just
| about everything without looking, with the exception of
| direct tuning (but that's what presets are for), in my
| older cars with traditional head units. Now that I have a
| touchscreen head unit, there's almost nothing I can do
| without looking. Basically, I can control the volume from
| my steering wheel, and that's about it.
| goshx wrote:
| Yes. The buttons on the touch interface don't change
| positions either, but I understand your point.
|
| Anecdotally, I've been driving a Model 3 for two years
| now and I have zero problems with the touch interface.
| bob1029 wrote:
| The buttons on a touch interface absolutely can change
| positions. What button is currently in scope? Everything
| is contextual in my experience. With physical interfaces,
| I don't have to worry that my radio's volume knob is
| going to wind up on the ceiling after I had just turned
| on the AC.
|
| Even if you design the logical interface such that all
| 2-d screen mappings are consistent regardless of context,
| there is still the problem of tactile feedback. Physical
| affordances can provide varying shapes, materials and
| actuation methods which can immediately distinguish them
| from each other without the need for visual confirmation.
| jen20 wrote:
| The touch-screen buttons in many cars often do change
| meaning, even if they don't change position within a
| given context.
|
| I first experienced this on a Prius back in the
| mid-2000s, where the touch-screen was in one of several
| modes (climate, radio, navigation etc) and even if one
| can remember where the controls are, it's necessary to
| look before touching. That car had more physical buttons
| than is generally the case now and was still difficult to
| operate.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _When the controls are in fixed positions, you only
| need to look at them a few times, before you memorize
| their positions._
|
| The controls on your phone are in fixed positions most of
| the time; do you use your smartphone without looking, the
| way you probably used your feature phone?
|
| No, because with touchscreens come heavy-weight operating
| systems like Android, which have unpredictable input
| delays. Without looking, you can't tell if your touch
| input was correctly registered (vs. ignored because the
| OS decided to hang for a second), and if there's any mode
| switching involved, you can't tell when the UI has
| updated to allow you to press again.
|
| I'm not against touchscreens as a matter of principle
| (though I come to appreciate the ergonomics of physical
| controls). But their overall responsiveness is, in
| general, much worse than those of physical controls.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| I can't edit anymore, but I meant physical controls in
| fixed positions, so you can feel which control you're
| interacting with in relation to other controls. Even
| better with a little bump or divot, like the "5" key on a
| 10-key.
|
| With a touchscreen, there's really no way to know where
| your starting point is when you reach for it blindly, so
| you have to look. I suppose you could use the edges, but
| that wouldn't be so easy on a large touchscreen.
|
| With an old car radio, you can reach for it, know what
| you touch first, and know where everything else is in
| relation to it, all without looking, ever.
| mikestew wrote:
| _You have always had the need to look at the buttons, like
| reaching out to the radio._
|
| That is definitely not true. Volume on the left, tuner on
| the right, and of the five preset buttons, WFBQ is the one
| in the middle. You could feel for all of that without your
| eyes leaving the road. What might have happened is that you
| came of age after utilitarian radios. For example, I had to
| give some serious looking in order to find a DIN2 radio
| that had CarPlay _and_ a physical on /off/volume control.
| Or just a physical on/off button, not some software button
| buried five menu levels deep. Such jackassery used to be
| the exception, not the new rule.
|
| Climate control? Heat control on left, blower the middle,
| and position (where it blows) on the right. Or some
| combination thereof. Our utilitarian Mercedes Sprinter RV
| has it right. Other, less utilitarian vehicles: meh, not so
| much.
|
| I could go on. But I've never been required to let my eyes
| leave the road for functionality until the last ten years
| or so. $DEITY help you if you need to switch Bluetooth
| devices while driving our Leaf: seven screen touches to
| pull that off, with plenty of opportunity along the way to
| make a wrong choice. No wonder it won't allow you to do it
| while moving.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| "I had to give some serious looking in order to find a
| DIN2 radio that had CarPlay and a physical on/off/volume
| control"
|
| Share.. Please! I still haven't found any.
|
| I have 2004 wrx with 2din slot but haven't found anything
| with ergonomics of the manufacturer old setup. I have so
| much room, yet all I can find is huge screens with tiny
| or no buttons... :(
| mikestew wrote:
| Jensen VX4024: https://www.crutchfield.com/S-ygHtVbHJ59g/
| p_110VX4024/Jensen...
|
| See that big honkin' knob on the left? Volume and on/off.
| It's glorious, especially when driving a 5400Kg vehicle.
| Bought it last year, or year before, so there might be an
| updated model.
|
| EDIT: check out Crutchfield's other radios, too. There's
| a brand they sell call "Boss" (never heard of them,
| either), and every model of theirs has a big knob for
| 1/0/Volume.
| [deleted]
| hacker_9 wrote:
| This is bonkers. The UI did look good, I'm suprised it wasn't
| something native like QT. But I guess when I think about it,
| does it really matter? Chromium has some of the best engineers
| behind it, and web developer supply has never been higher.
| Yfvj875rfg wrote:
| Qt requires a commercial license in this use case. Why bother
| if Chromium is free and it works?
| mrweasel wrote:
| They already pay for VxWorks, I'm sure they can afford the
| QT license, if they even need it for a system that only
| made for SpaceX.
| speedgoose wrote:
| I'm quite sure SpaceX can afford the commercial license of
| Qt.
|
| It's simply that right now, web is the best. Far from
| perfect, but the best.
| detaro wrote:
| So SpaceX is worried that their customers they sell
| spaceships to need to be able to get the source code of the
| Qt they use if they use it under LGPL?
| jcelerier wrote:
| Tesla uses Qt under LGPL in their own cars:
| https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/05/20/1737213
| ksec wrote:
| In the article comment section someone from QT mentioned they
| were using QT for something. So it isn't clear which part of
| which is QT and which is HTML.
| Matthias247 wrote:
| > I'm suprised it wasn't something native like QT.
|
| The question is what you really would gain from using QT
| compared to Chrome/HTML/JS.
|
| Performance won't really matter for this. It it's good enough
| on the hardware they have, then further improving it does not
| make a difference. Provided they are running everything
| really mission-critical and real-time outside of the UI and
| on an RTOS or specialized hardware anyway (I really really
| hope so).
|
| One advantage might be audibility and the hope for less
| defects due to a smaller codebase and less dependencies. But
| I think even QT is already far beyond that point. And since
| Chrome is nowadays wider deployed, it might have a higher
| level of maturity than eg. the QT/QML tech.
| ColanR wrote:
| If we're going to use SpaceX to validate our language choices,
| then we should be moving back to C for the "mission critical"
| code.
|
| > The certification and correctness part is made easier by
| using software verification tools. One such tool is Astree. It
| is a static code analyzer that checks for runtime errors and
| concurrency related bugs in C projects. This also leads us to
| the answer for why a lot of mission-critical code is written in
| C. Its because there are a lot of static analyzers and software
| verification tools for C.
| trasz wrote:
| There are also software verification tools that use binaries
| instead. That's how seL4 gets verified. This way you're safe
| from compiler bugs.
| 59nadir wrote:
| C is already the undisputed king of running everything and on
| everything, no one who writes C needs to seek validation like
| this.
| mbrock wrote:
| Are they wrong?
| nickff wrote:
| The Kernels for all major operating systems are written in C;
| C is also used for the majority of embedded devices which
| perform the small miracles around you. C is everywhere.
| [deleted]
| jmiserez wrote:
| > _I think that 's all the validation we need for HTML/CSS/JS
| as the best tool for UI development nowadays._
|
| is a direct contradiction to the sentence before:
|
| > _because for every mission-critical input on the display,
| there was a physical button underneath the display as well_
|
| Clearly, physical buttons are best.
| ShinTakuya wrote:
| Depends on the environment. If RAM or CPU time is at a premium
| then no. But that's so rarely an issue these days, especially
| if you separate UI from the main processing thread.
| junon wrote:
| > I think that's all the validation we need for HTML/CSS/JS as
| the best tool for UI development nowadays.
|
| "Best" makes it sound like the entire landscape isn't an ocean
| of garbage.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Those tools are basically the great pacific garbage patch in
| an ocean otherwise also full of garbage haha. HTML parsers
| are practically self-aware, and JavaScript, oh, JavaScript.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| SpaceX using something is a proof that HTML/CSS/JS is the best
| tool for UI development?
|
| If we suppose that is true, then it is a failure of our
| industry that this is the best tool we have.
| [deleted]
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I'm guessing they were vastly stripped-down versions of JS and
| Chromium.
| arexxbifs wrote:
| Something that great probably wouldn't need validation by
| cherry-picked appeal to authority. (Yes, I'm a web developer.)
| treespace88 wrote:
| Yes, it feels like the desktop gui framework/language wars that
| have been raging since the 90s are finally ending.
|
| As a desktop developer working with everything from visual
| basic, C++ win forms, QT, swing, C#, html and javascript. I
| could not be happier.
|
| Finally we have a GUI stack where I don't have to re write
| everything every 10 years.
| VMisTheWay wrote:
| What has it settled to? Html, css and JavaScript?
|
| Btw if you consider that, there are wars over which
| JavaScript framework.
| treespace88 wrote:
| They all still compile to the same stack, so no problem. I
| don't have to throw away my working
| jquery/angularjs/scriptaculos/dojo/react/ code just because
| angular.io is pretty cool.
|
| In time vanilla js will eat them anyways.
| Slartie wrote:
| > Btw if you consider that, there are wars over which
| JavaScript framework.
|
| None. Simple as that. At least for something like the Crew
| Dragon control panels, any kind of JS framework would add
| unnecessary bloat for very little use, because they were
| all designed with a very different goal, definitely not to
| write the UI portion of a C++ application that controls a
| spaceship.
|
| Just stick to vanilla JS, simple HTML and well-written CSS
| and circumvent the framework wars altogether.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Finally we have the worlds least-integrated, poorly
| accessible, completely inconsistent, most difficult to theme,
| resource intensive GUI stack. Software devs rejoice at the
| job security of JS framework churn while stealing user data
| and shoving ads in their face to pay their own salaries.
| jfkebwjsbx wrote:
| In the web world you are pretty much relearning new APIs,
| frameworks, approaches and what not every second year.
| Aperocky wrote:
| I'm surprised you're allowed mission-critical or even non-
| critical inputs on that touchscreen.
|
| It might be OK if the entire screen was READ-ONLY. Anything
| else sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.. I also don't
| understand why companies race to have their laptop display
| touch, but then again I'm just a random software engineer.
| rubber_duck wrote:
| > I also don't understand why companies race to have their
| laptop display touch
|
| Try using your laptop in bed, on couch, browsing something
| with a partner, etc. The flexibility of Yoga style 2-in-1
| devices is amazing in this regard.
|
| For productivity I don't find it extremely useful (maybe if I
| was a designer and combined it with a pen), but for casual
| use - a lot of UI these days is touch friendly and feels
| natural with touch screen.
| trasz wrote:
| Military planes - Super Hornet, for example - have been using
| touch screens (UFC, in this case, the thing just below HUD)
| for over two decades now, and they seem fine with it, and
| newer ones use it even more. They don't seem to cause any
| problems.
|
| Granted, stuff that's absolutely critical - like gear or the
| arm switch - is still mechanical, but UFC is still pretty
| mission critical, controlling eg IFF, autopilot, or radios.
| ecmascript wrote:
| Why is it a disaster waiting to happen, according to you?
| thoraway1010 wrote:
| I'm also curious about this disaster waiting to happen.
| They've emphasized an escape capability all the way into
| orbit. They emphasized various types of automation (also
| used by other spacecraft).
| csomar wrote:
| Touch screen are too sensitive to be safe. Also there is a
| very high chance to mis-click (see HN upvote/dowwn-vote
| buttons). Much safer to use regular old mechanical buttons
| with tick-tacks.
| [deleted]
| cesarb wrote:
| I noticed during the stream one of the astronauts
| selecting some input on his screen, pausing for a moment,
| and then pressing the _physical_ button below the screen
| to confirm the input. So that 's probably their defense
| against misclicks: any action other than just changing
| the display mode or opening a checklist has to be
| confirmed through the physical "Execute" button (there
| seems to be two of them, one for each astronaut).
| sdwedq wrote:
| Touch screen is still very inaccurate and you don't develop
| muscle memory.
|
| You are more likely to touch wrong button on touchscreen
| than on physical ui.
| ecmascript wrote:
| I can buy the muscle memory part, sure but are they
| really very inaccurate?
|
| I can select very small text on my phone with my bigger
| fingers. And also with a touch screen you may have more
| options in a smaller space.
|
| Sure, that may suck for critical things, but there
| probably are a lot of settings and so forth that could be
| hidden that are not critical?
|
| But I understand what you meant, I prefer physical
| buttons as well.
| sdwedq wrote:
| Personally, it seems I touch wrong buttons quite a bit on
| my phone. I also click wrong buttons when using mouse but
| that is rarer than pressing wrong button on my phone.
|
| The most annoying part is using touch screen in my car
| for GPS. It might be bad UI but also viewing angle might
| be making it hard to press right button. But then again I
| would not expect a physical keyboard in a car.
|
| In physical land, it is very rare that I press a wrong
| button. Maybe when playing intense video games, I press
| jump too soon or use wrong gun. Oh and of course while
| typing.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Even then, you surely want the data you're reading to be
| correct, and not, say, from half an hour ago because Chrome
| was having a bad day.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| > It might be OK if the entire screen was READ-ONLY.
|
| Why? displaying incorrect data that might lead astronauts to
| taking the wrong actions could be just as deadly.
| Aperocky wrote:
| Why is READ-ONLY incorrect? I mean as in the input on the
| screen have no write ability and it is only used to control
| the interface that display the information.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| I might have misunderstood your point. I thought you
| referred to the fact that the touch screen was based on a
| non-realtime system rather than it being a touch screen.
| extrapickles wrote:
| Physical switches since they are moving parts, have a high
| failure rate. Apollo 11 they broke an important switch
| donning their spacesuits. In Apollo 14 the Landers abort
| switch was falsely triggering so they had to hack the
| computer to ignore it.
|
| Most of the cars I've owned have been recalled/needed to have
| some switch replaced in the first year or two of ownership.
| Jury is still out on touchscreen, but they seem to have lower
| mortality (it could be a simple numbers game, several dozen
| switches vs 1 touchscreen).
| f00_ wrote:
| touch screens are a bad choice to me
|
| I want the buttons and knobs.
|
| Love the old soviet control rooms posted awhile ago:
| https://designyoutrust.com/2018/01/vintage-beauty-soviet-con...
|
| Need John Carmack's opinion of SpaceX
| josefresco wrote:
| Oh so beautiful: https://main-designyoutrust.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
| content/upload...
| f00_ wrote:
| i love the windows xp screen saver ):<
| sammycdubs wrote:
| This seems like a remarkably small team for the scale of what
| they're building! For some reason I imagined they'd have legions
| of engineers.
| bkanber wrote:
| NASA's software teams are also remarkably small, and manage to
| produce code with one of the lowest defect rates of all time.
| (Space shuttle code had 0 defects in 500k SLOC!)
|
| Just goes to show: quality over quantity!
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| Shuttle's code quality was outstanding, but 0 defects is a
| myth. There are at least 3 publicly documented bugs in the
| Shuttle code.
|
| https://space.stackexchange.com/a/37116
| bdcravens wrote:
| I think we've been conditioned to believe that any application
| of medium complexity requires hundreds or thousands of
| developers. Snarkiness aside, they have a very concrete set of
| functional constraints and total control over the hardware,
| network, and software environment. Issues like resource
| management, dependency conflicts, security, scale, etc are
| taken out of the equation, things that are often the biggest
| time and resource sinks.
| junon wrote:
| IME, more bodies usually always equates to more bugs and
| slower release cycles.
| adambyrtek wrote:
| According to the post these quotes are from 7 years ago... I'm
| sure a lot has changed since then.
| danans wrote:
| Years ago, astronaut Chris Hadfield told an audience of software
| engineers (including me) that the moment the space shuttle was in
| stable orbit, the crew would pull out laptops and set up an
| ethernet network for all the scientific work of their expedition,
| as the space shuttle's own computers, though limited in raw
| computing power, ran software that was so thoroughly tested that
| there was every reason not to "upgrade" them in any way to
| support the scientific work.
| walrus01 wrote:
| Even today with modern avionics there would be no reason why an
| aircraft's computer systems would need to interface with a
| general-purpose LAN. Take a look at the control system of a
| Cirrus Visionjet for instance. It's quite locked down as its
| own embedded system. For reliability and resiliency reasons
| it's good to keep some things compartmentalized.
| growlist wrote:
| But surely it's the opposite to what you describe that would be
| remarkable?
| thechao wrote:
| As a child, a friend's mother was a programmer for the Shuttle
| (mid-80s to early 90s). Her job sounded _awful_ : a 'science
| person' (I was a child, remember!) designed a piece of math; an
| engineer (software?) would take that piece of math and reduce
| it to an algorithm; my friend's mother would program that
| algorithm in machine code, in parallel to an assembly listing.
| Each instruction (and all the data) would be reviewed line-by-
| line. She had to provide reasoning (roughly a proof) that each
| instruction correctly implemented the algorithm. My guess is
| the algorithm went through the same equivalence checking to the
| 'math'. I don't know how much code she wrote, but it was only a
| few programs (functions) _per year_.
|
| That was my view of 'programming', and I wasn't disabused of
| that until very late 90s.
| rustybolt wrote:
| Sounds lovely. Now I write code with vague requirements that
| interfaces with ill-specified functions, on tight deadlines.
| It surprises me that it doesn't contain a lot more bugs.
| Maybe we just haven't found them yet.
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| And whatever you wrote And right to the spec, user said it
| is not what they want. And demo why it is not working or
| useful ... Of course that is nothing to do with them, that
| is not what they said or your it guys analysis wrongly. As
| spec goes ... do not understand it.
|
| To be fair it takes a lot of interaction (and understanding
| ) to fix it. And you wonder how these operate here.
| WalterBright wrote:
| It makes perfect sense to use computers for research on the
| shuttle that were not connected in _any_ way to the shuttle
| systems.
| itsspring wrote:
| Yup, I'd prefer NOT to touch the systems of the vehicle
| that's serving as my lifeboat, life support, and ONLY re-
| entry option.
| danans wrote:
| Yes, he made that point to contrast with the common sci-fi
| trope of using the ship's computers for all purposes.
| mips_avatar wrote:
| I'd love to work with physical software (software that interacts
| with the real world through sensors and actuators), as a C
| developer, how should I move into this space? Every time I try
| intro to ARM kits I feel like I'm in over my head.
| Symmetry wrote:
| I've gotten recruiter email from SpaceX but I've worked in
| embedded sensor systems, big radars for the government, and
| robotics so those might be stepping stones. Be warned you might
| have be a US citizen.
| zachlite wrote:
| I worked with AVR microcontrollers, and the avr-gcc toolchain
| when I was in college. It's basically an abstraction layer
| below what an Arduino provides you.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_microcontrollers
| lnsru wrote:
| Start reading data sheets of these ARM parts. It's
| straightforward when you know what peripherals do you need. Get
| familiar with FreeRTOS or other embedded operating system. It's
| really not rocket science. You only need to know, what do you
| want to build. Otherwise it gets boring very quickly.
| davedx wrote:
| I'm having a lot of fun with Arduino at the moment. You can do
| a lot with them.
| chasd00 wrote:
| I know you said you're a C developer by the MicroPython boards
| get you up and running pretty quickly. It's straightforward to
| get a blinking LED ( the Hello World of embedded programming ).
|
| Otherwise, I would use a STM32 dev board and their IDEs and
| tools. It will get you off the ground and blinking LEDs way
| faster than working out the toolchain, loaders, ASM, setting
| the clocks and peripherals and all that work that has to be
| done before you even get to your application.
| oxguy3 wrote:
| I'm so relieved to hear all the redundancy and testing in place.
| I had heard that the touchscreens were built in Chromium/JS and
| was rather alarmed. Don't get me wrong - I do a lot of web stuff
| and I love that environment, but I've never seen a web app I
| would trust two human lives to. This, however, sounds like they
| really thought it through and made it safe.
| paxys wrote:
| A contrary opinion - a tool/framework used and tested by
| billions of people every day is a lot less prone to crashing
| when used for its intended purpose than something custom-built.
| There are tons of developers out there building complex apps by
| following beginner JavaScript tutorials, but SpaceX is
| obviously going to enforce better standards.
| HTML/CSS/JavaScript/V8 are all extremely solid technologies
| that have stood the test of time, and there is nothing better
| to build a user interface with today.
| stevofolife wrote:
| Taken from the article: "We leverage C#/MVC4/EF/SQL;
| Javascript/Knockout/Handlebars/LESS/etc and a super sexy REST
| API."
|
| Knockout.js, good times.
| hu3 wrote:
| I believe Trello uses Knockout.js
|
| And at least before Atlassian bought it (I haven't used since
| then), it was a responsive and plasant piece of software.
| benjamind wrote:
| The Crew Displays do not use Knockout.js. As far as I am aware
| this is possibly used in some other asset management software
| developed in-house for manufacturing teams but definitely not
| onboard Dragon.
| nightowl_games wrote:
| I'm sitting over here believing Knockout.js was better than
| today's JS systems.
| naringas wrote:
| I would have expected them to use formal verification tools in
| the vein of TLA+ and such... or maybe use ADA for mission
| critical systems?
|
| But they only mention Astree[1] which seems to be a propietary
| analyzer for C code
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astr%C3%A9e_(static_analysis)
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| It's just a bad article. The whole section about Astree is
| based on a quote on HN about the ATV, a European resupply craft
| developed 15 years ago that has absolutely nothing to do with
| SpaceX.
| dahfizz wrote:
| TLA+ is basically an academic tool. It allows you to verify
| your specification, but it is useless to detect bugs in your
| implementation. In my experience, the process of writing your
| specification in TLA is a buggy enough process to make it all a
| waste of time.
| superqd wrote:
| No, not just for academia. Apparently, Amazon uses it to
| check their designs for correctness.
|
| https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/formal-methods-
| amazon....
| im_down_w_otp wrote:
| I would have expected them to use SCADE, but given their choice
| of stacks that are entirely unverifiable, due to a combination
| of their complexity and their semantics, I can only assume that
| "control panel" was basically decorative, and that actual
| critical functions and alerts were handled by something with
| much, much higher safety assurances.
| fallingmeat wrote:
| Does this article imply that RTCA/DO-178B is used as a means of
| demonstrating compliance in some way, or otherwise is used to
| define lifecycle processes for their
| development/verification/systems teams? Anyone know where this
| was mentioned by SpaceX?
| drummer wrote:
| It would be awesome if some SpaceX engineers would give a few
| presentations at events like CppCon and talk about their software
| development process including some code examples and demos.
| extrapickles wrote:
| When you think about it from a first principals perspective,
| having multiple touchscreens is better than only having physical
| switches. When a switch is damaged/fails, you are out of luck.
| When a touchscreen is damaged/fails, you use the one next to it.
| On a rocket you do not have the mass or room to have more than 1
| of all but the most critical of switches.
|
| There have been quite a few missions that nearly caused death or
| mission failure directly due to a switch getting broken (Apollo
| 11, lander return engine-arm switch) or going faulty (Apollo 14
| abort switch).
|
| What really matters is that they have no single point of failure
| (touch screens can do everything switches can, an individual
| touch screen is not important, and switches can cover
| abort/return scenarios to protect the crew). For the software, it
| only matters that its been fully tested, including random bit
| flips and hardware failure.
|
| From a cost savings perspective, its vastly cheaper to verify
| that 3 touchscreens are working correctly than the 600 switches
| they replace.
| colllectorof wrote:
| _> When a switch is damaged/fails, you are out of luck. When a
| touchscreen is damaged/fails, you use the one next to it._
|
| This is a trivial problem to solve on a physical interface. One
| solution could be what is commonly used on hardware
| synthesizers. A shift button or switch. You engage it and all
| controls begin to perform their secondary functions. You get
| redundancy for the price of one extra control and a secondary
| set of labels in a different color.
|
| Also, use of displays to virtually label buttonss is common. In
| such case you can reassign a control if one fails.
|
| In any case Dragon capsule had physical buttons for important
| functions as a backup.
| theanirudh wrote:
| The astronauts show parts of the touchscreen and physical
| controls here: https://youtu.be/llbIzbOStt4?t=150
| chasd00 wrote:
| at the bottom of the article they mention model rockets and the
| three levels of certification. Each level grants you access to
| more powerful motors and therefore higher or larger flights. The
| hobby is self-goverend by NAR and Tripoli who manage level
| certification.
|
| It's a fun hobby, although large motors get pricey. The largest
| can be 4-5 figures per launch. However, you can get very advanced
| and do things you wouldn't typically expect in a hobby.
|
| Here's a two stage ( 4" diameter booster, 3" diameter sustainer )
| reaching over 200k feet in altitude. The Karman Line is about
| 330k feet.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0imcpdLdB8
| chrisfinazzo wrote:
| Hearing about the Flight Software and Avionics teams reminds me
| of this, although they don't seem to be on that level quite yet.
|
| https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
| dang wrote:
| A thread from a few days ago:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23368109. The current
| article quotes from it, in fact.
|
| This article looks like a fine overview but when it comes to
| follow-up posts, the test is: does the new submission contain
| enough SNI (significant new information) to support a
| substantially different discussion? In this case it looks like
| not, but I can't really tell.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
| randtrain34 wrote:
| Note that the data within the post is from an AMA ___7 years ago_
| __
| Fiahil wrote:
| Tech moved a bit in that timeframe!
|
| > We leverage C#/MVC4/EF/SQL;
| Javascript/Knockout/Handlebars/LESS/etc and a super sexy REST
| API.
|
| Nowadays it would be ".Net Core/SQL; Typescript/React/GraphQL"
| pjettter wrote:
| Webassembly
| theanirudh wrote:
| I wonder how they manage not to have accidental taps on the touch
| screen during liftoff and or re-entry. As I understand there are
| a lot of G's and violent vibrations and I would assume it's hard
| to keep a steady hand?
|
| (Atleast this is my understanding from watching Apollo
| documentaries/movies etc.)
| bkanber wrote:
| Liftoff and re-entry are completely automated. The astronauts
| are passengers and don't interact with the craft during these
| maneuvers. This was the case even for Apollo.
|
| The Crew Dragon seats also have physical arm-rest controls.
| Those arm-rest controls are what the astronauts use under
| acceleration, and IIRC they're primarily comms controls.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| The screen compensates, and they train with vibrations in mind.
| rrss wrote:
| and they also don't have anything to do during launch except
| maybe abort with the physical handle.
| theanirudh wrote:
| Impressive, especially considering some of the touch targets
| are pretty small.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| They probably aren't bothering with using non critical
| buttons on a launch that is automated anyway
| tericho wrote:
| Watching the launch, I noticed they seem to have finger rests
| below the screens. I wonder if this is the reason.
| karatestomp wrote:
| I doubt anything on screen can affect flight during lift-off or
| re-entry. Anything it might had damn well better be locked-out
| anyway. Lift off's automated and I'd think any significant
| failure of that automation would be a cue to abort (physical
| control for that); as for re-entry, by the time you're deep
| enough in atmosphere that things are vibrating you're really
| just falling with style, and there's no "flying" to do nor
| anything to control.
| 0xDEEPFAC wrote:
| No mention of Ada or their methods of writing the important
| software. I wonder what they use.
|
| "Avionics Test team
|
| ...The main objective is to write very comprehensive and robust
| software to be able to automate finding issues with the hardware
| at high volume...."
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Interesting read. I've wondered about their use of big
| touchscreen interfaces having heard a friend's experience with
| the similar setup in a Model 3.
|
| On multiple occasions they've had to pull off the highway to turn
| their car off and on again to get the screen working. Not really
| an option on your way to space.
| theanirudh wrote:
| They have physical buttons Incase the touch functionality
| misbehaves.
| remarkEon wrote:
| But there's only a handful of buttons, no? Unless I'm missing
| something. Might be a dumb question but the Apollo control
| panels had hundreds. How would you manually fly the Dragon in
| the event of a screen failure? I'm assuming this question was
| answered somewhere, since the thing was certified to fly, but
| I must've missed it.
|
| Edit: Is the answer simply "it doesn't, it gets flown
| remotely from Mission Control"?
| [deleted]
| garaetjjte wrote:
| You probably don't fly manually, just use predefined abort
| procedure or receive configuration from ground control. It
| looks humans now are just another cargo and screens are
| only for non-critical flight information purpose (in other
| case I cannot see how they would get away with touchscreen
| only and software running on Chromium).
|
| It's interesting to wonder whether if Apollo 13 style fault
| happened, modern ships would be easier to reconfigure and
| rescue or harder?
| jon-wood wrote:
| Give their docking simulator[1] a go on a phone or tablet -
| I was dubious at first, but even on an iPhone I managed to
| complete manual docking on the first attempt. It turns out
| flying a spaceship is very different to flying a plane, and
| rapid inputs just aren't massively important. Generally
| your edit is probably true as well - in standard flight
| everything is meant to be on autopilot using predefined
| routines for the mission, computers are just significantly
| better at performing a 16 second burn at 82% thrust at
| precisely T+12:48:16.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| You managed to dock in a simulation in which it's
| guaranteed that nothing goes wrong. Most of the switches
| and buttons are there for when something does go wrong.
|
| I think the main reason there are so few buttons on
| Dragon is that it evolved from an uncrewed vehicle that
| was designed to be flown from the ground, so everything
| is much more connected and software controlled than was
| even practical in the shuttle era.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| That makes sense. Flying a plane is all about responding
| to perturbations to keep on an even course. A spaceship
| has literally zero perturbations. It goes exactly as you
| direct it to go, within the precision of your burns. So
| its all about carefully issuing bang-bang control signals
| (burn for 2 seconds) then measuring the response against
| expectations.
| e_y_ wrote:
| It's close to zero over short distances (ignoring solar
| wind and LEO atmosphere), although you're still trying to
| dock with a moving target.
|
| If you've played KSP or read about Gemini 4, the relative
| motion can be unintuitive due to orbital mechanics. The
| SpaceX docking simulator puts you right next to the ISS
| with low relative velocity -- as it would be in real life
| if everything went as planned -- but it would be much
| more challenging if you needed to do it manually from a
| greater distance and relative velocity.
| johntb86 wrote:
| They have 3 screens. If one screen fails, they can probably
| continue using the others.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| You don't manually fly it? The physical buttons correspond
| to pre-programmed procedures/abort modes.
|
| They use a touchscreen so they don't need to have hundreds
| of buttons for things that aren't necessary to have around
| all the time.
| theanirudh wrote:
| Im not sure, even I would like to know the answer to this.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Well, Apollo did a lot of complicated stuff in space and on
| the moon, while the spacex capsule just goes up and then
| down.
|
| Only questionable bit is how they do the docking without
| the screens.
| servercobra wrote:
| The docking is automated as well.
| jaywalk wrote:
| The docking is automated.
| mnd999 wrote:
| There is a manual option if there is a crew onboard. I
| can't really think of any reason outside of a dire
| emergency to use it though.
| Aperocky wrote:
| with a rusty script that succeed 99% of the time.
| modeless wrote:
| Your friend is dangerously misinformed. There is no need to
| pull off the road to fix any problem with the screen. There are
| physical controls for everything essential to driving and they
| work independently of the screen. Dragon is reportedly the
| same.
| Diederich wrote:
| > On multiple occasions they've had to pull off the highway to
| turn their car off and on again to get the screen working.
|
| This is false. Teslas have, roughly speaking, two computers.
| One drives the big touch screen, and the other manages the core
| automotive functions.
|
| The media computer sometimes hangs/crashes; this has no impact
| whatsoever on the basic function of the car.
|
| When that happens, it's an easy matter to reset it while the
| car is in motion; one just holds one button under each thumb on
| the steering wheel for a few seconds. The big screen will come
| back within a couple of minutes.
| vonseel wrote:
| Makes you wonder if the software for media computer is simply
| less rigorously tested since it's less critical, kind of sad
| if that is the case.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I'm aware there are two computers and the UI crashing has no
| impact on the basic function of the car, but turning the car
| off and on makes the media computer restart. Not sure if he
| was aware about the steering wheel reset function, it was a
| while ago that he told me that story. Also possible I've
| misremembered it.
| Diederich wrote:
| I should not have said 'this is false'; the story very well
| could be accurate. Please pardon the harsh tone.
|
| It's more correct to say that stopping and re-starting the
| whole car is not the easiest way to restart the MMU. It's
| quite possible there are people who aren't aware of the
| 'two thumb salute' method.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > On multiple occasions they've had to pull off the highway to
| turn their car off and on again to get the screen working.
|
| Surely not? The touchscreen is run by the media computer which
| does not control the car. You can reboot it with the 'two
| finger salute' while you are driving down the highway. Some
| things will be unavailable (you cannot, for example, engage
| autopilot while it is rebooting), but the car still runs &
| drives.
|
| I hope they just miscommunicated the situation to you,
| otherwise they are really working too hard just to fix a
| touchscreen. Turning the entire car off is kind of a pain in
| the ass. I've never done it. And I have only rebooted the
| touchscreen a couple times ever. Your friend may want to
| schedule a service appointment if they really do have to power
| cycle the whole car, because that is super abnormal.
| VMisTheWay wrote:
| > I have only rebooted the touchscreen a couple times ever
|
| 0 of the OEMs I worked for would consider this acceptable.
|
| Reminds me how Tesla ranks high with customer satisfaction
| but had objectively low quality vehicles.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I'm not suggesting it had any function on that automotive
| functions, but I was also not aware of the media center
| reboot with steering wheel buttons. From what he described to
| me I don't think he was either, I'd have to check and will
| pass that along if not!
|
| I'm a little surprised that the media computer doesn't have a
| built-in heartbeat check and know to reboot itself if it
| stops responding. I've heard of other cars and embedded
| systems doing that.
|
| EDIT - asked him about reboot via steerling wheel:
|
| _> It's not great because you lose lots of feedback. No
| speedometer, no sound from turn signals, etc. But it does
| work._
| extrapickles wrote:
| It probably does, but you always have issues where the task
| that feeds the watchdog works fine, but another does not
| (eg: GPU gets in an odd state).
|
| In single core systems its somewhat solvable, but in
| multicore and if you want to include multiple chips in the
| crash domain it gets very hard with off the shelf chips.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| In my experience the couple times I've had a touchscreen
| glitch, the watchdog will activate and reboot it after a
| bit. It's not very aggressive, though, for sure, it can
| take a minute or so.
|
| > It's not great because you lose lots of feedback. No
| speedometer, no sound from turn signals, etc. But it does
| work.
|
| Yep, this is very true. You are driving blind, as it were,
| because the touchscreen is the dash. Fortunately it doesn't
| take long to reboot, but it is still much less than ideal.
| mav3rick wrote:
| It's called a watchdog. And it's 99% running Android and
| should have that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-06-03 23:00 UTC)