Interactive 360 degree view of Space Shuttle Discovery's flight deck

[JackalStomper]

http://360vr.com/2011/06/22-discovery-flight-deck-opf_6236/index.html

(http://360vr.com/2011/06/22-discovery-flight-deck-opf_6236/index.html)This is cool.

[Patrickssj6]

where's the button for flushing the toilet?

[JackalStomper]

What toilet? I thought you just pulled down the window and looked for the nearest gas station

[sleepy1212]

I wonder if they actually press all those buttons or if they just press a few and sit around wondering what the other ones do.

[Cortexian]

Most of the time it's automated, all the buttons are for when shit hits the fan and things nee to be done manually. Then you hope you didn't fall asleep in that class of astronaut school.

I was inside one of the real shuttles (including the cockpit) when I was in Florida. I forget which one.

[sleepy1212]

I've only been inside the cockpits of airliners, c130's, and a few fighters...the kind of planes they let you into at air shows and museums.

They all have a shitload of buttons :ohdear:

[JackalStomper]

It's really not that many once you start learning what everything does, most of the time entire groups of switches are all dedicated towards one task, such as opening the payload doors or turning on the RCS valves. Making it easier is that most of the time they are all labled under panel ID's so all you need to remember is what that is and you can usually go from there.

As for the automation, it's limited mostly to launch and reentry, everything else such as orbital maneuvers, docking, and landing are all manual. (with some computer assistance of course)

[Cortexian]

Yes but actual orbital maneuvers and landing aren't that hard, I could pick out any one of you that's played a flight sim or 3D space game like Shattered Horizon and with a 10 minute course you could fly the shuttle around in space. It's not that much different than flying a regular helicopter, and landing is just like landing a regular plane.

[neuro]

except your angle of reentry has to be exact to the point of hitting the side of a sheet of paper

[=sw=warlord]

And that in orbit you are flying much faster as well as the fact that inertia has a far greater effect on your momentum due to lack of air friction.

[Cortexian]

Re-entry is computer controlled, landing is very different than re-entry.

[JackalStomper]

Yes but actual orbital maneuvers and landing aren't that hard, I could pick out any one of you that's played a flight sim or 3D space game like Shattered Horizon and with a 10 minute course you could fly the shuttle around in space. It's not that much different than flying a regular helicopter, and landing is just like landing a regular plane.

Orbital mechanics are about as different from flying a helicopter as you can get. What you're thinking of is more like interstellar space, where you only have to worry about which direction you're moving in relative to some other object.

Orbit is different, because you're still under the influence of a bodies gravity, meaning you're still FALLING towards that body. The only thing stopping you from falling is your horizontal speed. If you slow down you'll fall lower towards the parent body. If you speed up you'll raise away from it. So if you see an object in front of you that you want to get close to, you can't just boost towards it. Because you'll also raise up and away from it. If you're above it you can't just boost down, because your horizontal velocity will try to bring you back up again.

If you're REALLY close however (<500 meters) you can usually compensate these forces with persistent RCS thrusts, making things a little more simple once you actually get to your target.

It's also possible if you have some unlimited fuel source that you can just continuously burn to counteract these forces regardless of distance. But seeing we DON'T, and most spacecraft DV budget is pretty low once in orbit, you're stuck with doing it the hard way.

Most science fiction of course ignore all these rules and just have things floating in some fixed point over planets, which is why using them is never a good idea when trying to make a point.


Landing is rather simple for someone familiar with aircraft, this is true. Though made slightly more difficult by the fact that the shuttle is just a fancy glider. You only have one approach, and if you mess it up you'll crash a multi billion dollar american icon.


And that in orbit you are flying much faster as well as the fact that inertia has a far greater effect on your momentum due to lack of air friction.

This is both true and false, because any object you're trying to rendezvous with is moving just as fast as you. With usually small (100 m/s more or less) differences between the two during maneuvers.

[Cortexian]

Landing is rather simple for someone familiar with aircraft, this is true. Though made slightly more difficult by the fact that the shuttle is just a fancy glider. You only have one approach, and if you mess it up you'll crash a multi billion dollar american icon.
I have my glider license FYI, it's pretty easy to get your approach right.

What you can't do with the shuttle is ride thermals for more flight time...

[Warsaw]

Shuttle = brick with wings to slow the fall. People called the F4 a brick, but the F4 has nothing on the Shuttle.

[=sw=warlord]

I have my glider license FYI, it's pretty easy to get your approach right.

What you can't do with the shuttle is ride thermals for more flight time...
Are you really comparing a space shuttle to a glider?
REALLY?

[Limited]

Pfft, my tv remote has more buttons.

[Warsaw]

Are you really comparing a space shuttle to a glider?
REALLY?

Glider moves, what, 130 mph tops (being generous here)? Space shuttle? Breaking the sound barrier. Sorry 'Lancer, totally different.

[Limited]

Glider moves, what, 130 mph tops (being generous here)? Space shuttle? Breaking the sound barrier. Sorry 'Lancer, totally different.
You do realise there is a classification for a rocket glider, basically meaning it jettisons its rockets and glides back to earth. The term gliding does not have a set speed attachment...

[JackalStomper]

The Space Shuttle is a glider. The fact it goes really fast just means it's easier as you have more energy to work with. It doesn't stay supersonic for long either, it only begins to set up the glide slope at around Mach 2, and begins the final approach when subsonic.

[Warsaw]

You do realise there is a classification for a rocket glider, basically meaning it jettisons its rockets and glides back to earth. The term gliding does not have a set speed attachment...

Yes. But you know exactly what I'm talking about here. Handling characteristics are vastly different between an aircraft at 200 mph and 500 mph, let alone Mach 2.

Jackal, in this case that makes it harder. It's moving so fast that you don't have that much time to react. Once it's subsonic, though, it's fine.

[Cortexian]

Just so you know, speed is pretty much irrelevant if you know how to fly at all.

Obviously every aircraft is is different, the Shuttles being very unique, but I'm saying the basic concept would be the same. Stick me in a Shuttle simulator for a week focusing on landings and then stick me in the real thing and I could probably land it (badly).

[Warsaw]

Only with fly-by-wire. At trans-sonic and super-sonic speeds (more so at trans-sonic), the atmospherics behave differently and as such handling changes. You eventually get used to it with muscle-memory though. It's physics.

That said, yes, anybody with practise can fly it. I play flight sims all the time, though, and I wouldn't have confidence in landing it after only a week in the trainer.

[=sw=warlord]

Just so you know, speed is pretty much irrelevant if you know how to fly at all.


Tell that to the F-117.

[JackalStomper]

Just so you know, speed is pretty much irrelevant if you know how to fly at all.

Obviously every aircraft is is different, the Shuttles being very unique, but I'm saying the basic concept would be the same. Stick me in a Shuttle simulator for a week focusing on landings and then stick me in the real thing and I could probably land it (badly).

A week would probably be overkill actually for someone familiar with aircraft. Landing is rather simple, after TAEM the computer should already have you on glide slope and heading towards your landing site. After that it's just approach, HAC, preflare, flare, MGT. The only thing you really need to get used compared to regular aircraft is the steep glideslope (20 degrees) and the fast landing speed (around 200 knots, or 100 m/s). That and of course familiarizing yourself with the cockpit.

Edit: Wow it's been too long I was off by quite a bit

[JackalStomper]

So after all my big talk about how it's not difficult I figured I would actually, you know... TRY it.

And seeing there isn't any space shuttle nearby and the physical simulator in JSC closed down I loaded up a virtual one...

Result of around 4 hours of practice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2TmxH1g6gc
Video takes place about midway through TAEM to landing

The speed indicators are in meters per second. Mach 1 = 340m/s, do the math.

[Cortexian]

That should only prove my point, since training in an actual shuttle simulator would provide an easier and more realistic experience.