session@uncw.UUCP (Zack C. Sessions) (03/15/91)
Can someone settle an argument for me? I read when the shuttle first came into being, that it's computer was so intelligent that it could launch, orbit, and land all under complete computer control. I also read a few years ago that while the computer is capable of landing the shuttle, they haven't trusted it to do so yet. Is this still true? Has the computer actually performed a landing of the shuttle with no control from the pilot being exerted at all? If so, when? Also, a pointer to corraborative evidence (magazine article, etc.) would be appreciated. Thanks!! Zack Sessions session@uncw.UUCP
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/16/91)
In article <1077@uncw.UUCP> session@uncw.UUCP (Zack C. Sessions) writes: >Can someone settle an argument for me? I read when the shuttle first >came into being, that it's computer was so intelligent that it could >launch, orbit, and land all under complete computer control. I also >read a few years ago that while the computer is capable of landing >the shuttle, they haven't trusted it to do so yet... In theory, I think the only thing the computer can't do is lower the landing gear. (That is under manual control as a safety precaution, since the gear cannot be raised again in flight.) In practice, I believe it is still the case that all landings to date have been manual. I could be wrong. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
dcorbett@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au (Dan Corbett) (03/19/91)
In article <1077@uncw.UUCP> session@uncw.UUCP (Zack C. Sessions) writes: >Can someone settle an argument for me? I read when the shuttle first >came into being, that it's computer was so intelligent that it could >launch, orbit, and land all under complete computer control. I also >read a few years ago that while the computer is capable of landing >the shuttle, they haven't trusted it to do so yet... It sounds as if you were reading the NASA wish list of _desired_ funcions. They've been working on a program called AUTOLAND for years, now. In one of the early flights, they ran an early version of AUTOLAND in parallel with the pilot. The pilot had the real control. After the landing, the AUTOLAND data was compared to what the pilot actually did. AUTOLAND would have dropped them into the Atlantic (KSC landing, obviously). Ever since, NASA has had a hard time "trusting" the computers, as you so aptly put it. I left the shuttle program in 1985, so this info is getting old now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Corbett Department of Computer Science University of Technology, Sydney ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (03/19/91)
In article <> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1077@uncw.UUCP> session@uncw.UUCP (Zack C. Sessions) writes: >>... I read when the shuttle first came into being,... that it's computer... >>could launch, orbit, and land all under complete computer control. I also >>read a few years ago that while the computer is capable of landing >>the shuttle, they haven't trusted it to do so yet... >In theory, I think the only thing the computer can't do is lower the >landing gear. ... In practice, I believe >it is still the case that all landings to date have been manual. Part of the arguable difference is the EXACT terminology being refered to. When NASA & Henry say that every landing has been manual so far, they really mean that the pilot controlled the stick and put the gear on the ground. What is being left out, is that the pilot only took control away from the computer a very short time before this event. If my memory serves, the first flights, used the computer to fly the shuttle down to about 100 feet. Now, if you ask me, the computer has done (virtually) every part of the landing except put the wheels on the ground. While the computer is probably supposed to be able to do this. The risks are crazy given the skill level required and the ability of the manned pilots sitting in the seats..... The ground is a nasty place with thermal currents, unpredictable cross winds, gusts and other 'features', these are/can be quite small, but with (basically) a dc-9 glider on a falling stone glide path, a very small error could be fatal to craft and crew. There is a magic touch to add to a perfect approach as soft a landing as possible, which is nearly impossible to write in software. If you want an idea how difficult it is, buy a rc glider and try flying and landing it. Experience counts.... al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
mikep@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Mike Powell) (03/22/91)
Reading this thread, I recalled the perfect landing of the Soviet Shuttle... unmanned and under computer control. It was simply amazing to watch (even on tv). I was impressed.... Not to say that the extra 'touch' a experienced human can provide isn't important... I believe that it could be VITAL under certain circumstances.... I think that the computer SHOULD be able to land the shuttle... just in case something goes 'wrong' and the pilots are unable to perform the landing. I recall reading about Mike Collins' experience during a Gemini spacewalk where some chemical vapors got into his helmet and blinded him for a period.... a similar situation might occurr in the shuttle cabin. -Mike-
jdeitch@umiami.ir.miami.edu (Jonathan Deitch) (03/23/91)
Here's an interesting though for this thread : What if, instead of using an intelligent stand alone computer, you used a computerized fly by wire flight system that could, in an emergency, be flown from the ground via computer link. You could use a preprogrammed re-entry program (due to the ionization radio blackout) for reentry and pick it up from there. I don't think it would not be hard to hook a shuttle simulator to a computer uplink and attach that to the shuttle's flight systems. Any thoughts ? - Jonathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internet : jdeitch@umiami.miami.edu | "Good musicians execute ------------------------------------------------- | their music but bad ones "I'm a Time Lord. I walk in eternity !" - Dr Who | murder it !!! "
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/24/91)
In article <1991Mar22.210230.8265@umiami.ir.miami.edu> jdeitch@umiami.ir.miami.edu (Jonathan Deitch) writes: >... You could use a preprogrammed re-entry >program (due to the ionization radio blackout) for reentry... Actually, there is no radio blackout any more. The plasma sheath blocks radio waves only on the forward and downward faces of a reentering craft; antennas pointed *up* work fine, so reentry communications are quite feasible via relay satellite. (Note, however, that this adds extra communications delays to any remote- piloting scheme.) -- "[Some people] positively *wish* to | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology believe ill of the modern world."-R.Peto| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry