wallagh@tjalk.cs.vu.nl (Wallagh Serge R) (04/01/89)
I've an other question about the Space shuttle. Last summer I visited (briefly) Houston Mission Control, and there I was showed around in the mission-control room. 2 Things where very surprising: a). It's much much smaller than you expect it to be (from TV). b). The equipment looks very oldfashioned. My question is: Why? The tourguide said: Because there no need for newer equipment. I don't believe that. Personally I think it's to show to all the poeple that NASA has not enough money to even make a modern control- room (and thus: give NASA more money). Just for publicity. What do you think about that?
howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) (04/03/89)
>b). The equipment looks very oldfashioned. >My question is: Why? The tourguide said: Because there no need for >newer equipment. >I don't believe that. Personally I think it's to show to all the >poeple that NASA has not enough money to even make a modern control- >room (and thus: give NASA more money). There are two conflicting things here. One is "If it works, don't fix it." Most of that old gear works well, and replacing it just for cosmetic reasons would be foolish. The other thing is that NASA has been given too small a budget to remodel to all-new, all-digital stuff, and it is probable that they have mismanaged that part of the budget on top of that. Howard Stateman, Hewlett-Packard Response Center, Mountain View, CA and Sysop, The Anatomically Correct BBS (415) 364-3739 I speak for myself. I have no idea for whom HP speaks. howeird@hpwrc.HP.COM or hplabs!hpwrc!howeird
mike@trsvax.UUCP (04/03/89)
> b). The equipment looks very oldfashioned.
There have been numerous articles in "Electronics Engineering Times"
recently about eventually replacing the antiquated data systems
associated with missions with the "Real Time Data System (RTDS)".
This system has been beta-tested on every mission since the Challenger
accident. The "ODS" officer in Mission Control has (I believe) a large
graphics-based Sun workstation which is supposed to constantly display
a representation of the instruments on the flight deck of the shuttle.
In the March 20 issue of EE Times, RTDS is credited with giving the shuttle
the extra day on STS-29....
"Thanks to NASA'S recently upgraded expert system and data beamed down from
the agency's TDRS satellites, engineers found a real-time solution to a
problem that might have cut short last week's shuttle flight.
"The Masscomp Corp. consoles added to the Real Time Data System this winter
gave mission control the over-the-shoulder guidance needed to safely
re-activate a third fuel cell [aboard Discovery]."
From the article, it seems NASA's Apollo-aged mainframes could not have
analysed the data fast enough to make a decision on the fuel cell.
From tapes of the mission, I have caught a distant glance of the RTDS
consoles. I am planning a trip to JSC to report on STS-30.
I am wondering if anyone has any more information on RTDS. If you do,
please reply:
Michael T. Hardeman
Tandy Research & Development
1300 Two Tandy Center
Ft. Worth, TX 76102
(817) 390-2112mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (04/04/89)
In article <2108@botter.cs.vu.nl> wallagh@cs.vu.nl () writes: > >I've an other question about the Space shuttle. >Last summer I visited (briefly) Houston Mission Control, and there >I was showed around in the mission-control room. > >2 Things where very surprising: >a). It's much much smaller than you expect it to be (from TV). > >b). The equipment looks very oldfashioned. >My question is: Why? The tourguide said: Because there no need for >newer equipment. There is an apparent upgrade in progress. Take a look at the MOCR pictures on the next mission and you'll notice a number of SUN workstations starting to creep into the room. I suspect they have some sort of major upgrade in the works, but probably won't bring it on like until extensive offline testing has been done. They should always retain the ability to go back to the old system. . . Endevour : Houston, do you see that comm system overtemp readings? Houston : Stand-by Endevour, the file-server just crashed. ---------------- Speaking of the old system, I have a training manual for console operators. It is crude beyond belief, even MS-DOS would be an improvment. I don't have it with me, but I recall that the users had to expressly input bitmasks to select which data screen they wanted to see. I'll see if I can dig it out sometime and post some more detailed info. ---------------- You're right about the size of MOCR, it doesn't look any larger than a large living room. I was kinda disappointed when I saw it. *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick*** "Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
phil@titan.rice.edu (William LeFebvre) (04/07/89)
In article <23407@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) writes: >There is an apparent upgrade in progress. Take a look at the MOCR >pictures on the next mission and you'll notice a number of >SUN workstations starting to creep into the room. No, sorry. They're Masscomp workstations. >Speaking of the old system, I have a training manual for console >operators. It is crude beyond belief, even MS-DOS would be an improvment. >I don't have it with me, but I recall that the users had to expressly >input bitmasks to select which data screen they wanted to see. Yeah, it really isn't so much a computer with an operating system as it is a collection of black and white televisions that act as CRT display terminals (no graphics---strictly rows and columns, no keyboards either). You have to enter a "channel number" to get the right display. Want to know how they get lines and other graphics stuff on the displays? Oh it's so gross and disgusting. I'll give you a hint: any graphics that get displayed on the tubes will never change unless the channel is changed. Only the letters and numbers are dynamic. Then I'll tell you how the big map works. It's pretty disgusting, too. William LeFebvre Department of Computer Science Rice University <phil@Rice.edu>
phil@titan.rice.edu (William LeFebvre) (04/07/89)
In article <191800014@trsvax> mike@trsvax.UUCP writes: >This system has been beta-tested on every mission since the Challenger >accident. The "ODS" officer in Mission Control has (I believe) a large >graphics-based Sun workstation which is supposed to constantly display >a representation of the instruments on the flight deck of the shuttle. No. That's a Masscomp, too. I don't know if this is the same one, but for STS-29, there was one sitting behind the left shoulder of the flight director. I could probably find out quite a bit about RTDS. I'll look into it. William LeFebvre Department of Computer Science Rice University <phil@Rice.edu>
steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) (04/11/89)
In article <2108@botter.cs.vu.nl> wallagh@cs.vu.nl () writes: >Last summer I visited (briefly) Houston Mission Control, and there >I was showed around in the mission-control room. >2 Things where very surprising: ... >b). The equipment looks very oldfashioned. >My question is: Why? The tourguide said: Because there no need for >newer equipment. >I don't believe that. Personally I think it's to show to all the >poeple that NASA has not enough money to even make a modern control- >room (and thus: give NASA more money). I worked on a project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to develop science data analysis tools. We used the Voyager mission to provide sample data and generate sample displays. The science investigators on Voyager were using antiquated hardware for their displays, which was quite understandable as it was designed and implemented some 14-15 years earlier. It was still functional, but couldn't do what newer systems could. There was no desire to upgrade though, as an improved system would offer little in the way of new capability (or so they thought, anyway) and it would consume a substantial portion of their scarce funds. Our prototype was funded as a tool for future missions (after Galileo), yet we were able to produce enough new functionality in a short time that it was used during the Voyager Uranus encounter. Voyager scientists didn't have to pay anything for it though. What we learned during this effort was 1) no one wants to spend money on new equipment when old (even archaic) equipment does the job, and 2) new technology must pay for itself by adding value, i.e. enabling some acitivity that wasn't possible before. In spacecraft control (both for the Deep Space Network and Houston Mission Control) systems must be checked out to a very high level of reliability. This is VERY expensive and entails risk (a mistake can cost you a spacecraft). Thus the value and merits of new equipment must be very high in order to justify replacing that "old looking" stuff. -- Steve (the certified flying fanatic) steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov