You are not logged in.
As a reminder .... Jeff Bezos just demonstrated his (to me astonishing) faith in software by flying an automated rocket ....
If there are millions of lines of code operating the New Shephard, it seems pretty clear that the team Mr. Bezos hired are world class. The vehicle has flown 15 or more times without incident, not including this latest flawless fight.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk's software development team has delivered multiple payloads to the ISS including passengers.
The difference ** appears ** to be that Musk provided an opportunity for a pilot to take command if necessary.
(th)
Offline
The New Shepard is a straight-up-and-down ballistic shot. The control system for that is quite simple in both concept and hardware. You read either gyros or accelerometers, to determine your position off vertical attitude. Then your control proportionately vectors thrust (or fires attitude thrusters) to correct the error back to zero. This sort of thing has been done hard-wired since the 1950's. Using software today, it's just not that many lines of code, and can be debugged quickly. The total number of potential failure modes is low, like the lines of code.
The Spaceship Two vehicles are 3-D airplanes flying in 3-D space, on a mission trajectory very much like those flown for altitude by the X-1, the D-558-2, and the X-2. The X-15 altitude trajectory was little different, in that it pulled up to climb only after exceeding Mach 4 near 100,000 feet. Spaceship Two does not do that. It pulls up after drop, and reaches Mach 3 at shutoff a bit above 100,000 feet. That's a much bigger, more sophisticated autopilot, and/or a lot more lines of code if done with software. Spaceship Two's autopilot cannot handle everything that might happen, only the routine stuff (like most autopilots). THAT is why it has not one, but two, pilots on board: to take over and hand-fly the thing, if the autopilot gets overwhelmed.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
For GW Johnson re Analysis of New Shephard control systems ...
That is a most interesting analysis! I must admit I had been thinking the New Shephard must be as sophisticated as the SpaceX Falcon 9. Both systems land back on their launch point after reaching significant altitudes.
However, in thinking about the launch as you have done, I can imagine how such a simple control system might work. It probably helps that there is no air movement in the sky over Texas at launch time.
If anyone runs across a report on how the Blue Origin control systems work, it would be a suitable addition to this topic.
(th)
Offline
From AIAA’s “Daily Launch” email newsletter 8-2-2021:
Russia Blames Space Station Incident On Software Problem
The AP (7/30) reported that ISS Russian flight director Vladimir Solovyov on Friday blamed Thursday’s ISS incident, when the Nauka module’s thrusters accidentally fired, on a “short-term software failure.” Solovyov added that the incident was “quickly countered by the propulsion system” of another Russian station component and currently all systems “are operating normally.” Roscosmos Director Dimitry Rogozin said Friday that “human factor” could have been to blame for the incident.
SPACE (7/30) reported that Roscosmos officials wrote Friday, “Due to a short-term software failure, a direct command was mistakenly implemented to turn on the module’s engines for withdrawal, which led to some modification of the orientation of the complex as a whole. At the moment, the station is in its normal orientation, all the ISS [International Space Station] and the multipurpose laboratory module [Nauka] systems are operating normally. The crew is now busy balancing the pressure in the Nauka module. This is a rather lengthy procedure, because the total volume of the module is about 70 cubic meters. In the afternoon, the crew will open the hatches, enter the module, turn on the necessary means of purifying the atmosphere and begin normal regular work.”
CNET News (7/30), the Washington Post (7/30), and Reuters (7/30) provided additional coverage.
From 8-3-2021:
Russian Module Misfire On ISS More Serious Than First Stated
SPACE (8/2) reports that NASA’s Flight Director at mission control in Houston during the Nauka docking, Zebulon Scoville, said that the ISS tilted more severely than the reported 45 degrees. Scoville said that Nauka caused the station to spin “one-and-a-half revolutions – about 540 degrees – before coming to a stop upside down. The space station then did a 180-degree forward flip to get back to its original orientation.” NASA representatives confirmed Monday that Scoville’s account is accurate.
Conclusions drawn:
Humans write and debug software. Of course this was a “software problem”, and of course it was ultimately caused by “human factor” error. That’s just stating the obvious to deflect attention away from the real problem: lousy quality. There’s some Russian heads somewhere that need to roll, for not doing their jobs right.
Myself, I would rather see such control systems done more as hard-wired things tested the old “brute force” way. There’s less capability, but far fewer failure modes that way. Because there are fewer failure modes, there would be fewer potential-disaster problems like this (and less-expensive and more-successful programs for new fighter jets, too).
And do not kid yourself about how serious this was! Throwing the whole ISS out of control into a multi-turn tumble is quite the life-threatening failure. That structure was not designed to do that! It could very easily have come apart in mid-tumble, which would have been a depressurization event that would have killed its entire crew.
As it says under my signature line: there is nothing as expensive as a dead crew. Especially one dead because of a bad management decision. And THAT is what this event very nearly was!
The next such potential disaster in space has to do with NASA’s next space station boondoggle: Gateway around the moon. Where is the radiation shelter, NASA? Solar flare events, like the 1972 event between two Apollo missions, are quite deadly on a time scale of only a few hours. And, it is a very ugly death, severe radiation poisoning!
The potential disasters here on Earth are already starting, with driverless vehicles, for one. I will never set foot in one of those, and I do NOT want to drive on a road occupied by such vehicles. Our robotics abilities are far too immature to support that change in safety.
For another, too much reliance on automation flying airliners. Too few airline pilots have extensive experience hand-flying their airplanes. That’s expensive experience to obtain; corporate executives much prefer “bus drivers” they can underpay. We already saw it take lives in the San Francisco crash that hit the seawall instead of the touchdown point on the runway.
It hit wrong, precisely because the 4 (yes, there were 4!) pilots in the cockpit were messing with the computer instead of looking out the window and flying the airplane! Simple as that, and quite deadly.
The automated approach system was “down” that day, so the cockpit approach automation could not function. The pilots utterly failed to deal correctly with that, even though they knew the approach system was “out”.
Now do y’all understand why I said what I said about unsafe automation?
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
As an afterthought: my wife just got the news from her oncologist. They got it all. She's clean, no signs of spread. No need for further treatment other than a CAT scan every few years to monitor.
She is not on pain meds from the surgery. It will take time to recover her stamina. But she's doing fine.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Great news!
As an afterthought: my wife just got the news from her oncologist. They got it all. She's clean, no signs of spread. No need for further treatment other than a CAT scan every few years to monitor.
She is not on pain meds from the surgery. It will take time to recover her stamina. But she's doing fine.
GW
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
GW,
I'm glad to hear your wife is doing well. I hope she makes a full recovery.
Offline
Kbd512:
Thanks. She is doing very well, and continues improving.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
GW,
Thankfully, my own wife's last MRI was negative. I've come to dread the "we need to discuss this" follow-up doctors appointments.
Offline
I am glad to hear that about a negative MRI result. I sincerely hope y'all continue to get good news.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Safety concerns over driverless and self-driving cars
Offline
Remote driving is existing technology and is really not too different to the way drones are controlled. AI controlled vehicles are something different and are nowhere near practical application.
With remote driving, you have a driver, he just doesn't sit in the vehicle. A lot of US troops in Afganistan and Iraq were killed by roadside bombs. A remotely driven truck could have saved hundreds from being killed or maimed. This is technology that can be done now or very soon. The remote interface would add cost, but eliminating the cabin would save weight and increase payload. You also have the advantage that the driver doesn't need to travel to or from site. He doesn't have to go to some distant quarry in the Australian outback to mine coal. He can sit in a comfortable air conditioned office close to where he lives, which could be on the other side of the world. Maybe he can do his job from home. That would save a shed load of cost. This is one of those technologies that could make a huge difference to labour productivity, whilst reducing overall energy consumption.
Just don't expect machines to replace the human brain. Computers can only deal with narrowly defined input parameters that are programmed into them. This makes them really good at playing chess. But really crap in a situation where there are an infinite variety of environments and a million unique decisions that need to be made.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-08-26 05:56:47)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Robot Rovers Of The Early Space Race
https://hackaday.com/2018/07/29/robot-r … pace-race/
South Korean lunar orbiter to undergo critical trajectory manoeuvre
https://www.gadgetsnow.com/tech-news/so … 946913.cms
What is NASA's Artemis program?
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/nasas-artemis … 51259.html
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has revealed plans to extract hydrogen from the Moon's ice deposits to use as a fuel source
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/ … r-hopping/
the Mines of the Moon and Mars?
older article
Mining Mars? Where's the Ore?
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-pr … -gold.html
We may not be prospecting Mars anytime soon, but scientists have mapped out where on the planet we should look -- some day.
The best places on Mars for valuable ores are volcanoes, lava flows and impact craters.
Mars' different history, crust and atmosphere make it certain that minerals there will be different than those of Earth.
Martian miners will not likely be sending much back to Earth.
What will be mined?
Quartz a hard crystalline mineral, Kaolinite a clay mineral, Magnetite is an iron ore mineral, Aragonite is a Calcium carbonate mineral, Pigeonite crystal mineral, Kaolinite-serpentine spotted groups used as a source of Magnesium, Pyroxenes calcium (Ca), sodium (Na), iron (Fe II) or magnesium (Mg) and rare elements like zinc, manganese or lithium, and ions of smaller size, such as chromium (Cr), aluminium (Al), magnesium (Mg), cobalt (Co), manganese (Mn), scandium (Sc), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V) or even iron (Fe II) or (Fe III), Jarosite is a hydrous sulfate of potassium and ferric iron deposit, Feldspars that contain sodium, calcium, potassium, or barium, Hematite a common iron oxide compound with the formula Fe2O3, Olivine a mineral of magnesium iron silicate, Ikaite spiked melting minerals, Gypsum a soft sulfate mineral
NASA Invests in Tech Concepts Aimed at Exploring Lunar Craters, Mining Asteroids
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa … -asteroids
Bringing Mars into the Iron Age
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s … 03mar99_1/
A metal-making process known to the ancient Romans could be pressed into service to bring Mars into the Iron Age - and start opening the solar system to human habitation.
"If you look at the soil composition of Mars, the one thing that really strikes you is that it's 5 to 14 percent iron oxide," said Dr. Peter Curreri, a materials scientist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. "It's almost ore-grade material."
Offline