As an amateur astro-pilot (1000h in KSP and 200+ in Flight of Nova, both flight simulators with realistic orbital mechanics) I'd like to say that in modern cockpit of the fusion propelled ships in FoA, the one thing I'm missing from Apollo-style flight instruments of KSP is the Nav-Ball.
The jet-fighter-like "ladder" style attitude meter can't be read with just one look. You need to focus to see the numbers next to the ladder steps. And then another look at the compass for a full reading. 3s of focus (away from controlling the ship) vs. 0.5 (that your subconscious has most likely already interialized).
To put that 3s into perspective, according to ship readings, Apollo 11 had <20s fuel left when it touched down on the moon.
https://spaceflightblunders.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/ov-095-...
EDIT: Ah. It almost certainly was:
https://www.superstock.com/asset/oct-astronauts-frederick-ri...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZeBWJLRXqM Creative solutions to impossible engineering problems
> 3. The FDAI's signals are more complicated than I described above. Among
> other things, the IMU's gimbal angles use a different coordinate system from
> the FDAI, so an electromechanical unit called GASTA (Gimbal Angle Sequence
> Transformation Assembly) used resolvers and motors to convert the
> coordinates.
I'm so glad I work in software.My three articles on the Globus had the following HN discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34468212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35311300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35038710
I bet a car mechanic in the 60s would have a hard time to replicate this too.
Times change, but there is not much sense in comparing.
And I say that as a software guy who has a handful of resolvers in a drawer somewhere :-)
I think people radically underestimate how much capability we have. It's rarely necessary to do things exactly the way they were done 60 years ago.
I worry with all the outsourcing over the past few decades that these and even basic engineering manufacturing technologies are being lost.
The comment about their Manufacturing dept not wanting to deal with it, leaving the Engineering group to build the devices was amusing, but not altogether surprising.
I'm kind of a connector geek. Never heard of the MDB1 type before, here's a pic: https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/itt-cannon-llc/MD...
Cannon is famous for their metal-shell circular connectors to the point that it's like Kleenex. "Everyone" knows what a "Cannon connector" looks like, so I was not expecting a D-sub form factor!
kens•7mo ago
johng•7mo ago
mcpeepants•7mo ago
kens•7mo ago
Links: https://archive.org/details/apollo1319959231994/page/n92/mod... https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/...
rbanffy•7mo ago
_dwt•7mo ago
kens•7mo ago
garaetjjte•7mo ago
That's surprising. Was there any requirement that necessitated them to be different parts, or it's just because different suppliers were chosen by Grumman/North American?
kens•7mo ago