Saving the shuttle simulator–“It was an artifact that needed to be preserved”(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Saving the shuttle simulator–“It was an artifact that needed to be preserved”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/saving-the-shuttle-simulator-it-was-an-artifact-that-needed-to-be-preserved/
64 comments
If you like this kind of stuff check out CuriousMarc's youtube channel, he does great in-depth explanations of his restorations
> Shame that they don't have the resources to restore the original computers.
With adequate documentation, they could be emulated, at least at the input/output level.
Would be fun then to add new missions to an old simulator :-)
With adequate documentation, they could be emulated, at least at the input/output level.
Would be fun then to add new missions to an old simulator :-)
IIRC, there were companies running pure CGI simulators in the 70's, so that could be the out of the window imagery for the astronauts. I'd love to know more about the software (and, mostly, what appeared on the three MFDs of the original shuttles, as well as detailed images of the glass-cockpit MFDs that are on this simulator.
IIRC, the original ones were not raster displays, but long-persistence X-Y displays.
IIRC, the original ones were not raster displays, but long-persistence X-Y displays.
They should just leave the simulator as-is and accept that it cannot be restored together with all the mission control infrastructure. Keep it as a museum artefact. And then build a new simulator from scratch with modern flat panels and a big PC, for people to use.
Or just throw flat panels at the current simulator, hook it up and let people take a ride for money.
While it's a imperfect preservation from a historical standpoint giving a lot of people the opportunity to experience it would help preserve it for the future.
Museums often struggle with this. Some historically interesting piece of whatever languishes and then eventually gets chucked whereas something that's more completely unremarkable and low value and common enough to let people actually interact with it winds up being the star of their collection.
While it's a imperfect preservation from a historical standpoint giving a lot of people the opportunity to experience it would help preserve it for the future.
Museums often struggle with this. Some historically interesting piece of whatever languishes and then eventually gets chucked whereas something that's more completely unremarkable and low value and common enough to let people actually interact with it winds up being the star of their collection.
It would be really cool if there was a replica shuttle and mission control simulator using modern techniques and software.
But then it would also offer an arcade style version that the general public could just flip switches to try out.
I’m guessing the general public would not be able to follow the sequences needed to make the original approachable or fun.
I proposed a interactive art piece for Burning Man that offered this “follow the sequence by flipping switches and hitting buttons” game.
But then the pandemic hit became one of the worst ideas possible.
Here’s the concept video I put together:
https://youtu.be/HpekTizfdf8
But then it would also offer an arcade style version that the general public could just flip switches to try out.
I’m guessing the general public would not be able to follow the sequences needed to make the original approachable or fun.
I proposed a interactive art piece for Burning Man that offered this “follow the sequence by flipping switches and hitting buttons” game.
But then the pandemic hit became one of the worst ideas possible.
Here’s the concept video I put together:
https://youtu.be/HpekTizfdf8
Mid 60's technology, actually.
Years ago I worked as a software tester in the Mission Control Center. This was in simpler times, before 9-11. On lunch breaks I would wander the campus and poke my head in areas to see what was up. Many times employees would give me an impromptu tour of the area. One of these times was this full-motion shuttle simulator. They were about to take it on a test run, and asked me if I wanted to go along for the ride. It was an amazing experience, and one of many fond memories of working there.
What a well written article, pleasure to read; summarising a cool project with a passionate team working to accomplish the goal of preservation.
For others interested in space flight computers and simulators, in case you haven't read it, there is a great book that came out a few years ago about writing the code for the Apollo program. Specifically the landing module computer and simulator. The book is also a wonderful look into the work teams, their dynamics, characters, and a brief glimpse into the politics and culture of the world around them as they frenetically worked, to get to the moon.
Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir.
by Don Eyles.
Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir
The article comments have quite a bit of additional information on the sim. Interesting reading.
> I'm not an astronaut, just a commercial pilot, but I was fortunate enough to "fly" the shuttle simulator about 12 years ago. It was an amazing experience. When the tech strapped us in tight and showed where the airsick bags were, I knew it was going to get interesting. It's just like an airline simulator (pretty sure it was built by the same company), except it tilts 90 degrees for launch. I observed a few launches in the "jumpseat". They were doing real work and testing an anomaly that occurred on a previous shuttle mission to see how it would affect systems in various abort scenarios. It really shakes a lot during launch, but obviously there is only 1g max. It's on hydraulics and by pushing over and dropping, it feels like you are decelerating or going weightless, if only for a few seconds.
> After the real work was done, they let me shoot a couple of approaches into Kennedy. It has an intuitive Heads Up Display, similar to what some 737s have. The control stick was quite unique however. It sits between your legs like a fighter jet and it's fly-by-wire with an unusual activation mechanism that I can't really describe. It was very sensitive so you have to make short inputs, almost flying it with just 2 fingers. It's just like flying an approach in an airplane except you were coming in at 250-300 kts most of the way, you were flying a 18.5 degree glide path (normal plane is 3 degrees), and there was no 2nd chance . The HUD guidance plus the approach lights at Kennedy made it very easy to fly an approach. I had no trouble landing safely, but it was nearly impossible to get a "greaser". I think I bounced one and floated one. I left Buidling 5 with the biggest grin on my face that day
- Gman737 - DEC 10, 2021 10:24 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/saving-the-shuttle-s...
> After the real work was done, they let me shoot a couple of approaches into Kennedy. It has an intuitive Heads Up Display, similar to what some 737s have. The control stick was quite unique however. It sits between your legs like a fighter jet and it's fly-by-wire with an unusual activation mechanism that I can't really describe. It was very sensitive so you have to make short inputs, almost flying it with just 2 fingers. It's just like flying an approach in an airplane except you were coming in at 250-300 kts most of the way, you were flying a 18.5 degree glide path (normal plane is 3 degrees), and there was no 2nd chance . The HUD guidance plus the approach lights at Kennedy made it very easy to fly an approach. I had no trouble landing safely, but it was nearly impossible to get a "greaser". I think I bounced one and floated one. I left Buidling 5 with the biggest grin on my face that day
- Gman737 - DEC 10, 2021 10:24 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/saving-the-shuttle-s...
> you were flying a 18.5 degree glide path (normal plane is 3 degrees), and there was no 2nd chance
Yeah, the Shuttle was such a bad glider that they trained pilots using a business jet with gear down and reverse thrust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Training_Aircraft
Yeah, the Shuttle was such a bad glider that they trained pilots using a business jet with gear down and reverse thrust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Training_Aircraft
What happened to the Shuttle simulator at NASA Ames? NASA has a huge Vertical Motion Simulator (60 feet vertically, 40 feet horizontally) at Ames, with interchangeable cabs. They had a Shuttle cab for that.
Keeping the cockpit lights on is about as far as it usually goes. The Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos has some aircraft where the cockpit lights are lit, but that's all. The Museum of Flight in Seattle used to try to keep some of their planes in flyable condition, but as the Boeing retirees die off, that's become harder.
Keeping the cockpit lights on is about as far as it usually goes. The Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos has some aircraft where the cockpit lights are lit, but that's all. The Museum of Flight in Seattle used to try to keep some of their planes in flyable condition, but as the Boeing retirees die off, that's become harder.
It's so weird to see this on HN.
As a student, this simulator was just another piece of junk collecting dust at the Riverside campus at Texas A&M. The storage building itself was an old WWII hanger, and was mostly used by student groups for constructing design projects, with access to the adjacent (long-retired) runway space for testing.
The amount of legacy/surplus aerospace hardware stored in that hanger was overwhelming. I don't think I fully appreciated it at the time. Most of it is probably cleared out by now. Small world
As a student, this simulator was just another piece of junk collecting dust at the Riverside campus at Texas A&M. The storage building itself was an old WWII hanger, and was mostly used by student groups for constructing design projects, with access to the adjacent (long-retired) runway space for testing.
The amount of legacy/surplus aerospace hardware stored in that hanger was overwhelming. I don't think I fully appreciated it at the time. Most of it is probably cleared out by now. Small world
> The internal illumination for all those switch panels was accomplished via 1,600 tiny incandescent bulbs that were soldered onto printed circuit boards on the backs of the panels.
That's a strange design decision given it'd be known that those incandescent bulbs would need regular replacement.
It's a shame they went with a static display rather then add a "ride" aspect. While some may argue this is a museum not a theme park, the more engaging it is the more people will visit and learn.
That's a strange design decision given it'd be known that those incandescent bulbs would need regular replacement.
It's a shame they went with a static display rather then add a "ride" aspect. While some may argue this is a museum not a theme park, the more engaging it is the more people will visit and learn.
Just doing some quick back-of-the-napkin math, 1,600 miniature bayonet sockets potentially add up to hundreds of pounds of mass. That may have been a factor in the decision to solder the bulbs directly onto the boards. Especially when replacement probably required disassembling panels, so the soldering isn't really time worth saving. Just a guess though, and the significance varies quite a bit depending on where you set the slider for "mass of one socket." Still, it's the same order of magnitude that they shaved off when they decided not to paint the external tank, so it's plausible.
LEDs were available at the time the shuttles were built, but were they considered too new to take a bet on?
Also, I'm bummed they replaced them because LEDs have a very different feel.
Also, I'm bummed they replaced them because LEDs have a very different feel.
> LEDs were available at the time the shuttles were built
Assembly of Endeavour, the final STS to be built, was completed in 1990. Blue LEDs appeared in 1993 and white ones several years alter. During the shuttle era, LEDS were invariably red, green and yellow. I'd be surprised if those colours were considered suitable for general illumination of flight instrumentation.
Assembly of Endeavour, the final STS to be built, was completed in 1990. Blue LEDs appeared in 1993 and white ones several years alter. During the shuttle era, LEDS were invariably red, green and yellow. I'd be surprised if those colours were considered suitable for general illumination of flight instrumentation.
> Blue LEDs appeared in 1993
Then it is interesting that my father's 1989 Wolfsburg Edition Jetta has a blue LED in the dash
"The first blue-violet LED using magnesium-doped gallium nitride was made at Stanford University in 1972 by Herb Maruska and Wally Rhines, doctoral students in materials science and engineering." [1]
"In August 1989, Cree introduced the first commercially available blue LED based on the indirect bandgap semiconductor, silicon carbide (SiC)." [2]
What you must be thinking of: "Two years later, in 1993, high-brightness blue LEDs were demonstrated by Shuji Nakamura of Nichia Corporation using a gallium nitride growth process." [3]
[1,2,3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode#blue_LE...
Then it is interesting that my father's 1989 Wolfsburg Edition Jetta has a blue LED in the dash
"The first blue-violet LED using magnesium-doped gallium nitride was made at Stanford University in 1972 by Herb Maruska and Wally Rhines, doctoral students in materials science and engineering." [1]
"In August 1989, Cree introduced the first commercially available blue LED based on the indirect bandgap semiconductor, silicon carbide (SiC)." [2]
What you must be thinking of: "Two years later, in 1993, high-brightness blue LEDs were demonstrated by Shuji Nakamura of Nichia Corporation using a gallium nitride growth process." [3]
[1,2,3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode#blue_LE...
Clearly I was referring to commercial off-the-shelf products rated for aerospace use, not experimental lab prototypes.
Regarding your father's car, I'd suggest the indicator in question is either an after-market addition, or an original incandescent mini-bulb behind a blue plastic filter. The latter was a common way to implement coloured dashboard lights back then.
Regarding your father's car, I'd suggest the indicator in question is either an after-market addition, or an original incandescent mini-bulb behind a blue plastic filter. The latter was a common way to implement coloured dashboard lights back then.
> Clearly I was referring to commercial off-the-shelf products rated for aerospace use, not experimental lab prototypes.
Except for "clearly," then sure. I should have known because when most people talk about LED they mean "hardened for aerospace LED." Right? Come on.
> Regarding your father's car
Nope. Volkswagen used what anyone would recognize as an ordinary blue LED in their 1989 model year dash, along with ordinary red, green & yellow LEDs.
Except for "clearly," then sure. I should have known because when most people talk about LED they mean "hardened for aerospace LED." Right? Come on.
> Regarding your father's car
Nope. Volkswagen used what anyone would recognize as an ordinary blue LED in their 1989 model year dash, along with ordinary red, green & yellow LEDs.
In my 1984 (A1) Rabbit GTI the indicator that looks like a blue LED is a piece of blue plastic backlit with a white lamp. The A2 cars (including the 1989 Jetta) used the same setup.
Similar to this one: http://gtcarlot.com/interiors/Volkswagen/Rabbit+Pickup/1981/...
Similar to this one: http://gtcarlot.com/interiors/Volkswagen/Rabbit+Pickup/1981/...
No. Those are blue lenses only. They did not use blue LEDS in 1989:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqpyc8huRLE&t=20s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqpyc8huRLE&t=20s
Blue LEDs were not in commercial products in the 1980s, even if the technology existed. Perhaps due to cost, I don’t really know, but I was there and remember it well. In the 90s, companies went nuts with blue LEDs using them as power indicators in everything.
You are simply mistaken. Volkswagen used blue LED in their 1989 model year dash, models presumably available in 1988. [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snld2cT83qg&t=1m56s
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snld2cT83qg&t=1m56s
I think you might be mistaken. Those are lenses that are shaped like LEDs but there are bulbs behind them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqpyc8huRLE&t=20s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqpyc8huRLE&t=20s
god bless youtube, what a specific piece of history to have a reference for
We've reached peak YouTube. But that does answer the poster's claim. The lens is perfectly shaped to emulate an LED.
[deleted]
The only thing you would be using LEDs for in the late 70s would be indicator lights and 7-segment displays. The only colors available are red, green and yellow, and they wen't bright enough to illuminate dials, instrument panels or cockpits. Even if they did use LEDs where they made sense, they would still need hundreds of incandescent bulbs.
The simulator was designed in the days when white LEDs did not yet exist, and likely the time on display is well in excess of what it normally would have gone through when in use as a training device.
I don't think GP's comment was about the use of incadescent bulbs, I think it was about soldering them onto the board.
The shuttle experiences severe vibration during launch. You don't want your indicator lights shaking loose during launch, so therefore they should be soldered.
In vibration sensitive applications that makes perfect sense.
I mean, yeah, I wasn't in the room when the Space Shuttle was built. I don't know the "surprising level of detail" involved. I guess it's a round-about way of saying, "I'd like to know what those details were to understand why having to desolder burnt-out bulbs is better than using a spring-loaded, locking fitting."
i dont know that burnt out bulbs are a problem: you can trade reliability for efficiency: don’t burn the bulb at its brightest and it’s unlikely it will burn out
While it is always possible that a whole army of experts would miss something so obvious as the existence of spring loaded locking fittings (aka banjonet bulbs), the safe assumption is that they thought of it and rejected it for valid reasons. Vibration is a very nasty problem.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I thought it was a strange restoration decisions to replace them, this was built before led's were around.
It wouldn't really have the reliability to be a ride.
Theme park rides are designed from scratch for high-uptime usage. Like real aircraft, something like this probably required several hours of maintenance for every hour of "flight-time" back in the day.
Theme park rides are designed from scratch for high-uptime usage. Like real aircraft, something like this probably required several hours of maintenance for every hour of "flight-time" back in the day.
It was often said the the shuttle was more rebuildable than reusable.
> It's a shame they went with a static display rather then add a "ride" aspect.
This simulator is over 50 years old; anyone actively using it, especially unsupervised, would cause damage.
I mean I'm all for someone building a newer and more resilient simulator, or reproducing it in VR, but at this point this is a genuine museum piece and the focus should be on conservation, not entertainment.
This simulator is over 50 years old; anyone actively using it, especially unsupervised, would cause damage.
I mean I'm all for someone building a newer and more resilient simulator, or reproducing it in VR, but at this point this is a genuine museum piece and the focus should be on conservation, not entertainment.
>This simulator is over 50 years old; anyone actively using it, especially unsupervised, would cause damage.
It's expensive and takes up a lot of space. Letting people use it, even if they can't truly "fly" it, is probably the best shot it has at having any staying power in its new home. Sure that'll probably require some motor, lightbulb and upholstery replacements over time but it should be fine as long as they stay on top of it.
When the museum comes under hard times a decade or more in the future, after the novelty has worn off, being a cost positive attraction vs a cost neutral use of space that could be used for something that can attract people is likely the difference between the simulator staying or going.
It's expensive and takes up a lot of space. Letting people use it, even if they can't truly "fly" it, is probably the best shot it has at having any staying power in its new home. Sure that'll probably require some motor, lightbulb and upholstery replacements over time but it should be fine as long as they stay on top of it.
When the museum comes under hard times a decade or more in the future, after the novelty has worn off, being a cost positive attraction vs a cost neutral use of space that could be used for something that can attract people is likely the difference between the simulator staying or going.
> This simulator is over 50 years old; anyone actively using it, especially unsupervised, would cause damage.
The Delta museum near the Atlanta airport has an old, full-motion, level D 737 flight simulator anyone can pay to "fly". A operator joins you in the simulator and sets up and operates the simulator for you. $425 gets you 45 minutes and it seems to stay relatively busy.
I would imagine the operator of a Space Shuttle simulator could charge quite a bit more for the opportunity to fly one of the most famous aircraft ever built.
The Delta museum near the Atlanta airport has an old, full-motion, level D 737 flight simulator anyone can pay to "fly". A operator joins you in the simulator and sets up and operates the simulator for you. $425 gets you 45 minutes and it seems to stay relatively busy.
I would imagine the operator of a Space Shuttle simulator could charge quite a bit more for the opportunity to fly one of the most famous aircraft ever built.
It would be cheaper to pay someone like CAE to build a modern hardware space-shuttle simulator if you wanted rides. Then it would be easy to replace parts, since they actively maintain hundreds of aircraft simulators.
Incandescent bulbs can be very reliable when run below the rated voltage. The color temperature will be a bit lower but they last a long time.
They are also incredibly tolerant to current/voltage spikes because they are purely resistive, which makes them ideal for situations when power could be 'interesting' as they will still function unless they are run well beyond normal limits. So when it's more important that it just works, it's not a bad design.
Also soldering them would be least of the cost concerns for the shuttle program, which had much bigger and nastier cost centers.
Also soldering them would be least of the cost concerns for the shuttle program, which had much bigger and nastier cost centers.
I think the concern with soldering goes beyond just cost. Vibrations and micro-gravity do have a lot of concerns when it comes to shorting and other reliability issues.
This is awesome. Back in 2014, Bezos ran an expedition to recover Apollo engines from the Atlantic and restore them too: https://www.bezosexpeditions.com/updates.html
I'm curious what it looks like on the outside. That must be quite the rig it is sitting on.
I was going to be pedantic and say isn't that technically the Orbiter simulator. But I guess they'd also be doing stuff on the way up while it was attached to the rockets.
Extremely odd sentence from the article: "Unfortunately, shortly after this, the university unexpectedly lost control of this building." Er, what? Was there a revolution?
Actually the engineers had warned the university that they were going to lose control of the building, but management wouldn't listen.
Although you probably meant it in jest, one of the buildings at my alma mater is actually named after a professor who led a coup against a previous president (some 100ish years ago) and became the president himself until he died from a heart attack in one of the dining halls.
The building wasn't tethered down and flew away into space.
Houston, we have a problem ...
Adding The Lone Star Flight Museum to my places to visit some day.
Tried to land the 3rd party Shuttle sim at the Air and Space museum in Seattle this weekend. Glide ratio of 4.5/1 it's just falling out of the sky.
Crashed it like nine times
Crashed it like nine times
pity they didn't think that about the moon lander....Don Pettit:"but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again"
Maybe I'm weird, but the details of the computers and however they were producing the graphics with mid-70s technology is actually more interesting to me than the simulator itself.
Are they using computer graphics by that point? Or are they stuck with computer-controlled cameras over over physical models?
Edit: Found some high-level documentation of the whole computer systems[1]. Based on the description of the visual system on page 117, it looks like has specialised hardware for lit, flat-shaded polygonal graphics.
[1] https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980NASCP2150..113O