Why Not Use PC To Make Glass Cockpit?

Well Ted, that's hardly a cockpit and I doubt the space station is going to
have to navigate in the clouds anytime soon or with anybody on board.



The Space Station uses IBM 760xd laptops for their glass cockpit.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...l/sts105-304-0
25.html

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/.../iss002e5478.h
tml

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/.../iss003e5552.h
tml

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk65...study09186a008
00b53b6.shtml

Ted wrote:

The Space Station uses IBM 760xd laptops for their glass cockpit.


http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...5-304-025.html


The pictures show astronauts using what appears at first-glance to be a
conventional laptop[0] computer in the space station. The way the stuff
is arranged in the pictures would imply that they're using them for
"desktop" computing tasks -- instead of as a real-time life-critical device.

As a professional systems administrator, I fully endorse the use of
desktop/laptop computers for desktop/laptop computing tasks. In fact,
my ability to eat depends on other people finding such tools to be
valuable! :-)

-Luke

[0] According to the spaceref article, though, the hardware has been
redesigned a bit and thoroughly tested to make sure that it's be better
suited to space than a consumer laptop. The deep review of information
about the hardware (look at every chip on every board) & software
(review the source for obvious brain-deadness) and the testing is what
most folks probably wouldn't have the time (or motivation?) to do
properly in a homebrew device.

verticalrate wrote:
You may be a software developer but you apparently don't have any experience
in embedded high reliability systems. High reliability is not measured in
Mean Time Between Windows Reboot. High development costs due to a rigorous
development process plus small market size equals high prices per unit.

Another thing to mention is that he may use a small number of computers
for his development work. When you are looking after hundreds of
computers, you can gather rough seat-of-the-pants reliability statistics
very quickly.

I now actually believe-in-my-gut thar hard drive failures *are* discrete
random events with their bell-curve (bi-nomial?) distribution centered
roughly around the MTBF that is published in the manual. Discounting
DOA drives, I've had people get unlucky with HDDs that fail after mere
months of operation, and I've had drives that were made 10 years ago
that keep writing, storing, and reading sectors without trouble.
There's no way that I can predict the failures.

-Luke

P.S. The above is great material for the back-up-your-stuff-please
speech! :-)

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in message...


-Chaud Lapin-


Is that French for "hot rabbit"?

Never the less, its a vehicle traveling at mach 25 and uses laptops as the
human interface to manage attitude, thrusters, environmental control and
life support, communications, electrical power and robotic systems.

Gig Giacona wrote in message ...
Well Ted, that's hardly a cockpit and I doubt the space station is going to
have to navigate in the clouds anytime soon or with anybody on board.



The Space Station uses IBM 760xd laptops for their glass cockpit.


http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...l/sts105-304-0
25.html


http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/.../iss002e5478.h
tml


http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/.../iss003e5552.h
tml

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213


http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk65...study09186a008
00b53b6.shtml

Ted wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote in message...


-Chaud Lapin-


Is that French for "hot rabbit"?

Yes.

Long story short, I visit France each year, and the first time I was
there, I found an advertisement for a French movie - "Le Chaud Lapin".
See:

http://www.moviecovers.com/film/titr...D%20LAPIN.html

When I murmured it out loud, there happened to be young French women at
the party who overheard, and so that became my name thenceforth, even
though I am neither hot nor do I bear any resemblance to a rabbit.

-Chaud Lapin-

Ted wrote:
Never the less, its a vehicle traveling at mach 25 and uses laptops as the
human interface to manage attitude, thrusters, environmental control and
life support, communications, electrical power and robotic systems.

and gets bombed with tons of lots of radiation that destroys many
electrical components.

Gerald

In article .com,
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote:

verticalrate wrote:
Congratulations, you've just doubled the cost of your airplane and put on
enough weight to leave a passenger at home.

No. That's the point of the PC solution. Many of the features I
listed add no weight to the aircraft because they are implemented in
software along with the other 40 or 50 features.

not no but yes. many of the "features" require hardware (seat warmer, massage,
big flat panel displays, digital cameras, laser mount).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel wrote:
In article .com,
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote:
No. That's the point of the PC solution. Many of the features I
listed add no weight to the aircraft because they are implemented in
software along with the other 40 or 50 features.

not no but yes. many of the "features" require hardware (seat warmer, massage,
big flat panel displays, digital cameras, laser mount).


Yes, this is true. I mixed hardware and software, since I wanted to
say essentially the same thing about hardware (I was a EE in previous
existence).

Since we're talking about hardware, I when I look at the cockpit of a
Cessna, almost everything is a candidate for roughing. Most of the
controls and indicators can be made soft. And if I chose the hardware
and wrote the code (or reviewd it), I would have no qualms about
letting a computer run my craft.

A computer at the center of control would probably end up reducing the
overall weight.

My gut feeling is that there are other opportunites for optimization
elsewhere in the craft.

It's too bad that no one forms a team of people at the leading edge of
each of their respective fields (energy, mechanics, electrical,
software, aero/astro) to design a new type of craft that makes a clean
break with the run-of-the-mill single-prop planes we are seeing today.

I'm not saying that it is easy but it's not like designing a nuclear
weapon.

Now where is that Flying Car?


-Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

A computer at the center of control would probably end up reducing the
overall weight.

It's funny how people tend to gravitate towards a "central control" idea
even though a totally distributed system is much better. Imagine if
all the ILSs in the world were connected to a central computer and what
happens when that computer fails.

Now, I'm not sure how much improvement is really needed for an airplane.
Airplanes are extremely elegant because of their simplicity. If you
ask a mechanical engineer to design something that converts forward
motion into lift with no moving parts, I doubt that he will come up with
a wing.

We have added a few things such as altimeters, airspeed indicators, etc.
These make flying easier and safer, but strictly speaking, do not
make the plane fly. Next, we add radios, transponders and the like.
Again, these help controllers on the ground with safety considerations,
but don't make the plane fly.

So what does a "central control" add?