Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 23, 2020, 11:34:58 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Project Apollo Beta 7.0 released!
http://nassp.sf.net/wiki/Installation
25068 Posts in 2094 Topics by 2266 Members
Latest Member: twa517
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Meadville Space Center
|-+  Project Apollo - NASSP
| |-+  Project Apollo - NASSP Development
| | |-+  Programming (Moderators: movieman, dseagrav, Swatch, lassombra)
| | | |-+  Varying Complexity Levels
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Varying Complexity Levels  (Read 6219 times)
rodion
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 13

rodion_herrera
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2005, 11:52:17 PM »

Quote from: chode
No offense, but if you want to fly to the moon and back, then use the DeltaGlider. It is FAR more capable than any real spacecraft ever developed.

But, if you want to simulate something that ACTUALLY went to the moon, like Apollo, then you have to appreciate the real world technology that existed to get you there, especially circa 1969,  like the AGC.

I still agree there can be levels of complexity, but if we're trying to simulate Apollo, then one goal would be to ACTUAULLY simulate Apollo.


By stating those remarks, I feel as if you just killed the educational (i.e. grade/high-school) potential of an otherwise excellent Apollo simulation. One reason why I WOULDN'T want punching in NOUNS and VERBS is when I'm trying to let youngsters appreciate the idea of sending human beings to actually set foot upon another heavenly body, and letting them actually get a "feel" of what's it like without having their short attention spans get muddled by a complex control panel containing dozens of switches. Maybe I'm talking too much of Orbiter and NASSP as an educational tool, and most of you just want an accurate sim, but as an Apollo buff, even thought I do agree that it should be "as real as it gets", sometimes flexibility does have merits.

-RODION
Logged
chode
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 153


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2005, 12:44:21 AM »

You mis-understand me. I'm all for having different levels of complexity, even as far as you can just sit there and watch. And I think that orbiter is a great educational tool. But I also want the simulator to be capable of being as realistic as possible, which in itself should add to it's educational value, since you need to understand more about the way it was actually done with Apollo, arcane technology and all.

It would be fairly easy to make it flyable "by the seat of the pants" like the DeltaGlider by over-rating all the engines, reducing all the weights, making a simple instrument panel, etc. but then would it still be an "Apollo simulation"?
Logged
chode
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 153


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2005, 02:18:34 AM »

One more comment:

The Apollo astronauts did not have anywhere near the knowledge we have within the Orbiter environment. We are running a simulation,  and the simulation has complete knowledge of our state (position, velocity, etc.) They (the real astronauts) did not have MFDs, for one. Try flying to the Moon without using ANY MFDs, and you should appreciate what it was really like.
Logged
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2005, 09:35:21 AM »

Quote from: chode
One more comment:

The Apollo astronauts did not have anywhere near the knowledge we have within the Orbiter environment. We are running a simulation,  and the simulation has complete knowledge of our state (position, velocity, etc.) They (the real astronauts) did not have MFDs, for one. Try flying to the Moon without using ANY MFDs, and you should appreciate what it was really like.


True. However, I believe that one main reason why the younger generation remains "detached" from a firm belief that we did land on the moon, is because of this huge "chasm" of complexity of the Apollo project as a whole. I just spent about 2 1/2 hours about two weeks ago trying to squeeze the entire Mercury, Gemini and Apollo mission descriptions into one lecture in an attempt to counter the Conspiracy Theory: Did we Land on the Moon Fox video (that was recently shown in a local channel here in the Philippines), to some college students. But still, the hugeness of the whole thing, and the fact that the astronauts themselves seem to be"non-experts" in what they are doing and have to rely on computers that only had 2k or so of RAM, makes it so hard for them to grasp how the whole thing works. But...when they see the process being done in Orbiter, especially in external view, for instance, when the CSM separates from the stack, turns around and extracts the LM from the SIVB, gives them an idea of the beauty and grace of some of the concepts involved in the mission, and so it provides them an avenue of interest and further curiosity about other things in the mission. And you can imagine me fumbling about, switching from external view and then the panel and having to punch in NOUN and VERB values and or pressing toggle switches in exact sequence just to demonstrate a rather simple maneuver if done "the old way". I'm sorry if I appear to be downplaying the magnificent new panel, but again, it's just a voice of an educator struggling hard to make the general public, esp. youngersters, appreciate the achievements of mankind without having to create mistakes while demoing because I pressed the wrong VERB values! Hehehe

-RODION
Logged
gimp1992
Full Member
***
Posts: 190


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2005, 06:34:26 PM »

Is it not possible to just use NASSP 4 or 5?
The ones with no panel or tne COSTAM one. This project will never likly be all things to all people. I think if you want to do it the simple way use the old NASSP, if you want to do it the real way use the new one.
Logged

Joe Brown
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2005, 11:25:56 PM »

Quote from: gimp1992
Is it not possible to just use NASSP 4 or 5?
The ones with no panel or tne COSTAM one. This project will never likly be all things to all people. I think if you want to do it the simple way use the old NASSP, if you want to do it the real way use the new one.


Using 4 or 5 would mean reverting to an old version of Orbiter, a rather backward move.

"This project will never likly be all things to all people." True, but it's not bad to dream or to suggest. Many great things have happened in this world through dreams and suggestions.

-RODION
Logged
chode
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 153


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2005, 01:19:59 AM »

rodion,

If your up against any real doubt about the "reality" of man landing on the moon, then your problems are more of the "political bias" nature than scientific.

Anyone who is in the least "scientifically motivated" can prove for themselves that man actually went to the moon. The "politically motivated" can deny facts beyond what you and I might think reasonable.
Logged
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2005, 04:40:37 AM »

Quote from: chode
rodion,

If your up against any real doubt about the "reality" of man landing on the moon, then your problems are more of the "political bias" nature than scientific.

Anyone who is in the least "scientifically motivated" can prove for themselves that man actually went to the moon. The "politically motivated" can deny facts beyond what you and I might think reasonable.


True. But you are in Nevernever land if you think you can really tear politics away from the scientific side of space missions.

Gordo Cooper in that pseudo-confrontation scene in "Right Stuff" ... "Do you boys know what makes this bird go up? FUNDING, makes this bird go up... In my opinion, if you attempt to "sterilize" the "realism" of a simulation by cutting of the hand that feeds it, then your reality is not "as real as it gets" Thus in many ways, the old game, "Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space" seems a more realistic and complete simulation because it does include the problems of cost/expense in the endeavor...money that comes from the public. And I personally feel that if you don't let the public appreciate the missions on a "reachable" level, how will you expect them to support further scientific endeavours in space? Do you think they will just trust the people behind the program because they are doing their job well?

Now another case. I live in a third world, rather backwater kind of a country. And yet we have people like this girl ( http://home.astronomy.com.ph/?id=/200502/columns/voices ) who earnestly wants to become an astronaut (I personally gave up on the idea years ago LOL). If you read her article thoroughly, you can almost feel her burning passion to really become one, yet our economics (and gobal economics) dictate that it's near-impossible for someone like her (or like me) to become an astronaut, because it's complicated by economics brought about by the way world-politics work.

I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum to vent these things, yes it's more of a socio-cultural-political thing, but I think as people responsible for continuing the legacy of Apollo missions in Orbiter, you guys have in your hands the power to shape the opinions of youngsters not only in America and Europe, but all over the world, on how these technologies actually work, and let these youngsters appreciate your efforts first on a more "graspable" level, and THEN elevate them to a higher level...this way, even though Aleah won't be able to make it into space, she at least has a thorough understanding of how they did things back in the 60's re Apollo, and how endeavors like the Apollo programme could be done in the future.

-RODION
Logged
chode
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 153


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2005, 03:04:24 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous

Now another case. I live in a third world, rather backwater kind of a country. And yet we have people like this girl ( http://home.astronomy.com.ph/?id=/200502/columns/voices ) who earnestly wants to become an astronaut (I personally gave up on the idea years ago LOL). If you read her article thoroughly, you can almost feel her burning passion to really become one, yet our economics (and gobal economics) dictate that it's near-impossible for someone like her (or like me) to become an astronaut, because it's complicated by economics brought about by the way world-politics work.


If you're refering to the Phillipines as a "third world, rather backwater kind of a country", I'll have to disagree with you there. The Phillipines have always been important to US interests, and the US has done a lot to "influence" events there (for better or worse). I think that now might be a good time for the Phillipine government to push for more "scientific exchange", and as part of this, select at least one Phillipino to the astronaut corps.
Logged
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2005, 04:29:18 AM »

Quote from: chode
Quote from: Anonymous

Now another case. I live in a third world, rather backwater kind of a country. And yet we have people like this girl ( http://home.astronomy.com.ph/?id=/200502/columns/voices ) who earnestly wants to become an astronaut (I personally gave up on the idea years ago LOL). If you read her article thoroughly, you can almost feel her burning passion to really become one, yet our economics (and gobal economics) dictate that it's near-impossible for someone like her (or like me) to become an astronaut, because it's complicated by economics brought about by the way world-politics work.


If you're refering to the Phillipines as a "third world, rather backwater kind of a country", I'll have to disagree with you there. The Phillipines have always been important to US interests, and the US has done a lot to "influence" events there (for better or worse). I think that now might be a good time for the Phillipine government to push for more "scientific exchange", and as part of this, select at least one Phillipino to the astronaut corps.


LOL you would disagree with somebody who has been living here for more than 30 years?

-RODION
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!