With all due respect to all the engineers that work at SpaceX, the UI of the cockpit has regressed to the point of pure marketing. Same with the suit design, looks like an awful low budget sci-fi film. Functionalism and the beauty in the way things are without adornment is dying. And, it is painful to watch as a engineer who designs HMI systems. IMO design and aesthetic that emerge out of the way things are is so much more authentic than CEO's inspiration from a sci-fi movie genre that was probably conceived by some guy in 80's in half a dozen hours before before putting up a hollywood set. These movie makers did not study UX/UI and it was all about entertaining the audience.
Just look at how functional and beautiful the aesthetics of space flight was like during the golden era of Apollo 11. There was no design. There was just pure emergence of aesthetics from whatever they were doing to make things functional (ok, with some small exceptions like the logo and US flag on the suits): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpLrp0SW8yg
If SpaceX designed a mars rover, it would have gaudy shrouds and plastic covers, probably some LED lights to make it look cool, sleek 30, 45, 60 degree angles everywhere (ohhh space aesthetics), and all kinds of marketing bullshit whereas NASA engineers are focused on what is important. And it is gorgeous without even trying.
This is some seriously lame backseat HN driving. Zero skin in the game, sat in on zero mission briefs and zero design decisions. Never used it. Never spoken to someone who has.
Yet think it makes for a good HN post to "facepalm" at their decisions.
I agree fairly strongly with your sentiments. I wanted to know more about what the pilots think of it.
In an article[1] a month ago, Bob said "I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb to say that the right answer for all flying is not to switch to a touchscreen, necessarily. But for the task that we have and to keep ourselves safe flying close to the ISS, the touchscreen is gonna provide us that capability just fine."
Doug explained "The difference is you’ve got to be very deliberate when you’re putting in input, relative to what you would do with a stick. Because you know, when you’re flying an airplane for example, if I push the stick forward it’s going to go down. I actually have to make a concerted effort to do that with the touchscreen, if that makes sense."
So it sounds like there's more cognitive overhead to use the touch interface for flying. I did think the touchscreen was perfect for the procedure checklists shown extensively in the middle console during today's flight.
In the on-board media event a few minutes ago, he pointed out "One thing that does get lost is there is an extensive button panel down below."
I'd be concerned about touch screens where the user input is at the mercy of Chromium and then the OS, which itself is complicated enough. Maybe they have some crazy Chromium + RTOS solution though. I'd be interested if they set up mechanical testing for the touch screens and what their error rate for handling a touch is.
A stick while flying is useful for weather, but there's no weather in space. In space, a stick probably provides little feedback.
You should listen to the astronauts. SpaceX is developing all of it with them and for them. They seem quite happy with UI because it allows rapid iteration on procedures. If they screw up something SpaceX can adjust interface within days. With space shuttle they would need to wait months and months.
I mean, it's possible, but I'm skeptical of any argument here that assumes the astronauts would be willing to risk their lives using systems interfaces they believed would cost them precious time in a life & death situation. At least without more direct evidence than speculation that can't be disproved for upwards of a few decades.
Astronauts at NASA are specially taught in PR. They have to protect their partners. You absolutely can't fight astronaut or military pilot being frank of things they don't like.
I get the Apollo esthetic (I watched the Skylab missions as a kid on our black & white console TV). But two of the major differences between then and now is cheap computing and additive machining. Cheap computing means you don't need a zillion physical switches for everything. So the cabin is less cluttered and the usability is better.[0]
The advent of additive machining means everything doesn't have to be right angles and hard corners.[1] As a result the cabin will be safer because your astronauts are less likely to be hurt if there is an unanticipated thrust. Parts can also be made to fit better and to closer tolerances.
With regard to the suits - they look far better than the orange shuttle flight suits. I think that having the umbilical on the thigh was a good innovation. No idea how comfortable they are, but they're only going to be worn for launch & entry. I expect Doug & Bob have already put their shorts & t-shirts on.
[1] Which is the same reason why shift levers in cars are being replaced by knobs and switches - so the passengers don't get hurt by them in an accident.
> Same with the suit design, looks like an awful low budget sci-fi film.
Or a high budget sci fi film, or a medium budget sci fi film, since literally every film involving a spacesuit ever made had a more reasonable design than the utterly ridiculous, cumbersome, and bulky Hamilton Standard design American astronauts were stuck with for such a long time.
Wasn't the Hamilton Standard suit for EVAs? I don't think the ones they wore today are comparable, they're more of a replacement for the "pumpkin suits"
I thought they were both designed by Hamilton Standard. If not, my bad. I don't think I'd want to stick up for any of the older suits as being aesthetically, or much more importantly, functionally, being as good as they should have been.
Of all the possible critiques of SpaceX, an attack on the new space suits is a genuinely weird one.
I don't know it might just be that it's different from any other suit but it looks like they got stuck between wanting a more modern clean design and the fact that it's real middle aged men that need to wear and move in them and they just look weirdly boxy with the big white expanse on the front and back of the torsos. Look at these for example they're just very square and empty.
It's mostly just that older suits [0] and scifi suits [1] have painted a picture of there being more stuff involved in a suit to break up the expanse of the torso and the back, so they look weirdly plain. I bet they're perfectly fine functionally, and the single port seems like a good idea, but the do kind of miss the mark for me aesthetically.
Also really hope they figure out how to make flexible necks work because this [2] video of them trying to look to the top of their rocket looks so uncomfortable.
This is what a Martin Baker ejection handle looks like: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BJTDWG/martin-baker-ejection-seat-...
With all due respect to all the engineers that work at SpaceX, the UI of the cockpit has regressed to the point of pure marketing. Same with the suit design, looks like an awful low budget sci-fi film. Functionalism and the beauty in the way things are without adornment is dying. And, it is painful to watch as a engineer who designs HMI systems. IMO design and aesthetic that emerge out of the way things are is so much more authentic than CEO's inspiration from a sci-fi movie genre that was probably conceived by some guy in 80's in half a dozen hours before before putting up a hollywood set. These movie makers did not study UX/UI and it was all about entertaining the audience.
Just look at how functional and beautiful the aesthetics of space flight was like during the golden era of Apollo 11. There was no design. There was just pure emergence of aesthetics from whatever they were doing to make things functional (ok, with some small exceptions like the logo and US flag on the suits): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpLrp0SW8yg
Checkout the new Mars rover - absolutely zero marketing, pure function - https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8649/nasas-perseverance-mars-rove...
If SpaceX designed a mars rover, it would have gaudy shrouds and plastic covers, probably some LED lights to make it look cool, sleek 30, 45, 60 degree angles everywhere (ohhh space aesthetics), and all kinds of marketing bullshit whereas NASA engineers are focused on what is important. And it is gorgeous without even trying.