Starship Flight Controls... U-double stick vs Joystick

[Spacescifi]

 

The scenario: You have a scifi SSTO large vessel that can accelerare for years at a maximum acceleration of 3g or less when fully loaded with cargo, yet higher without it.

 

It is capable of vertical lift off and landing as well as doing airplane like maneuvers in an atmosphere.

 

What flight control instruments are best?

 

My thoughts: I fancy the U-shaped double flight stick that airline jets use, only the one for the SSTO would have these features:

 

Yaw (pivot the sticks away from you with your wrists) and you yaw the ship. Pitch by pulling up or pushing down the sticks, and roll by pulling sideward.

 

I like it over a joystick because I dunno... joysticks look like.... cheap videogame. Unprofessional.

 

What you think?

For all I know joysticks may be better... at any rate some other control method would likely be needed for VTOL.... probably button or voice control.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Spacescifi

[mikegarrison]

FYI: the word you want is "yoke"

[Spacescifi]

47 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

FYI: the word you want is "yoke"

 

It's been a long time.... yoke for the U-shaped double stick right?

 

Flight yoke?

 

Thanks.

[Gargamel]

And if it’s accelerating at 3g for years, there shouldn’t be any flight controls, it should be automated.      Along with atmospheric flight. Automated.   It’s too big for any seat of the pants flying.    If it does require manual control, it’ll be fly by wire, and a simple minimal joystick will suffice. 

[Spacescifi]

45 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

And if it’s accelerating at 3g for years, there shouldn’t be any flight controls, it should be automated.      Along with atmospheric flight. Automated.   It’s too big for any seat of the pants flying.    If it does require manual control, it’ll be fly by wire, and a simple minimal joystick will suffice. 

 

I read online that pilots will use foot pads for yaw so there is that. Since joysticks are only good for pitch and roll as far as I know.

 

The ship does not have to do 3g nonstop for years. It can fly so long since it is designed for solo exploration.

 

It only uses 3g to escape 1g planets with ease. Interplanetary cruise is 1g for the gravity for the crew.

3g in space would only be for emergencies or urgent missions.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Spacescifi

[magnemoe]

Modern fighter jets uses an joystick and a throttle+ other functions for left hand, you can buy this as an controller.
https://www.elkjop.no/product/gaming/gaming-tilbehor/joystick/logitech-g-saitek-x56-rhino-v2-flight-control-system/LTGSFLX56PRV2

For an large ship you probably have multiple control stations, many large real ships has stations on the edges of the bridge make it easier to get into an harbor and moor up. 
In combat you probably move control into core of the ship its not like you are fighting at visual range anyway. 

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:

I read online that pilots will use foot pads for yaw so there is that. Since joysticks are only good for pitch and roll as far as I know.

Most gaming sticks, even a lot of the  simple ones, that don’t have pedals,  use a twisting motion to control yaw.   
 

But why choose between a stick or yoke?   Why not neither? Look at the evolution of each, and see what fits better.    Sticks started first because they were simpler.   The yokes came along later as the planes got bigger, and  moving the control surfaces required more effort from the pilots, and the yokes made them easier to control.  Sticks stayed in smaller planes as they took up less room and seemed to allow for faster reactions.  When powered controls came along, the controls in newer generations of planes stayed the same, generally, as the older planes of the same types, as the pilots were used to those styles.   And that continued on… 

 

Of course, that is making a lot of generalizations, and there’s a whole lot of “Well Actshullys” in there, but I think you get the concept.   
 

So consider the role your craft will have.   Cargo hauler?  Then you probably don’t need a stick/yoke at all.   The vast majority of its movement will be computer controlled, with little input from a pilot.    A small auxiliary stick should suffice.  
Is this a warship?   Perhaps, but the notion of its range being measured in years says it’s not a small fighter/interceptor, but a capital ship or auxiliary, maybe even a high speed high capacity bomber.   So this ship wouldn’t need a stick, and even a yoke on a capital ship wouldn’t  make sense.   Again most things would be computer controlled, and pilot inputs would most likely not be in the form of an analog stick, but a control panel.   Again, a small auxiliary stick would suffice for slow speed finesse work.  
 

So for the specifications for this “magical” ship we have specified, it doesn’t make sense to me to have a control input system any different than what you’ve seen in Star Trek or The Expanse.  
 

As to the “magical” comment.   You have described a ship that seems to be able to do anything, and do it well, without any drawbacks.     I’m ok with the range and acceleration, some sort of fusion torch drive, gotcha.   Atmospheric operations, meh, I’m more of the thought that a ship designed for mainly long term vacuum operations really shouldn’t be coming into atmo, but that’s a personal choice, so I’ll roll with it. 
 

But the maneuvers like an airplane is where I draw the line.    You have a large ship that is capable of VTOL with a massive TWR and for the sake of discussion basically an infinite fuel source.   That alone is a helicopter capable of interplanetary travel.   Why do we need to add wings? Any function a wing would have in space is better done with something else.   We have a ship capable of hovering with plenty of thrust left over.   Let that be your basis for maneuverability.   I’m fine with atmospheric operations, but let’s not add functionality that the ship already possesses.

Look at the Serenity from Firefly.    It does pretty much everything you’re describing , but it doesn’t have wings.    
 

You know what else Serenity has?   A yoke for the pilot.    Why does it have a yoke?  Cause it looks dang cool.   
 

That’s my over riding point to this long winded post.    If you want to grind out details, make sure they’re perfectly accurate.   There’s nothing worse than fiction that tries to pass off partial truths as reality and does a bad job of it.    If you want a feature just cause it’s cool, then add that feature and ignore the details completely.   You’re much better off just handing the reader something and saying deal with it, than trying to explain it.  

 

 

[kerbiloid]

Keyboard and mouse. That's absolutely enough for air- and spaceflights.

And a whip to make the crew work better and paddle quicker.

[Spacescifi]

10 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Most gaming sticks, even a lot of the  simple ones, that don’t have pedals,  use a twisting motion to control yaw.   
 

But why choose between a stick or yoke?   Why not neither? Look at the evolution of each, and see what fits better.    Sticks started first because they were simpler.   The yokes came along later as the planes got bigger, and  moving the control surfaces required more effort from the pilots, and the yokes made them easier to control.  Sticks stayed in smaller planes as they took up less room and seemed to allow for faster reactions.  When powered controls came along, the controls in newer generations of planes stayed the same, generally, as the older planes of the same types, as the pilots were used to those styles.   And that continued on… 

 

Of course, that is making a lot of generalizations, and there’s a whole lot of “Well Actshullys” in there, but I think you get the concept.   
 

So consider the role your craft will have.   Cargo hauler?  Then you probably don’t need a stick/yoke at all.   The vast majority of its movement will be computer controlled, with little input from a pilot.    A small auxiliary stick should suffice.  
Is this a warship?   Perhaps, but the notion of its range being measured in years says it’s not a small fighter/interceptor, but a capital ship or auxiliary, maybe even a high speed high capacity bomber.   So this ship wouldn’t need a stick, and even a yoke on a capital ship wouldn’t  make sense.   Again most things would be computer controlled, and pilot inputs would most likely not be in the form of an analog stick, but a control panel.   Again, a small auxiliary stick would suffice for slow speed finesse work.  
 

So for the specifications for this “magical” ship we have specified, it doesn’t make sense to me to have a control input system any different than what you’ve seen in Star Trek or The Expanse.  
 

As to the “magical” comment.   You have described a ship that seems to be able to do anything, and do it well, without any drawbacks.     I’m ok with the range and acceleration, some sort of fusion torch drive, gotcha.   Atmospheric operations, meh, I’m more of the thought that a ship designed for mainly long term vacuum operations really shouldn’t be coming into atmo, but that’s a personal choice, so I’ll roll with it. 
 

But the maneuvers like an airplane is where I draw the line.    You have a large ship that is capable of VTOL with a massive TWR and for the sake of discussion basically an infinite fuel source.   That alone is a helicopter capable of interplanetary travel.   Why do we need to add wings? Any function a wing would have in space is better done with something else.   We have a ship capable of hovering with plenty of thrust left over.   Let that be your basis for maneuverability.   I’m fine with atmospheric operations, but let’s not add functionality that the ship already possesses.

Look at the Serenity from Firefly.    It does pretty much everything you’re describing , but it doesn’t have wings.    
 

You know what else Serenity has?   A yoke for the pilot.    Why does it have a yoke?  Cause it looks dang cool.   
 

That’s my over riding point to this long winded post.    If you want to grind out details, make sure they’re perfectly accurate.   There’s nothing worse than fiction that tries to pass off partial truths as reality and does a bad job of it.    If you want a feature just cause it’s cool, then add that feature and ignore the details completely.   You’re much better off just handing the reader something and saying deal with it, than trying to explain it.  

 

 

 

It does not have wings, but it's RCS is linked to it's main drive so it uses that to maneuver.

 

Thrust vectoring allows it to do airplane/helicopter like maneuvers in atmosphere. With the obvious side effect of really powerful exhaust that blows everything nearby away from exhaust gust alone.

 

 

I saw no real need to expound on the details of the drive, but if you must know, I went full scifi on it.

 

Nothing that we knows would indicate it is possible, but if it was the story will answer that question.

 

Hyper-ray rocket: Photons provide very weak pressure. What if their pressure was increased a great deal? That is what a hyper pressure ray rocket does, called hyper ray for short. Since hyper means above or beyond, and it definitely goes beyond what normal light can do.

 

Uses mirrored nozzles and an emitter down the throat to shine white rays that may as well be rocket plumes but are not. Same effect but all you see is the light in the nozzle while hearing the roar of it's thrust and seeing ground dust blown away at launch.

It has a second application though not related to rocketry.

 

Lasers. Hyper-lasers that rely on high pressure rather than excess heat to do damage.

 

Even better is the fact that hyper lasers can use a wide continuous beam setting to simply blow a person back. Or use a concentrated narrow beam to punch holes in something via powerful pulses.

 

Spaceships use the same weaponry, think of them as lasers that literally hit like kinetics. Of course with range the beams spread out so the damage they can do is reduced. Very good at missile point defense.

 

[tater]

Let the AI do it.

[Spacescifi]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Let the AI do it.

 

What is a pilot's job then? Are they out of a job?

 

Because we can automate sea going and flying vessels right now but often choose not to.

[tater]

Tell the computer what to do, the computer does it.

[kerbiloid]

34 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

What is a pilot's job then? Are they out of a job?

Yes. They steal job from programmers.

[mikegarrison]

Right now Starliner or Dragon will fly themselves to the ISS and dock.

[Spacescifi]

16 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Right now Starliner or Dragon will fly themselves to the ISS and dock.

 

Good point.

 

Well. I guess what scifi gets wrong is the sheer amount of automation.

 

I think the only things and times that they won't rely heavily on automation is when success or failure is not mission critical.

[KSK]

22 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Well. I guess what scifi gets wrong is the sheer amount of automation.

Deliberate choice, I would say, rather than ‘getting it wrong’.

People are more relatable than conputers.

Having one person give orders to another is a convenient way of letting the reader / viewer know what’s going on.

As far as spacecraft controls go, have a go with some real ones:

https://iss-sim.spacex.com

Touchscreen only, no sticks or pedals in sight.

It seems like your proposed ship wouldn’t need much in the way of atmospheric maneuvers. Just burn straight up until it’s clear of the atmosphere, then turn 90 degrees and burn to orbital speed if you like, or just point the nose at the second star on the left and carry on till morning.

[tater]

Sci Fi tends to like human control, even in situations where it makes little to no sense. For realistic travel over large distances, the human operator/pilot would be more like the captain of a ship. He decides where to go, and his junior officers do the mechanics of plotting courses, etc. In the Sci Fi world those junior officers would be a computer. Human still makes large scale decisions, but the minutiae would be done by the computer.

In settings with droid as capable of Star Wars (as an example), a huge failure of Sci Fi is to follow that reality to the logical conclusion (droids certainly seem fully sentient in SW).

46 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

I think the only things and times that they won't rely heavily on automation is when success or failure is not mission critical.

Better SF would realize automation is a thing, and simply move the decision making a step out. The protagonist can still make decisions, but instead of the results requiring he pull the stick just so, and make a burn to the 1/10th of a second, his skill lies in working the screens to tell the computer what he wants. Same should be true of laying weapons as well. Humans set targeting priorities, computers do the rest.

[kerbiloid]

The Soviet tradition tends to automate whatever it can (docking, landing), to exclude the human factor. At least, remotely operated.

The American one, vice versa, tends to pet the swelling astronaut ego by calling everyone "pilot" and allowing them dock, land, etc, where it's not needed.

Don't be like the latter. Follow the Soviet&SpaceX way. Protect the space from humans!

Edited July 7, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Spacescifi]

13 hours ago, tater said:

Sci Fi tends to like human control, even in situations where it makes little to no sense. For realistic travel over large distances, the human operator/pilot would be more like the captain of a ship. He decides where to go, and his junior officers do the mechanics of plotting courses, etc. In the Sci Fi world those junior officers would be a computer. Human still makes large scale decisions, but the minutiae would be done by the computer.

In settings with droid as capable of Star Wars (as an example), a huge failure of Sci Fi is to follow that reality to the logical conclusion (droids certainly seem fully sentient in SW).

Better SF would realize automation is a thing, and simply move the decision making a step out. The protagonist can still make decisions, but instead of the results requiring he pull the stick just so, and make a burn to the 1/10th of a second, his skill lies in working the screens to tell the computer what he wants. Same should be true of laying weapons as well. Humans set targeting priorities, computers do the rest.

 

So for a little bit of fun... who here loses their job on the bridge?

 

My guess...

"Mr. Worf, you are relieved of duty. Riker you are dismissed."

 

Riker: "When do I return?"

Picard: "You don't unless I pass out or die. I am sending you for any away mission we have since last I checked, looking after the crew is your job. I look after the ship."

Picard looks at Deanna Troi. "You may stay."

"Why? I have less command authority than Worf or Riker."

"Just in case we need your empath ability when we hail aliens.... and you're easier on the eyes than either of them.

Geordi: "Will I stay?

Picard: "Why are you still here? Off to engineering with you!"

Data: "Captain, are you OK?"

Picard: "Never been better. You are also dismissed."

Data leaves Picard, Crusher and Deanna Troi on the bridge, giving Picard a suspicious look before exiting and says "May I ask you a question?"

"No you may not."

 

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Spacescifi