Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

#61

Post by nickloewen »

kens wrote: post #36
ghosty141 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah somebody should mirror it. In general I dont understand why people post things like this on X. Its a horrible platform.

Serious answer: I post things on Twitter because it is easy, lets a huge number of people read my thread, and provides easy interaction. I post the same threads to Mastodon and get orders of magnitude less interest. I also write blog posts, which take a huge amount of time (a week versus an hour) and are hit-or-miss. Sometimes they are very popular and sometimes they disappear without a trace.

I’m always delighted when I visit HN and see one of your blog posts on the front page; they posts are great and they elicit some of the most interesting HN discussions. It took me a little while to realize that all these good posts were on the same blog, but once I did I had a lovely time browsing through the archive and reading more of the “deep cuts.”

The posts about the System/360 consoles come to mind, for example. I’m not sure how “popular” those were(?), but they’ve been very helpful as references for an art project I’m working on!

Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

#62

Post by johnklos »

perihelions wrote: post #11

Wait, do normal printers need gravity to work? If I were to find one and flip it upside-down, would it continue functioning normally?

An Apple ImageWriter II would work, no matter what. I bet it'd work if they were printing DURING a launch.

Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

#63

Post by jdblair »

kens wrote: post #48
eigenvalue wrote: post #21

This is cool but it just makes me think the Shuttle was absurdly inefficient across the board. Why waste not just the launch weight but the engineering work on making such a specialized printer? Aren’t we talking about the late 70s/ early 80s? Surely there were commercially available printers that could have been substituted that would weigh less and wouldn’t have the overheating issues. Having unlimited government m…

The explanation for why they chose this printer is in a conference paper published in the National Telesystem Conference, 1982. Unfortunately, I can't find these conference proceedings anywhere (even in physical form). If anyone happens to have a copy lying around... [1] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ntc..confR...4S/abstra...

I couldn't resist searching myself. It looks like there is a physical copy of the conference proceedings in a library in Japan!

https://topics.libra.titech.ac.jp/recordID/catalog.bib/BA902...

Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

#64

Post by beerandt »

tyingq wrote: post #18
generj wrote: post #2

I am fascinated they used 60 pounds and a large amount of space for this teleprinter. At 30K per pound of payload that is $1.8 million per flight. Really shows how important reliable printed updates were considered. And all the flaws of the printer that were managed around - turning it off to save power and prevent it overheating with specific tones.

Here's my guess. Government bureaucracy is probably very high for anything space related. So "based on the military's AN/UGC-74" could have helped get it through approvals. It would have ticked a lot of boxes for ruggedized parts, use in harsh environments, and so on.

I don't doubt that for a second- but I'm more curious about the requirement for some kind of printout in the first place.

Especially since it ultimately ended up weighing what it did.

Military/ Ruggedized is a smart choice for a printer that needs to go through that environment, no matter the why.

I'm more interested in what it tells us about the underlying purpose (or what it might rule out, like the part about wired directly into unencrypted comms).

Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

#65

Post by Maxion »

jdblair wrote: post #63
kens wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanation for why they chose this printer is in a conference paper published in the National Telesystem Conference, 1982. Unfortunately, I can't find these conference proceedings anywhere (even in physical form). If anyone happens to have a copy lying around... [1] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ntc..confR...4S/abstra...

I couldn't resist searching myself. It looks like there is a physical copy of the conference proceedings in a library in Japan! https://topics.libra.titech.ac.jp/recordID/catalog.bib/BA902...

Let's hope the internet can connect us with someone who lives near by and has a ibrary card!

Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

#66

Post by lsllc »

KineticLensman wrote: post #57
throwanem wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was Haniwa, not Zion. The printer was spewing paper because someone had put a laser through its faceplate while Corto was taking the ship. Also, Haniwa is described explicitly and implicitly as an exoatmospheric luxury yacht, and thus likely wasn't designed for high acceleration. Also, I'm pretty sure it was a thermal printer, not a line printer as here. Also, Neuromancer is period-piece literary sf. So I'm not…

In terms of relevance, I was amused that real and contemporary fictional spacecraft both had paper printers

The question is, would the craft now need help from reaction wheels to offset the inertia from the moving print head / paper feed? Or would there need to be a special version of the printer firmware that kept track of its movement so it could always impart equal but opposite inertia?

Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

#67

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

falkenb0t wrote: post #16
perihelions wrote: post #11

Wait, do normal printers need gravity to work? If I were to find one and flip it upside-down, would it continue functioning normally?

Not exactly a primary source but according to this thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10617.0 "Toner is held to the paper in a laser printer by electrostatic attraction (opposite charges attract), not gravity. Along those same lines, in an inkjet printer ink droplets are fired at the paper, not just dropped, so once again I doubt gravity is an issue."

But before you even got to the point of printing, the paper in a regular laser or inkjet printer wouldn't even feed properly if upside down!

I'm also willing to bet that whether or not the droplets are "fired" at the paper or not, the inkjet cartridges aren't going to work in an inverted position: they might not even supply ink in that configuration.

Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

#68

Post by kayodelycaon »

amelius wrote: post #53
krisoft wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess with modern googles one would just pack an "ipad" equivalent tablet. If one worries about accidents and freak space particles disabling it give them 3. If one still worries one can develop a "space rated" tablet. But probably at those radiation levels one should also start worrying about the crew's health. But of course that is projecting our current capabilities back in time. I looked it up and the "Osborne…

iPads are more hazardous than you think: https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/07/14/fatal-helicopter-...

Not really an iPad-specific issue. A clipboard or checklist could have done the same thing.

Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

#69

Post by kayodelycaon »

dylan604 wrote: post #56
wildzzz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's overkill for normal office use but the space shuttle is going to have some massive vibration and mechanical shock during launch. All systems have to be ruggedized to withstand the environment. A commercial unit might not survive the trip up and building some sort of vibration damping system for it might take up more space. If the manufacturer can't guarantee the uptime for the commercial unit, they might need a…

> It's overkill for normal office use but the space shuttle is going to have some massive vibration and mechanical shock during launch. Maybe you haven't seen how some delivery drivers treat the packages in their care. I swear I've received boxes that look like the were shaken, not stirred, to the level of a rocket launch.

Printers aren’t usually shipped in operable condition.

Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering

#70

Post by dylan604 »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #69
dylan604 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's overkill for normal office use but the space shuttle is going to have some massive vibration and mechanical shock during launch. Maybe you haven't seen how some delivery drivers treat the packages in their care. I swear I've received boxes that look like the were shaken, not stirred, to the level of a rocket launch.

Printers aren’t usually shipped in operable condition.

You're suggesting that a printer being launched into space on a rocket would also not be secured in a similar fashion? What's your point otherwise?
Post reply on HN