@bosskev: Oh, no those aren't 89¢ Radio Shack switches. They are $27.50 Aeronautical grade toggle switches. Much higher quality: titanium stems, gold-plated contacts, the works. Maybe Virgin Galactic couldn't afford Military-grade switches, but those will do.
@AEchinoderm: And the difference between Aeronautical-grade toggles and Military-grade toggles would be moving the price's decimal point two places to the right?
@bosskev: All kidding (and sarcastic snarking) aside, toggle switches have more resilience to flight stress and provide definitive tactile response. They are also less likely to be accidently "momentarily" actuated as a short-throw button, and can used with or without gloves with less chance of causing a problem. Furthermore, with a single glance the flight crew can instantly determine the status of a given switch without the need for a additional power-draining hardware. The pole sin the toggle switch also provide a hard-contact power connection which is less likely to arc or decay in the event of loss of pressurization or atmospheric contaminants (such as corrosive gases released from potential onboard fire).
While it may not look sexy, there's a damn good reason why certain hardware remains in use: reliability, safety and simplicity.
Sadly, most people simply think it's "outdated" tech that isn't as good, while the opposite is actually true. Glass touchscreens and flush-mount "momentary" buttons would be extremely detrimental, highly counter-productive, energy intensive and exceedingly dangerous.
I'm amazed by the amount of armchair-aeronautical engineers who think they could do better, and I wonder why they didn't claim the $10 million Ansari X Prize. Things to ponder.
@OMG! Ponies!: You mean, like an iPhone? Maybe. But with my luck, I'd be in mid-flight when the app that controls everything would be unapproved and yanked.
Wow, that's a much more complex cockpit than SS1. If you don't remember, SS1's cockpit was basically a joystick and a single LCD multifunction display.
@admoseremic: Hmm. I guess that's right in a way. I was thinking of a "port" to encompass both an entrance and an exit, i.e. it is able to receive and launch vessels. As far as I know, NASA only has launch sites, and uses airports to land the space shuttles (or lets rocket capsules parachute into the ocean). But again, it really depends on definition.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
@Homerjay. Good and good for you.:.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
its a simple timer from radio shack. Commonly used by model airplane pilots to track their time in flight.
Apparently they have a very low budget?
07/29/09
07/29/09
/sorely dissapointed
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
Please. At least have the decency to camouflage them with a series of colorful, randomly blinking diodes.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
While it may not look sexy, there's a damn good reason why certain hardware remains in use: reliability, safety and simplicity.
Sadly, most people simply think it's "outdated" tech that isn't as good, while the opposite is actually true. Glass touchscreens and flush-mount "momentary" buttons would be extremely detrimental, highly counter-productive, energy intensive and exceedingly dangerous.
I'm amazed by the amount of armchair-aeronautical engineers who think they could do better, and I wonder why they didn't claim the $10 million Ansari X Prize. Things to ponder.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
06/17/09
06/17/09
06/17/09
Geez I should have been in marketing with the bullshit I can come up with.
06/17/09
06/17/09
Wow, the bad jokes keep coming today...
06/17/09
06/17/09
06/17/09
On Earth, that is.