I'd worry more about being shot down before getting safely on the ground. Once air defence has been notified that an unknown target is passing the California coast at MACH25, program 104 isn't going to be much help. :lol:
The way I see it, the topic of the thread is
should a spacecraft from Orbiter materialize out in the field across town, would you be able to pilot it? Not
should a spacecraft from Orbiter materialize out in the field across town, would the police cordon off the area. We're talking about
handling the machine, not the 'orrible costs of the unobtainium fuel, the legal implication of flying around on an unlicensed missile or even the parking issues. Again, that's why I chose the DGIV-2. The topic is about being able to pilot it, and unlike the Ravenstar the DGIV-2 is a nice robot ship. It's like a Google car with rocket engines.
I'm afraid you are missing the point I'm trying to make. Hands-on training (real or simulated) is only a small part of the education you need to get the proper certification.
Are we talking about
being able to do something or
having a certification?
In the last 25 years the price of computing has dropped to the point that it's good value as a training method.
We've had simulators way before computers. They were very limited in scope but we've been using them
before WW1. I'd say their value as a training method doesn't need to be proved further.
Tank crews may do 99% of the training on simulators, but it's not 99% of the education.
But it's 99% of the
practice they'll get. When practicing with military hardware you have to drill a lot - that is repeat a set of actions until they become second nature any you don't have to consciously think about them when the heat is on. With a lot of equipment, they'll let you fire maybe
one live round
after you've simulated the hell out of it because then you need to get the feeling of what is it to shoot for real.
Example: the old Dragon wire-guided antitank missile is expensive as a live round, so you do your training on the simulator. You need to learn how to manipulate it, how to acquire targets, how to follow them after firing. However, the simulator cannot replicate the shock of firing a live missile and that's why they let you fire one after you've proved you can handle one in your sleep.
Simulators are not about education, but about
simulating (never would have guessed!) the environment and procedures, throwing dilemmas at you and see how you cope with them all while yielding quantifiable results.
I bet they learnt a few things during the ALT test as well.
Again, I think we have a misunderstanding: simulators are not the
only training you should get, but they're an
important part of it. Many driving schools where I live don't even allow you on the roads with a real car until they've ran you through a simulator for some hours, and it is good.
Can Orbiter turn you into an astronaut? No! Not even anywhere close.
Never said that. I hold to my statement that if I ever ran into a DGIV-2 and had to fly it, I would know the procedures and how to handle it - because so much of it is automated. I would never try that with a Ravenstar or anything of the sort because I don't have proper pilot training.
As for the three-dimensionality of the real thing, I wouldn't worry so much: if it gives me any trouble, I would just close an eye: voilà, instant 2-D!:lol:
