[22:48:28] NASSP Logging has been started by thymo_ [12:26:44] hey @indy91 [12:26:53] hey [12:27:32] got a ctd yesterday and i was planning on upgrading to windows 8.1 long before i started playing nassp so i will see how it goes [12:28:44] you got a CTD despite using the DX9 Client now? [12:28:53] yes [12:28:56] with orbiter ng [12:29:11] hmm, that's unfortunate [12:29:20] at LM ejection again I assume [12:29:38] mostly happens after lem ejection when the lem gets created [12:29:44] never before [12:33:27] so after LM ejection, not during LM ejection [12:33:32] does it happen when you switch view? [12:33:35] yes [12:34:00] or if i click a button in the mfd's [12:34:10] I need to know it precisely. You are in the CSM cockpit view, then you eject the LM. [12:34:15] yes [12:34:22] And then pressing F1 or clicking a MFD causes the CTD [12:34:50] switching views in the cockpit view like viewing a different panel [12:35:20] ah [12:35:46] it happens randomly on time i got up to ten hours into the mission with no problems then it happens [12:35:49] one* [12:37:55] yeah, I just can't replicate it [12:37:59] it just doesn't happen for me [12:42:06] maybe it is my system [12:43:52] I kind of doubt that, but I have no better idea either [12:44:17] I'm sure it's a NASSP bug, just very inconsistent or maybe it only happens with the auto builds or something like that [12:45:00] well, i might be going to my dads this weekend or next week and he has windows 10 so i will try it on his computer and see if i get it there [13:09:56] I hope we figure it out eventually [13:16:30] yeah, i am just gonna fly apollo 8 for now [13:40:04] would apollo 8 work in v8 if i started from a pre launch scenario? [13:43:33] yes, Apollo 8 probably works the best [14:18:05] Good morning [14:20:14] hey Ryan [14:21:23] I reworked the ECS plumbing a little but I cannot seem to get better flows than about 0.1 g/s [14:21:36] which ECS [14:21:40] LM [14:21:44] suit loop? [14:21:55] Sorry, context, the flows through the CO2 scrubber and WS [14:22:01] Yes [14:22:26] and I guess that is with the valves being still fairly small [14:22:41] Pretty sure thats what is causing my bottleneck [14:23:07] I added a "watersepmanifold" with large valves similar to the suit fan manifold [14:23:19] It helps but still isnt great [14:23:28] I mean, you can increase the size of the valves as you want, just make sure you do a lot of testing at 50x each time [14:23:56] I will before I submit a PR for sure [14:24:16] The other thing is the suit loop pressure increases when the crew is in it [14:24:26] So it keeps tripping the relief valve [14:24:52] And I am pretty sure that is partially because of the heat but mostly because of the added CO2 and H2O mass not removed [14:25:40] I'd like to increase the removal rate to see if that is indeed the case [14:28:13] shouldn't the CO2 and H2O mass be quite small in comparison with the O2? [14:30:39] Small yes, but quite small I dont know. The crew expels 0.0528 g/s of H2O and 0.02026 g/s CO2 [14:31:41] The suit loop temperatures go down with a crew in and the LCG working but the pressure keeps rising [14:33:37] the water is completely removed anyway, right? [14:33:41] so it would just be CO2 [14:34:36] the high pressure will be mostly caused by the small valves [14:35:02] the suit fans have a large pressure increase because of that right now [14:35:22] I haven't seen any NaN caused by the suit loop other than the isol tanks you removed [14:35:43] so feel free to increase valve sizes as you want, maybe even back to the old values [14:36:04] just, do lots of testing [14:36:16] I certainly will [14:36:22] And no the water is not completely removed [14:36:43] Or is it [14:36:55] Does the code base water removal on flow? [14:37:03] Or is it remove all [14:37:10] it removes all of the water [14:37:13] Ah [14:37:23] So my water sep manafolds probably arent necessary [14:37:29] manifolds [14:37:40] probably not [14:37:42] Ok [14:37:46] Less tanks is always good [14:37:53] just one more source that could cause NaNs [14:38:01] Yep [14:38:09] I added it to increase flow through them [14:38:12] what did you want the manifold tanks to do? [14:38:13] ah [14:38:25] So i could leave the HX valves small [14:38:34] But if all water is removed that is not necessary [14:38:41] if you look at the code you will notice the difference between CO2 scrubber and water separator [14:38:49] if (co2removalrate <= 0.0356) { [14:39:11] just increase that number a lot to test your theory about the relief valve [14:39:44] Sure [14:40:23] Does the flowmax have any bearing on the CO2 removed other than creating an upper limit to flow through it's "pipe" [14:40:58] no, it just limits the total flow [14:41:13] is it anywhere close to that limit right now? [14:42:09] Nope [14:42:58] Max I have seen is 0.10 [14:43:11] the flow max is useful and realistic for cases where you have a large pressure difference [14:43:17] LM pressurization is such a case [14:43:37] Yeah it also is good because the CO2 canisters are different sizes yet are limited to provide the same flow [14:43:38] it should probably be flowing at flow max for a lot of the pressurization process [14:44:01] I think during press its like 0.12 [14:44:14] that number doesn't mean anything to me [14:44:19] 0.12 g/s [14:44:24] ok, but what is the max? [14:44:25] versus a max of 0.85 [14:44:28] oh [14:44:29] hmm [14:45:16] where is the 0.85 number from? [14:45:22] or just a guess [14:45:42] estimate* [14:46:51] Probably from the old scrubbers? [14:47:13] I dont know it was what you gave me [14:48:18] scrubbers? [14:48:30] aren't we talking about the valve in CSM or LM hatch? [14:48:35] for LM pressurization [14:49:28] I guess we talked about different things [14:49:35] let me read what you wrote again, haha [14:49:49] Flow through CO2 scrubbers [14:50:28] yeah, that shouldn't be close to the limit during normal operation [14:50:47] only a case like e.g. vacuum vs. pressurized cabin should reach that in any pipe [14:52:05] But the reduced flow also reduces co2 removed, correct? [14:52:31] yeah [14:52:41] it calculates the volume flowing per timestep first [14:52:49] and only then it removes CO2 from that volume [14:56:05] on my end I have pushed a few LVDC updates [14:56:22] Apollo 9 should have a good first S-IVB restart now [14:56:50] Great! [14:57:02] and I implemented something most later missions did, which is the mixture ratio shift during TLI happening a while into the burn [14:57:03] I look forward to trying those out if I ever leave the LM ECS [14:57:28] Apollo 8 did the MRS 10 seconds after ignition [14:57:36] and that was hardcoded for all missions until now [14:58:29] so the IGM never properly had time to run two stages (pre and post MRS). All you would get is a few seconds of back and forth in terms of attitude excursion [14:58:35] and then the MRS already happened [14:59:01] and the rest of the TLI burn was just the high thrust setting [14:59:14] Does the SIVB simulate tailoff? [14:59:18] yes [14:59:38] I've tested the new behavior with Apollo 11, MRS 120 seconds into the TLI burn. Less than 1° attitude change at MRS [14:59:42] so it works very well [15:00:32] the 2nd TLI opportunity was always with a MRS right at ignition [15:01:09] because of the LH2 vent during Earth orbit [15:01:26] enough LH2 would then be gone to do the whole burn with the high thrust setting [15:01:35] Ah [15:01:53] I guess that is a more optimal solution than what Apollo 8 still had hardcoded [15:02:02] MRS right after ignition in any case [15:02:34] not that this is too relevant, we don't simulate separate LH2 and LOX [15:02:58] but the different thrust and ISP are of course significant [15:03:50] so,uhh, don't trust the TLI PAD burn time too much for now [15:04:27] actual burn time will be slightly longer now for Apollo 11 and 14 1st TLI opportunity [15:06:17] Haha so we have better sep angles in exchange for bad burn time :P [15:07:31] something like that, yeah [15:07:46] TLI PAD calculation only simulates a constant thrust burn [15:08:24] 5:29 TLI PAD burn time [15:08:38] 5:47 historical Apollo 11 TLI PAD [15:08:45] it will be closer to the 47 now [15:08:52] hmm [15:08:56] yes [15:09:07] 5:29 assumes high thrust for full burn [15:14:01] And the longer time takes the MRD into account [15:14:04] MRS [15:27:20] And the pressure rise in the SC when the crew is in is a mass increase [15:27:40] I am watching total SC mass just climb when I add the crew [15:28:21] I'll see what happens when the removal rates stabilize [16:01:14] I am looking at the water sep select code and am wondering about the WaterSeparationSelectorSwitch->GetState() [16:01:20] What exactly is this looking for? [16:01:52] Because I have to cycle my water sep to get the proper valves to open [16:05:07] @indy91 for the apollo 11 tli i got a burn time of 5:33 [16:12:55] rcflyinghokie, WaterSeparationSelectorSwitch->GetState() is true, if a value other than 0 is returned [16:13:09] so it's basically the same as (WaterSeparationSelectorSwitch->GetState() == 1) [16:13:13] Ah ok [16:13:24] weird that you have to cycle it though [16:13:34] maybe the logic is wrong [16:14:10] I am going to watch the valves to be sure, but it should start on sep 2 [16:14:27] I had to push it to sep 1 then back to sep 2 and again to sep 1 to get flow [16:14:38] But let me check the actual valves [16:14:46] the default states look right [16:14:59] of the valves [16:15:54] default state of the switch is 0 [16:16:35] 0 means SEP2 [16:16:45] Right [16:16:56] And the config valves are correct as well [16:25:47] you say you had 0 flow without changing the switch state? [16:26:07] flow in the water separator [16:26:25] No after changing it to sep 1 [16:26:34] I had to cycle again from 2 to 1 to get flow [16:27:08] Maybe it was a timing thing [16:27:17] Because the valves work properly [16:28:00] valves take a moment to open [16:29:07] No it was the suit circuit wasnt pressurized enough when I switched it to get flow [16:29:11] Timing [16:29:13] ah [16:29:22] Coincidence that I cycled the valve again and saw flow [16:59:44] I am going to let the ECS run for a while and see if it settles out [17:07:32] I'm starting my next LVDC project, flight sequence program in a text file instead of code [17:08:13] that still doesn't help with actual LVDC software differences between the Apollo missions, but it should make a lot of the sequence changes from mission to mission easier [17:09:02] e.g. starting with Apollo 10 the ground had to enable a Timebase 8, which does all the LOX dumping and APS burn for the slingshot maneuver [17:09:16] right now we have the Apollo 8 sequence hardcoded [17:09:53] there it all just happens in Timebase 7 on schedule [17:10:31] this also helps with Apollo 5, the average Saturn IB mission doesn't have to command nosecap jettison and SLA deployment [17:10:46] right now some ugly special code is used for that [17:28:20] morning! [17:29:02] hi [17:30:34] hey Mike [17:36:54] what's up? [17:39:14] got a bunch of LVDC updates done today, especially the first S-IVB restart on Apollo 9 [17:39:19] still have to research the second one [17:43:38] awesome :D [17:44:15] with minimal code changes and creative use of presettings, haha [17:44:21] hehehe [17:44:33] ah, about that [17:45:00] you know, the AS-503 Saturn Systems Handbook having all the Apollo 9 info? [17:45:07] yep [17:45:10] that probably was before the LM got delayed [17:45:31] then AS-503 was still supposed to fly Mission D [17:45:40] which makes the LVDC versions on 503 and 504 quite interesting [17:45:44] yeah, makes sense [17:45:59] I've read somewhere that the software was loaded into the LVDC "in the lab" [17:46:03] do you think they maybe just switched IUs? [17:46:46] maybe even before it was all assembled on the cape [17:47:04] at* [17:47:50] hmm [17:47:54] where was this lab? [17:48:02] does the software development process document say? [17:49:10] Huntsville was my thought [17:52:40] I got an email back from the curator of the Apollo collection at the Smithsonian [17:52:54] whoa, electronic mail? this must be the future [17:53:02] Personal email too [17:53:07] oh wow [17:53:08] Not a auto generated [17:53:18] Can i post its contents in here? [17:53:31] Its nothing private but very promising for us [17:53:38] haha yeah go for it! [17:53:48] or pastebin it if it's too big [17:54:25] I can make a dropbox file for it just in case [17:57:21] https://www.dropbox.com/s/r0qxvr0fch6hlvp/NASM%20Letter.docx?dl=0 [17:57:51] interesting [17:58:30] Yeah especially the last part [17:58:40] hmmm yeah [17:58:53] Sounds promising though [17:58:56] yeah [17:59:01] for sure [17:59:18] I think we can be honest about our intentions [17:59:30] we are an open source project, and part of what we do is make sure things don't get lost in time [17:59:36] Do we have any anticipated commercial [17:59:48] surely a curator can relate to that [17:59:55] no commercial use [18:00:05] we're just about as anti-commercial as possible [18:00:06] Yeah thats what i was going to tell him [18:00:07] haha [18:00:18] Mostly for preservation and education [18:00:30] freedom of information and ease of accessibility to it is very important to us [18:00:37] yeah [18:00:38] I'm never quite sure about America, is asking about commerical use a good thing? So, are we more likely to get what we want if we have a commerical use? :D [18:00:48] Less likely [18:00:54] yes, that was my instinct [18:01:02] yeah, I'm fairly certain us being not commercial will work in our favor [18:01:07] Agreed [18:01:19] just asking you guys from the center of capitalism :D [18:01:42] but yeah, this is a museum, so... [18:01:45] Haha [18:02:08] the checklist as a whole would be useful for flying NASSP missions [18:02:16] all flown checklists really [18:02:49] this one checklist specifally would be useful for the Apollo 11 padload [18:03:09] but that goes into more detail than necessary I think [18:03:25] I'm sure you will find the right response [18:04:34] Well im going to continue the dialogue and see where it goes, ill offer an in in person meeting as well [18:04:43] awesome [18:04:46] sounds great :D [18:06:32] rcflyinghokie1: unrelated, but a CM lithium hydroxide cannister popped up on ebay :P [18:07:01] we can't use that yet, it's not been implemented in our CSM :D [18:07:05] hehehe [18:07:06] Haha! [18:07:25] how much is it, $NaN? [18:07:37] starting bid $1500, buy it now for $2500 [18:07:49] which seems... not terrible really [18:08:19] don't do it! [18:08:35] oh I wasn't going to, lol [18:09:06] the only hardware I'll really consider buying are AGC parts [18:09:44] yeah [18:10:25] honestly I'm pretty picky with documents too, there's just been some really good ones lately, heh [18:10:54] yeah, the Skylab one is great [18:10:58] Niklas, you might be interested in https://www.ebay.com/itm/302632586894?ul_noapp=true [18:11:52] yeah, I already saw that [18:11:59] I don't think it has anything too useful for me [18:12:03] yeah [18:12:32] August 19, 1968: Assignment of Saturn V 503, CSM 103, and LM-3 to Mission D was canceled. [18:13:01] Saturn V 504, CSM 104, and LM-3 were assigned to the D mission, scheduled for launch readiness no earlier than February 20, 1969. [19:51:18] ok, I have converted the whole AS-503 flight sequence program into a text file [20:44:22] Composing my reply now to Mr Nedell, which if any online links would be good to give him as part of explaining NASSP. [21:04:09] The wiki page, perhaps? [21:08:29] wiki page would be good [21:08:33] maybe one of Niklas's landing videos [21:08:36] (15?) [21:08:53] and maybe a link to the document collection? [21:11:43] Ah i should have send video links [21:11:55] I just put the wiki on there [21:12:04] I didnt want to give information overload [21:12:28] But i was very clear about our goal to be accurate and preserve the history through the simulation [21:12:38] And that its all open source [21:16:04] Im guessing i wont hear back until Monday [21:16:15] Since its after 4pm here [21:17:05] And Friday [21:25:20] haha yeah sounds like a good bet [21:25:32] btw, don't let me forget Monday morning to email Herb Thaler and NARA [21:39:42] maybe Guenter can help you with that [21:41:31] Ill try [21:41:41] try what? [21:41:50] oh, not letting him forget [21:42:21] explaining NASSP isn't all that easy. To be precise you usually have to explain Orbiter, Virtual AGC and NASSP [21:42:37] I mentioned all three [21:42:40] ok [21:42:57] And briefly the connection and the fact that everything is open source [21:43:19] well, Orbiter is only freeware, but that also falls under non commercial, haha [21:43:42] Oh i thought it was open source haha [21:43:49] nope [21:43:56] Well either way its not commercial, as you said [21:44:29] I think we needed a special permission from Ron to connect the Virtual AGC and Orbiter [21:44:44] if Orbiter was open source I would already have done some modifications [21:46:49] bottom part of this page explains the license issue: http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/ProjectApollo:About [21:48:52] What other apollo documents does NASM have that are useful. I asked about the 3 Apollo 11 checklists [21:50:08] yes, those are good [21:51:43] let me see... [21:52:00] hey have some Apollo 8 checklists, but we already have those [21:52:02] they* [21:53:04] https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/5146hjpg?id=5146 [21:59:16] they also have Skylab checklists, but we don't really need originals for that. And UHCL also has lots of them [22:00:38] https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/skylab-4-pilots-flight-data-file-william-r-pogue-collection-1966-1974 [22:00:44] this also looks promising [22:00:54] but just as general interest [22:02:09] the Apollo 11 checklists are the most interesting for me [22:02:59] but if they were thinking about digitalizing their collections anyway, you might as well help get the ball rolling :D [22:03:22] after all, all we ever need is a PDF [22:03:26] nothing more [22:07:33] Thats what im hoping for [22:08:09] And that ball rolling would be amazing, its weird that they dont have it readily available like UHCL [22:08:24] I mean checklists arent exactly fragile [22:09:10] costs money to properly scan and host the data [22:09:47] UHCL is always so helpful, it's almost like they would like to scan their whole archive, but are only supposed to do so on request, haha [22:10:07] and they didn't have a lack of requests in the last year [22:11:05] I remember that i even made one [22:11:33] Hosting costs i didnt think about [22:11:55] checklists aren't fragile, but still, they aren't new anymore [22:12:16] so might as well preserve them before something happens to them [22:17:24] Right [22:18:19] unfortunately a lot of checklists have been broken up and sold page by page [22:18:57] I have no issues with people collecting stuff, but please give me a PDF of it first [22:36:31] night