[21:11:57] NASSP Logging has been started by thewonderidiot [21:12:01] that's why the logs stopped [21:18:27] oops [21:21:12] I am having a hell of a time with the secondary glycol loop [21:21:26] I am experimenting with larger valves to give its normal max flow [21:22:50] Ehh oops [21:23:08] Maybe I'll see if I can make logs auto start somehow. Not sure I can though. [21:24:12] hello [21:24:33] Hello! [21:24:43] I like the username :) [21:24:58] thank you [21:26:15] hey, we just started up logging again [21:27:27] thewonderidiot: "Welcome to the channel. Everything you say will be logged. Nothing to worry about." :P [21:27:35] hahahaha [21:27:47] no he was in here asking about why the logs stopped earlier [21:28:27] Ah. I missed that. [21:28:46] just came on to report the logging was back but you beat me to it [21:28:57] yeah, sorry about that [21:29:47] So people actually read them now eh? Nice to hear. :) [21:30:30] for sure [21:30:59] lightbulbmoment: welcome to the channel though, feel free to hang out in here with us, you don't need to be a developer or anything :D [21:31:20] I have found the logs very useful in the past to try to understand procedures for Nassp [21:33:30] I have been a fan of Apollo for many years and would like to thank you all for the effort you are all putting in to this. [21:35:19] Certainly appreciated! To say we probably have just as much fun working on it. :) [21:40:10] yes definitely, this whole project is a ton of fun [21:40:39] but I'm glad you enjoy it! [21:47:51] I dont understand this secondary glycol loop haha I canto seem to get the pressure and flow I want its annoying [22:06:57] booo [22:07:37] I think its because the loop has so little mass [22:18:56] evening [22:21:19] hey [22:26:10] Welcome back [22:27:48] I am trying to get a full flow secondary loop but I am not having much luck [22:37:29] in the LM? [22:38:25] Yeah [22:38:51] The glycol loops as they are in the repo dont approach the normal mass flow rates [22:38:57] Due to small valves [22:38:59] right [22:39:22] and that was so we dont get the nan's? [22:42:13] Goodnight all [22:43:20] Yeah [22:44:16] I noticed that the CO2 levels now stay in the green band if O saw correctly in my last test [22:47:32] Yeah i worked that out [22:47:42] nice [22:47:47] Should stay around 3 I think in egress [22:47:59] Increased flows from larger valves did that [22:48:29] also, were you going to get the quad's hooked up to the temp display? [22:48:49] I dont know how to scale them [22:49:21] I think the SCERA scales them and therefore that falls to Niklas' capable coding [22:49:32] ah I see [22:49:34] I didnt want to put a direct conversion because of that [22:49:43] But I did put the roots for quad heaters in [22:49:54] I dont know how the coding for it is though I did some [22:50:00] Then the nans came around [23:02:06] I think I am dialing this in [23:20:47] here's hoping [23:32:58] Ok I have stable pump off now I need to slowly increase flow [23:33:01] I have it up to 200 [23:33:05] I need 300 lb/hr [23:34:42] 248 [23:35:02] 52 to go [23:35:33] Yeah [23:35:44] Surprisingly my valves arent very large [23:35:50] They just needed balance [23:42:41] I am making very small tweaks for this like 0.0001 at a time haha [23:42:56] Up to 260 [23:52:01] I am fighting three simultaneous constraints as I do this [23:52:42] Flow being zero when the pump is off/300 when the pump is on, the pump pressure 21psi and the accumulator pressure above 6 (6.7 ideal) [00:01:00] quite the challenge [00:02:23] Yeah and the sec loop is the simple one [00:02:29] I have a question on battery charging... If you charge the batteries to there maximum charge, but forget to actually stop battery charging, will resources continue to be consumed? Like the hydrogen in the fuel cells [00:02:40] I need to adapt this to the primary loop once I know this wont cause nans [00:02:49] Let me look at the code [00:03:11] In real life yes there will always be parasitic drain and therefore the charger would continue to trickle charge [00:03:19] draw not drain* [00:04:21] so it was important to terminate battery charge, or else I guess you were wasting resources [00:05:43] Yeah looks like it would, slowly, but it would [00:05:55] maybe not simulated in NASSP though [00:06:33] but the main reason is I don't want to go through my hydrogen to fast as Apollo 12 is a 240 h mission [00:07:08] and as it stands our H2 tanks will only survive ~230 hours [00:07:32] which is a bug of course as it should make it to like 270 I believe [00:07:39] I wonder why it drains it so fast [00:07:58] There was a post on that on the forums but I can't seem to find it [00:08:03] I dont think the charging will have a huge impact on the H2 draw [00:08:09] right [00:08:54] Id be curious to put a debug line on the H2 tanks outflow and see the consumption and compare to nominal comsumption [00:09:06] Silly question though, are they the correct size? [00:09:47] I think so, the guy in the post I was talking about said they were the correct size but it was the consumption rate that was off [00:10:30] Let em take a quick look [00:10:46] I need to add a function to calculate H2 in my lovely spreadsheet/cheatsheet [00:10:47] He actually came up with some new numbers for the consumption rate that I had tried before and worked quite well... But experimental of course and I don't have them on my current mission [00:13:37] Also the bulk modulus for H2 is I believe incorrect but changing it messes with initialization pretty bad [00:16:28] Uhh these H2 numbers are weird [00:16:40] specific heat is off, vapor pressure is wrong [00:18:35] hmm interesting [00:18:56] I wonder what temperature they use for the tank temp [00:23:47] should be -420F [00:25:01] Did they make H2 tanks bigger on later missions? [00:26:58] hmm not sure [00:27:31] Do you thin setting those to the correct values would make it work? [00:27:35] Maybe [00:27:53] Or screw a up a bunch of other stuff, lol [00:28:02] I am showing that they contained 28 lbs in 6.75 cubic feet storage [00:32:22] I was trying to figure out why my math was wrong and its because I am doing gaseous H2 not liquid H2 haha [00:35:55] The volumes are wrong though at least [00:36:59] Hmm same issue with H2 as O2, the values are for liquid hydrogen [00:37:08] Which is correct [00:37:22] But I need to calculate new energy for it [00:39:38] so like the same issue that the repress package had? [00:41:34] Not really because that was using liquid cryogenic oxygen instead of a gas [00:41:48] H2 in our system is all treated like a liquid I believe (incorrectly but it works)] [00:42:02] I am working some numbers now for those tanks [00:44:35] Ugh these values are for gaseous hydrogen not liquid in H systems it seems [00:44:59] I need to look at the math in there to see if it takes it into account [00:45:05] But I changed the tank volumes [00:45:11] The masses were correct though [00:51:25] Just need the energy [00:53:38] Now I dont know how increasing tank volume and keeping the mass the same will change a mission [00:54:08] But its stable on startup [00:56:01] Half these values in the code are liquid H2 and half are gaseous [00:56:04] Annoying [00:56:38] The way I tested it was take a post-TLI scenario, shut off the computer and time accel 10000x and see how long the H2 would last [00:57:13] of course the computer itself took quite a bit of H2, so it would be a bit less than that [01:01:06] I made the fuel cell manifolds a bit smaller for H2 as well [01:01:11] maybe that will help [01:04:00] O2 tank sizes were too small as well [01:09:11] I wont PR it for a bit though my glycol loop is still not where I want but I can give you the data if you wish [01:09:50] sure [01:10:12] Just dialing in the O2 energy now for 900psi [01:16:23] O2TANK1 <0.5 1.0 -6.0> 133.9387 0.0000001 [01:16:23] CHM 0 145149.5584 0.0 19500000.0 [01:16:24] VALVE IN 1 0.0001 [01:16:24] VALVE OUT 1 0.00001 [01:16:25] VALVE LEAK 0 1.000 # to O2VENT [01:16:25] [01:16:26] O2TANK2 <0.5 1.0 -5.0> 133.9387 0.0000001 [01:16:28] CHM 0 145149.5584 0.0 19500000.0 [01:16:32] VALVE IN 1 0.0001 [01:16:34] VALVE OUT 1 0.00001 [01:16:36] VALVE LEAK 0 1.000 # to O2VENT [01:16:38] [01:16:40] H2TANK1 <0.5 -1.0 -6.0> 191.1387 0.0000001 [01:16:42] CHM 1 12700.58636 0.0 2795000.0 [01:16:44] VALVE IN 1 0.001 [01:16:46] VALVE OUT 1 0.000001 [01:16:48] [01:16:50] H2TANK2 <0.5 -1.0 -5.0> 191.1387 0.0000001 [01:16:52] CHM 1 12700.58636 0.0 2795000.0 [01:16:54] VALVE IN 1 0.001 [01:16:56] VALVE OUT 1 0.000001 [01:16:58] [01:17:02] Those are initial values [01:20:52] I'll try those on my next mission [01:21:04] thanks [01:21:20] No promises since the actual mass is the same [01:21:54] I am diving into the fuel cell use now [01:22:02] Gives me a nice LM glycol break [01:22:07] haha [01:22:40] in the mean time, i'm going to simply power-down the CSM during LM ops [01:23:12] that has worked in the past for me to have enough H2 for the nominal timeline [01:27:37] I am gonna grab dinner then look at this fuel cell code [01:38:31] Side note I found, the fuel cells heat the gas before use, and I think ours feeds liquid [01:38:49] And that would actually result in higher consumption [01:38:55] I need to dig some more [02:24:57] time for LOI [03:49:02] Have fun I am going to call it a night [03:50:45] goodnight! [04:55:18] night! [12:57:40] hey [12:57:50] hey Niklas [12:58:09] Just about to do PDI [12:58:20] Apollo 12? [12:58:29] DOI* [12:58:31] yes [12:58:37] that was quick [13:01:37] yeah, I've been going non-stop since launch yesturday mornin [13:01:42] morning* [13:01:45] haha, fun [13:01:52] and you just got a year younger [13:01:56] tell me your secret [13:02:07] hahaha [13:02:49] I decided to make my user names more consistent [13:03:03] you may even see a 2-year younger version [13:03:37] I have good Apollo 15 presettings and some lunar impact burn logic in the LVDC, but I'll probably won't have time to finish that until Monday [13:04:24] nice [13:05:28] btw the Apollo 12 SIVB impavted the moon [13:05:38] impacted* [13:06:51] not enough LOX dump maybe? [13:08:28] on the actual Apollo 12 mission they sent some commands for the APS [13:08:33] I wonder why [13:09:56] almost 300 seconds longer APS burn, just after the programmed one [13:11:06] 270° [13:11:10] 270* [13:12:28] also I had a question about RLS... The RLS altitude that is in the padloads is often way off from the actual altitude of the landing site. Do you know why they did this? [13:13:49] from the Earth and from the Lunar Orbiter photos you can find a good landing spot with latitude and longitude [13:14:05] but it is difficult to determine the landing site radius from far away [13:14:17] so they just didn't know any better, the padloaded RLS is their best estimate [13:14:30] right [13:14:38] that's why a P22 was mandatory before the landing [13:15:04] like Apollo 11 is -1.66 is the padloads, and -1.08 actual [13:15:23] yep [13:15:32] I'm trying to find the best way to actually update the RLS with RTCC MFD [13:15:57] because if I do P22 I dont want to actually use that new RLS as it is, right? [13:16:36] like I could do P22, check what altitude it gives, and then make a new RLS with the same coordinates as the padload, but with the new altitude [13:17:54] does the RTCC MFD have any RLS uplink capability? [13:17:58] yes [13:18:13] and you should also be able to change the altitude [13:18:15] Landing site update page [13:18:29] not on that page though [13:18:36] but I can on the lunar insertion page [13:19:06] ah, I wanted to move that to the config page at some point [13:19:30] but it would probably make sense to be able to change it on the landing site update page as well [13:19:59] so I guess I go to the lunar insertion page, plus in the new altitude, go back to the Landing Site Update page and then it should have the new altitude [13:20:08] plug in* [13:20:23] yeah [13:20:28] uplink might also be an issue [13:21:04] uplink seems to work from that page [13:21:20] hmm, the uplink doesn't even use that altitude [13:21:28] it gets the mean radius of the body [13:21:33] ah no [13:21:39] and adds the LS altitude to it [13:21:51] so it should work then? [13:22:10] yeah, but you have to select any vessel as the target on that page [13:22:33] just so that it knows the reference body for the mean radius [13:22:38] that should probably be changed [13:22:50] you only ever uplink a lunar referenced RLS [13:22:53] not Earth or so [13:26:35] I jsut did a quick test in my Apollo 12 scenario, I changed the landing site altitude to -0.5 NM and uplinked the new RLS [13:27:12] EMEM2025 302 [13:27:12] EMEM2026 11345 [13:27:13] EMEM2027 77653 [13:27:14] EMEM2030 67705 [13:27:14] EMEM2031 77765 [13:27:15] EMEM2032 43521 [13:27:42] this is all in the CSM btw [13:28:47] Can those numbers verify that it -0.5 NM? (-0.5 is just an arbitrary number for my test) [13:29:06] Or is there a way I can check with the DSKY? [13:29:32] there is a way with the DSKY [13:30:33] P21 calculates the altitude relative to the landing site [13:30:48] PAMFD always relative to the mean radius [13:30:52] so you can compare the two [13:31:50] or compare P21 with the NAV check pad I guess [13:33:19] Nav Check PAD is relative to mean radius [13:33:53] oh, and V82 compared to PAMFD would also work [13:34:14] the V82 HA and HP are also relative to landing site [13:35:37] PAMFD 58.1, P21: 58.6 [13:35:43] with P21 [13:35:54] looks like -0.5NM to me [13:35:54] so yep :D [13:36:59] crap, now I have no excuses to skip P22s [13:37:48] Comanche055 stores the radius in E4,1722 if you want to check :D [13:38:28] and 1723, it's double precision [13:39:50] I made another test just to confirm it with -2 NM and yep still works [13:43:07] I'm thinking of when we get MCC working with Apollo 11, when it comes time to uplink the RLS, maybe MCC can check the RLS altitude stored in the CMC's memory and use that as a bases for the RLS update. So if the user does a P22, it should automatically be incorporated into the new RLS [13:44:19] oh, but I don't know if in the P22s, they actually incorporated the RLS solutions, I think they just displayed the numbers, and V34 [13:45:00] ground looked at the telemetry during P22 [13:45:09] and then used that for their calculations [13:45:13] right [13:45:29] I'll think of a way to let the MCC do that [13:47:04] What I will do right now, is do the P22, check the altitude and just V34 out and then ill use that altitude for the RLS [13:48:25] yeah, that should be an improvement to the RLS at least [13:56:43] I guess surface markers are still broken in Orbiter 2016 [13:58:36] yeah, but I think there is some new format for the markers which might or might not be broken [14:12:07] hmm CR will be -5.6 NM [14:12:21] still within limits I think [14:20:36] that's quite a bit [14:20:48] way more than it should be [14:21:04] did you change anything else about the landing site? :D [14:23:11] nope, just the altitude [14:25:25] and it gives the same CR, even before the RLS change [14:35:47] https://www.dropbox.com/s/svfcevsfm2f2qr4/Apollo%2012%20-%20Before%20LM%20Activation.scn?dl=0 [14:36:33] weird [14:37:07] LOI should be better than 5.6NM crossrange [14:45:23] for some reason the state of the CM forward hatch isn't saved, I had it open, and now after quick saving, and reloading (from the LM), its closed [14:56:24] about the CR, maybe I shouldn't of skipped MCC-4? [14:56:50] I only did MCC-2 [14:58:50] LOI-1 should compensate it [14:59:11] but now that I think about it, last time you flew Apollo 12 there also was a bigger CR [14:59:20] maybe it's something with that trajectory in general [15:01:07] yep, saving/loading for the forward hatch isn't done [15:02:23] anyway, 1 orbit later its -1.4 so I may delay 1 orbit [15:14:10] Good morning [15:14:46] hey Ryan [15:15:19] I noticed last night I am getting CTD's after merging the latest from the repo into my local [15:15:58] in saturn5.dll [15:15:59] if (IsProcessorFeaturePresent(PF_FASTFAIL_AVAILABLE)) [15:16:00] { [15:16:01] __fastfail(FAST_FAIL_INVALID_ARG); [15:16:01] } [15:16:32] I am trying to load a launch scn, Apollo 9 in this case [15:18:53] The break occurred at that if statement in invalid_parameter.cpp [15:20:17] But now it happens when I try to load anything [15:22:39] Anyone else getting this? [15:24:46] in what file is that? [15:24:56] ah, you said [15:25:24] Apollo 9 scenario works for me [15:25:36] I wonder if it has to do with the loading of the flight sequence program file [15:26:05] It happens on any scn I try [15:26:13] Even older ones [15:26:31] hmm, bad [15:26:50] Yeah [15:27:08] Whatever was in the latest build triggered it for me [15:27:35] latest build? So the auto build from Github? [15:28:03] Well I merged the last 2 I think using git into my local and thats when it started [15:29:04] It was this that started it for me [15:29:04] https://github.com/rcflyinghokie/NASSP/commit/8786a72e67cea35900d42eeedbba49bbdc8b6775 [15:29:15] Maybe that can help [15:32:56] I did not have any issues like that on Apollo 12 [15:33:18] rcflyinghokie, I have a question on the SUIT ISOL valves in the LM, once the crew is connected to LM ECS with the knobs to SUIT FLOW, do the ACTUATOR OVRD's stay up or down? [15:33:19] most of that merge is the flight sequence program files [15:33:43] AlexB_88 the actuators are not coded to do anything yet [15:33:54] but it works for me on all scenarios [15:34:02] does it crash for you right on loading the scenario? [15:34:05] They can and should be when we have a better simulation of suits disconnected from the LM and on the PLSS [15:34:07] launch scenario* [15:34:08] Yes [15:34:11] indy91 yes [15:34:22] And on my ECS testing scn [15:34:30] well, I'll be gone for a few days, so, I hope it resolves itself through rebuilding or so. [15:34:54] cya on Sunday! [15:34:58] I hope so [15:35:04] Have a good weekend! [15:35:19] I am going to try a full clean/build [15:35:30] I thought I did it last night but never hurts to do again [15:36:31] Oh, Alex, I also noticed that the simulation sends high pressure cryogenic H2 and O2 into the fuel cell directly [15:36:43] I am experimenting with warming it to a gas and then feeding [15:36:48] nice [15:36:49] Which is the real behavior [15:37:14] Also, can you tell me if you can remember on your Apollo 12 mission, what the crossrange was before PDI? [15:37:34] Oh its been a while [15:37:35] was it higher then expected? [15:38:03] I want to say it was a little high but not too high? But again dont quote me on that haha. [15:38:10] I know I have a pre PDI scn saved though [15:38:14] haha no worries [15:38:21] Now can I open it... [15:38:23] can I take a look? [15:38:44] Nope I still CTD [15:38:47] Yeah one sec [15:39:22] https://www.dropbox.com/s/4wxfd1e0smk1x0v/Apollo%2012%20-%20PDI.scn?dl=0 [15:39:29] No idea where that is in relation to PDI [15:39:33] But it was labled PDI [15:42:08] thanks [15:44:43] yeah high-ish, -3.3 NM. I have -5.6 NM. As Niklas said, Apollo 12 has a weird trajectory [15:45:00] still low enough for PDI I think [15:45:34] I still am getting ctd's [15:45:53] bummer [15:45:55] @rcflyinghokie when are you getting them? [15:46:02] At startup [15:46:05] let me try a launch scenario [15:46:06] oh [15:46:20] Nik said his worked [15:46:49] Its Saturn5.dll that the exception is thrown but the break is in a different file [15:47:29] But probably still part of the dll [15:47:46] yeah i am still getting ctd's for apollo 11 but not for apollo 8 [15:50:18] Mine is any scn I try it seems [15:50:23] Even after a fresh build [15:53:32] Unhandled exception at 0x19803DF7 (Saturn5.dll) in orbiter.exe: An invalid parameter was passed to a function that considers invalid parameters fatal. occurred [15:56:04] Unless something I did broke it [15:56:09] But I cannot see what [16:01:46] Hmm maybe it is something I broke on my end [16:04:22] Oh durp [16:04:25] Found it [16:05:32] Or so I thought [16:13:53] So I reverted my changes and still get a CTD, yet I do a fresh build of the current repo no problem [16:17:00] Voila [16:17:15] O2FUELCELL3INLET2 [16:17:16] O2TANK2:OUT O2FUELCELL3MANIFOLD:IN ONEWAY # 900 psi [16:17:16] [16:17:22] Was missing the [16:17:27] Copy paste error [16:18:35] Weird exception thrown for that though [16:33:54] haha glad you found it [16:43:48] Do you have to enter the ACCEL BIAS COEFF (540,541,542) Before the 400+6? [16:44:51] oh you just record those addresses before the 400+6 [16:45:03] and compare them before/after [17:01:06] Yeah [17:01:24] Sorry for the delay you got me working these FC flows haha [17:20:48] morning! [17:22:29] Hey there [17:22:34] Hey Mike [17:22:51] rcflyinghokie, haha no worries [17:23:22] I have made a few changes with no ill effects, but if they change hydrogen consumption I havent a clue [17:23:32] also before LM/CSM undocking, it says *ZERO, 404, 405, 406, 407R* [17:23:45] do I have to zero those registers? [17:23:57] Yes [17:24:09] Thats accumulated dV [17:26:27] It basically gives the AGS a fresh register [17:26:40] Similar to a P47 to view dV [17:27:00] But the ags is always keeping an inertial register of dV so there is no avg G [18:02:44] And I just checked the flows for fuel cells, they seem to be calculated correctly [18:16:03] Looks like I need to adjust launch timings in the checklists as well [18:38:52] later! [20:15:07] hmmmm [20:15:37] so it's $255 to have the four Level III drawings I mentioned yesterday scanned [20:15:48] 95 aperture cards for the radar section of PGNCS [20:15:51] 66 cards for ECS [20:15:56] 84 cards for mechanical [20:16:02] and 74 cards for displays and controls [20:35:20] ....worth it [15:31:52] hey [16:03:41] Morning [16:05:35] ill be on later, cya! [17:45:42] morning! [17:47:13] I come bearing gifts [17:47:32] https://ws.onehub.com/folders/ue1gkpdl [17:47:44] rcflyinghokie: ECS is LDW 330-55000 [17:48:22] Oh wow [17:48:24] BLDW files are cover sheets, EOLDW files are engineering change orders, and JLDW files are the drawings themselves [17:48:34] Which LM? [17:48:40] no idea, I just got this email [17:48:43] Haha ok [17:48:47] the cover pages will tell you [17:49:31] also each drawing will have a big section of the filename like "A000003040006" [17:50:03] the first and last digits will be the same for all of the different parts of the same drawing [17:50:30] and the first non-zero numeric digit is the slide number, so this is the third slide of the drawing designated A6 [17:50:48] if you want to try to stitch these together, I've been having really good luck with Microsoft ICE [17:51:01] I will give it a try [17:51:16] Looks like LM 7 and 8 [17:51:24] Which is good its what I have been using [17:51:28] what I've been doing is converted the PDFs to PNGs at 600 DPI, and then stitching those images [17:51:35] excellent! [17:52:25]