[14:20:44] NASSP Logging has been started by thymo [14:42:13] I never gave the S-IVB the ability to LOX dump while the CSM is still attached [14:43:13] the Saturn V S-IVB* [14:43:58] can't let the S-IVB help you with deorbiting without that :D [14:56:24] yeah [14:56:50] alright, havent done a P22 in ages, lets see how this works out [15:03:11] holy crap thats hard [15:03:18] from 7 miles above [15:15:46] yeah, I saw that in the flight plan [15:16:04] I don't think I have tried these techniques for the 60x170 orbit and the 60x7 orbit [15:18:19] should there be a w-matrix set before doing P22's or is that padloaded already? [15:19:03] good question [15:19:20] well I seem to have had good results [15:19:40] on Apollo 10 we have the init values as 0, I started to research earlier why that is [15:19:48] and the landing site looks to be at -0.57 NM [15:19:51] I'm sure there was a reason for it [15:20:00] instead of the planned -0.76 [15:20:10] so Ill update my RLS with that altitude [15:22:01] Apollo 14 flight plan still had the -0.76 [15:23:49] yeah [15:24:05] I guess they did not have a chance to do P22s on 13 :p [15:26:59] Good morning [15:28:54] hey [15:29:11] AlexB_88, the actual landing site altitude of Apollo 14 was -0.82NM [15:34:46] hmm interesting [15:34:50] hey Ryan [15:36:28] I really want to know now what set off the heater light for 12 [15:36:37] My gut is still the landing radar [15:37:55] set it off at what point? [15:38:43] indy91, in Orbiter 2016, it seems to be at -0.56 NM [15:39:09] I just tested by putting a LM at the landing site [15:40:14] maybe the Orbiter 2016 terrain is at fault? [15:40:24] indy91 during CWEA power up [15:41:02] The checklist has the heater caution light on, and it turns off after cycling the temperature indicator and leaving it on landing [15:41:19] Now I do know a change between 13 and 14 was disconnecting the quads from the CWEA [15:41:23] AlexB_88, 3.6717°S, 17.4654°W, 1,736,565 meter radius [15:41:34] I just dont know if disconnecting the LR was done between 12 and 13 [15:41:47] 17.4653°W [15:44:23] The LR measurement for the CWEA has been removed as of LM-5 [15:45:09] rcflyinghokie, explain to me again, is there an alarm in both Apollo 12 and 14 activation checklist? [15:45:12] also, which page [15:45:54] Apollo 12 ACT-21 [15:46:38] So if the LR measurement was removed as of 5, I wonder which FF is set [15:47:10] Apollo 14 procedure seems different [15:47:22] It is slightly [15:49:57] what about RCS? [15:51:07] I think we are doing something wrong [15:51:20] the FFs should be possible to be set without the CWEA being on [15:51:40] and then it surely is the RCS temps [15:54:28] Yeah thats what Alex and I were pondering yesterday [15:54:43] Because the RR and SBD should be up to temp from the TLC heaters [15:54:48] Leaving just quads [15:55:33] I am confused on which missions the RCS quad temps are connected to the alarm [15:55:50] LM-7 and prior [15:55:57] It was a change for LM-8 [15:56:36] Section 2.4 [15:56:36] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14mr-a.htm [15:56:53] The four reaction control system cluster temperature measurement inputs to the caution and warning system were inhibited to prevent nuisance alarms since it was determined that these measurements were no longer needed. [15:57:58] quad temps go through the SCEA [15:58:18] so if they are not up temperature, the flip flops would be set once the SCEA gets powered up [15:59:35] but that would still be the case on ACT-21 [15:59:39] The heaters are turned on after CWEA power up [15:59:42] yeah [15:59:51] But the SCEA is on ACT-18 [15:59:57] so resetting wouldn't do much [16:00:07] No it would simply set again [16:00:23] I know they place the temp on LDR [16:00:27] LDG [16:00:34] but leaving it LDG would inhibit that one FF [16:00:44] Yeah thats why I originally thought it was the LR [16:00:53] right [16:01:14] But 1) you said it was disconnected on LM-6 and 2) it should be heated during TLC anyways [16:01:25] So it has to be the quads [16:03:06] So the FF handling must be done different [16:11:07] but as far as I can see, the LR temp was not used for the Heater light anymore on Apollo 12 [16:11:21] so there should be no difference between 12 and 14 [16:11:49] hmm [16:11:54] I might be confusing things [16:12:30] How so [16:14:15] well read it for yourself [16:14:23] Apollo Experience Report LM instrumentation [16:14:25] PDF page 42 [16:14:34] 42-44 [16:16:01] especially the part at the top of 42 is interesting [16:16:04] ah damn [16:16:08] not PDF page [16:16:11] PDF 55 [16:16:32] PDF pages 54-56, page count 42-44 [16:17:50] Ah I was going to say [16:18:27] Ohh [16:18:36] That might hold the answer [16:19:53] The LR gets set [16:20:26] Every time the CWEA is cycled due to the modification [16:20:57] After staging I mean [16:22:20] So it was removed [16:23:45] At activation a failed indication exists and all 4 FFs are set at CWEA power up [16:23:52] For the quads [16:23:55] That makes sense [16:24:04] The FF's are all reset [16:24:42] But the logic ones at the output of the detectors inhibit a heater caution until the quads are back in normal limits [16:27:52] So the detectors do not hold a FF in set [16:28:23] It looks like it only will set when an out of tolerance condition is generated [16:28:39] And the FF can be reset even if out of tolerance [16:28:58] And it wont set it again until the logic detects it go from in tolerance to out of tolerance again [16:30:32] So its all about the handling of logic 0 to logic 1 [16:30:53] That makes sense [16:31:49] haha, now how do we implement this [16:34:29] Could be similar to my bool that kept track of auto track [16:35:09] A logic that gets set one time when moved from in tolerance to out of tolerance [16:35:17] and reset again when moved back into tolerance [16:35:25] But that logic only can set the FF once [16:35:37] Only when it transitions from 0 to 1 [16:37:33] I was almost sure NTRS had no more Mission Planning and Analysis division documents anymore that I hadn't found, but I just randomly found two more. Every one I find is making the NARA scanning list shorter :D [16:39:18] I still suspect some of those documents I really want are hidden somewhere in that archived NTRS version [16:39:38] just have to keep searching NTRS ID ranges [16:42:37] hey do you know if theres any documentation for lem 5 out there, cant seem to find anything [16:44:05] what kind of documentation? [16:44:09] checklists? [16:45:24] like a systems handbook i know there are some for the j mission lems [16:46:11] we only have the LM-1 and LM-8 Systems Handbooks [16:46:27] okay [16:47:05] at least theres the rendezvous procedures for apollo 11 [16:48:05] yes [16:48:11] and a partial Timeline Book [16:48:15] and the surface procedures [16:48:35] also, for the hi res textures do you simply install them over the the direct x 9 textures [16:49:35] I think so, although depending on how you get them, they are in a different format [16:49:44] so that wouldn't really be installing over it [16:49:49] torrents [16:50:09] I think those are in the .tree format [16:50:15] yes [16:50:19] I'm sure you just have to put them in the textures folder [16:50:37] the tree files are in Textures/Earth/Archive for me [16:50:56] yeah [16:51:01] that's where you have to put them [16:51:22] hmm, the LM-5 question made me think. UHCL has a LM-5 AOH Volume I. [16:51:27] might be worth getting it [16:51:32] we only have a J-Mission one [16:51:41] and it's missing a bunch of pages anyway [16:51:57] Absolutely [16:54:30] there is a Volume II for LM-5 available online that I hadn't seen before [16:56:09] That could help with a lot of procedures [16:58:44] haven't found it elsewhere [16:58:45] https://de.scribd.com/document/66115251/Apollo-Operations-Handbook-LM-5-and-Subsequent-Vol-II [16:59:27] morning! [17:01:25] hello mike [17:02:55] this might be interesting too https://www.scribd.com/document/59234549/Apollo-Mission-Techniques-Missions-F-and-G-Lunar-Orbit-Activities-Revision-a-Volume-1-Techniques-Description [17:04:59] oh [17:05:01] https://de.scribd.com/document/43824384/Apollo-Operations-Handbook-LM-6-Vol-1 [17:05:06] volume I [17:05:27] and Ihave used that lunar orbit activies document quite a bit for the Apollo 10 MCC [17:05:29] hey Mike [17:09:07] thewonderidiot, doing a bit more searching on the archived NTRS [17:09:25] found at least a few new documents in a range I hadn't searched before [17:09:42] nice! [17:09:50] also a 1500 pages Space Shuttle software requirements for the ALT software [17:10:34] "ALT System Software Design Specifications" [17:10:36] very detailed [17:10:45] the SSU guys know about it though, they have it in their archive [17:12:30] they also have the Space Shuttle Systems Handbook, which is quite similar to the CSM and LM ones [17:18:35] indy91, is "phase angle" a new option on the lambert page? [17:18:51] no, that's been there for a while [17:18:56] I'll rework the Lambert page soon [17:19:08] with the new rendezvous options I added for the Apollo 10 MCC [17:22:33] which should enable a few more rendezvous options for abort, mostly those that require one ground calculated burn followed by maneuvers that can be calculated with the onboard programs [17:22:44] hmm is the lambert page broken? cant seem to calculate anything from it [17:24:39] oh [17:24:45] did you set a target vessel? [17:25:45] I make that mistake all the time, and I programmed the thing [17:25:51] which probably means it's bad design [17:26:09] I probably should make it complain when there is no target set [17:27:40] I can make it calculate something [17:29:05] yeah I set Odyssey [17:29:21] hmm [17:29:28] what other options? [17:29:52] I guess this is from the LM [17:31:33] yeah [17:31:53] I was trying to calculate PDI0 [17:31:57] on Apollo 13 [17:32:06] indy91 would a while loop work for the heater logic? [17:32:41] AlexB_88, what inputs? [17:33:23] rcflyinghokie, what do you want to put in the while loop? [17:33:27] https://github.com/dseagrav/NASSP/compare/Orbiter2016...rcflyinghokie:Orbiter2016 [17:33:45] It will only set the FF if it goes from in tolerance to out of tolerance [17:34:07] T1 was 101:36:53 T2: 103:38:00, N=0, Multi-Axis, Perturbed, Odyssey, X= -78 Y= 0 Z= 15 [17:34:26] offsets were targeting CDH position [17:35:28] try N=1 [17:35:37] it's pretty close to 1 revolution [17:35:49] a 360° transfer doesn't work with Lambert targeting [17:36:01] but I am using a very robust algorithm, which should work close to 360° [17:38:23] hmm tried that [17:38:32] then I'll need a scenario [17:38:40] stby [17:39:05] rcflyinghokie, I have no idea what that code is supposed to do [17:39:13] Ok [17:39:38] So it only allows the FF to be set if the logic has transitioned from in tolerance to out of tolerance [17:39:44] https://www.dropbox.com/s/znk1hk1n3n54rfu/Apollo%2013%20-%20Launch%20and%20Landing%202%200008%200002%200005%200009.scn?dl=0 [17:39:58] I'm not sure you understand what a while loop does [17:40:14] lol [17:40:17] Uhh [17:40:26] as far as I can see this would just lock up Orbiter every time, no? [17:40:35] Nope [17:40:37] It works [17:40:43] hmm, right, the break [17:40:51] but then the while loop never ever loops [17:41:13] yeah, so it could just be an if [17:41:18] without the break [17:41:27] with this logic, yes [17:41:34] that would be the identical behavior [17:41:38] actually the logic can't currently do anything [17:41:55] because the while loop only enteres if RRHeaterLogic is 0, but the if statement only does something if RRHeaterLogic is 1 [17:41:58] yeah [17:42:05] *enters [17:42:40] So how would I get it to check if the heater logic has gone from 0 to 1 [17:42:54] And only set the FF if that transition has happened [17:43:17] Without holding the FF in set [17:43:40] keep another variable that holds the previous state [17:43:42] use that in your check [17:43:49] and then after the check, update the previous state variable [17:44:19] so like [17:44:42] if (PreviousState == 0 && CurrentState == 1) { [17:44:43] do_a_thing(); [17:44:43] } [17:44:44] PreviousState = CurrentState; [17:46:52] AlexB_88, I believe your case is exactly one where the transfer is 360° [17:47:16] PDI0 has a DV that is almost entirely horizontal [17:47:32] so I suspect it was calculate with the DKI processor, which doesn't use Lambert targeting [17:47:38] I need to look at the specific rendezvous profile [17:49:21] thewonderidiot I am not quite sure how to keep a previous state [17:49:42] Unless I just save that state before the if [17:50:21] AlexB_88, it very much looks like the PDI abort profile of Apollo 10. So that should be a case where one of the new rendezvous features will be used. [17:50:43] I've tried adjusting the T2 to a few minutes earlier, then it calculates a solution [17:51:50] ah perfect [17:51:59] was it low dv? [17:52:26] DV got better when I moved T2 to an earlier time [17:52:36] on the data book its about 100 fps [17:53:37] The NO PDI+12 is quite complex on 13, there is a BOOST and a HAM before CSI [17:53:46] wonder how the heck to calculate those [17:54:01] ah no, I didn't calculate the PDI0 properly [17:54:13] I don't have the RTCC MFD interface for that yet, not even locally [17:54:19] I just used the Lambert page [17:54:33] and the DT you used there was too close to 360° [17:54:57] rcflyinghokie, current state will just get the heater logic every timestep. [17:55:04] previous state will be what needs to be saved [17:55:10] Yeah [17:55:11] current state can be a temporary variable [17:55:59] AlexB_88, do we have the Apollo 13 abort plots? [17:56:03] I only see the data cards [17:56:25] looks the same as Apollo 14 though [17:56:50] yeah, im using the 14 ones [17:59:21] previous state needs to be stored in a persistent place that survives between timesteps [17:59:58] and you should only update it with the current state after doing everything you use it for [18:02:19] I think I have an idea I'll try in a few, brb [18:07:23] AlexB_88, how does one get the boost DV? [18:07:31] I understand the HAM [18:07:44] and I somewhere read that the AIM (No PDI+12) had a fixed DVZ of -50.0 [18:07:56] only the DVX was varied depending on the actual trajectories [18:17:44] not too sure about the BOOST DV [18:18:20] for Apollo 16 and 17 it would have just been +10.0 fixed [18:27:29] ill be back later [18:32:09] Something like this? [18:32:10] https://github.com/dseagrav/NASSP/compare/Orbiter2016...rcflyinghokie:Orbiter2016 [18:40:11] yeah, that looks good [18:42:21] Its hard to test with the RR it doesnt cool fast enough to fall back out of tolerance [18:42:42] annoying [18:43:20] I am just going to implement it for quad temps, make a note about it in the code, and see if I can replicate whats expected in the checklist [18:43:31] sounds good [18:44:16] .tell AlexB_88 UHCL has the documents describing exactly how all the different rendezvous techniques for Apollo 13 work [18:47:46] rcflyinghokie, I haven't read it as well as you have, why again does this only cause some behavior when the logic input goes from 0 to 1? [18:48:26] According to that document, it looks like the FF is not held in a set position, but rather set if the logic condition transitions from 0 to 1 [18:48:53] not would that also apply to the RR light? [18:48:55] not heater [18:49:06] isn't that explaining how that works? [18:49:18] I was just testing it with the RR [18:49:23] Since the code was in place [18:49:33] But I think it would apply to every FF [18:49:58] Actually, [18:50:01] maybe not [18:50:14] Otherwise everything would be clear when cycling the CWEA [18:51:47] hmm [18:52:10] thewonderidiot, one other thing I found, a document quoting another document called "Saturn LVDC statistics" [18:52:33] nothing terribly interesting, but it has exact number for the number of instructions and execution time of subroutines [18:52:40] numbers* [19:40:53] huh, that is kind of interesting, haha [19:43:16] it was another one of those "how could a future launch vehicle computer look like" document [19:44:19] damn those future thinking people [19:44:27] I don't care about future rockets, I care about your current rockets :P [19:45:03] yes, current rockets. 1970 current [19:52:56] I am about to test it with quads, but something like this is what i am working on [19:52:57] https://github.com/dseagrav/NASSP/compare/Orbiter2016...rcflyinghokie:Orbiter2016 [19:55:18] looks like a lot of code repetition [19:55:29] which is always the indication that some class for this might be better [19:57:04] a CWEAFlipFlop class or so [19:59:28] Yeah [19:59:35] I want to see if this works first [19:59:46] sure [19:59:47] And if it does, it can be used on all FF's [20:00:09] all CWEA FFs? [20:00:23] All heater ones for now [20:00:26] ok [20:00:33] Need to investigate if it is used on others [20:00:52] isn't this just some behavior caused by a cut wire? [20:01:01] No that was the LR [20:01:06] ah, right [20:01:50] The reason they got rid of the quad heater caution was the implementation I am adding now haha, it effectively inhibits the heater caution until all quads are in tolerance [20:02:49] because those comparators were not removed? [20:03:33] Well the comparators were never removed just the data stream to them was cut [20:04:43] But in LM-7 and before, since the quads were not heated on TLC, their warmup time prevented an indication of a heater failure on the quads until all quads were in tolerance [20:05:08] So they had to cycle and check them individually [20:05:32] And my interpretation is that since they were doing that anyways, it was pointless to keep them connected to the heater light [20:06:04] Too many nuisance alarms especially on the surface when heaters were turned off [20:06:21] right [20:06:29] after all it's a caution and warning system [20:07:01] so that you don't have to monitor everything, haha [20:07:11] Haha indeed [20:07:19] but if you are monitoring something anyway, during the relevant flight phases [20:07:28] So basically I am implementing what was taken out because its annoying :P [20:07:57] Ok lets try a quad warmup [20:08:04] I am thinking "why???" and "yes, that should be done" at the same time [20:09:14] I am just trying to keep in the spirit of full support for Apollo 9-11 [20:09:36] Keeping true to those spacecraft and their design [20:10:32] Hmm guess it helps to reset the correct FF :P [20:10:42] Copy paste error strikes again :P [20:11:06] At least it was just one out of all of the pastes I did here [20:17:08] speaking of errors, I corrected a small one in the CWEA earlier that Alex found [20:17:33] ECS light got triggered by guidance control switch :D [20:17:53] small SCEA channel error [20:17:55] easy fix [20:20:19] I saw that [20:20:46] I traced it back and saw the mistake :P He is good at finding bugs! [20:21:06] He found this heater discrepancy I am working on now as well [20:21:14] back [20:21:20] Speak of the devil :P [20:21:40] yes, Alex is a great beta tester [20:22:21] and Alex, it wouldn't be all that terrible if you would request those documents :D [20:22:23] Speaking of, I am waiting for the quad to go into tolerance then I will bring it out again to watch the behavior, but I think this is going to work [20:22:53] Then Alex can have his HEATER light on Apollo 12 powerup :P [20:25:14] MSC ( MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER ) INTERNAL NOTE # 70-FM-41 operational LM ( LUNAR MODULE ) abort AND CSM ( COMMAND SERVICE MODULE ) RESCUE PLAN FOR APOLLO 13 ( MISSION H-2 ) VOLUME I - abortS FROM POWERED DESCENT AND ASCENT [20:25:18] haha thanks [20:25:23] operational LM ( LUNAR MODULE ) abort AND RESCUE PLAN FOR APOLLO 13 ( MISSION H-2 ) VOL II ( VOLUME TWO ) - RENDEZVOUS AND RESCUE [20:25:23] indy91, sure [20:25:29] especially the 2nd one [20:26:12] and I am currently adding the Docking Initiation Processor to the RTCC MFD. Always a slow process adding a new page. [20:26:22] but that should let you calculate the PDI0 [20:26:34] and thanks to you I already have a good testing scenario [20:27:38] nice [20:27:41] no problem [20:27:55] so the 2 docs above are the ones to request? [20:28:10] yes [20:28:22] volume II will have the various rendezvous procedures [20:28:43] including the No PDI+12, where we aren't quite sure how they work yet on 13 [20:28:46] and 14 I guess [20:29:09] Jim Lovells copy of it was on sale [20:29:33] https://historical.ha.com/itm/explorers/apollo-13-training-used-operational-lm-abort-and-rescue-plan-for-apollo-13-mission-h-2-volume-ii-rendezvous/a/6095-40450.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515 [20:29:53] has a few example pages [20:30:08] oof, I imagine that one sold for a lot [20:30:54] AlexB_88, the first page already talks about no PDI [20:31:00] because it is different from previous missions [20:31:26] it's not a document that was flown, but I guess you are right [20:31:44] personal copies from Jim Lovell should be expensive :D [20:32:00] flown were only the LM Timeline Book and then LM Data Cards [20:32:13] this document is a mission planning document [20:32:57] it's a personal copy from Jim Lovell about LM Aborts :P [20:33:19] wrong kind of abort though, haha [20:33:26] yeah but most people probably don't know that :P [20:33:30] true [20:36:34] much more interesting aborts, for me at least, haha [20:36:45] Apollo 13 did a fairly standard thing, trajectory wise [20:38:17] Just a non standard configuration with non standard conditions [20:38:28] For a normal trajectory [20:40:29] Ok this heater code seems to create the exact behavior of the checklist flow [20:40:31] pretty much [20:41:06] I found that 13 seems to be much more of a favorable launch window for Fra Mauro then 14 was [20:41:11] And it sets and resets everything properly [20:41:12] oh yes [20:41:22] LOI dvY was only like 50 fps [20:41:22] Apollo 14 was terrible for Fra Mauro [20:41:42] I guess they were desperate [20:42:21] well, it was reachable, but not ideal [20:42:40] And Shepards crew trained for Fra Mauro [20:42:41] Apollo 15-17 certainly would have been too heavy for that [20:42:48] As the original 13 crew [20:42:53] oh right [20:42:59] that helped [20:43:10] but Fra Mauro just was the most desirable landing site still [20:44:29] And they were bumped for concerns of not being ready and of course Shepard coming back to the flight line [20:44:49] So it was the logical move to keep that crew on Fra Mauro after the accident [20:44:58] Even if it meant more fuel [20:45:15] right [20:45:26] Makes you wonder though, had 13 been a success, what landing site would 14 have had [20:46:11] Taurus-Littrow [20:46:30] well, probably [20:46:36] early planning documents were for that [20:46:49] 17's site huh [20:47:34] "Apollo 14 (Mission H-3) Baseline Mission Profile" from December 31, 1969 [20:48:30] that has a Littrow landing [20:48:32] hmm [20:48:35] Interesting [20:48:36] maybe the crater [20:48:47] not the valley where Apollo 17 ended up landing [20:48:48] Yeah 17 landed in the valley [20:49:01]