[10:57:13] NASSP Logging has been started by indy91 [11:04:39] good morning [11:05:20] so, for the gimbal angles in the lem dsky are you supposed to push enter after inputting the numbers because i get a no att light and it said it was in gimbal lock [11:09:58] during which procedure [11:10:05] V41? [11:10:26] cant remember but i am about to do it again [11:10:33] this time i will save [11:11:49] it is for docked course imu align at 97:30 GET [11:13:32] yes, V41 is the IMU coarse alignment [11:13:40] yes, you should enter [11:13:55] maybe a small checklist error [11:15:21] should i be getting a no att light? [11:16:37] yes [11:17:00] when you do a coarse alignment like that then the IMU is fixed in its attitude [11:17:14] a following V40 or V42 lets it move again [11:17:58] yeah, there is a V40 N20E directly after the V41 N20 [11:35:43] worked [11:36:46] and also how do i find out the dap data or should i even worry about that? [11:37:38] that would be LM and CSM masses [11:37:44] but the preloaded values should be ok [11:37:50] okay [11:43:29] i thought it meant those first two sets of numbers [11:44:18] and i am surprised there is no plane change before landing at least i dont see it in the mfd [11:49:08] like in amso [11:50:26] that's because we have a precise LOI-1 targeting [11:50:44] it's inserting the CSM+LM into an orbit that flies over the landing site at the planned time of landing [11:50:54] interesting [11:51:00] I don't think any other Orbiter addon has that kind of targeting [11:51:24] i think the criteria as if it was over 20 miles or kilometers [11:51:41] the number I usually read was 8NM [11:52:01] i think it was 20 in amso [11:52:14] Apollo 12 was pretty close to 8NM off [11:52:24] much more than the other missions [11:52:44] and Apollo 15 was so far off, that they had to include a plane change in their LOI-2 [11:53:17] but for all other missions it worked out quite well and they had a very small crossrange at PDI [11:53:40] it was 22km for amso [11:54:05] ah, so if you had more than 22km crossrange you have to do a plane change? [11:54:10] yes [11:55:09] the real AGC can deal with up to 8NM I guess, above that you would get too much of a performance problem [11:55:24] getting the crossrange down during the descent costs DV [11:55:50] so i am about to do the pressure integrity check should my astronauts be in their suits [11:56:01] I think so, yes [11:56:11] 2 crew in the LM and both in their suits [11:57:23] have you done a reentry in NASSP yet? [11:57:33] that will also be quite different from AMSO [11:57:52] AMSO doesn't have a realistic aerodynamic model of the CM [11:58:52] It's been a while since I flew a mission with AMSO, does it have a landing point designation capability during the descent? [11:58:59] i am also confused about the hatch [11:59:05] is the CSM HATCH the one inside the lem [11:59:52] it's asking me to verify things [12:00:31] no, the CSM hatch is the one on the CSM side [12:00:45] on the panel below the main panel in the CSM [12:00:54] and how do i know if the tunnel is vented [12:01:06] LM hatch is located above the ECS panel in the LM [12:01:30] should i set it to tunnel vent [12:01:58] yes [12:02:06] but first close the hatches [12:02:13] and pressure equalization valve [12:02:33] do i have to do anything with the lem hatch right now [12:02:34] then you vent the tunnel with the LM Tunnel Vent setting [12:02:37] it doesnt say [12:02:45] just make sure it's closed [12:03:01] or else venting the tunnel does bad things [12:03:21] there are two latches should i lock and close them [12:03:25] and to check if the tunnel is vented you look at LM/CM DP [12:03:42] on the CSM hatch? [12:03:46] lem [12:03:54] ah [12:03:59] yes, to lock [12:04:03] and to auto [12:05:23] should the csm hatch gauge be at zero for the vent [12:06:00] the gauge only can show something in the LM/CM DP setting [12:06:06] okay [12:06:33] so you would periodically go to LM/CM DP to check the pressure difference [12:06:41] while being normally in LM Tunnel Vent [12:10:19] now the suit gas diverter won;t let me push it [12:12:56] never mind its working no [12:13:03] now* [12:13:21] your cabin pressure might have been too low [12:13:43] yeah i tweaked it a bit with the forward dump valve [12:22:10] have to go, see you later [12:22:24] bye [13:36:17] hi alex [13:36:29] have to do the lem activation over again [13:36:45] because of some major problems with the dsky [13:38:00] @AlexB_88 i got an operation error light when i punched in verb 48 [13:45:56] hey [13:46:01] hmm that is very weird [13:46:12] yes [13:46:18] maybe i did something wrong [13:46:33] when do you get the error, right after the V48E? [13:46:34] i was getting the same errors with the ags as well [13:46:46] as soon as i punched it in [13:47:04] what checklist are you using? [13:47:20] checklist mfd [13:51:09] ok before doing V48, where you in P00É [13:51:11] ? [13:51:22] as in nothing on the DSKY [13:51:47] i thing i hit verb 76 before that [13:52:05] because if you already have certain programs running on the DSKY then doing a V48 gives you an OPR ERR [13:52:08] when i got the error i punched it p00 then i still got the error [13:52:23] scenario? [13:52:32] i can get you one in a bit [13:52:45] actually i have a scenario close to that [13:52:49] i will just go from there [13:54:50] i think it was during the dap set and gimbal throttle test [14:04:32] i will get back to you soon [14:25:27] Good morning [14:25:37] hi [14:25:44] just having a few problems with the dsky [14:26:18] getting an operation error light with verb 48 [14:26:38] Which mission? [14:26:42] 11 [14:26:52] When do you get it [14:28:35] dap set and gimbal throttle test [14:29:18] Which part of it? [14:29:58] well there is more then one v48 and i think it was the second one [14:30:19] also it says 50 48 but i didnt get that [14:30:32] in the load gimbal trim [14:30:33] Well there is only one dap set. gimbal/throttle test [14:30:59] yeah i am just confused [14:31:09] hey Ryan [14:31:57] Doing the gimbal drive check after putting in the angles and hitting PRO, you have to wait a little while for the 50 48 [14:32:06] okay [14:32:07] The DSKY will blank as it does the test [14:32:24] Then you will see the ENG GIMBL caution light [14:32:31] And then you get a F 50 48 [14:32:58] i think i re punched the v48 [14:33:04] i am doing the test right now [14:33:51] it says program 00 [14:33:58] rcflyinghokie, I have received the 2 docs from UHCL for Apollo 13 rendezvous aborts [14:34:08] Oh nice! [14:34:09] https://www.dropbox.com/s/pycs83gbsozsaqp/HSI-41011.pdf?dl=0 [14:34:12] got it now 50 48 [14:34:16] https://www.dropbox.com/s/1kbseh1j5sa9tqm/HSI-41194.pdf?dl=0 [14:34:17] that is what i did wrong [14:34:29] Haha yeah [14:35:37] and for the imu fine align all the registers are 00000 [14:35:48] AlexB_88 those will be great reads [14:36:10] astronauthen96__ you mean in the PAMFD? [14:36:19] in the dsky [14:36:37] i am about to do it now [14:36:41] Niklas logged off just before I got the 1st one last night haha [14:37:35] i pressed enter after loading the angles and i get a solid verb 42 [14:38:04] then i check the torque and they are all zero [14:38:35] .tell indy91 and here is the second doc https://www.dropbox.com/s/1kbseh1j5sa9tqm/HSI-41194.pdf?dl=0 [14:39:46] astronauthen96__ which registers are zero for the imu fine align [14:40:14] on v16 n93 [14:42:05] You shouldnt have that up until you have entered torquing values with a V42 [14:42:13] i did that [14:42:19] all zeros means it is done torquing [14:42:26] entered the torquing angles then pressed enter [14:43:02] So then you call the N93 and wait for all 3 registers to go to zero, and then you know your IMU has been fine aligned [14:43:24] AlexB_88 this "time critical rendezvous soon after insertion" case could be fun [14:43:34] yeah [14:43:47] i did the n93 right after the v42 and they were already at zero [14:45:52] anyways i need to sleep i was up the entire night with nassp [15:36:55] So apparently my parents (whom I am visiting) had their 5ghz and 2.4ghz networks named the same, so my laptop kept trying to connect to both and kicked off one for the other over and over [15:37:16] Simple renaming of the 5G network fixed it once I got into their router [15:45:00] Okay, so here's something interesting. [15:45:36] SSH and everything is slow on my server when I'm home [15:45:45] But at college I can get on without any problems [15:51:29] ISP differences? [15:57:09] back later! [15:58:57] I dont think I have the knowledge enough to do this but I want to try to make the csm-lm connector able to flow current both ways [16:04:50] How do I view the chat log? [16:14:01] Hosted on my webserver https://vanbeersweb.nl/irclogs/%23nassp/ [16:14:27] ISP differences would be weird, considering there is no ISP between me and my server when I'm home. [16:21:10] Ah yeah I imagine so [17:52:03] morning! [17:53:51] Hey Mike! [18:03:48] what's up? [18:05:37] Working on my project that I hope to present the first concept of soon. ;) [18:08:33] good evening [18:08:41] hey Niklas [18:09:04] yes, the docs are exactly what I hoped from them [18:09:11] :D [18:09:14] Hey Nik [18:09:34] hey [18:18:13] UHCL is seriously the greatest [18:18:38] great collection, fast turnaround, free scans [18:18:46] I love them, haha [18:19:29] yes, it's fantastic [18:21:24] indy91 I put Apollo 13's masses in and did a failure launch, the SIVB ignition time is almost spot on [18:21:37] When compared to the actual time after the early IECO [18:21:42] right [18:21:53] and TLI will be slightly delayed then as well [18:22:13] I am coming up on Seco on the SIVB now [18:22:25] but good to know the timing works as compared to the real mission [18:23:12] 12:35 [18:23:18] Predicted was 12:34 [18:23:28] Now thats pretty darn good [18:23:31] yes [18:23:38] Hats off to the LVDC [18:23:47] and to your masses [18:23:56] did you use custom thrust parameters? [18:24:19] What do you mean? [18:24:26] for S-IC/S-II/S-IVB [18:24:40] No all I did was put the masses in [18:24:44] right [18:25:03] I think a while back I changed the default thrust parameters to the one from Apollo 11 [18:25:08] so Apollo 13 must be quite similar [18:25:16] Well that might explain the one second discrepancy [18:25:18] or else you would never get within 1 second of anything [18:25:37] the engines were actually all quite similar [18:26:02] a significant different from mission to mission was the mixture ratio [18:26:06] difference* [18:26:27] and that of course influences the thrust and ISP [18:26:38] Right [18:29:15] So while on 13, I only partially understand the power connector [18:29:47] I see that it creates a power draw in the CM and communicates that as a power source in the LM [18:29:59] But I have no clue how to reverse the flow [18:35:15] I think the CSM/LM connection is the least of your worries [18:35:31] we wire things together by using WireTo [18:35:50] and it's not clear to me yet that it's possible to have a reverse flow [18:36:35] back [18:36:35] Ah I see [18:36:38] let's say we have a battery and a bus [18:36:49] you do: bus.WireTo(&battery) [18:36:56] One way [18:36:57] what that does is give the bus a pointer to the battery [18:37:04] but the battery doesn't have a pointer to the bus [18:37:05] hey Alex [18:37:10] the documents are great [18:37:11] hey Niklas, did you get both docs? [18:37:13] yes [18:37:34] rcflyinghokie, that's why my initial thought was, let's do DrawPower(-100) [18:37:37] haha I got the email for the 1st one right after you logged off yesterday :p [18:38:32] haha [18:38:33] @indy91 i solved the v48 problem [18:38:52] wiring things together in such a way that both devices know about each other probably requires too many changes [18:39:02] so we should focus on negative power draw [18:39:09] astronauthen96__, I never even knew you had a V48 problem [18:39:23] I don't think I was here for that [18:39:49] I think he was trying to input during the gimbal test [18:39:54] When the DSKY is blank [18:39:58] yeah sorry that was alex the angles were torquing and i thought it was in idle then i punched in the v48 again and got an error light [18:40:21] if there was a gimbal test going on then V48 was already running [18:40:25] which would explain the error [18:40:29] Yep [18:40:42] its all good now [18:41:10] great [18:41:46] and there is a refsmmat uplink in the lem should that be desired [18:41:55] No [18:42:01] okay [18:42:11] Because you torqued the platform using the CSM angles [18:42:15] about the only time you ever want an uplink directly to the REFSMMAT [18:42:23] and not the "desired" one [18:42:25] And you are using the same REFSMMAT as the CSM [18:42:32] landing site [18:42:36] yes [18:42:49] i am before that part anyways due to my problems so i will make it right [18:43:23] AlexB_88, I believe I can add some capabilities to the DKI and it will be able to calculate the Apollo 13 No PDI-1/2 + 12 minutes. [18:43:28] also, are you guys the only ones working on nassp right now? [18:43:38] Seems that way :P [18:43:38] great [18:44:03] also I was curious, can he DKI calculate the tweak burn on the direct ascent profiles? [18:44:09] DIK* [18:44:19] DKI* [18:44:35] *IDK [18:44:35] DocKing Initiation... or something like that, haha [18:44:40] ah right lol [18:44:42] :P [18:44:59] no, not the tweak burn [18:45:27] that's probably more Lambert targeting [18:45:33] right [18:45:39] but I'm not 100% sure [18:46:15] if you see a rendezvous abort maneuver that uses a profile with a non-zero CSI DV [18:46:24] then that's probably the DKI [18:46:38] of course I still need to add some capabilities to ours [18:47:12] for the No PDI+12s, I still need to figure out the exact positions of the maneuvers [18:47:27] the boost maneuver seems to be at apolune after the abort maneuver [18:47:44] and looks to be a fixed dv [18:47:48] yes, 10 ft/s [18:47:55] confirmed by the Apollo 13 document [18:48:04] just for a safer perilune [18:48:17] I am flying the NO PDI+12 right now actually [18:48:31] you'll have a better calculation method for them soon [18:48:34] coming up on the HAM, which I used the DKI to calculate [18:48:37] very nice work on the lem [18:48:43] and the csm [18:48:49] the Timeline Book suggests to use exactly 1 hour between Boost/HAM and HAM/CSI [18:49:03] AlexB_88, what is your orbital period right now [18:49:07] after the boost [18:49:09] astronauthen96__, thanks! [18:49:31] I wonder if I should work with 1 hour time difference like the timline book, or 0.5 revs instead [18:49:43] and comparing it: P32/HAM chart solution: 14 fps, DKI: 12 fps [18:49:44] 0.5 revs is used for the PDI0 abort profile [18:49:49] one sec Ill tell you [18:50:28] it's probably very close to 2 hours [18:50:52] which would make the 1 hour difference between the maneuver equal to 0.5 revs [18:51:11] 7349 seconds [18:51:20] not as close as I thought [18:51:28] but that might be due to your abort maneuver [18:51:33] yeah [18:51:45] HAM is nominally 0 [18:52:29] I'll start with 0.5 revs [18:52:41] and if that is too much off 1 hour, then I'll use 1 hour instead [18:53:13] what I did for the abort maneuver, was used the lambert targeting to target the position of HAM, 2hours later and +187 NM in front of the CSM [18:54:01] and I iterated on the DH of that burn to get the fixed radial velocity component which was -50 it seems for the NO PDI+12 [18:55:27] the DH meaning the 3rd component of the offset in lambert targeting, ended up being +187, 0, +47 [18:56:21] and that gave me NO PDI+12 burn of +106.8 0 -48.6, which very close to the data book numbers [18:56:27] yeah [18:56:47] the modified DKI calculated profile will just iterate on the horizontal velocity [18:56:59] and use a fixed 50 ft/s radial velocity [18:57:03] I think if I read correctly in the docs that they wanted the fixed -50 DVz, but might be mistaken [18:57:16] ah ok [18:57:19] which then in the finite burntime compensation will be a bit different [18:57:35] just like the PDI0 maneuver actually should be DVZ=0, but actually was +1.4 DVZ or so [18:57:40] same difference [18:57:59] so it's -48.6 instead of -50 purely due to some non-impulse maneuver corrections [18:58:31] right [18:58:43] and the RTCC will give close to that as well [18:58:56] I expect about +1.1 for a 100 ft/s horizontal burn [18:59:05] so the DKI can handle multiple REVs before the actual rendezvous? [18:59:14] not right now, but it's easy to do [18:59:25] I just hardcoded the 0.5 revs between maneuvers [19:03:33] and the actual DKI could do that as well [19:03:48] we actually have full(?) program flows for the DKI for Apollo 14 [19:04:18] it's just a nightmare of variable names I don't know [19:08:15] I wonder if HAM was only calculated on board with P32/HAM chart...It seems like it looking at the abort timeline [19:08:37] Artemis only has a program for it actually [19:08:38] P31 [19:09:28] but as you have already figured out, the DKI processor was quite capable to calculate a ground solution [19:10:05] yeah [19:11:09] I guess since the yare in reach of MCC, they would read up a ground solution for HAM [19:11:55] on request, sure [19:20:10] AlexB_88 what did you use to target TLI for 13? [19:20:35] nothing :D [19:21:02] There are presettings for every mission now [19:21:18] So the nodal targeting is correct? [19:21:43] I mean LVDC presettings [19:22:01] Oh so you dont have to uplink a target anymore [19:22:03] no need to calculate a TLI [19:22:07] Nice [19:22:32] Niklas figured out those for all missions [19:22:32] yeah, I figured out the way to get the TLI presettings from a TB6 and a TLI IU state vector [19:22:51] Even for the SII IECO early out [19:23:39] only a later liftoff time would change the parameters the LVDC uses [19:23:47] Great [19:23:51] Then I just carry on [19:23:51] TLI TIG is calculated from geometrical considerations [19:24:11] and I might have even used the post-flight TLI state vector, not the planned one [19:24:35] For both the failure and success mission? [19:24:59] yes, I should have included the identical presettings [19:25:16] and I only would have used the post-flight state vector if I didn't find a planned one [19:25:30] had to use post-flight vector for a missions, can't remember which ones [19:25:33] for a few* [19:26:04] rcflyinghokie, also the RTCC MFD should have all the correct targets pre-loaded [19:26:06] but the planned and actual Apollo 13 flight should use identical presettings anyway [19:26:18] there is only one small thing a late EPO insertion changes [19:26:28] but the LVDC does that internallly [19:26:39] corrects the predicted mass at TLI ignition [19:26:48] so all you need to do when flying MCC-2 is select option 4 and input the TIG from the flightplan and thats it [19:26:57] Very nice [19:27:28] I have spent so much time in the LM I have barely followed the launch/TLI changes [19:30:23] it all went pretty quickly and wasn't much work... from the point on when I understood all the IU coordinate system transformations [19:30:42] the same understanding on my part fixed the TLI PAD sep angles [19:32:19] ah, sneaky AGC again. You guys know that P32 (on later missions at least) initialzes the CSI time to the next apolune, right? [19:32:35] indy91, I guess I always ideally want to select "TPI at orbital midnight" correct? [19:32:37] I was wondering, because the LGC has no routine for that [19:32:44] AlexB_88, pretty much. [19:33:01] Or as the new Apollo 13 document suggests, 16 minutes before sunrise :D [19:33:11] but that should be basically orbital midnight [19:33:58] anyway, the LGC does have a routine to find when it crosses a certain radius on its orbit. So P32 simply loads 37777,37777 (octal double precision maximum number) for the desired radius [19:34:05] that will find apolune for sure :D [19:34:12] Interesting [19:34:24] classic AGC problem solving [19:34:41] we don't have the space for a new routine for this, so how can we use what we have in a creative way [19:44:14] AlexB_88, what did you use for the No PDI+12 TIG? [19:44:27] I guess I can use your pre PDI0 scenario for testing this still [19:44:38] was there any 2nd DOI or so? [19:44:39] My PDI time + 12 minutes [19:44:40] yes [19:44:54] I want the number for that, haha [19:45:02] so 103:47:51 [19:45:07] ok [19:45:41] I did not do 2 DOIs as my final orbit after DOI was 62x8 [19:45:49] ok [19:46:04] so no trajectory change between the scenario you gave me and PDI1+12 [19:46:06] 62 might still have been a tad high though, but opted not to correct it [19:46:11] no [19:49:18] so what I will probably do is add different rendezvous profiles to choose from for the DKI page [19:49:47] this change for the No PDI+12 is super easy [20:02:55] +96.6 +0.0 -49.0 [20:04:19] CSI: 106:43:09 GET, +39.7 ft/s [20:04:39] pretty close to the number from the Apollo 13 document [20:04:44] less dv then what I got with my crude method, and that would explain why I have a -12 fps for HAM lol [20:04:57] yeah, I would guess that makes the difference [20:05:14] great [20:10:44] and this targeting should be the same for No PDI1+12 and No PDI2+12 [20:13:01] so the times between Boost/HAM and HAM/CSI are 1 hour and 52 seconds [20:13:34] I wonder if that really makes a difference for the targeting if I would use 1 hour exactly instead [20:14:28] are those times hard-coded or user-adjustable? [20:15:48] well, right now I am not using times at all [20:15:54] 0.5 revolutions, hardcoded [20:16:01] it's close to 1 hour, but not exactly [20:16:33] so I wonder if the crew procedures (1 hour apart for the maneuvers) are more important than using 0.5 revs, like for the PDI0 profile [20:16:44] hmm [20:16:51] PDI0 should use 1 hour as well [20:17:32] I'll calculate the abort maneuver with the 1 hours instead of 0.5 revs. And if the DV is basically the same then I'll keep the 0.5 revs logic, maybe [20:18:45]