[16:37:48] NASSP Logging has been started by thymo [16:38:21] no the pulse to get the r1 and r2 to zero [16:38:50] r1 is 00005 r2 00007 is that good enough [16:39:09] not ideal, but ok [16:39:16] I wouldn't chase it too much [16:39:21] that hurts more than it helps [16:39:42] well im about 10 minutes till the burn ill just save it now and see how it goes [16:40:14] oh [16:40:19] that's what you mean [16:40:29] getting the attitude right so that the burn is only in one axis [16:40:41] I thought you were already doing the burn and are nulling the residuals [16:40:42] yes the z axis i think [16:41:00] that's good enough for sure then [16:41:37] the burn is +55.4 [16:41:40] LM windows should be pointing in the direction of flight [16:41:46] approximately [16:41:49] so i gues its 9 on the num pad [16:41:54] 55.4 is reasonable [16:42:02] no, 9 is certainly wrong [16:42:05] 9 is backwards [16:42:08] if anything it is 6 [16:42:18] yeah, 6 should be right [16:42:27] yeah i keep getting it mixed up [16:42:29] 6 = thrust forwards [16:42:45] Argh.. I hate people like this. I'm having an issue with some config file, find a discussion on some forum. Some guy found the solution. [16:42:49] What did he do? [16:42:51] that's the same controls as the general Orbiter ones, just takes some practice [16:42:54] He edited his post with: [16:43:00] DELETED. Solved the problem. [16:43:10] so very helpful [16:43:19] main reason why we should NEVER delete our forum [16:43:51] too many useful threads [16:45:40] hi @Thymo [16:45:49] Hi again [16:45:52] about to do csi for 11 [16:49:05] indy91: Did you see my PR the other day? How do you like the codestyle used there? [16:49:25] I just checked that there were no functional differences to before and merged it :D [16:49:57] but I do like the changes [16:51:28] What about: [16:51:29] No braces for single statements; [16:51:29] if (cond) [16:51:30] statement; [16:51:30] Braces on newline: [16:51:31] void func(void) [16:51:31] { [16:51:32] stuff [16:51:33] } [16:51:35] Excuse the linespam. [16:52:00] i forgot to do v77 and att hold is that bad [16:52:06] Those are two major inconsistencies currently. [16:52:16] astronauthen1996, not at all. V77 and V76 can be done at any time [16:53:00] I slightly prefer the no braces version [16:53:48] Me too. [16:54:27] I'll try to draft a coding style/contributing document one of these days. [16:55:10] and my cdh time in the dsky is 10 seconds behind the rtcc pad [16:55:23] pretty good [16:55:31] I usually code according to this style: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.html [16:55:37] which RTCC PAD has a CDH time? I forget :D [16:55:48] ah [16:55:51] the liftoff page [16:56:02] I agree with pretty much everything in that document. Apart from the 8 character tabs. That's just insane. [16:56:38] I've never followed a special coding style document, I've just always done what looked right to me [16:56:46] I'll read through this page a bit [16:59:57] back! [17:00:35] oh crap yeah yesterday was Tuesday and I forgot to ask about the forum move :P [17:00:39] Well my natural style just happened to be very close of that. :P [17:01:17] I haven't heard any negative responses to moving. [17:06:32] looks like the study guide is being uploaded :D [17:07:35] at least the orig_jp2 tarball is [17:16:26] do any of you have luck with the NTRS ID 19690073745? [17:22:17] does the plane change have to be CDH-30? [17:30:36] did you include any DVY component for the CSI burn? [17:31:14] the Checklist MFD should have given you a procedure to calculate that [17:31:23] but it's optional to have a DVY component for CSI [17:31:58] if you included that, then the PC burn has to be at CDH-30. Because the CSI burn will have set up the conditions for the PC burn [17:32:07] but it's unlikely that you have to do the PC burn anyway [17:33:39] so i can just skip it? [17:34:15] and i didn;t do any calculations at all for any burn [17:34:47] how did you get the +55.4 for CSI then? [17:35:02] i think it calculated it by itself [17:35:10] haha [17:35:15] that's what I meant by calculating [17:35:19] after the pulsing [17:35:22] you never have to calculate anything by hand [17:35:37] not even really if you would use the backup charts [17:35:53] P32 is calculating the CSI burn, P33 the CDH burn and so on [17:36:22] do i really need the tig's from the rtcc anymore [17:36:30] not really [17:36:42] the computer is doing it for you [17:36:49] what I meant was: did you ever use V90 before the CSI burn? [17:36:58] yes [17:37:23] see, you calculated a DVY component for CSI, just like I said. You just didn't know it :D [17:37:40] but did you use the number for it in the CSI burn? [17:37:50] the tig? [17:38:12] no, the velocity it showed you in V90 [17:38:22] i dont remember [17:38:30] so much going on in the rendezvous [17:38:39] yeah, that's right [17:38:40] in the LM Timeline Book there is the step: "N81 - LOAD CSM YDOT" [17:38:49] i did the y dot [17:38:55] ah [17:38:59] so on the last recycle of P32 [17:39:06] it was -00070 i think [17:39:12] the Checklist MFD probably wanted you to change N81 [17:39:15] so 7.0 ft/s [17:39:20] that's quite a bit [17:39:27] so you probably will have to do a PC burn [17:39:48] well i just went past it so i have to do csi again i guess [17:39:56] and to answer your original question, by using the -7.0 for your CSI burn, you will have to calculate the PC burn for CDH-30 minutes [17:40:08] why would you have to do it again? [17:40:43] i just went the tig [17:40:47] past * [17:40:50] ah, past the PC TIG? [17:40:54] yes [17:41:01] you maybe won't need to do it again [17:41:08] depends on the DV of the PC burn [17:41:15] tig for pc was 125:58 [17:41:16] if it is below 5 ft/s, then it's not necessary [17:41:25] then the -7.0 ft/s of the CSI burn would have been enough [17:41:34] so you should check that with V90 [17:42:03] just do the V90 and tell me what it displays [17:42:46] i am in the p30 now [17:43:07] so you already calculated the DV for the PC burn? [17:43:09] wont let me do v90 [17:43:27] operator error? [17:43:29] yes [17:43:35] exit P30, then do the V90 [17:43:45] if you went past the TIG, you won't need P30 for the PC burn anyway [17:44:06] so you either have to go back to an older scenario, or you can continue because your trajectory is good anyway [17:44:56] -00363 +00162 +01351 [17:45:04] V06 N90 [17:45:24] did you just do the V06 N90 or did you properly start it with V90E? [17:45:38] i loaded a tig for five minutes later [17:45:50] since i am past the old one [17:45:57] hmm, should have been the planned PC TIG, if it lets you [17:46:05] i can try it [17:46:46] so 16.2 ft/s YDOT [17:47:02] that's too much. And that is already too much without the CSI burn [17:47:12] your orbital insertion must have been bad [17:47:13] its -00459 +00048 +00848 for the original pc tig [17:47:17] oh [17:47:18] hmm [17:47:49] so 4.8 ft/s [17:48:10] but the -4.59NM is a big issue [17:48:16] that shouldn't be the case at all [17:48:25] your CSI burn should have made that very close to 0 [17:48:45] it's possible that you chose the wrong sign for the DVY [17:48:53] for the CSI burn [17:49:37] that can be really confusing [17:49:46] it happened during an actual mission [17:50:04] i do have a pre csi scenario but i dont know if it would tell you anything [17:50:19] yeah, I'd like to take a look at that [17:50:40] the LM crew and the CMP in the CSM got so confused about that YDOT, they didn't inlude it in the CSI burn at all. [17:50:50] so you are in good company if it caused you any trouble [17:51:02] not sure which mission [17:51:28] 11 [17:51:41] no, I meant, the confusing happened during an actual mission [17:51:41] https://www.dropbox.com/s/8uk51nggur0wauu/CSI%20TEST.scn?dl=0 [17:51:44] but I forgot which one [17:51:47] 11 or 12 [17:52:08] they got confused about the YDOT and even requested an AGC software change it make it easier [17:52:43] did you get the link? [17:52:59] yep [17:53:03] looking at it right now [17:54:06] so as expected, the LM isn't quite in the orbital plane of the CSM [17:54:12] not super bad, but not great [17:54:24] usually P57 is to blame for that [17:56:51] scenario is about 10 minutes before CSI TIG? [17:57:17] i think so [17:57:20] i set the det [17:57:37] ah, yeah [17:57:42] 10 minutes indeed [17:57:51] and I see the -7.0 ft/s DVY [17:58:14] all your RCS quads indicators show red, but that's no problem [17:58:28] you can clear that by cycling the CWEA circuit breaker [17:58:36] they did that during activation too [17:59:31] yep [17:59:47] did they become red during the ascent? [18:00:10] i can check my video [18:00:17] ah right [18:00:22] actually i did a new ascent [18:00:25] if they did, then it's a known bug [18:00:32] something I have to fix [18:01:00] i just checked and they are grey [18:01:50] also during the last couple of seconds i think it drifted a little because i switched views [18:02:01] last couple seconds of what? [18:02:12] the liftoff [18:02:42] I'm doing the CSI burn with your scenario [18:02:47] to see what the trajectory does [18:03:18] my theory is that you should have used +7.0 instead of -7.0 [18:03:22] but I'll see [18:05:25] the relative inclination between CSM and LM is 0.16° in this scenario [18:05:36] usually that means the alignment of the LM IMU is also off by that away [18:05:39] before liftoff that is [18:05:52] did you have unusually high torquing angles in the P52 after insertion? [18:06:04] i dont even check the torquing angles [18:08:05] yeah, I only look at them to see if they are big or small [18:08:07] ok, did the CSI [18:08:17] relative inclination after the burn is 0.23° [18:08:23] so I think that confirms the theory [18:08:35] you used the from sign for the DVY in N81 [18:08:41] the 7.0 ft/s [18:08:49] the wrong* [18:08:52] the 00070? [18:08:55] yep [18:09:03] I think that was your only mistake [18:09:15] it says insert negative YDOT [18:09:24] so i thought it would be - [18:10:04] the negative of YDOT [18:10:13] so if YDOT in V90 is +7.0, then you have to use -7.0 [18:10:23] and if it is -7.0 in YDOT, then you have to use +7.0 [18:10:31] okay [18:10:42] so +00070 [18:10:52] yeah, I think so [18:11:24] I forgot again what the sign was, but the latest YDOT that I checked in V90 for the CSI TIG was -7.8 ft/s [18:11:27] I think it was minus [18:11:30] let me check again [18:11:58] Whoo. Progress! Finally fixed something with this config file, getting a different error message now. [18:12:15] I feel obligated to share this: http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2018/05/09/progress/ [18:13:00] different error message is always progress, haha [18:13:22] yep, I see -7.8 ft/s [18:13:33] I used to get an access denied message. Now I get a can't connect message. [18:13:44] Which is good! It means it's finally reading the file. [18:13:55] astronauthen96__, I have a "recovery procedure" for you [18:14:01] okay [18:14:16] so that you can use this 10 minutes before CSI scenario [18:14:28] V37E 00E, so back to P00 [18:14:38] then V37E 30E [18:14:44] the TIG is ok, so no change there [18:14:53] so just PRO without changing that [18:15:13] then enter a new DV vector: +55.4 +7.8 +0.0 [18:15:20] the 55.4 is from before [18:15:24] the 7.8 is now plus [18:15:33] you can also use +7.0, no big difference [18:15:42] PRO through P30 and then enter P41 again [18:16:05] if you get a 50 18, press ENTR, just like before, so that is doesn't try to do an auto maneuver [18:16:19] and I think from then on you are ok [18:16:35] okay [18:16:40] you will probably have to do the plane change maneuver [18:17:30] thanks for the procedure [18:17:40] I think you can do it, haha. If you can any trouble, I can give you a "fixed" scenario, where I go through those procedures for you. But I think you can it without that. [18:17:41] no problem [18:17:47] have* [18:18:19] i will try it but first i have to grab lunch [18:21:18] Alright, everything working again. :) [18:22:48] good job [18:23:41] \o/ [18:36:43] hi @thewonderidiot [18:36:56] study guide is up? [18:37:12] or was that just a confirmation of the "good job" :D [18:49:31] just confirmation of the good job lol [18:49:38] the orig tarball is up [18:49:45] https://archive.org/details/apolloguidancena00acel [18:50:03] I'm curious how long the derived materials are going to take [18:50:40] can do the pulse with out going into gimbal lock [18:50:52] it is a pretty amazing study guide [18:51:00] cant* [18:51:01] it lays out how the Block I AGC works extremely clearly [18:51:05] I wish we had the same for Block II [18:51:59] astronauthen96__, weird [18:52:20] you probably just need to adjust the pitch really [18:53:44] does the roll even matter much? [18:54:05] yaw should be either 0° or 180° [18:54:17] you will need just a little bit roll due to the YDOT [18:54:30] if you would only burn the +55.4 DVX, then your roll would be 0° [18:55:02] but your roll shouldn't be any more than 5-10° [18:55:25] adjust the pitch first with 0° roll [18:55:39] and then your DVX is 0, then adjust the roll a bit [18:55:44] when* [20:10:30] oh! [20:10:33] study guide has been processed [20:10:34] https://archive.org/details/apolloguidancena00acel [20:10:38] you can see it in the preview thing now :D [20:12:01] some of the foldouts are just barely hanging on lol [20:18:15] lost the tracking [20:22:38] i will try this again tonight or tomorrow [20:43:13] night! [00:39:01] hi @thewonderidiot do you know what a 611 alarm means on the dsky? [01:36:12] "NO TIG FOR GIVEN ELEV ANGLE" [02:46:11] @thewonderidiot not sure what that means but im guessing its not good [08:42:56] Morning! [08:43:26] astronauthen96__: I'm not sure what program you're in but it sounds like the AGC is unable to calculate a burn solution for the given parameters. [12:14:16] good morning [12:19:12] hey [12:19:44] i think it was P33 [12:20:04] uhh, what? [12:20:15] my 611 program alarm [12:20:22] NO TIG FOR GIVEN ELEV ANGLE [12:20:52] waiting for the 6 75 after 10 marks for the plane change [12:23:12] hmm [12:23:21] can you check Noun 55 for me? [12:23:27] V16 N55 [12:24:11] i will have to do csi again [12:24:17] why? [12:24:30] no saved scenario? [12:24:39] lost my progress i will make a new save after the burn [12:24:44] ok [12:25:04] so, I find it likely that the 611 alarm is caused by some wrong input in P32 or P33 [12:25:14] i know i didnt get this alarm before maybe i entered some thing wrongh [12:25:16] yes [12:25:43] your trajectory would have to be really wrong for a proper 611 alarm [12:26:11] and having had a look at your before CSI scenario, I don't think that should be the case [12:26:41] do you remember what P32 (before CSI) calculated for the DH? [12:27:05] also in N75 [12:27:25] nope i can try to make a video of my csi and calculations [12:28:22] for the 06 75 it took about three minutes for the alarm to happen [12:29:51] yeah, it iterated and iterated and didn't find a solution for the TPI TIG [12:29:58] and then the alarm happens [12:30:34] the TPI TIG is defined by a elevation angle to the CSM [12:30:35] could that be why i went over the TIG for the plane change because it was taking too long? [12:30:39] 26.6° [12:30:42] one of the P32 inputs [12:31:09] and if it fails to calculate that time when the specified elevation angle happens, then you get the alarm. Hence the "NO TIG FOR GIVEN ELEV ANGLE" [12:32:34] hmm, not sure about the plane change [12:33:05] what I know is that the timeline gets really tight when you have to do the plane change maneuver [12:33:08] quite challenging [12:33:30] do you think i need the plane change or no? [12:33:51] I think you need it [12:34:37] in the Timeline Book it looks like you are doing two recycles (V32E) in P33 before changing to P30 for the plane change [12:34:43] did the alarm happen on the first recycle? [12:34:55] after 10 marks [12:35:04] ah, so second recycle [12:35:20] the timeline wants to you get to 4 marks, then do a V67 [12:35:27] the V67 resets the number of marks [12:35:34] then at M=3, V32 [12:35:40] that's the first CDH calculation [12:35:45] and then again at M=10 [12:36:45] so it must have properly calculated without alarm during the recycle at 3 marks [12:37:02] the V32 is what initiates the CDH maneuver calculation [12:41:37] if you are doing CSI again, it would be great if you saved some time after the CSI maneuver. So if you have trouble again, I can then take a look at it from that scenario. [12:50:06] i will save definitely [12:50:18] Hi Alex [13:05:22] hey [13:05:55] hey Alex [13:06:03] finally making some Apollo 9 progress, haha [13:07:55] figured out the REFSMMAT for the docked DPS burn. Used the CSM attitude for the AOT star observation in the transcript, looked through the AOT, and there is Sirius! [13:08:37] nice work! [13:09:09] Ill try and test Apollo 10 once I get some free time [13:11:07] sounds good [14:07:17] cya! [15:17:04] hi @rcflyinghokie [15:17:13] Hey good morning [15:17:24] major error in the apollo 11 checklist [15:18:03] before the end of day 4 it says in the checklist to set tunnel switch to lem press but the yellow marker wants it at tunnel vent [15:21:09] @rcflyinghokie left the tunnel vent on and i had no 02 left before lunar liftoff [15:22:33] Approximate mission time? [15:22:47] i can find it [15:23:17] 84 hours i think [15:23:47] That has been fixed locally just not pushed tot he repo [15:23:50] to the [15:24:25] there are a few more of those errors in the lem for activation mostly the comm switches [15:27:02] Which ones specifically? [15:27:14] vhf switches [15:27:25] if i recall correctly [15:27:44] mainly on the lmp side [15:28:07] hey Ryan [15:28:18] I have checklist stuff as well :D [15:28:25] Apollo 9, first LM activation [15:29:24] astronauthen96_ I need the specific switches and times or checklist group to find it [15:29:41] LGC activation mostly [15:29:47] indy91, sure give me a sec to get things up [15:29:56] and yeah I figured 9 activation would have issues [15:30:06] they seem to not have done anything with the LGC until later [15:30:27] following the Checklist MFD all that is done with the LGC is pushing in the CB way too early [15:30:37] and then a RR designation before having done anything else with the LGC [15:30:54] so, I think the LGC breaker wasn't closed until later [15:31:03] and V44 wasn't used to move the RR [15:31:10] probably done manually [15:31:17] I will look at that shortly, I am fixing a missing tunnel venting on 11 right now [15:31:24] Oh I remember we talked about that a while back [15:32:00] yeah, the tunnel vent thing is funny. astronauthen96__ dumped all of his CSM O2 through the vent valve, haha [15:32:17] i left it on for the day 4 rest period [15:32:22] he had to give me more o2 [15:32:42] yeah, quick edit of the scenario [15:33:54] well i have to grab breakfast then i will do another lem activation to find those errors then i have to work on my rendezvous [15:35:03] Haha yeah the checklist wording is right, just a "3" instead of "1" in the switch position [15:35:18] I found that last week its fixed locally [15:35:32] the tunnel vent? [15:35:35] Yes [15:35:58] Ok where are these VHF switch problems? [15:36:27] i dont know exactly when but they are early in the activation [15:36:57] First or second activation? [15:37:13] the 3 hour one [15:37:22] by first do you mean the checkout? [15:37:26] Yes [15:37:33] its the second one [15:38:02] Ok so the full powerup [15:38:08] yes [15:38:24] VHF checkout? [15:38:28] and as i said before they are mostly on the lmp sidfe [15:38:31] side* [15:38:37] it might be [15:39:08] i can do another activation of you want me to find them [15:39:52] The vhf checkouts are correct [15:40:37] i have to get breakfast i will be back later [15:40:40] Yes I would like you to find them haha [15:40:54] i will do an activation when i get back [15:41:27] s band check I found a few errors [15:43:11] Ok fixed, now indy91, lets look at Apollo 9 LM [15:43:18] sure [15:44:10] they spend a lot of time with the activation and checks [15:44:33] "PGNCS TURN ON & SELF TEST" happens at 47:15 [15:44:57] but, following the Checklist MFD, the initial activation CB configuration closes the LGC breaker many hours earlier [15:45:02] I believe that is wrong [15:45:15] and using V44 to designate the RR before the "PGNCS TURN ON" is probably also not right [15:45:48] Ok let me have a look [15:46:02] It probably has Apollo 12's powerup cb configuration [15:46:34] Which it does [15:47:14] So do you think the breaker was closed as part of PGNCS TURN ON AND SELF TEST [15:49:25] And for the RR was it just slewed? [15:50:08] yep [15:50:15] I found some pages of the checklist [15:50:22] http://www.icollector.com/Jim-McDivitt_i19544391 [15:50:30] http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/20618/19544391_2.jpg?v=8D12DE1A10B8990 [15:50:38] here the AOT star visibility check page [15:50:47] note the comment [15:50:58] handwritten note* [15:52:06] Apollo 9 seems to have had two different LM activation checklist [15:52:11] checklists* [15:52:18] LM Systems Evaluation Checklist [15:52:30] that's for the first activation before the DPS burn [15:52:33] docked DPS* [15:52:47] and the other one is LM Rendezvous Activation Checklist [15:53:22] Nice find [15:53:48] I can adjust those [15:53:58] And was that also a yep for when the LGC cb was closed? [15:54:45] yeah [15:54:55] doesn't look like they did anything with the LGC until a few hours later [15:55:13] so no reason to have the LGC and DSKY draw power for so long, while being not used [15:59:24] Ok [15:59:26] Easy fix [16:00:34] the RR designation is in the flight plan section [16:00:43] after "unstow RR" [16:01:20] I manually move the RR to mode I and 0°/0° first [16:01:32] that's the "18 seconds slew left" in some checklists [16:01:44] and then I moved it down by 50° until the FDAI needle was at the limit [16:01:58] that's pretty close to the parking position for AOT usage [16:05:27] Right [16:05:31] Thats what I am working with now [16:07:16] I guess you haven't heard anything from the Smithsonian in a while? [16:07:24] No and I am not happy about it [16:07:33] Not even a follow up to my original request [16:08:23] in good news about document requests, the Block I schematics have begun scanning [16:08:32] starting with a great Block I study guide [16:08:36] that one is already available [16:08:46] Oh nice [16:08:59] https://archive.org/details/apolloguidancena00acel [16:09:32] I have a LM ECS question [16:09:50] there is: liquid garment cooling - cold/hot [16:10:00] and suit temp - cold/hot [16:10:13] which one should I use to get the suit temperature up [16:10:14] both? [16:12:32] Yes [16:12:33] oh, and about the LM ECS in the Apollo 9 checklist, I believe it's missing the opening of the descent H2O somewhere [16:12:36] Kind of [16:12:47] The LCG removes body heat [16:12:54] right [16:12:56] So max cool on that will remove heat quicker [16:13:12] And suit temp is the amount of heat removed from the circuit itself [16:13:30] So use both I guess is the answer haha [16:13:43] Hmm I will take a look [16:13:59] The temps still like climbing on time accel [16:14:17] I have not really gone into that yet though [16:15:10] yeah, it's usually at max when the gauges first get power [16:15:14] it drops after a while [16:15:27] Yeah thats from any time accel after LM Press [16:15:51] You will notice that if you leave both hatches open and use anything above 10x the CM will start getting hot [16:16:03] And subsequently the pressure increases [16:16:31] Ok for this DES H2O, I wonder when they would open it [16:16:40] Because it is only needed for drinking/PLSS fill [16:17:17] The sublimators get their water on a separate line [16:18:47] Hmm where is the O2 opened as well [16:20:19] I would wager they are opened right when going in, like Apollo 10 [16:24:38] what do you mean DES H2O is only used for drinking and PLSS [16:25:02] evaporators? [16:25:36] do the glycol loops even work with the H2O? [16:25:48] without* [16:25:52] Yes but they dont need DES H2O to run [16:25:57] They are plumbed separately [16:26:45] Water Tank Select and the evaporator valve is what routes water to an evap [16:27:07] The DES/ASC tank select is for non cooling water use [16:27:10] oh right [16:27:21] DES H2O switch is not like the DES O2 one [16:27:30] which directly opens or closes a valve to the tank [16:28:10] Yeah [16:28:51] Thats why you have the WTS able to select DES and ASC independently of the H2O valves [16:29:58] Ok I have fixed the PGNS and RR stuff in 9 [16:30:08] The VHF and LM PRESS issues in 11 [16:30:17] And am continuing 10 haha [16:32:04] you did good so far with Apollo 10. Alex level of bug hunting :D [16:32:44] Yeah a lot slipped through the cracks [16:33:00] Flying start to finish helps [16:34:56] yeah, too often I just fixed things as I went along, and didn't went back a few scenarios to properly test the fixes [16:35:17] Random question, I dont quite remember the hatch plumbing as it was created, but when the hatch is open in the LM, is it using the same valve as the equalization valve, just resizing it? [16:35:50] on the CSM side? [16:36:05] or LM overhead hatch? [16:36:15] LM side [16:36:38] yeah, it's the same valve [16:36:39] so, the overhead hatch valve is the better description of what i mean [16:36:40] Ok [16:36:44] handled in the LEMOVHDCabinReliefDumpValve class [16:37:28] back in a bit [16:37:33] Sure [16:51:11] did you find those errors? [16:53:26] In the S band [16:55:04] I think it was 2 switches [17:15:43] morning! [17:16:03] Hi Mike [17:16:44] hey [17:19:18] thewonderidiot, are they scanning the next thing already? :D [17:32:01] yep, next study guide has already been scanned [17:32:07] they then went on to do army and naval history things [17:32:56] so no schematics yet :P [17:34:47] I think they still need to shoot the foldouts for it [17:36:06] two study guides? [17:36:11] what's the new one about? [17:36:14] Block II? [17:36:18] also block 1 [17:36:22] it's a shorter 16 hour course [17:36:30] it looked like it covered mostly the same stuff, just less detailed [17:36:32] one sec [17:37:10] https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNQDpNYJ7zzG6q7Bf2iSp8W_XWWCXYdW7h3UT97NraYFziQN294JUQVW0N7rWEfnQ/photo/AF1QipPXiOzxzqfive__zejtb9pYxAukEjuS7Nq6L9Bo?key=emlMajJKaU9PWk53T0p0NUZtbXBCeGpvTkZpcW9R [17:37:16] there's some pictures of its table of contents [17:38:08] ND-1021042 and ND-1021043 are the only Block II things in this collection [17:38:21] for what kind of people were these study guides meant? [17:38:23] astronauts? [17:38:35] I'm not really sure [17:39:18] this guy did help train astronauts [17:41:25] in his own words: "Was recruited by MIT to assist MIT develop manufacturing plants to build the inertial guidance components gyros-accelerometers that orient the position and flight of missile by the guidance system. MIT sent me to Houston Manned Space Headquarters to train the astronauts in the use of the MIT Guidance and Flight Controller for the Apollo Space Missile Orbiter and Lunar Lander." [17:41:30] I really like his terminology lol [17:41:46] haha, yeah [17:42:20] CSM, SM for Space Missile, obviously [17:42:29] Command Space Missile [17:42:32] obviously :P [17:43:12] sounds pretty Kamikaze [17:43:57] backup plan for dealing with the Soviet lunar program [17:45:28] haha, the Soviets had a lunar mission going on during Apollo 11 as well [17:45:56] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_15 [17:48:25] managed to not hit the Apollo spacecraft [17:59:00] lol [18:20:54] thewonderidiot, oh, can you get we the current version of your NTRS script? [18:21:21] I still have a couple 1000 Bellcomm documents to download. I think I'd rather not do that manually, lol [18:21:34] me* [18:24:38] sure, I'll dig it up tonight [18:24:51] and make sure they didn't break it again [18:25:12] sure [19:26:36] grumblegrumble [19:26:49] they're scanning things about decommissioning ships now lol [19:43:28] indy91, for the lunar orbit deadband change, was the V21N1 screen left up? [19:43:51] Right now it is 3255E 1616E and nothing else after before rest period [19:44:17] not sure [19:45:31] AOH is not clear on this either [19:46:52] If I just hit enter again, it should clear the dsky and "save" my changes, correct? [19:47:14] Nope never mind [19:47:59] Would a P00 be safe here? [19:49:55] What are you trying to accomplish? [19:50:12] Well its a GNC deadband change [19:50:13] Going to P00 is usually safe. [19:50:46] V21N01E 3255E 1616E changes the DAP to a 10 deg deadband [19:51:32] V21N01 writes something to memory. [19:51:50] As soon as you press enter the value is written to memory and the verb exists. [19:52:05] And then a P00 after will not mess that up? [19:52:06] The display just isn't cleared so you're fine doing a P00. [19:52:09] No [19:52:13] Ok great [19:53:31] I figured they would go to P00 before a rest period [19:53:40] Mosy likely. [19:53:42] I just wanted to make sure nothing god changed by doing so [19:53:46] got* [19:54:13] No, P00 just puts the AGC to idle and starts state vector integration. [19:54:59] Mike was saying something is dangerous about P00 and doing DAP changes in the erasable, but I cannot remember what it was [19:55:09] V21 will start a job in the background. So even if it's still in progress you can go back to P00. As that job will continue running. [19:57:04] Ok [19:57:12] It simply changes the RCS DAP deadband [19:57:31] Since V48 only uses 0.5 or 5 [19:57:51] Address 3255 allows selection of additional ones [19:58:08] And they were used a lot during PTC before the P20 was used for PTC [19:58:47] Found a bunch of wrong PTC procedures in my checklists because I just copied the old SCS procedures from 7 and 8 :P [20:04:57] indy91 because the change list was getting big I have PR'd the checklist fixes including ones for 9 and 11 [20:08:35] Could you help me out with something? My college is running something like a puzzle where they encode e.g. base64 in videos or email. I just got a new one but I can't really figure it out. [20:08:39] https://pastebin.com/fhpsvH0j [20:09:04] There's a message hidden inside that email. I'm guessing it's fully plaintext but I don't see it. [20:09:30] Line 5 looks strange it just says "Watching!", that might have something to do with it. [20:15:08] after csi do i just restart p20 for tracking? [20:18:45] I don't really know how P20 works. [20:18:53] I know it'll keep running in the background. [20:19:04] So maybe it's still running? [20:19:15] well of course i had to maneuver for csi [20:21:09] P20 may run in conjunction with the following Programs and Routines: P17, P30, P31, P34, P35, P38, P39, P74, P75, P76, P77, P78, P79, R03, R30, R31, R34 [20:21:53] i was in p41 for rcs thrusting [20:28:49] I think going from P32 to P41 is stopping P20 [20:29:02] so you will indeed have to start it again [20:29:34] and if i did skip the plane change i am guessing it will mess up the rendezvous right? [20:29:47] hmm [20:30:28] the LM Rendezvous Procedures document, which has the full procedures, doesn't start P20 again [20:32:05] so, I think how it works is this [20:32:13] only V37E 00E or V56E stops P20 [20:32:19] it might be idle somehow in P41 [20:32:43] and when you got directly from p41 to P33, without going to P00 in the mean time, then P20 is still running [20:33:11] skipping the plane change burn doesn't totally mess up the rendezvous [20:33:39] you have a fairly large plane error, but it will be reduced a bit by burning the +7.0 with CSI [20:34:00] the only issue is that you will be approaching the CSM a little bit from the side [20:34:30] so, if the plane change would be more than 5.0 ft/s, then it's desirable to burn the maneuver, but it's still possible to do the rendezvous [20:37:52] rcflyinghokie, the AOH has the deadband change procedure as well [20:38:13] and the way to get the normal deadband back [20:38:30] either going through V48 or resetting/setting the CMC control input bit [20:38:39] with the THC, haha [20:38:57] so V37E 00E should be fine [20:40:50] Thymo, every word counts [20:40:58] could the code the number of words per line? [20:41:01] be* [20:41:35] that would be a series of numbers [20:43:06] rcflyinghokie, PR merged [20:47:57] night! [20:57:44] Sorry had to run out for a bit [21:56:06] .tell indy91 It could be. All I know is that it should describe a point in time, most likely a day. [21:56:20] I'm off to bed. Night! [11:17:14] . [11:49:00] good morning [11:49:35] got a 525 alarm for the cdh calculation [11:49:57] DELTA THETA GREATER THAN 3 DEGREES [11:52:40] hey [11:52:46] that's actually a P20 alarm [11:52:52] P20 is running in the background of course [11:53:49] pretty unusual alarm, you would only really get this one if the state vector or the alignment is off [11:54:05] but if you get that alarm you can just PRO on it [11:54:13] says the G&N Dictionary at least [11:54:25] i dont know if i did the state vectors right [11:55:27] as i mentioned before i got mixed up with the SLT and TGT [11:56:14] is there even a scheduled SV update in orbit? [11:56:22] no [11:56:41] i meant the pre-liftoff ones [11:57:24] in doubt, uplink a CSM state vector again to the LGC [11:57:31] LM state vector gets updated by the RR [11:58:39] very confused about the SLT AND TGT [11:59:01] I'll explain it again then [11:59:08] TGT is the vessel in Orbiter for which you want to calculate the state vector [11:59:19] okay [11:59:30] can be anything, usually it's a CSM or LM, sometimes a S-IVB, like on Apollo 7 [11:59:39] that's just for the calculation of the state vector [11:59:40] so if im inthe lem do i use LM SLT [11:59:51] that's not how it works [12:00:07] the LGC has CSM and LM state vectors. The CMC also has CSM and LM state vectors. [12:00:21] both of the AGCs need to know where BOTH vessels are [12:00:38] so in your case, LM before lunar liftoff, CSM in orbit [12:00:52] the LGC needs to have accurate information about both [12:01:07] so you uplink a CSM state vector to the CSM slot of the LGC [12:01:20] target vehicle is Columbia of course [12:01:29] SLOT (=slot) is CSM [12:01:44] uplink a LM state vector while on the lunar surface doesn't do anything [12:01:45] im pretty sure i did that wrong [12:02:01] so, it's possible that your CSM state vector in the LGC is really old then [12:02:07] because you never properly updated it [12:02:25] the landing site coordinates are stored in a different way [12:02:40] basically a vector, essentially latitude, longitude, radius [12:02:48] that can be updated in a different way [12:03:29] on the state vector page there are different modes [12:03:41] I think there is an option button? [12:03:50] i can check [12:03:54] modes are "State Vector", "Landing Site Update", "AGS State Vector Update" [12:04:11] for the LM on the surface before liftoff you want to do a landing site update [12:04:29] I think the procedure is the same: select Eagle as the target vessel, then calculate, then uplink [12:04:40] there are no slots for this, just the one landing site vector [12:05:02] that is all for the lunar surface [12:05:17] what you probably want to do in your on-orbit scenario is the CSM state vector uplink to the LGC [12:05:24] that should help a lot [12:06:15] so for the SLT its csm and tgt is csm too? [12:06:40] yeah [12:06:48] and all this done while in the LM of course [12:07:48] you probably need to be in P00 for the uplink [12:07:54] yes [12:08:30] the 525 alarm you were getting is: RR and LGC disagree about the direction to the CSM by more than 3° [12:08:42] I bet that is caused by an inaccurate CSM state vector [12:09:24] the RR can only do relative updating. That means it assumes the CSM state vector is perfect and updates the LM state vector from that [12:09:31] but if you updating from an outdated state vector, then everything will be inaccurate [12:10:10] maybe my csi was bad too? [12:11:21] probably not super bad, no [12:11:47] the CSI burn can get away with some inaccuracies, because in the end it's only a horizontal burn [12:11:57] the most sensitive burn will be the TPI [12:12:16] if you have bad state vectors when calculating the TPI burn, then good luck getting to the CSM :D [12:12:38] that is why i should save often [12:19:42] that's always true :D [14:08:49] Good morning [14:16:37] hey [14:16:52] almost up to the docked DPS burn now [14:17:01] Hi Ryan [14:17:49] I've got one more checklist thing, for the gear deployment there currently is just a green text "deploy landing gear" or so. Not a procedure. [14:18:05] there might be one more checklist error "might" [14:18:15] Ah yeah [14:18:23] I will fix that [14:18:43] before pdi the checklist says 4 jets but the marker is 2 jets [14:19:04] Also I realized with these LPO deadband procedures, I never included the procedure to exit after the rest [14:19:16] astronauthen96_ which mission? [14:19:49] 11 it might have been an error by me but i would check it just to make sure [14:20:40] my cabin temperature is pegged at 100°F on the gauge. I've been barely using time acceleration. [14:21:05] It climbs quick when accelerating [14:21:13] nah, I don't think it's that [14:21:23] I've let it run for an hour while doing something else [14:21:27] never went below 100°F [14:21:50] during the pressure tests it went below 100°F for a bit [14:22:05] because you are relieving some pressure and then fill it up with cooler O2 from the tank [14:22:17] and without using time acceleration at all it went back to 100°F [14:22:33] so I don't think it's only the time acceleration that is causing problems [14:22:35] Hmm I have not had that issue [14:22:59] maybe something in my ECS configuration is wrong [14:23:03] I am on 10 right now, it went above 100 for TLC [14:23:23] suit temperature is also higher than I remember [14:23:25] But using 10x or less for the last 10 hours or so its down to 80 and thats without any glycol cooling int he LM [14:23:32] it's at 70°F with everything in cool [14:23:36] I am doing the full powerup now [14:23:58] what part of the ECS would be cooling the cabin? [14:24:10] probably indirectly somehow [14:24:15] will your checklist changes make my checklist go forward or backwards a bit? [14:24:49] indy91 the cabin will get conditioned air via the suit gas diverter [14:25:16] And the warm cabin air has to come back into the system via the cabin gas return [14:25:33] astronauthen_96 I have no ides [14:25:35] idea [14:25:47] Its possible [14:26:02] did you "add" anything to them [14:31:17] Plenty [14:32:57] And the att trans switch in the PDI checklist is correct for 4 jets [14:33:33] both the text and the switch setting itself? [14:36:27] 4 jet in the text and switch pos 1 [14:36:37] Which in this case is up [14:37:41] yeah [14:39:15] Ah I never added the deploy landing gear group to 11 [14:39:17] *9 [14:39:56] that could be why it's missing, haha [14:41:16] Yep :P [14:42:41] well my checklists are still in place [14:57:04] rcflyinghokie, coming up on the docked DPS burn. Any idea why the CSM also is doing P30 and P40 in the flight plan? [14:57:47] I don't see that a separate Maneuver PAD is read to the CSM [14:58:04] I think it was to verify the LM computations [14:58:13] so, I would guess they would be bypassing the attitude maneuver [14:58:18] Yeah [14:58:34] would they even start the SPS gimbal system? [14:59:05] I would assume no since there would be no need to burn [14:59:49] right [15:00:37] I dont think i put the P40 in the checklist mfd [15:01:27] Actually the P40 could have been just to start avg g in the CSM [15:01:32] Instead of a P47 [15:01:46] yeah [15:02:01] and the residuals should show close to 0 [15:02:56] Right [15:03:04] I will add that abridged P40 into the checklist [15:03:18] hmm, what to do at ignition [15:04:06] maybe ENTR? [15:04:17] that shouldn't immediately stop Average G [15:06:06] I once saw the cue card for the DPS burn somewhere on the Internet [15:06:41] with the throttle profile [15:07:35] It should still measure without a PRO or ENTER right? [15:08:50] yeah, Average G starts before [15:09:20] So they could have hit enter I suppose, but in this case it will be hard to do so, so just leaving it alone should still yield the same result [15:12:35] you can hit enter at any time after ignition as well [15:12:39] so timing isn't important [15:13:01] found another checklist issue [15:13:09] beginning of the Docked DPS checklist [15:13:17] CM or LM [15:13:21] LM [15:13:24] in the group for it [15:13:29] when you enter the AGS DV [15:13:37] it also gives you a + [15:13:45] when you enter the 3 components [15:13:56] Oh [15:13:57] but with this burn, DVX and DVY and minus [15:13:59] Yep [15:14:00] are* [15:14:03] Good catch [15:14:04] so it shouldn't give anything there [15:14:12] got me quite confused [15:14:24] I really wanted to press the +, despite knowing it to be wrong :D [15:14:40] "yellow box means press button, resistance is futile" [15:14:56] Haha [15:15:43] That was a copy paste so it probably needs fixed throughout this and other LM checklists [15:16:52] I think I remember it being right in an Apollo 10 checklist [15:16:53] not sure [15:17:12] T-4 minutes. I've only ever done this burn with a scenario from you I think :D [15:19:13] there was no specific MCC update for the CSM and LM weights for the LGC [15:19:19] I think I'll just add them to the Maneuver PAD [15:19:38] same for the SPS-5 orbit circularization [15:19:45] because it needs an updated LM mass [15:20:45] No i missed a lot haha [15:21:09] Enjoy, its pretty cool to see how stable it is :) [15:22:01] oops, never started P40 in the CSM [15:22:06] damn Checklist MFD [15:22:21] oh, I meant in the flight plan [15:22:25] there was no DAP PAD or so [15:22:43] the crew probably just asked for the weights when it got around to doing a V48 [15:23:33] it's indeed super stable [15:27:27] Very little RCS is used [15:30:25] good burn [15:30:40] I'll to implement the 3 seconds early cutoff though [15:31:05] right now the burn gets calculated with the desired nodal change [15:31:27] i guess I'll just have to calculate the DV for a 3 seconds burn at the end and add that amount to the DV [15:32:07] Should be close enough [15:32:10] Hmm I think I am missing something with this regulator check [15:32:45] It says I am supposed to get a MA for cabin pressure when the regulators are in egress? [15:34:03] And auto cabin repress [15:34:12] I thought cabin repress was inhibited in egress [15:35:47] yeah, that should be the case [15:36:18] The apollo 12 regulator check expects an alarm/auto repress [15:36:41] Oh [15:36:51] regulator A should still be in cabin [15:37:47] And it clearly says that [15:37:55] I put them both in egress...oops [15:40:26] And I think I got all the 450+ etc fixed in the LM checklists [15:40:54] For 10, I completely missed the tunnel venting and hardware installation, [15:45:38] Uh oh, I have exceeded max rows in the apollo 10 checklist it seems [15:47:02] does it crash? [15:47:50] Yep [15:48:07] I can reduce the number of rows though [15:48:28] 10 has the largest flight plan section because of stuff that doesnt really belong to a group per se [15:48:39] But I am consolidating [15:58:04] Do you know what the max number is by chance? [15:59:23] I can check if I can find anything [16:00:21] I have reduced it a bit but still et the crash [16:00:33] I am wondering if it is the checklist state in the scn file now [16:00:50] yeah, that could be it [16:02:56] What should I remove from the scn [16:05:48] I just started it fresh, I will PRO a lot :P [16:08:45] Hmm still ctd in the LM [16:09:04] did you try removing the whole section? [16:09:10] whole checklist section* [16:09:48] Everything but the location of the file [16:10:52] hmm [16:11:04] must still be an issue in the checklist then [16:11:49] Yeah somethings up with the LM checklist [16:11:53] I will figure it out [16:12:02] The CM checklist I thought was the long on [16:12:03] one [16:12:31] Spider is all powered down [16:13:09] next day is EVA day it looks like [16:13:44] I like the deactivation checklist [16:13:59] what source did you use for that? [16:14:11] I think it was in 14 [16:14:19] It was a powerdown checklist [16:15:17] having implemented the SCEA, it makes a lot of sense now to open all those CBs as the almost last step [16:15:30] sig sensor, sig conditioner etc. [16:16:09] Yeah those two checklists were from the 14 contingency checklist [16:16:51] https://www.dropbox.com/s/6q3cpb3e5p2hw3o/Screenshot%202018-05-18%2012.14.35.png?dl=0 [16:17:03] Thats what I get still when I click NAV in the checklist MFD in the LM [16:17:27] grp->heading [16:17:31] maybe a group is missing a heading? [16:17:43] hmm, no [16:17:50] that can't be it [16:17:55] I think it has trouble loading a group [16:18:29] Hm I didnt add any groups to this [16:18:52] Apollo 11 LM checklist? [16:18:54] Oh maybe it's the deadline on the flightplan group [16:18:57] This is 10 [16:20:02] grp->heading is certainly causing the access violation [16:20:10] so grp is bad pointer to a checklist group [16:20:13] Yeah I cannot pinpoint why [16:28:52] No groups were added in this one [16:33:39] I just undid all my changes today and still have the same error [16:37:59] And if I load the scn before deleting the checklist container I get the max rows still [16:38:47] weird [16:39:36] https://www.dropbox.com/s/mtdlioz9iar2lg3/Apollo%2010%20MCC%20-%20Checklist%20Error.scn?dl=0 [16:39:43] Here is the file in question before any changes [16:42:14] is the scenario supposed to crash? [16:42:23] works for me [16:43:07] No [16:43:16] Well actually yeah it crashes for me unchanged [16:43:24] So its the excel file [16:44:01] I get the maxrows error opening that file up [16:44:38] morning! [16:45:00] indy91: I remembered I was supposed to get you the NTRS script on the train in to work this morning [16:45:23] .in 11h get Niklas the updated NTRS script [16:45:35] you will have it tomorrow, promise [16:46:11] no problem [16:46:41] I'm still filling a gap of document I hadn't properly searched before [16:47:00] and for that I can do it manually [16:47:23] just for the Bellcomm documents, where I already know that it is 1000 documents in a row, there I don't want to do it manually [16:47:31] yeah for sure [16:48:18] also, https://www.ebay.com/itm/NASA-Apollo-IBM-ASTRIONICS-SYSTEM-HANDBOOK-Saturn-Launch-Vehicles-1968-/292567752358?nma=true&si=p81o0%252BkqTmanM5BVsZd2w6wt9vQ%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 [16:48:55] "Changed 15 November 1969" [16:49:17] so a bit more up to date than the one we have [16:49:19] yep [16:49:34] we have a 1965 one and that November 1st 1968 one [16:49:52] did you buy that? :D [16:51:21] yep :D [16:51:35] great [16:51:48] I want high resolution scans of the foldouts :D [16:51:53] will do! [16:52:01] that is a problem in the one we currently have [16:52:09] difficult to see [16:52:34] and I wonder if the LVDC flight program flow chart is changed at all [16:52:42] yeah, that'll be really interesting to see [16:52:52] ETA is Wednesday-Thursday next week [16:53:50] also I really resent the note at the bottom of the front page [16:53:53] "DESTROY YOUR OLD COPY" [16:53:54] jerks [16:54:59] Well I guess I made an error somewhere because I reverted and did all my changes again and am having no issues [16:55:10] Maybe a subtle typo with a heading or group [17:01:46] could be [17:02:34] old copies of documents could be bad for some reasons [17:02:51] but that only really applies to e.g. mission control [17:03:59] but somehow I am not surprised to read that on an IBM document... [17:04:17] yeah >:( [17:16:30] looks like the second study guide will probably be uploaded today [17:16:39] none of the other things have started scanning yet [17:17:33] what other things are there? [17:17:40] schematics and? [17:18:49] there's also a collection of GN&C papers from a conference or something [17:18:57] bound as a book [17:19:17] "Collection of Technical Papers on Guidance and Control: AIAA Guidance, Control and Flight Dynamics Conference" (Huntsville, Alabama, Aug 14-16, 1967) [17:19:41] then ND-1021041 volumes 1+2, ND-1021042 volumes 1+2, and ND-1021043 [17:21:22] interesting [18:00:21] Hmm the crew selection in the PAMFD for the LM is being screwy [18:00:39] I type "1" it goes to "3" [18:00:50] I type zero it goes to 1 [18:01:17] This time I typed 1 and it went to 2 [18:01:29] yeah, I had the same thing happen [18:01:46] I will change the description to "change crew in cabin" [18:01:50] because that is what it does [18:01:59] you can only change the crew currently in the cabin [18:02:16] so you had the CDR and LMP in their suits [18:02:26] and by typing 1 you added a CMP to the cabin [18:03:24] and when you typed 0 and it went to 1,y ou probably had one astronaut in the suit, one in the cabin. right? [18:03:34] Yes [18:03:51] Makes sense now [18:04:41] confused me as well, until I remembered how I set it up [18:04:56] Yeah that makes sense now [18:05:05] Changing the description is a good idea [18:05:22] that way you can move a "suited" astronauts from the CSM to the LM cabin first [18:05:53] and once you change it to suited, he is connected to the suit loop [18:06:04] Makes perfect sense [19:18:39] rcflyinghokie, all CTDs fixed in the PR? [19:22:07] Yep [19:22:26] It was a group spelling error [19:22:42] Actually, an extra space [19:23:01] All works fine on multiple loads including my old scns [19:23:22] ah, that sounds annoying to find. Lack of a letter causing a CTD :D [19:23:46] merged [19:23:49] Yep I reverted each of my changes one by one, but I forgot excel wont change groups by hitting undo [19:23:59] Or sheets, rather [19:24:06] So the spelling error remained [19:24:43] So then I went back through each group I made changes in, and found it [19:24:48] haha, great job finding it then [19:25:39] And I am happy to report, even though starting the LM powerup both temps were >100, I am at 96 hours in Snoopy and suit is 59 and cabin is 74 [19:25:47] With everything powered up and crew in suits [19:26:17] Just did my first real PGA integrity check and Regulator check and they work just as the procedures describe [19:26:25] And so does the tunnel vent [19:27:42] great [20:09:25] night [20:47:47] .tell indy91 I think the padloaded LM weight for Apollo 10 is quite wrong, 5000lbs different or so [20:54:01] .tell indy91, also after the sep pad, I get another thread, says you can has pad, but there is no pad [20:54:37] .tell indy91 never mind about the weights, I transposed them :P [03:45:34] oh shit right [06:20:19] .tell indy91 https://gist.github.com/thewonderidiot/0dda227cc70ca2c536a2c8a2d10be012 [08:46:28] morning [08:48:40] hey [08:49:01] starting apollo 9 [08:49:27] gonna try to do the 11 rendezvous bits a time [08:49:27] I'm flying Apollo 9 right now [08:49:46] I should be finishing the MCC updates for Apollo 9 through day 3 today [08:50:07] just have SPS-5 left [08:50:49] day 4 shouldn't take all that long for the MCC, on day 4 they mostly did the EVA [08:50:54] or they had planned to at least [08:51:21] day 5 is the rendezvous, that needs lots of MCC updates [08:52:08] for me, before seperation there is a 2 minute direct 02 opening which makes me go slightly over the sep time [08:52:29] so i do it 2 minutes earlier [08:52:34] which mission at which point? [08:52:39] 9 [08:52:41] CSM separation from the LV? [08:52:44] yes [08:52:48] hmm [08:53:35] at least the last time i tried it [08:54:25] the timeline should be possible [08:54:31] probably pretty close though [08:55:28] CSM/LV separation isn't super time critical, so if it is delayed a bit, then it's not so terrible [08:55:56] for formation am i just supposed to keep the csm lined up with the lem? [08:58:04] yeah, formation flying. Just stay near the LM [08:58:08] not too far, not too close [08:58:26] last time i did that i went way off [08:58:49] yeah, try to stay real close [08:59:05] or else docking can be way too late, I have noticed [08:59:29] could i just dock right away? [09:01:38] sure, no problem [09:01:47] that doesn't even violate a detailed test objective :D [09:02:02] M17.18 - T&D Photography [09:02:08] M20.24 - CSM Active Docking [09:02:15] nothing specifically about formation flying, haha [09:02:24] i think on apollo 8 they flew in formation with the sivb [09:02:27] probably just done to give the CMP some experience with that [09:02:32] and to have more time for photos [09:03:27] would you say this is the most challenging mission in V8 [09:04:05] Apollo 9? [09:04:17] yes [09:04:30] hmm, not really [09:04:51] there are a few things not normally done during a lunar missions, like the docked DPS burn or the manually controlled SPS burn [09:05:47] I would say it's a very versatile mission [09:06:07] you are doing basically everything that Apollo 7 had been doing [09:06:10] plus a lot of LM stuff [09:06:55] the lack of a lunar landing and ascent probably makes it less challenging than e.g. Apollo 11 [09:07:04] rendezvous is about the same difficulty [09:07:16] slightly easier I think [09:09:58] 11 was pretty simple up until the rendezvous [09:10:23] especially if you let the computer land the LM for you ;) [09:11:11] and about 11 would a bad state vector affect the lunar liftoff? [09:12:07] that probably was the main error source for your flight actually [09:12:22] I would do a landing site update for the LM and a state vector update for the CSM [09:12:43] both for the LGC of course [09:13:07] before liftoff [09:13:23] that should give you a really accurate insertion and rendezvous [09:13:26] without plane change [09:21:36] and once the MCC for Apollo 11 is ready there is not much you can do wrong, at least not with updating the LGC before lunar liftoff [09:29:45] i might even finish my 11 mission before you get to the mcc updates [09:31:35] maybe [09:31:41] I'll finish Apollo 9 first [09:31:45] then right into Apollo 11 [09:32:49] the dps burn looks fun with the manual throttle [09:34:00] yeah [09:34:39] Apollo 5 would have tested something similar, but due to the issues they had on that mission, that test was not done [09:34:48] so Apollo 9 got to do it [09:36:45] I just did that manual throttle test on my flight [09:36:52] I was not very well prepared, lol [10:58:50] for 11 i did TGT COLUMBIA SLT LM [10:59:05] the last time [10:59:13] before liftoff [11:00:19] @indy91 is that right? [11:00:27] no it's not [11:00:46] that is what i thought [11:00:58] it should be slot CSM [11:03:23] well i hope thats what my problem was [11:05:49] so I guess your CSM state vector was just very outdated [11:05:55] from some time before PDI [11:06:19] uplinking a LM state vector to the LGC while on the lunar surface doesn't do anything [11:06:31] the LGC has the landing site coordinates stored in a different way [11:06:42] and at liftoff P12 calculates a new state vector from that [11:06:57] LM state vector* [11:07:35] to update the LM coordinates oyu have to use the landing site update page [11:07:57] I would do that as well [11:08:40] or else you likely would have to do a plane change maneuver again [13:20:53] Hi Ryan [13:21:06] Good morning [13:21:22] just starting apollo 9 [13:23:51] Enjoy I am debugging 10 [13:24:57] hey Ryan [13:25:33] the empty thread that the MCC starts is for the K Factor [13:25:42] Ah that makes sense [13:25:47] I had added it to the MCC, but forgot to add it to the RTCC [13:26:09] Everything went smoothly up to DOI [13:26:27] Where I am trying to figure out why I deviated from the procedures [13:26:31] Was it Apollo 9 or 10 we got an updated phasing document? [13:28:37] 10 [13:30:58] Ah I must have done that on my laptop as I don't have a local copy [13:31:12] Thats why I "deviated" [13:31:19] I has the old doc on my desktop [13:31:27] had* [13:31:45] And there it is in my dropbox [13:33:00] I'm not happy with the Apollo 9 orbital parameters [13:33:20] the line of apsides must be way off from the planned and actual trajectory [13:33:36] Uh oh [13:33:37] SPS-5 is the circularization maneuver, after the docked DPS burn [13:33:42] and the TIG I get is way off [13:33:50] real mission is very close to the flight plan [13:34:46] I'll have to compare the DV vectors of SPS-2 to SPS-4 with the transcript [13:35:06] I also found a better method to get the TIG that I am using for the docked DPS burn [13:35:15] but I hadn't implemented or used it yet for SPS-2 to 4 [13:35:46] what also is a problem is the missing acceleration from the S-IVB LH2 vent [13:35:53] Ah yeah [13:36:05] Isnt a propulsive vent simulated on 7? [13:36:12] LOX vent [13:36:17] that is fully simulated [13:36:23] Would be easy to do similar for 9? [13:36:29] for both separated S-IVB and still docked [13:36:37] LH2 vent behaves very differently [13:36:51] that is a continuous boiloff while in EPO [13:36:56] Ah [13:37:02] the LOX vent is a proper vent, getting rid of all the remaining LOX [13:37:05] So its a slow pressure relief through the bell [13:37:11] yeah [13:37:28] I mean, it still is possible to simulatr [13:37:29] the LVDC had quite complicated acceleration polynomials to compensate for it [13:37:37] main reason why I hadn't implemented it yet [13:37:44] Ah [13:37:53] because the IU state vector behaves a bit weird sometimes as it is [13:38:02] so I didn't want to add a new potential error source [13:38:38] most Apollo 9 SPS maneuvers happen close to perigee [13:38:42] Does the boiloff continue through TD&E? [13:38:55] so the orbit is about 111 x X nautical miles [13:39:12] but not in our case [13:39:17] it's about 107NM perigee [13:39:32] and that difference propagated over 50 hours is quite a bit [13:39:50] no, the valves for the boiloff are closed before TD&E [13:39:58] and reopened again at some point later [13:40:14] Ah I see [13:40:28] it can deal with a few hours of not venting anything [13:40:38] at some point it would go boom though [13:40:46] on 9 the sivb restarted one or two minutes early [13:41:05] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS-203#Flight [13:41:50] Boom [13:41:54] yep [13:42:08] astronauthen96__, within the margin I think [13:42:43] on AS-203 it was the pressure difference between LOX and LH2 it seems [13:42:53] but it's unhealthy to let them unvented in any case [13:43:40] the LH2 valves are already simulated, just need to implement an acceleration for it [13:43:54] Side note for 10, I am curious as to why there is no 203 error in the checklist when entering P40 for DOI [13:44:00] and at the same time add something to the LVDC presettings to compensate for it [13:44:13] Unless there is a step somewhere before leaving the throttle in auto [13:44:58] what's the 203 error? [13:45:44] PGNS, PGNS AUTO, THROT AUTO [13:47:02] oh, checklist code [13:47:04] not error [13:47:16] V50 N25 [13:47:18] Yes [13:47:29] I should have said alarm [13:47:35] But you know what i mean now [13:47:40] alarm is also wrong, haha [13:48:03] there are checklist codes, option codes and alarm codes [13:48:04] *I should have said checklist code [13:48:12] I see what you mean [13:48:14] I think only the LGC has checklist codes, right? [13:48:21] I am still on coffee 1 give me a break :P [13:48:24] Yes [13:48:36] so, the LGC gives you a 203 alarm [13:48:44] but it's not in the documentation? [13:48:47] Nope [13:49:13] And following the flow, all three of those conditions are not met until after the maneuver to burn attitude [13:49:29] Well PGNS and PGNS AUTO right before [13:49:36] And auto throttle after [13:52:00] does P40 let you continue normally on the 203 code? [13:52:02] But the code comes up after the enter after the maneuver [13:52:12] where auto throttle is still in manual [13:52:17] Yes [13:52:35] I am mostly curious if it is supposed to be in auto already [13:52:56] But shortly after the enter, there is a step to select auto throttle [13:52:56] when is it set to Manual? [13:53:04] that might just be a check [13:53:10] I think the gimbal drive check? [13:53:47] which is part of the activation checklist? [13:53:51] Yes [13:54:29] Technically its the throttle test but part of the same chunk [13:54:36] I don't see it being set to manual in the phasing document before DOI [13:54:47] Nope [13:54:51] Me either [13:54:59] and we of course don't have the Apollo 10 activation checklist [13:55:06] But I cannot find a proper time to set it back to auto, either [13:59:12] Ah [13:59:30] They do it right after the throttle test [13:59:51] Right after engine arm off and deca cb open [13:59:58] Transcript [14:00:37] Wonder why that is not in the 12 checklist [14:07:08] But that explains the alarm not being there [14:11:10] yeah [14:12:51] SPS-2 [14:12:57] Actual: +99.3 -844.6 +17.6 [14:13:03] NASSP: DV +101.0 -849.6 -0.2 [14:13:15] that 17.6 is suspicious [14:13:23] that would rotate the line of apsides a bit [14:14:03] I would give soooo much to have some kind of RTCC mission plan [14:14:20] where they describe what processors they want to use for a flight and what inputs they are planning to use [14:14:44] especially for the Earth orbit missions I am missing a lot of that information [14:15:10] but even the RTACF Support Plan documents don't have that [14:16:40] Would any shuttle documents help with that? [14:18:58] Gemini rather [14:19:09] Ah true [14:19:18] these kind of Earth orbit procedures were already done for Gemini [14:19:19] More orbital maneuvers [14:19:22] yeah [14:19:58] and the RTACF essentially was developed from the Gemini ground computer systems anyway [14:20:07] RTCC was new for Apollo [14:20:52] that's why I have a bunch of MSC memos about how Gemini stuff could be applicable to Apollo [14:22:00] and memos like "Logic changes for X for Project Apollo" [14:22:10] lots of them from 1967 [14:25:39] I would think all the math would be consistent for any earth orbital mission [14:26:58] yeah, not too much new things had to be invented for Apollo [14:28:02] I just have to keep digging and tweaking to get the maneuvers right [14:28:58] there are lots of different types of maneuver calculations they could have used [14:29:22] the Apollo 10 RTACF Support Plan has a list of 53 general purpose maneuver types, haha [14:29:28] I'll implement them all eventually [14:29:46] Oh wow [14:30:59] Well I am happy with my suit temps but I cannot seem to get the cabin temp to fall below about 80 [14:31:16] I wonder if the cabin temp never started that high would it stay stable at a lower temp [14:32:07] But suit temp stays stable at 55 [14:34:35] you could dump your O2 [14:34:45] I think the O2 in the tank is cooler [14:35:48] and if it goes up again, then there probably is something wrong [14:37:57] got past sps 1 [14:38:03] pretty simple [14:39:01] Yeah I could do that :P [14:39:22] The O2 is cooler, yes [14:46:09] Hmm weird, I have the door open and its still off scale high [14:46:38] Not in the sun [14:48:37] I wonder if its the cabin heat load [14:49:23] Maybe too much heat dumped into the cabin from lm systems [14:49:39] yeah, I think so [14:50:24] I can adjust that [14:50:45] Repress gets the cabin to 70 [14:51:02] But I still think too much heat goes in [14:52:49] Hmm actually no systems that add heat tot he cabin are on [14:52:53] to the [14:53:28] I'll be back later [14:53:44] Ok [15:27:11] .tell indy91, so the throttle is supposed to be in auto for the DOI, did you say you should be able to manually advance it while in auto? [15:46:24] morning! [15:48:21] Good morning [15:49:00] what's up? [15:49:15] Debugging Apollo 10 [15:49:41] And trying to figure out why my cabin temp creeps up even though the suit temp (which is what is feeding the cabin) is 55 [15:52:54] back [15:53:08] manual throttle is added to auto throttle [15:53:17] and for the DOI the LGC never throttles up to 100% anyway [15:53:57] thewonderidiot, thanks for the script [15:54:19] sure thing :D [15:54:26] manual throttle is not however added to the commanded throttle indication [15:54:39] so you will get different actual vs. commanded thrust indication, rcflyinghokie [15:55:47] I did not get any change in actual when i advanced it [15:56:03] Until I switched to manual [15:57:48] I need to go back and make sure that is indeed what I was looking at though [15:58:09] And in other news, I still have cabin temp creeping up, trying to figure it out [15:58:26] Suit temp is a steady 55 [15:59:01] manual throttle in auto mode works for me [15:59:38] manual throttle switch was in CDR? [16:01:12] there are a whole bunch of DECA relays involved in the throttle [16:01:41] so I wonder if it is different somehow when the LGC sent the engine on signal or so [16:02:49] if you can reproduce not being able to do manual throttling in auto mode, then I would like to know your LM config [16:03:47] Sure [16:03:52] I will try it again in a bit [16:05:18] I just quickly tested it with the engine start button [16:05:33] do you use a joystick right now? [16:07:25] No [16:08:43] Hmm I have a weird value for cabin heat [16:08:43] me neither [16:09:05] I thought I had all systems off that added heat but I have 35.798776W [16:10:18] interesting [16:10:18] Something is adding to cabin heat incorrectly [16:11:12] let's find what it is! [16:11:20] is that number constant? [16:11:51] the cabin is just a tank, so it also gets heat from the sn [16:11:52] sun [16:12:20] This is the heat load [16:12:22] in watts [16:12:39] The total should only be 28.9 [16:12:42] At the max [16:12:52] With everything off, I have 21.798776 [16:13:03] Well with all the systems off that I implemented cabin heat for [16:13:17] So something I overlooked is still adding heat [16:14:23] Flood lights! [16:14:29] CABINHEAT CABIN [16:14:35] first time I am seeing this, haha [16:15:00] Oh thats been in for a while [16:15:05] It was flood lights [16:15:26] FloodHeat->GenerateHeat(GetPowerDraw()*0.356); [16:15:27] I turned them to ovhd/fwd and the temp started dropping [16:15:30] Yep [16:16:10] They were all maxed out [16:16:22] are the flood lights off when the CSM is powering the LM? [16:16:42] I believe they should be [16:17:07] development branches are messing with my head [16:17:15] I had to check if I ever implemented the LCA or not [16:17:24] You did [16:17:27] or if I ever merged that [16:17:28] yeah [16:17:54] Well thats why I was heating all my floods were max [16:18:00] It was a slow heat [16:18:19] But enough to offset the incoming cool air [16:18:32] I dimmed them a bit and the temp started falling [16:18:53] I will check and see if they are powered during TLC, they shouldn't be [16:19:46] they are checking the hatch state [16:19:52] which should be closed during TLC [16:20:05] and the flood light switch should be in off [16:21:15] and I guess the flood light CB is open anyway [16:21:56] so, what's the solution? [16:22:08] would the flood lights stay in the max position the whole time? [16:23:01] Well it looks like I have 19 or so W of heat going in the LM cabin before the hatch is opened so something is wrong [16:23:44] probably not the flood lights though [16:23:47] the code looks good [16:23:48] It is [16:23:56] The switch position for floods is in ALL [16:24:01] and the cb is in [16:24:18] hmm [16:24:21] I wonder if the switch position is wrong [16:24:23] during TLC? [16:24:25] Yes [16:25:13] the CB is correct [16:25:32] it is closed during TLC [16:25:53] Also the label I think is wrong on the flood switch [16:25:58] The center should be OFF not ON [16:27:25] does it say ON on our panel? [16:27:29] Yes [16:27:31] ouch [16:27:33] I never noticed [16:27:34] that's indeed wrong [16:28:14] switch looks likes it's in OFF at closeout [16:28:41] the very first step during the initial LM checkout is setting it to ALL [16:28:58] maybe whoever implemented the default switch positions thought this was the closeout position [16:29:20] Could be [16:30:24] I'll fix that [16:30:29] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/LM6-co29.jpg [16:30:36] definitely looks like the center position to me [16:30:38] I already did [16:31:01] Yeah me too [16:31:38] I have a few changes to help the cabin temp as well [16:31:44] But I think this is the main reason [16:32:03] yeah, but what is the normal config for this? [16:32:16] would the flood lights be on the whole time? [16:32:17] You mean in flight? [16:32:21] yeah [16:32:28] Yeah adjusted by the crew [16:32:48] The flood lights are the primary lighting in the LM [16:34:53] It looks like the dimmer on panel 5 is max bright doesnt it [16:35:21] in the closeout pic? [16:35:54] panel 3 sorry [16:35:56] Yes [16:36:11] And panel 5 [16:36:15] I'm sure it would be adjusted as soon as the lights are on for the first time [16:36:34] Right [16:38:00] will lights be simulated in the 2d panels? [16:38:07] Probably not [16:39:58] rcflyinghokie, have you fixed the default switch position? [16:40:15] Yes [16:40:16] then I'll revert it in my local copy again [16:40:24] For that and the rotaries [16:40:42] I am making sure I didnt miss something else before I PR [16:42:39] I have a glycol comp light on in the LM after ejection [16:44:50] I wonder if that was normal [16:44:54] not sure [16:44:59] it goes away when you enable CSM power [16:45:02] I've had that as well [16:45:26] Ah then yeah probably normal [16:45:31] It isnt powered through the CWEA [16:45:53] it gets the same power output from the LCA as the docking lights [16:46:15] the logic for the glycol light on the other hand [16:46:29] I have to check if that should be able to become true at that point [16:47:08] Well with the new configuration the LM temp comes down [16:47:45] great [16:48:01] so in my Apollo 9 scenario, I'll just have to dim down the flood lights a bit? [16:48:10] the glycol DP switch doesn't need any power [16:48:19] just powered through lighting [16:48:27] so I guess the glycol light could be on [16:48:45] Yeah dim the lights [16:49:22] after LM ejection the light can be on [16:49:27] hmm [16:49:37] Remember to dim Panel 3 and 5 [16:49:56] And also if you have the switch in ALL it will power the cb floods and ovhd/fwd floods [16:50:08] In OVHD/FWD the cb lights are unpowered [16:50:37] I still might consider reducing the heat though [16:50:53] My assumption was all the power was converted into heat [16:51:05] Since they are incandescent [16:52:31] which lights should be on during TD&E? [16:53:17] is it the docking lights of the LM? [16:53:35] Based on the schematics, that glycol light, the docking light [16:54:09] ah, I confused the LM/SLA pressure switch [16:54:12] I think thats all [16:54:22] that gets switched at CSM separation [16:54:24] not LM ejection [16:54:29] Correct [16:54:38] so any light in the LM would go on at CSM sep [16:54:53] and then off when the CSM starts powering the LM [16:54:55] speaking of that [16:55:12] I guess the flood lights were powered throughout TLC until now? [16:55:24] Also the seq camera puts a good heat into the cabin so watch out for leaving that closed :P [16:55:29] Yes [16:55:39] And thats why (I hope) we got the cabin temp increase [16:55:52] that would be great if it solves that [16:55:52] I did a quick time accel to 50x and it didnt go off scale high [16:56:18] that would be there isn't anything totally off with the heat balance during TLC [16:56:58] Well considering something like 24 watts of heat were constantly in the cabin with no active cooling [16:57:04] That could explain it [16:57:17] fingers crossed [16:57:36] I don't want to go back to the 100°F cabin [16:57:46] not very comfortable [16:58:18] I might remove the seq camera heat for now, since the camera has its own on off switch, the cb could be closed and the camera still off [16:58:33] right [16:58:42] Yeah, I will comment that out [16:58:45] sure [17:00:10] Cabin temp comes down smartly at 0.01 deg/sec now [17:00:24] With flood lights dim [17:00:29] This is my powered up LM [17:06:04] great [17:09:21] Damn temp still climbs at 30x [17:09:28] In a fully powered up LM [17:12:51] Not nearly as fast though [17:13:02] I think its the pressure fluctuation in time accel [17:25:24] Still a lot of digging to do in that ECS [17:25:35] I will probably work that again after I finish 10 [17:27:00] once I am done with the MCC I will take a look at a bunch of buggy or problematic systems [17:27:14] like performance on the CSM main panel, LM ECS etc. [17:27:34] Sounds like we might be approaching that at the same time which is good [17:44:23] Higher isolation = less heat dissipated/absorbed from the surroundings? [17:46:56] for tanks? [17:47:57] in any case, the isolation is used as a factor in the heat transfer calculations [17:48:13] so smaller value means less heat can go in and out [17:49:56] Radiator in this case [17:50:08] I think the LR isnt dissipating enough heat [17:50:30] radiator is a special case [17:50:33] I also am curious about that volume value [17:50:39] because it has 2 isolation factors [17:51:04] So here is the LR [17:51:05] LEM-LR-Antenna <0.013 -3.0 -0.03> 233.15 [17:51:05] 0.03 0.04 19731.27 [17:51:05] [17:51:16] What is the best approach to have it reject more heat to space [17:51:27] larger value for the isolation [17:52:02] the 0.04 [17:52:28] is there any custom thermal isolation set for it in code? [17:52:35] I don't think so [17:52:48] I will check [17:53:10] antenna->isolation = 0.00001; [17:53:16] in LEM_LRR::init [17:53:20] Yep [17:53:39] that's the thermal isolation [17:53:45] So I will try stepping that up larger [17:53:50] the 0.04 in the config is the special radiator isolation factor [17:54:01] So change the one in code?? [17:54:44] the one in the config only dissipates Q [17:54:59] so larger value, more Q goes out into space [17:55:19] Ok thats what I want [17:55:25] thermal isolation factor might not in the long run dissipate more Q [17:55:36] I will change the config and go from there [17:55:42] because it gets used for both sun light (adds Q) and shadow (removes Q) [18:20:36] so, interesting discovery of the day [18:20:42] https://ia800608.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/8/items/acelectroniclmma00acel_0/acelectroniclmma00acel_0_jp2.zip&file=acelectroniclmma00acel_0_jp2/acelectroniclmma00acel_0_0275.jp2&scale=1&rotate=0 [18:21:04] I'm now fairly certain that that capacitor, C1, was not in early erasable memory modules [18:21:18] moreover, early modules did not even have pins 669 and 769 [18:25:17] which means? [18:27:57] well, it means my original pin numbering was all wrong [18:28:03] this AGC doesn't have that capacitor so I can't measure it [18:28:31] and it's possible to see the version of AGC by looking at how many pins are sticking out of the bottom of the erasable memory module [18:28:52] that's useful [19:32:19] Since all these times are pushed up would it be useful to have a staging time sent up to the crew via MCC? [19:37:30] how much later than the flight plan are you? [19:37:33] 25 minutes? [19:37:52] oh wait, staging? [19:37:59] LM staging? [19:38:12] isn't that a fixed time before the insertion maneuver? [19:38:47] Possibly [19:39:22] Looks like staging is 10 minutes before [19:39:22] yeah [19:39:27] yep, exactly [19:39:33] so just look on the event tmer [19:39:35] timer* [19:39:39] I am 31 minutes ahead of the flight plan [19:39:44] wow [19:39:53] Insertion 103:4:30 [19:40:01] did you burn MCC-1 or 2? [19:40:05] 2 [19:40:16] that accounts for 10 minutes [19:40:31] rest must be TLI [19:42:19] I'll really have to work on that [19:42:34] 31 minutes is too much [19:44:22] On the bright side I have been able to stay ahead of the checklists :P [19:44:55] Time to burn insertion [19:47:00] I still love how close the PGNS and AGS are [19:55:11] I wonder how much of a difference the tailoff DV in the LVDC is making for TLI [19:55:23] Apollo 10 uses the default number, 2.88 m/s or so [19:55:40] the LVOTs we have have a bit lower values [19:55:45] 0.5 m/s or so lower [19:56:38] when I get to testing that, I'll experiment with that tailoff DV [19:56:54] do you think there will be a way to make 10 on time? [19:57:48] yeah, I think so [19:58:03] or at least as much on time as the real mission was [19:58:08] thats the only thing stopping me from flying it [19:58:24] I have bad news for you then [19:58:41] no proper free-return mission will be fully on time [19:58:47] The real one was also not "on time" [19:59:14] Is there any reason the CSI update PAD does not have a N55? [19:59:17] Apollo 10 specifically will always be about 10 minutes late [19:59:21] I see the actual didnt either [19:59:58] so the "fixed" version of the LVDC parameters for Apollo 10 will cause you to be 10 minutes late, just like the real mission [20:00:13] caused by the decision to delay the first MCC from MCC-1 to MCC-2 [20:00:47] Apollo 14 and later have really strict timing requirements. To the points that they would rather do a GET update than have timing that is off. [20:04:30] kind of looking forward to sps 3 now for 9 [20:05:14] the burn with MTVC? [20:05:19] yes [20:05:55] don't progress too quick with Apollo 9 [20:06:06] or else you will catch up to me implementing the MCC updates :D [20:06:17] i will try not to [20:07:18] I encountered unexpected difficulties with SPS-5, so the update for day 3 of Apollo 9 (LM activation, docked DPS burn, SPS-5) won't be ready today [20:08:31] so if you reach about 40h GET, I would stop for noe [20:08:32] now [20:08:37] okay [20:09:46] and I'll probably need to go back to SPS-2 to SPS-4 and make some small adjustments [20:10:09] even SPS-1 maybe [20:18:31] Which reminds me how did the MTVC procedures work out? [20:21:30] good [20:22:58] I'm finding lots of documents about the early Space Shuttle concepts on the archived NTRS [20:23:01] always fun to read [20:23:33] I really think the two stage, flyback booster concept with a smaller Orbiter would have been the superior concept [20:23:47] just more expensive in development [20:24:35] much closer to the "airline-like" operation they wanted to achieve [20:25:30] and with two separate vehicles you can just start upgrade programs one at a time [20:26:01] and don't have to stick with the same, initial concept for 30 years, because a replacement is too expensive [20:27:13] Interesting [20:28:23] one day I'll make an Orbiter addon for that :D [20:28:42] will all those over-ambitious MIT guidance equations documents implemented [20:28:46] Oh when NASSP is finished :P [20:29:11] I had worked on that a bit before I started with NASSP [20:30:01] early GSOP documents were way too ambitious for the AGC. [20:30:14] and MIT did the exact same thing with the Shuttle computer :D [20:30:27] automatic docking and station holding. Onboard deorbit targeting. etc etc [20:30:58] do you think you will have day 3 done by tomorrow or no? [20:31:07] probably, yeah [20:31:26] at least a version that works [20:31:40] my orbit before SPS-5 is shaped in the wrong way [20:31:54] must be something off with SPS-1 to 4 [20:32:11] mostly looking forward to the lem stuff [20:32:13] so the calculate SPS-5 TIG is half an hour off from the time plan [20:32:17] calculated* [20:32:26] which you probably don't like to hear :D [20:32:58] not really [20:33:01] flight plan* [20:35:27] i am hoping to get the rendezvous done by friday at least [20:36:12] Apollo 9 rendezvous? [20:36:29] 11 [20:36:51] yeah, with the right updates before liftoff you should have much less trouble [20:37:16] so landing site and csm state vector [20:37:25] yep [20:37:29] in the csm slot [20:37:47] After I finish this run through of 10, I will be back on ECS detail, so expect ECS tweaks in the near future [20:38:42] CSM slot of the LGC, yes [20:38:57] looking forward to not getting master alarms when I switch panels too fast :D [20:40:22] Yeah it seems the pressure fluctuation is the culprit for everything [20:40:33] So I need to see if I can find out why that does what it does [20:43:34] I'll also do some debugging on that if I get to it [20:43:42] and you haven't fixed it in the mean time ;) [20:47:34] Yeah I hope I can find something [20:47:50] I have a bunch of Apollo 10 rendezvous checklist fixes coming up [20:48:09] Just streamlining, less mission time more maneuver based times [20:48:36] yeah makes sense [20:48:49] even if I get the time difference to a more reasonable time [20:51:07] Was there a CDH PAD? [20:51:32] Or was it solely the numbers in P33 [20:53:12] MCC-H was standing by to send up CDH and TPI PADs [20:53:16] and there are forms in the flight plan [20:53:19] Wow my Ydot was the same as actual, 4.2fps [20:53:35] but they weren't nominally read to the crew [20:53:41] only upon request [20:53:42] If the LGC came up with good numbers they were used? [20:54:21] I am going to add an "if necessary" to the loading of CDH time in P33 [20:54:30] sure [20:54:50] Ydot of what? [20:55:25] Well mine was CSI [20:55:41] and the actual mission had als 4.2? [20:55:47] also* [20:55:52] wow [20:55:54] hmm [20:56:02] Well that was the CSM computation [20:56:03] probably the non-spherical gravity [20:57:25] But all in all these numbers are very close to actual [20:58:27] yeah, I also had a good experience on Apollo 10 [20:59:53] the only part I am not happy with is the CSM backup insertion maneuver [21:00:23] the RTCC had to develop a whole separate CSM insertion processor just for this one, stupid backup maneuver that is unique to Apollo 10 [21:00:35] Yeah I saw that P30 [21:00:49] it's supposed to mirror image the LM insertion maneuver [21:01:01] so that CSI could still be done by the LM, preserving the timeline [21:01:04] tricky to get right [21:01:18] This is what my PAD was [21:01:19] https://www.dropbox.com/s/vpgauwo9vvwh4l0/Screenshot%202018-05-18%2016.32.37.png?dl=0 [21:02:23] sep maneuver [21:02:55] what about it? [21:03:22] Oops wrong one [21:03:39] https://www.dropbox.com/s/goc22lab1bqqrrr/Screenshot%202018-05-19%2014.09.51.png?dl=0 [21:03:51] Just giving you numbers that i got for the backup insertion [21:04:07] For comparison to yours [21:04:19] probably similar [21:04:35] the CSI and TPI times should be good, TIG and DV as well [21:04:53] just that whole "LM can do CSI as if it had done insertion" doesn't quite work out yet [21:05:02] small detail [21:05:06] just annoying for me, haha [21:05:29] but if they had this calculation running as its own processor, it can't be quite so trivial [21:06:07] Yeah they needed to test the maneuver in any way possible [21:06:10] For 11 to work [21:06:23] CSI? [21:06:31] The rendezvous [21:06:38] ah, the whole thing [21:06:39] yeah [21:06:52] insertion wasn't so important for that [21:06:58] if the CSM does it, not so bad [21:07:03] Nope, just the relative positioning of the two [21:07:06] yeah [21:07:16] and letting the LM do all the later maneuvers [21:07:35] I guess they came close to actually needing this [21:07:39] with their trouble at staging [21:07:46] Yeah [21:07:55] if they hadn't recovered so quickly from it, then the CSM would have burned this backup insertion [21:08:13] and if the had then recovered it could have still done CSI and so on quite normally [21:08:34] so it was a good decision to put some thought into the backup insertion, haha [21:10:38] Yes it was [21:10:55] I do want to try burning that at some point [21:11:21] yeah, you'll be in a real special orbit when you completely have to rescue the LM [21:11:29] 9x210 or so [21:11:41] Though it is funny, I would think the most commonly expected reason to burn that is APS failure....which on a lunar mission is, well, you are screwed [21:13:54] yeah, not a good failure to have [21:14:05] APS not starting at all is reaaaaally unlikely though [21:14:10] very simple and dumb engine [21:14:16] it exploding, that is more likely [21:15:00] https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap10fj/pdf/19700026734_mission-f-csm-rendezvous-procedures-19690429.pdf [21:15:05] I suppose they could have had a pressure or other issue earlier on [21:15:13] you'll want/need this if you want to do the CSM backup insertion [21:15:18] Making them unwilling to light it [21:15:28] it has pretty detailed procedures for it [21:15:31] I have that somewhere, I need to read it [21:15:43] "LM Zero Insertion" is the rescue case, I guess [21:17:59] it's funny, the later missions have the easier, less complex rescue procedures [21:18:11] Yeah "LM insertion equals 0 fps" [21:18:19] Apollo 10 CSM backup insertion is the most complex one [21:18:29] Apollo 11/12 No PDI+12 is also a bit annoying [21:18:46] any rescue maneuver for Apollo 13 and later is much easier to calculate [21:19:00] which is why that is already fully supported in the RTCC MFD [21:19:10] and the earlier maneuvers not yet [21:19:34] Aborts and failures will certainly get interesting [21:20:17] Alex has done most of them already :D [21:20:34] I just supply him the RTCC MFD calculations for it. No time to fly it myself, haha [21:20:42] Teamwork! [21:21:10] I get to have all the firsts at least [21:22:49] flying obscure abort maneuvers before they are supported etc. [21:23:26] I still want to get back to 13 and flying the stack more with the LM [21:24:06] And of course the charging the CM batteries [21:25:20] I'll look into it when the MCC is done [21:25:38] I would think it would be similar to the current implementation [21:26:11] Just needs to be able to handle bi directional flow based on potential [21:26:15] yeah, there isn't much need to make the CM battery charging work [21:26:34] Nope, simply powered MN B via the LM PWR breakers [21:26:37] potential is a good direction to work with [21:26:56] Thats what I was hoping would be a good way to approach it [21:27:22] And it would of course be realistic [21:27:31] just sending a negative load to the CSM DC main bus [21:27:47] Yep [21:27:53] And let the CSM wiring take it from there [21:27:58] yeah [21:28:03] that will mostly need changes to the DC bus class I think [21:28:10] Yeah and of course the connector [21:28:17] that as well [21:28:29] But I think it isnt too far fetched an approach [21:28:42] yeah, it doesn't require a complete rewrite of the EPS [21:28:59] Under normal operation the CSM Main B will always have a higher potential than the LM bus [21:29:30] Constantly getting FC power [21:32:16] hmm, no, it's not the DC bus class that needs changes [21:34:34] might be a bit more tricky after all [21:34:35] anyway [21:34:38] good night! [10:09:03] good morning [10:09:14] hey [10:09:33] so i updated my pre liftoff scenario -6 minutes [10:09:48] i have a feeling things will be better this time [10:10:00] landing site vector updated as well? [10:10:12] yes both state vector and landing site update [10:10:23] that should give good results, yeah [10:11:04] you will know once you start P20 in orbit [10:11:26] also, you can check the Align Plane MFD from Orbiter [10:11:44] last time your LM was a bit out of plane from the CSM [10:11:48] 0.17° or so [10:11:55] that should be much lower this time [10:15:03] couldnt get past the p52 as i was getting 00006 [10:17:08] near the end of the ascent i was getting a tracking error light [10:20:11] ah right, the LGC tries to track the CSM during the ascent [10:20:25] I wouldn't be too worried about that [10:20:32] it was tracking it for most of the ascent [10:21:06] and i cant remember if it was V77 or 76 for minimum impulse [10:22:14] V76 for minimum impulse mode, V77 for rate command/attitude hold mode [13:34:52] Good morning [13:42:37] .tell indy91 I found an interesting difference in the AGS for Apollo 10, the procedures call for DEDA 304R to read target LOS angle after boresighting during TPI, however FP6 has this as 303, I couldn't find what 304 actually is, so either this was written for an older revision of the software than what we have in place, or its a typo [13:51:45] Hi Ryan [17:47:13] good evening [17:51:12] good morning! [17:51:30] hey [17:52:52] .tell rcflyinghokie Apollo 10 Flight Plan says the mission is using Flight Program 5. And the FP6 Operating Manual has a list of changes from FP5 to FP6 including "certain DEDA locations have been changed due to reassembling the program" [17:55:06] did you finish sps 5 yet or no? [17:56:09] mostly [17:57:01] I made a lot of good progress getting tray B into the backplane tool yesterday: https://i.imgur.com/hozY91V.png [17:57:08] just the five intertray connectors to go [17:57:57] which are going to be a giant mass of pink since I only know a few pins on them [17:58:29] oh boy, how are you handling AGC version differences with this? [17:58:40] Or are you just using the finished Block II design? [17:59:07] I'm doing my best to make it conform to the flown version [17:59:42] there aren't toooo many differences, and I will probably put notes in the net descriptions about the changes [17:59:55] right, that makes sense [18:02:08] for instance, I can't tell from pictures exactly where the added pins 669 and 769 are on the erasable memory module, and both AGCs I have up-close pictures of are original revision, so they don't help [18:02:18] so I just kinda guessed and plunked down some pins in approximately the right area [18:03:20] better than leaving them out [18:05:22] after this period of activities for Apollo 9 I'll stop for a bit and will implement more of the general maneuver calculations. I'm using too many short term solutions, when I should implement it properly like the real RTCC and RTACF. [18:05:49] I even found some of the equations for them in one of the RTCC documents wehave [18:05:57] ooo nice [18:05:59] difficult to find anything useful in there, it's 1000 pages [18:06:41] "Apollo Programming Systems", those documents [18:06:51] handwritten equations, difficult to read sometimes [18:06:59] but I hope to extract some useful stuff from them [18:07:19] oh man, that is rough [18:07:28] handwritten equations in 1000 pages [18:07:54] the flow charts are handwritten at least [18:08:16] most of the pages have dates from 1967 [18:08:22] but that's not so bad in this case [18:08:30] they had this stuff mostly already for Gemini [18:08:53] ah, there is an insertion page control sheet [18:08:59] latest date is 10/21/68 [18:09:00] not too bad [18:11:11] thewonderidiot, I could use your help guessing what the name of input variables mean [18:11:45] sure! [18:11:54] https://web.archive.org/web/20100523134141/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740072793_1974072793.pdf [18:12:04] PDF page 127 [18:12:32] that's the list of options in the General Purpose Maneuver Processor [18:13:01] threshold time probably either means "TIG is not earlier than this" or "TIG is approximately this" time [18:13:16] some are fairly easy [18:13:22] DPC is the plane change angle [18:13:25] for option 1 [18:13:36] ALONG is the specified longitude of a maneuver [18:13:50] but at option 6 it becomes less clear to me [18:14:02] NM, KMLO, DHLONG? [18:14:47] the equivalent RTCC document only lists an input height or delta height for this [18:15:24] hmm [18:15:43] DHLONG sounds like the longitude of the delta-h maneuver... or something like that [18:16:08] no, that's ALONG [18:16:18] option 6 has a specified longitude for the TIG [18:16:21] and it has ALONG [18:16:28] option 7 is the same, at a specified time [18:16:31] no ALONG [18:17:04] I just wonder if this is a simple delta height change at the other side of the orbit [18:17:17] or if the additional inputs change the orbit in a different way as well [18:17:20] NM... [18:17:26] nautical miles [18:17:46] yeah that's all I can think of there... and KMLO I have nothing [18:18:04] there doesn't seem to be a list in this documents that explains all these inputs [18:20:23] annoying [18:20:24] hmmm [18:20:42] nautical miles, kilometer [18:20:56] in an Apollo 7 document I found the same variables [18:21:06] and on which punch card they have to go [18:21:36] DPC, ALONG, HICIR, DHLONG, ALF, SHNODE are all together [18:21:45] MN, IVEHG, NM, KMLO on another [18:22:09] hmmm [18:22:27] I wonder if KMLO is perigee altitude? [18:23:01] hey [18:23:02] mmm maybe not [18:23:06] morning! [18:25:03] hey Alex [18:25:08] NARA has the input manual haha [18:25:21] A DESCRIPTION OF THE INPUT TO [18:25:22] THE APOLLO MISSION PLANNING [18:25:22] AND REAL-TIME RENDEZVOUS [18:25:23] SUPPORT PROGRAM [18:25:39] hahaha [18:27:03] I'll need to look if I don't already have this one somewhere [18:27:38] indy91, https://www.dropbox.com/s/75w8enrjlsixmwq/Photo%202018-05-19%2C%2010%2038%2007%20AM.jpg?dl=0 [18:27:56] https://www.dropbox.com/s/8iqplzlkx3lhitd/Photo%202018-05-19%2C%2010%2037%2034%20AM.jpg?dl=0 [18:28:31] saw that beauty in the St Johns harbour yesterday [18:28:49] Did the German Coast Guard get lost at the wrong coast? [18:29:00] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meerkatze_(Schiff,_2009) [18:29:05] haha maybe [18:30:03] a very nice ship indeed [18:31:02] pretty new, only 10 years old [18:31:38] it was much nicer looking then the 2 Canadian coast guard ships next to it I must say lol [18:39:08] Hows Apollo 9 coming along? [18:45:03] I'll stop after implementing SPS-5 and do some ground work on the general purpose maneuvers [18:45:12] SPS-5 is the circularization maneuver [18:45:20] but right now the TIG is way off unfortunately [18:45:31] so some maneuver must have rotated the line of apsides wrong [18:50:57] ah makes sense [18:51:31] no big deal probably [18:51:42] but the actual mission is really close to the flight plan with the TIG [18:51:47] no reason why it shouldn't be for us [18:52:17] except for the lack of LH2 vent acceleration messing up the orbit [18:52:40] but it shouldn't make 30 minutes difference alone for SPS-5 [19:08:24] ...huh. so there were three versions of the AGC -- 2003100, 2003200, and 2003993 [19:08:44] I'm starting to think this 26.5V supply for the DSKY was added in 2003200 and then removed again in 2003993 [19:09:03] because the parts for it don't seem to be there in either of the 2003100 AGCs I have pictures of [19:19:44] what would that supply to the DSKY be for? [19:19:52] I have no idea [19:20:10] I was hoping this AGC would help me figure that out, but now I'm not sure it will [19:20:52] it does have backplane connections on the pins in question... [19:21:41] what DSKY version did exist in the same time frame? [19:22:23] uhhh, let's see [19:23:04] because that might help figure out what the DSKY would use the 26.5V for [19:24:42] only thing that looks possibly relevant during that time frame is ECP 291, "DSKY Alarm Light Redesign", added to C1 [19:24:54] C1 would have been the first 2003200 AGC [19:27:16] there's actually a difference between 200M and 602 here [19:27:20] in the power supplies [19:32:22] https://i.imgur.com/8XonrJm.jpg [19:32:59] that red wire is installed on both of 200M's power supplies, but not on 602, and it's connecting 28V to one of the pins for this mystery DSKY supply [19:35:38] strange [19:41:02] even stranger is that it's running that 28V into the DSKY supply's ground pin, if the pin numbers in ND-1021042 are right :P [19:42:34] ...I think? it is a weird circuit [19:43:19] no, I'm reading it wrong. yeah 200M was modified to have that supply [19:43:36] or at least something like it, just feeding 28V instead of 26.5 [20:07:33] @indy91 i just saw your build on the forums would that be day 3? [20:07:45] yep [20:07:58] will need a bit more tweaking over all, but it should be good [20:08:13] keep getting crap results on my after insertion p52 for 11 [20:09:39] and what am i looking for in the align mfd? [20:10:19] you have to set Columbia as the target [20:10:24] and then you have to look at RInc [20:10:35] you had 0.17° before [20:10:41] under 0.1° is ok [20:10:52] i thing it said 000.20 [20:11:04] or 0.20 [20:11:05] that would be pretty bad [20:11:14] worse than before [20:11:38] which I find unlikely, unless you were doing something wrong with the state vectors again [20:12:28] with perfect conditions, it would be more like 0.02° [20:13:55] i cant remember if there was a csm state vector update for the lem before pdi [20:14:10] you said you did one [20:14:35] did you uplink the landing site update as well? [20:14:54] yes [20:15:28] that and a good alignment should be the most important steps [20:15:35] looks like there is one before pdi [20:16:49] oh, before PDI [20:17:08] there should be an update on the orbit before PDI [20:17:16] before DOI [20:17:41] im pretty sure i did that wrong too [20:18:52] as long as you did it correctly later, before lunar liftoff, it doesn't matter [20:21:26] if you uplinked a state vector of Columbia to the LM slot before PDI [20:21:30] that would matter :D [20:21:45] i am fairly sure i did [20:23:34] ooooooohhhhhh holy crap [20:23:39] I doubt that you would be able to land at all then [20:23:40] I think this might have been the AGC in LTA-8 [20:23:43] not even in auto mode [20:24:34] i know i didnt do csm tgt and csm slot at the same time [20:25:41] thewonderidiot, that's a fun one then [20:26:24] hell yeah it is [20:26:32] and the guy that owns it is going to be friggin stoked [20:26:42] because he was a vacuum test operator for LTA-8 [20:26:52] oooh [20:27:07] so how did you realize it's the LTA-8 AGC? [20:27:25] that's my best theory, right now [20:27:37] its part number means it is either AGC 202, 602, or S/N 8 [20:27:47] and we know it's not S/N 8 because it's S/N 14 [20:28:17] this AGC has some extra temperature sensors that only 602 was supposed to have gotten [20:28:20] and does the landing site update show the crossrange? it says -1.66 [20:28:28] not sure if that is big [20:28:42] and I just found ECP 582, which was for the AOT [20:28:49] titled [20:29:03] "LTA-8 Modifications AFFECTS 602 ONLY" [20:29:53] so guidance system 602 was definitely used in LTA-8, and this AGC is likely to be the AGC for 602 [20:31:18] astronauthen96__, landing site update page doesn't show cross range [20:31:23] only landing site coordinates [20:32:15] and i think i put both lm and csm state vectors in the lm slot [20:32:20] when? [20:32:28] before pdi [20:32:33] hmm [20:32:39] before DOI or before PDI? [20:32:55] before DOI would be fairly bad, but it should be able to land [20:33:26] before doi i think [20:33:31] yeah [20:33:40] Apollo 11 had no uplink between DOI and PDI [20:34:04] so your landing really needed the landing radar, lol [20:34:24] but what about the ascent now [20:34:36] do you really have 0.2° plane error? [20:34:38] RInc [20:35:28] i think it said 0.20 [20:35:34] that's bad then [20:35:38] for the landing site update [20:35:47] that's on the state vector page and pressing MOD once [20:35:57] then you have to press CLC to calculate the updated landing site vector [20:36:04] i meant the align mfd [20:36:06] and then uplink with UPL [20:36:09] yeah I know [20:36:17] but something must be wrong if you get 0.2° RInc [20:36:49] either your alignment is off by about 0.2° [20:37:03] that would be +00020 in P57 [20:37:34] or you did the uplinks wrong. I don't think anything else would cause this [20:38:48] ii put the lm vector in the lm slot and csm in csm slot [20:39:42] LM state vector uplink on the lunar surface doesn't do anything [20:39:47] it needs to be the landing site update [20:39:57] for which there are no slots [20:41:59] i think you said the tig of the state vector doesn't matter in orbiter? [20:42:14] yeah, not as much as in the real world [20:42:21] so you can use the "now" option [20:42:38] in the real world the lunar gravity is much more complicated than in Orbiter [20:42:53] much more complicated than the AGC would be able to deal with [20:43:03] but the ground computers can [20:43:23] so they would uplink a state vector in the future that is more accurate than calculated by the AGC internally [20:43:49] that's the reason why they would have uplinked time tagged state vectors [20:45:47] it wouldnt be the tig would it? [20:45:59] hmm, only if you used a really wrong time there [20:46:04] like way in the past [20:46:38] i use the tig for tpi in the flight plan [20:47:13] is that what the flight plan says to use? [20:47:45] no it doesn't [20:47:55] it says insertion + 18 minutes [20:48:16] i meant the lunar liftoff page [20:49:21] not sure what you mean [20:49:30] what did you use the TIG of TPI for? [20:49:32] in P32? [20:50:02] in the rtcc mfd the lunar liftoff page it asks for tpi tig [20:50:17] yeah, as the initial guess [20:50:24] to find the lunar liftoff time [20:51:41] how P12 of the LGC works is that it tries to insert the LM into a orbit in the exact same orbital plane as the CSM [20:51:52] ideally 0.0° relative inclination [20:52:02] so that's what it needs an accurate CSM state vector for [20:52:50] just give me your scenario before lunar liftoff [20:52:58] I can check what might be wrong there [20:54:04] https://www.dropbox.com/s/bwjy5mhti7dvp54/-6.scn?dl=0 [20:54:48] is that T-6 minutes? [20:54:52] yes [20:55:11] perfect [20:55:37] enough time to do any potential state vector update etc. [20:56:13] this is with the update csm vector and landing site update [20:56:17] right [20:56:32] I'll just let it run as it is first and check the Align Plane MFD [20:57:00] you said your P57 gave you +00006 error or so, right? [20:57:17] it might have been 5 or 6 [20:59:12] yeah, that's not bad [20:59:17] shouldn't cause 0.2° error [20:59:20] at least not alone [21:12:05] can confirm, it's about 0.2° [21:13:31] astronauthen96__, on the landing site update page [21:13:39] did you select Eagle as the target? [21:13:47] before calculating the new landing site coordinates? [21:13:54] dont think i selected anything [21:14:33] ah [21:14:36] I bet that's the issue [21:14:42] you have to select Eagle there [21:15:05] it checks if the selected vessel is landed on the surface [21:15:14] if not, then it doesn't update the landing site coordinates [21:16:07] okay [21:16:15] it gave me very different coordinates than the MFD had before [21:16:22] I'll try an ascent with that [21:16:48] gave me 1.9NM cross range with that update [21:19:52] the vehicle is an option on that page because you might want to do that update in the CSM as well [21:20:05] in which case it's not the same vehicle as the one you are using the MFD in [21:23:51] engine arm to off at 50 ft/s to go in the ascent [21:23:54] what a dumb procedure [21:24:00] that's like 2-3 seconds before cutoff [21:24:17] I totally overburned on the previous ascent [21:24:42] because it can't cut off with the engine arm switch in ASC and the engine start button pressed in at the same time [21:26:15] damn [21:26:22] still 0.23° relative inclination [21:29:50] I was so sure the landing site update with Eagle would be the fix [21:40:00] oh man, if I am wrong about this being the AGC in LTA-8, I think the only other possibility is it being the one for 2TV-1 [21:42:54] that would be fun as well [21:43:01] astronauthen96__, can't quite figure it out today. [21:43:07] I'll try more tomorrow [21:43:08] night! [10:55:16] good morning [10:55:39] got a d3d9 ctd with a pad in apollo 9 last night [10:58:15] hey [10:58:34] which one? [10:58:46] block data 2 i think it was [10:59:40] second time did not happen [10:59:47] yeah, the Block Data seems to be responsible quite often [10:59:52] suspicious :D [11:00:07] in other news, I tried a really careful P57 in your lunar liftoff scenario [11:00:21] two stars, two recycles on each [11:00:52] I haven't done enough practice in P57, but I at least got a +00003 [11:01:12] and what I also got were torquing angles of the magnitude 0.2° [11:01:39] so I think you alignment was causing the 0.2° RInc after the ascent [11:01:43] your* [11:03:49] if you have an even earlier scenario than the T-6 minutes one, I would try to improve the P57 [11:04:17] that should help with your ascent [11:04:45] and mark on two different stars that are apart by a nice margin [11:05:22] i do but its -130 [11:07:07] I mean, you will be able to get to the CSM with no problem [11:07:15] even with an 0.2° alignment error [11:07:21] the P52 on orbit will fix it [11:07:31] but you will have to do the plane change maneuver [11:08:17] https://www.dropbox.com/s/1oo727khhizzy21/LIFT%20OFF%20WAKE%20UP%200003.scn?dl=0 [11:13:54] your choice. Either use this early scenario, try to get a better P57. Or any later scenario, but you have to do the plane change maneuver [11:20:57] i think ill use this early one and try the p57 [11:22:29] yeah [11:22:41] I would recommend doing the recycles with V32 [11:22:47] does the Checklist MFD also suggest that? [11:23:14] yeah [11:23:25] the surface checklist has that for the P57 before liftoff [11:23:31] so three "marks" on each star [12:20:10] did the p52 again and got 00003 like you [12:20:36] P52 or P57? [12:20:42] sorry p57 [12:20:47] on two different stars? [12:20:53] 2 celestial bodies yes [12:21:18] but did you actually use two different stars for it? [12:21:24] I was a bit confused about this as well [12:21:26] yes 11 and 13 [12:21:46] does P57 even automatically calculate stars for you? I am not sure, haha [12:21:54] it gave me 413 twice [12:21:58] star 13 in detent 4 [12:22:16] it calculates one star i think [12:22:48] then you have to punch in another one for the second set of marks [12:23:11] I think it doesn't even calculate the first one [12:23:19] it just has the last one that was used stored [12:23:24] from a previous P57 or P52 [12:23:26] maybe it uses the last star you used [12:23:29] yes [12:23:43] anyway, I really hope your alignment is good now [12:23:46] it really should be [12:23:49] it better be :D [12:23:55] yes it better [12:24:29] or at least good enough so that your plane error is reasonable [12:25:58] as for the ascent im not sure why it calls to putthe engine arm to off at 50 fps to go [12:27:19] ah, I've implemented that whole system, so I can tell you :D [12:27:29] engine arming and engine on is rather weird in the LM [12:27:43] there is a backup for every step and switch setting [12:27:54] automatic engine on from LGC/AEA versus engine start button etc. [12:28:09] and in the case of engine arming, the abort stage button is also arming the DPS engine [12:28:24] so that is some redundancy [12:28:54] another effect is that engine start button plus abort stage button are sending a redundant signal to keep the DPS running [12:29:22] so setting engine arm to off is required in this case, because else the LGC wouldn't be able to stop the DPS engine at all [12:29:40] which is rather annoying [12:29:47] actually happened to me when I tested your scenario [12:29:53] I set engine arm to off too late [12:30:00] and so the engine cut off too late [12:30:43] so basically for the ascent it's: engine arm to off -> enables auto cutoff [13:18:15] got 0.13 [13:19:42] better at least [13:20:01] did you remember to do the landing site and state vector updates? [13:23:23] yes [13:24:59] hmm [13:25:26] probably still the alignment, but at this point, it could just be a bunch of smaller inaccuracies added up [13:25:54] i got 00001 on one of the p57's [13:26:21] 0.13° might normally still require a plane change maneuver. But using the YDOT with the CSI maneuver should be enough in your case so that it isn't needed. [13:27:36] 0.01° is great for P57 [13:27:42] morning [13:30:38] hey Alex [15:44:53] getting very little v 69's [15:45:35] the accurate CSM state vector will do that [15:45:36] 49's [15:45:40] 6 49 [17:00:12] morning! [17:00:22] Hi Mike [17:02:28] hey [17:02:36] the NTRS script still works [17:02:45] I know, I tested it before uploading it :D [17:03:12] also, I have more proof that this AGC is very likely from LTA-8 [17:03:31] I thought the last theory was 2TV-1 [17:03:49] nope, that was the only other possibility if I am wrong about LTA-8 [17:03:53] ah, right [17:04:16] but at this point the only way I could be more sure would be if I had a document that said something like "AGC S/N 14 was used in LTA-8", lol [17:04:47] https://imgur.com/a/2Yvcphd [17:05:13] so we know 100% that guidance system 602 was used in LTA-8 [17:05:28] and these compatibility charts match AGC part numbers with guidance systems [17:05:51] part number 2003100-071 is listed as the printed requirement for 602, with 2003100-061 being compatible [17:06:16] and conversely, 2003100-061 is listed as the requirement for 202, with -071 being compatible [17:06:37] this AGC is part number 2003100-071 [17:07:08] but the real kicker is this picture I found, taken inside of LTA-8 after it was installed in the vacuum chamber, but before testing began: https://archive.org/download/S68-21511/S68-21511.jpg [17:07:38] the AGC is pretty clearly visible on the right side there [17:08:03] and this AGC is missing paint in all the same places along the top edge, and has the same silverish discoloration on the right side of the rope tray [17:08:28] oh wow, good find [17:08:32] :D [17:09:02] and the shape of the top cover on the AGC in the picture marks it very clearly as an original AGC that has been painted like a flight one, which Eldon wasn't able to explain when he did his disassembly of it at that 2004 conference [17:09:32] because it was used in a flight-like LM test article [17:09:42] yeah [17:10:19] here's a closeout picture from the Apollo 16 LM: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/LM11-co3.jpg [17:10:33] LGC also visible, except the flight ones had a grid pattern on the top cover instead of the X [17:11:07] yeah, easily noticable [17:11:29] so, I'm pretty happy with calling this the LTA-8 AGC :D [17:12:06] so the question now is... what the heck program were they running on it during the vacuum chamber testing? [17:12:25] Sunburst was released right around then but that seems like it would be an... odd choice [17:13:20] early Luminary? [17:13:32] it would have to be early Sundance at that point [17:13:36] Luminary was still far in the future [17:13:37] right [17:13:44] early Sundance seems likely then [17:13:59] maybe I can find out what they used in other simulators [17:14:25] but they never manufactured Sundance until later... and I can't tell whether or not the modules in that picture are rope simulators or real ropes [17:14:39] what time are we talking about? [17:14:40] and I also can't find any other pictures from inside LTA-8... at least that show the LGC [17:15:01] I think it was delivered for testing in September '67 [17:15:04] let me check [17:15:41] ah, but testing was later than that [17:15:51] On Monday 27 May 1968, Irwin and Gibbons began the first manned test of an Apollo spacecraft in a fully pressurized oxygen atmosphere since the Apollo-1 fire. [17:16:40] the first flight build of Sundance was manufactured in April '68 [17:16:48] so maybe they built modules for LTA-8 too [17:28:31] in other news... raw pictures from the second study guide have been uploaded, and derived products are being worked on [17:28:52] https://archive.org/details/apolloguidancena00acel_0 [17:33:02] the new one? [17:34:46] yeah, the smaller one [17:34:56] no progress yet on any of the other things, from what I can tell [18:22:46] preview's up for it now [18:43:14] someone here? [18:43:26] hey Mikael_ [18:43:39] Hi! [18:43:56] Hello guys how are you? [18:44:01] good! what about you? [18:44:07] Fine [18:44:13] hey [18:44:23] I have a problem [18:44:36] who are we, Houston? [18:44:52] we actually might be... [18:44:53] ;-) p34 [18:45:03] P34 problems are fun [18:45:24] I can not see any target when I chose p34. What does target mean is it a star or what? [18:45:39] P34 is a rendezvous program [18:45:45] so the target usually is a CSM or LM [18:45:50] or S-IVB in the case of Apollo 7 [18:46:00] Running apollo7 [18:46:04] ah [18:46:09] did you also start P20? [18:46:16] yes i do [18:46:22] P20 is doing the tracking and points the sextant at the S-IVB [18:46:29] P34 is running on top of P20 basically [18:46:36] I have tried to follow a flashing dot but finally get all the alarm 00611 when I run the calculation v32e recycle program [18:46:47] hmm [18:46:59] are you running the MCC scenario? [18:47:16] tried v7 and v8 same result [18:47:27] Yes MCC [18:48:02] 611 is "No TIG for given elevation angle" [18:48:24] Yes [18:48:28] but how do I know that I'm following the correct flashing point [18:48:37] I would guess either your CSM or S-IVB state vector is off [18:48:43] or else you wouldn't get the 611 alarm [18:49:01] ok, what to do? [18:49:08] and if that is the case, then P20 also can't point the sextant at the S-IVB [18:49:13] an update? [18:49:13] because it doesn't know where it is [18:49:41] the MCC should have given you the right updates, so this shouldn't really happen [18:49:43] weird [18:49:50] hm [18:50:39] I have used tutarial v 7 still program alarm [18:50:50] you can try uplinking new state vectors for the CSM and S-IVB [18:50:57] that should help with most issues [18:51:00] MCC? [18:51:04] RTCC MFD [18:51:30] doesn't really explain why the ones the MCC uplinked for you are bad [18:51:43] I'm not sure how to do RTCC [18:52:02] the Project Apollo MFD also can uplink state vectors [18:52:23] Yes can I use that one? [18:52:52] yep [18:53:15] the last state vector uplink done by the MCC was before the NCC-1 maneuver [18:53:36] did you do a V66 after the NCC-2 or NSR maneuver? [18:54:10] NCC-1* [18:54:22] NCC-2 probably was scrubbed [18:54:44] V66? No i dont think so I follow check list [18:55:02] Checklist MFD? [18:55:43] Yes [18:56:01] yeah, that probably shouldn't have a V66 then [18:56:15] it would overwrite the S-IVB state vector with the CSM one [18:56:46] if the state vector uplinks don't fix the issue, then I can take a look at your post NSR scenario [18:57:06] But I follow simulation scenarius from before rendezvius soo NCC should be correct [18:58:24] Thank you, you are very nice [18:58:25] one of the scenarios that comes with NASSP? [18:58:35] Yes v7 [18:58:44] which one? [18:58:47] Before NCC1? [18:58:56] 07 [18:59:00] oh [18:59:02] yes [18:59:09] no after [18:59:18] that scenario should be in the perfect state for rendezvous [18:59:23] "Before Rendezvous" [18:59:25] yes [18:59:43] still program alarm [19:00:28] I would be really surprised if the scenario is in a bad state somehow [19:00:35] I will try again and come back later [19:00:51] I'll try to track the S-IVB in that scenario [19:01:23] but I think I have done according to the checklist [19:01:33] Thanks! [19:02:04] or i am lost in space :-) [19:02:18] haha [19:02:24] could be a checklist error [19:02:47] hmm :-( [19:03:03] AlexB_88, have you tried if you can see the flashing light of the S-IVB in the Apollo 7 Before Rendezvous scenario? [19:03:55] it could also be in the wrong attitude for the light to be seen [19:04:06] then you would need some Orbiter tools like the HUD to find the S-IVB [19:04:14] There is a little flashing point but I'm not sure if it is correct how can I verify [19:04:51] ok willtry [19:04:51] F9 will display the vessel markers [19:05:01] but you might be too far away yet [19:05:09] yes i am [19:05:12] try the Docking MFD [19:05:14] indy91, no I have not tried it on the SIVB yet [19:05:18] select the S-IVB as the target [19:05:25] and press the HUD button [19:05:28] then go to the sextant view [19:06:06] docking yes that right [19:06:20] will try! [19:06:28] that's what we always had to use for the S-IVB tracking in the first few minutes [19:06:42] the flashing lights on the S-IVB is a fairly recent addition [19:06:48] only in V8 [19:07:04] ok good to know [19:08:11] state vectors are definitely good in the Before Rendezvous scenario [19:08:18] it's pointing at the S-IVB [19:08:22] and I can even see the S-IVB [19:08:26] very, very faint though [19:08:47] Thanks so much for your help. I'm back in a while [19:08:50] sure [19:08:52] no problem [19:14:03] The rendezvous programs might actually be a case where we could do some tutorials [19:14:21] in most other cases we could refer to the AOH or G&C Checklists or so [19:14:42] but during a rendezvous a lot is going on that isn't explained anywhere all that well [19:15:11] like, you can randomly get displays from P20 or P3X at any time [19:15:54] typical case is that you want to enter some data for P34 [19:16:03] and then P20 gives you a 50 18 or a 06 49 [19:16:07] what do? :D [19:20:38] make tutorials! :D [19:21:59] I'll put it on my list [19:25:43] how many items long is this list? :D [19:26:07] oh, it's long [19:26:25] lol [19:39:46] I was thinking maybe at some point I could make the remaining "RTCC MFD Input Parameters" word doc for Apollo 9 and later [19:39:53] might help for new users [19:40:40] yeah, they should definitely be done [19:40:51] I would write them, but much close to the V8 release [19:41:01] right [19:41:38] who knows how many changes the RTCC MFD is getting until then :D [19:42:02] also the 7 & 8 ones will need updating I guess as I believe they still have the nodal coordinates (option 1) for all TLMCCs instead of the now proper opt. 2 [19:42:21] for Apollo 8 that is [19:43:11] which was obviously because back in V7, there was only 1 option, the nodal target for TLMCC [19:43:28] yeah [20:01:37] I'm back :-) [20:03:17] hey [20:03:18] someone here? [20:03:27] Hi Indy [20:03:58] found the S-IVB yet? [20:04:01] DDocking MFD solved the problem [20:04:10] Thanks! [20:04:34] and the vehicle marker should become in a few minutes after the Before Rendezvous scenario starts [20:04:40] that's how I remember it at least [20:04:45] Yes no problem with docking mfd [20:04:47] 100km distance or so [20:05:05] the vessel marker is smaller, so it's easier to do the sextant marks with it [20:05:28] than the Docking MFD HUD marker [20:05:51] I have not yet run the entire checklist but it looks good [20:05:58] great [20:06:05] any idea why you get the 611 alarm? [20:06:15] why you were getting* [20:06:22] really cool simulator [20:06:48] coolest part about the rendezvous is the AGC [20:07:02] wrongly followed a star [20:07:05] and for you don't really have to thank NASSP [20:07:37] would be tricky to rendezvous with one of those stars [20:07:49] :-) [20:08:17] would take some time [20:08:41] and no wonder P34 is unable to calculate a maneuver for that [20:08:59] can the AGC do relativity? :D [20:09:04] kind of [20:09:31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light [20:09:44] for marks on stars it can account for this phenomenon [20:09:53] interesting [20:10:07] I'm going to drive a pass tomorrow night. I'll get up early at work [20:10:13] which is probably the reason why you sometimes get +00001 with the sextant [20:10:17] even if the mark was perfect [20:10:32] P52* [20:10:47] Mikael_, good luck! [20:11:05] I have found an error in the checklist but may return to the latter [20:11:21] see you later [20:11:30] cya [20:14:31] the aberration of light correct uses the solar ephemeris in the AGC [20:14:39] so it's needed for that as well [20:14:58] correction* [20:37:52] maybe we should feed it state vectors with a velocity close to the speed of light and see what happens [20:41:34] probably overflows quite quickly [20:44:05] the maximum Earth-referenced velocity the AGC can store is 20971.52 m/s [20:44:39] only about twice as much as you would actually get [20:45:00] not quite close to lightpeed yet :D [20:46:48] night! [11:38:58] good morning [11:39:11] got -00062 for my ydot [11:40:17] hey [11:40:33] for the CSI? [11:40:38] yep [11:41:15] I did a quick calculation yesterday, your total out-of-plane DV is about 12.3 ft/s [11:41:22] so the CSI maneuver already cuts that in half [11:41:37] and it gets you really close to where you don't need a plane change burn [11:42:01] I would still do the V90 to calculate the plane change maneuver, but you probably don't have to do it [11:42:06] do the maneuver [16:15:48] have no clue where in the checklist o skip for the plane change [16:22:43] @indy92 and by the way my rincl is down to 0.08 [16:22:50] @indy91 [16:23:35] yep, the 0.08° is about what I expected from the initial 0.13° [16:24:16] about 7.5 ft/s of plane change left [16:24:30] usually you would do the plane change maneuver above 5 ft/s, but you can skip it [16:24:33] remember last time i went over the tig [16:24:35] TPI will take care of the rest [16:24:57] I'm not sure about the checklist [16:25:18] would cdh -20 work or does it have to be 30 [16:27:00] what do you mean? [16:27:06] I thought you wanted to skip the plane change? [16:27:14] and no, T-20 minutes does not work [16:27:30] it needs to be 1/4 of an orbit after CSI [16:27:36] so about 30 minutes [16:28:47] I'm looking at the checklist [16:28:58] at one point in P33 it wants you to do a V34E [16:29:31] skip that and about the next 50 lines [16:29:38] until you see F 16 45 MARKS, TFI, -00001 [16:29:56] that should have skipped the entire plane change procedure then [16:30:46] okay [16:31:12] the Checklist MFD doesn't really show the schedule you are supposed to follow [16:31:15] https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/Apollo11-LM-TimelineBook-excerpts.pdf [16:31:27] this is the actual checklist for the descent and rendezvous [16:31:37] you are on PDF page 11 [16:31:53] it has abbreviated procedures [16:32:00] but with the right timestamps [16:32:09] counting down to CDH in that case [16:32:45] I believe this document is actually a scan of the flown copy by Buzz Aldrin [16:33:50] at what point do you come into trouble with the timing? [16:34:25] the timing for what? [16:35:23] for the plane change maneuver [16:35:34] I wonder why your schedule doesn't work out so that you can do it on time [16:36:01] well the perform cdh checklist starts late [16:37:07] does it have a specified GET when it is starting? [16:37:27] the checklist? [16:37:39] yeah [16:37:47] looks like it in the checklist file [16:37:52] that will be change for sure [16:37:59] Ryan is doing that right now with Apollo 10 [16:38:12] i dont remember how late it is [16:38:16] what you probably should be doing is press PRO [16:38:25] that way you can proceed without waiting [16:38:45] doesn't really make sense to have a specified mission time there to start the CDH checklist [16:39:22] as you know, you aren't exactly on schedule with the flight plan [16:39:44] so you should be ignoring the normal checklist start time and just continue on immediately after CSI [16:40:14] the cdh checklist does start right after the csi one [16:40:37] "well the perform cdh checklist starts late" what do you mean with this then? [16:40:45] its already late when the csi checklist is complete [16:41:06] you mean late in comparison to the flight plan? [16:42:36] i cant remember if there was a specific time for the cdh chechlist in the mfd [16:43:06] there is [16:43:22] but as you said, your Apollo 11 mission is later than the flight plan [16:43:37] so it might just continue on with the Perform CDH checklist [16:43:56] but that's not really relevant [16:43:59] as soon as the csi checklist is done the cdh checklist is late could that be why im going over the plane change time [16:44:08] no [16:44:27] the relative times between CSI and PC, and PC and CDH are always identical [16:44:59] so your schedule shouldn't be affected by being late in comparison to the flight plan [16:45:28] the last time some of the calculations were very long like 6 75 [16:45:33] hmm [16:45:38] that could actually be the cause [16:45:47] now they are shorter i think [16:45:53] because the CSM state vector was off [16:46:01] so it takes longer to iterate [16:46:27] try to follow that schedule in the LM Timeline Book and you should be good [16:46:46] even with plane change burn [16:48:17] the Checklist MFD will probably get a bunch of updates to use more relative times and not mission elapsed time [16:48:27] Ryan said that he was going to do that [16:48:42] and he currently flying Apollo 10 and is doing checklist adjustments like that [16:50:46] morning! [16:51:02] this rendezvous is a pain but i think i can do it [16:51:22] astronauthen96__, once you have mastered it, it's going to be the most fun part of a mission! [16:51:24] hey Mike [16:51:36] Hi Mike [16:51:36] Astrionics System Handbook is out for delivery :D [16:51:40] yay [16:52:16] Got a bit further with Apollo 9, the EVA day has exactly one difficult to calculate update [16:52:26] and that's the REFSMMAT for the day [16:52:51] -Z axis towards the sun, +X axis towards celestial south, then pitched down 15°, then rolled 80° left. Nothing easier than that, haha [16:53:14] in doubt, I'll watch the videos they took of the EVA to check if the attitude is right :D [16:53:23] hehehe [16:56:41] no progress on scanning -- they're still doing military history and voter registration books [16:57:27] and what did they have for lunch? [16:58:02] Naval Aviation if this page is anything to go by :P [16:58:26] I checked the Apollo 9 Training Schedule actually, but it didn't have any mission support activities [16:58:32] like the LTA-8 tests or so [16:59:00] yeah, we'd have to find something about LTA-8 training [16:59:01] so this time I couldn't figure out what an Apollo crew did on a specific day :D [16:59:10] hehehe [16:59:16] the only thing I found along those lines is a note in R-700 [17:00:16] "First, there was a strong desire to release programs early, so that most of the spacecraft checkout could be accomplished using mission type software. For example, program assembly 2021110-011 (SUNDANCE 292) was released in April 1968 for a mission that flew in April 1969 (APOLLO 9)." [17:03:39] in one of the 1000 page RTCC documents I found some of the Apollo 5 calculations [17:03:57] didn't notice it before, because the program name is "206 Mission Plan Table" [17:04:03] as in AS-206 [17:04:07] as it was originally called [17:04:19] oh nice [17:04:22] anything useful? [17:05:03] potentially for retargeting the long DPS burn on orbit [17:05:12] sweet [17:05:30] and it has the coordinate transformations specific to Sunburst [17:05:52] so that anything the RTCC calculates can be transformed to LM stable member coordinates [17:06:02] lack of REFSMMAT in these early AGC versions [17:06:34] also it's funny, you can tell we spend most of our time reading different sources -- I would more readily associate 206 with Apollo 5 than 204 :P [17:06:53] oh, me as well lately [17:06:58] haha [17:08:20] but yeah, I mostly have operational documents for it [17:08:24] late 1967 [17:08:30] and there it definitely is AS-204 [17:09:06] 2/3 of the documents I have about Apollo 5 are even post flight [17:09:55] and I guess Sunburst120 only has 206 in code? [17:10:03] yep [17:10:07] and Sunburst 37 [17:10:24] and since I did a lot of the transcription for both of those it is very burned into my memory lol [17:10:40] actually I wonder if 120 references 204 at all [17:10:45] what's a transcription? :D [17:10:52] quiet you [17:11:14] I only know what a padload is [17:11:25] sometimes takes much longer to get right than the transcription :D [17:11:33] yeah, Sunburst 120 doesn't once mention 204 [17:11:36] haha that is true [17:11:45] just a different booster [17:12:57] 28 April 1967, first AS-204/LM-1 Launch Vehicle Operational Trajectory [17:13:23] so LM-1 and AS-204 belonged together for quite a while [17:13:32] when was the final assembly of Sunburst? [17:14:19] October '67 [17:14:26] is when it was manufactured at least [17:14:28] I guess if any of the sections mentioning AS-206 would have needed a larger revision in Sunburst, they would have changed it to 204 [17:15:01] hmm well [17:15:16] the LM-1 flight profile was established for a loooooong time [17:15:17] 116 was manufactured in April, presumably released March-ish [17:15:32] and 116 -> 120 was a total hack job so [17:15:43] not surprising nothing got updated there :P [17:15:56] I have a AS-206A preliminary spacecraft reference trajectory from July 1st, 1965 [17:15:59] 1965! [17:16:03] wow [17:16:06] and the profile is almost exactly as flown [17:16:24] that is before the first Block II AGC was even built [17:16:48] "currently planned for the second quarter of 1967" [17:17:02] reference trajectory for April 1st, 1967 [17:17:27] hah, here we go [17:17:45] our copy of Retread 44 was assembled July 9, 1965 [17:18:14] so, that was before Block II code was ever tested on hardware [17:18:16] ok, one significant difference to the flown profile [17:18:49] at then end of the Sunburst120 sequence for DPS-2 it throttles up to 100% and then immediately does the FITH test [17:19:01] in this 1965 document there was a coasting period in between [17:19:14] between the long DPS burn with throttle tests and the FITH test [17:19:48] the 3rd DPS burn would have been a short DPS burn, 25 seconds at 10%, 2 seconds at 100%, then [17:19:51] then FITH [17:20:56] haven't found a mention of the AGC yet :D [17:21:07] of the programer though [17:21:29] oh wow [17:21:37] this Saturn IB had a LES [17:21:40] and a dummy CSM [17:21:46] whaaaat [17:22:01] were they expecting the LM to be a lot lighter or something? [17:22:04] dummy CSM would have been jettisoned with the LES [17:22:10] lol [17:22:21] 32540 lbs for the LM [17:22:26] pretty normal [17:23:06] I guess this would have been more like a CSM-shaped fairing [17:23:24] BPC and a bit extra, haha [17:25:04] the reference trajectory talks about some automatic modes etc. [17:25:15] so definitely planned to have an AGC or AEA on board [17:27:06] ha, it's quoting the RTCC document [17:27:24] and also a study for the tower jettison with CSM shroud [17:30:12] I really wonder if we could find some more of these RTCC documents [17:30:20] we are still missing some volumes of it I believe [17:30:30] oh I totally believe that [17:30:44] I've been pondering taking up a more serious search for a copy of Sundance [17:31:25] there have to be good caches of documents we haven't discovered [17:31:32] yeah [17:31:40] but I doubt we will find Sundance on NTRS :D [17:31:47] haha if only [17:32:01] I'm pretty amazed NTRS gave us any AGC code at all [17:32:04] the title of the RTCC document is a bit... unwieldy [17:32:22] Real Time Computer Complex - Apollo Programming Systems [17:32:29] Book: Mission Systems [17:32:34] AS-200 Mission Planning [17:32:36] Volume 1 [17:32:39] IBM [17:32:45] amazing [17:32:48] good work IBM [17:32:54] how to search [17:33:02] AS-500 Mission Planning probably [17:33:05] that should exist [17:33:14] oh yeah probably [17:33:30] also [17:33:38] "AS-500 Orbit Trajectory Computations" [17:34:22] this seems like something former IBM employees would have in their basement [17:34:31] hehe yeah [17:35:39] so, what would I have to do for you to get you to actually send that email to Margaret? :P [17:37:57] help me write it [17:38:27] I always dislike writing mails like that, because english isn't my first language [17:38:42] and in this case I probably want to use some specific language to get her to do what we want [17:38:47] and that is not easy :D [17:39:24] I'll figure something out and then I'll let you read it [17:40:07] haha sure, I'd be happy to help :D [18:31:38] the things you sometimes find on NTRS... [18:31:48] "Vibrational Characteristics of Man" [18:32:08] hahahahahaha [18:32:11] that is amazing [18:32:17] seems to be about how human react on vibrations [18:32:47] longitudinal and lateral [18:53:45] so [18:54:28] I'm now going to have a binder for an Astrionics Systems Handbook, containing a training memo and an IBM SLCC programming manual [18:54:48] and all of the pages for an Astrionics System Handbook bound with a metal thing outside of a binder [18:55:01] should I leave this stuff as I got them, or reunite the pages with their binder? [18:56:09] if it makes it more durable, I would reunite them [18:58:24] yeah I'll have to look tonight [19:19:49] I also found a place that makes replica LTA-8 patches, so I'm going to make a shirt to wear at spacefest :D [19:22:38] haha, great [19:22:57] LTA-8, not to be confused with LTA-B [19:22:59] http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/lta-b.htm [19:23:12] yes, those two LTAs are very different :D [19:23:31] how does LTA-B even fit into the LTA numbering scheme? [19:23:46] or was it a separate thing that just also happened to be called LTA [19:24:37] well first of all, it doesn't have a number [19:25:16] Apollo 6 flew LTA-2R [19:25:38] Apollo 4 flew LTA-10R [19:25:46] haha, what a great numbering scheme [19:26:34] LTA-B was just a mass simulator really [19:29:23] we simulate 3 different LM test articles [19:29:27] maybe those 3 [19:30:32] just a mesh and the right mass is used [19:33:18] yeah that is a really great numbering scheme [19:33:22] I think originally AS-503 wasn't supposed to fly manned [19:33:28] maybe they had a LTA-A for that one or so [19:37:11] In January 1967 AS-503A was already a manned mission [19:37:16] looks like Mission E [19:38:04] what was mission E again? [19:38:50] simulated lunar mission in a highly elliptical Earth orbit [19:40:28] you do a partial TLI [19:40:42] ah interesting [19:40:42] and the simulated LOI burn inserts you back into a near circular Earth orbit [19:41:55] by mid 1968 there were studies to fly Mission E with AS-504 [19:43:13] also tested during the elliptical phase would be a midcourse correction and cislunar navigation [20:43:15] night! [01:21:52] oh man Niklas is going to love this [02:33:38] .tell indy91 good news! not only was the Flight Program section updated in a lot of places, but they added an entirely new subsection (11.3) called "Flight Program Description" with details about how the thing is structured [02:34:09] .tell indy91 I've scanned the title/contents/effective pages, as well as section 11, here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1cjcf00LM_oFu1tGX8_okr5Euu-BP_rNl [02:34:33] .tell indy91 more scans will probably follow tonight before you get this, but it's going to take a bit to get through the whole thing [11:33:57] hey [13:14:45] good morning [13:22:29] @indy91 just wondering what does make memory safer mean? [13:24:19] it's a C++ thing [13:24:44] essentially, I was using dynamic memory quite often, but didn't release the memory for being used again [13:25:20] so the RAM you would need for Orbiter increases more and more when using RTCC calculations with the RTCC MFD or the MCC [13:25:26] also for apollo 9 block data there is a wx at the bottom of the pad is there supposed to be something under that [13:25:27] not much, but it's bad coding style [13:25:29] so I improved that [13:25:40] I need to work on the formatting of that [13:25:48] something changed with Orbiter 2016 [13:26:05] and I wasn't really able to display it as I could in Orbiter 2010 [13:26:12] the Weather is always "Good" [13:26:16] it should display that [13:26:34] maybe not quite where it belongs, but it should display it somewhere [13:27:10] I don't think making it memory safer will fix the CTDs caused by the Block Data and other PADs, but it's part of my search for that issue [13:30:02] did you get a ctd with any of the pads or is it just me? [13:30:57] i think you said you got one with the block data [13:33:19] yeah, I did get another one yesterday [13:33:38] it seems like the way to replicate it is to get a Block Data PAD then fast forward 10+ hours to the next Block Data PAD [13:33:42] and that one causes a CTD [13:33:52] but when you save just before the updated and reload, no CTD [13:34:35] update* [13:36:06] maybe I can make the MCC do a few updates in quick succession [13:36:16] that would maybe help replicate the CTD consistently [13:36:21] and without waiting forever [13:41:35] yeah it happened to me when there are maybe 3 pads in a row [13:42:43] yep [13:43:05] just like apollo 10 with those first three pads [13:43:21] second time nothing [13:43:27] yeah, and then the TLI PAD crashes, right? [13:43:39] which is the 3rd one [13:43:41] yes it did [13:43:53] no crashes with the rtcc [13:44:09] yeah, I don't think it's the PAD itself [13:44:15] it's the display by the MCC [13:44:45] I'm up to the EVA day for Apollo 9 [13:44:50] should be quite fun [13:45:01] I never depressurized the CM other than during some testing [13:45:58] oh, I got a CTD just now [13:46:11] when I wanted to display a PAD, but I didn't have to wait or so :D [13:47:22] and of course on the second time nothing happens [14:28:03] cant wait to get the rendezvous over with [14:51:22] how far did you get? [15:07:34] morning! [15:12:17] hey [15:12:48] anything good in the scans so far? [15:13:22] many good things [15:13:36] I believe a lot of the descriptions apply to Apollo 12 [15:14:01] from the flight evaluation report [15:14:09] "first generalized flight program to be flown" [15:14:23] makes sense, given the date of the revision :D [15:14:32] "Facilitates easier program modification and promotes economical utilization of LVDC core memory" [15:14:48] so the structure of the flight program was overhauled for Apollo 12 [15:15:08] yeah, I was surprised when I read that [15:15:12] and it's quite consistent with the translated code from those documents we found [15:15:13] I didn't know that had happened [15:15:41] so, this generalized flight program had approximately this kind of structure through the end of flight program development [15:18:12] the program structure in our LVDC++ is not qutite right anyway, but now I know, that if I want to use Apollo 11 as the guideline, I should be using the older astrionics handbook for it [15:19:21] right [15:20:25] one thing that the old program flow probably does more often is the equivalent of label/goto [15:20:42] sometimes right into the middle of a block in the program flow [15:20:55] that's why the whole LVDC logic is in just one function in the LVDC++ [15:21:33] but I still want to put it in the correct blocks in that one function [15:21:39] which is not correct right now [15:21:58] causing among other things the time acceleration restriction we have [15:23:12] hmm [15:23:22] there are some inconsistencies, haha [15:23:32] Figure 11.2-10 is still the same as in the old handbook [15:23:42] it has "Exit to IGM Routine (Figure 11.2-6)" [15:24:32] which now is the Interrupt Processor [15:24:38] not the IGM figure [15:25:50] heh [15:25:54] section 11.3 is still really though [15:25:58] really useful* [15:26:17] lots of good things about timebases and interrupts [15:27:06] section 4.3 has an updated operation sequence with Timebase 8 which I can use to check our TB8 [15:27:11] so lots of good stuff all around [15:27:56] oh, Apollo 12 [15:27:59] not Apollo 11 [15:28:02] so even more useful [15:28:21] I had all the switch selector functions for Apollo 11 already [15:28:26] but not for 12 I think [15:28:59] there is timebase 8, right? [15:29:02] just not scanned yet [15:29:13] page 4.3-3 and more? [15:29:20] uhh [15:29:27] I think I scanned all of section 4 [15:29:32] I thought so as well [15:29:37] I thought I had already seen that :D [15:29:45] oh there it is [15:29:47] different file [15:29:53] yeah, I broke them at foldouts [15:29:55] first page of it is in file 17 [15:30:14] because I have to scan those differently [15:30:45] right [15:31:13] yeah, looks like for Apollo 12 I only programmed the really necessary switch selector commands so far [15:31:21] firing the ullage thruster etc. [15:31:25] in Timebase 8 that is [15:31:35] the flight evaluation report might have only had those [15:31:46] but this list should be quite complete for Apollo 12 [15:34:38] nope [15:34:41] it's Apollo 11 [15:35:23] the updated list on pages 4.3-13 and 14 has the Apollo 11 events, not 12 [15:35:46] but good to have a different source for that at least :D [15:37:08] Apollo 12 Timebase 8 is quite different, because it has events leading to a lunar impact [15:37:21] and not a pre-planned slingshot maneuver [17:46:03] well that took a long time [17:46:10] the train in front of my usual train broke down [17:46:30] there are trains in California? :D [17:49:41] Caltrain, yeah [17:49:56] doesn't live up to European standards but it is not so bad [17:50:13] and European standard just means not quite as bad [17:50:20] but still bad [17:50:40] hehehe [17:50:50] and only because there are many more of them and they have lots of experience [17:50:57] right [17:50:57] otherwise it would be as bad :D [17:51:29] yeah the total distance covered by this train could be driven by a car in a couple of hours, probably [17:51:43] I see [17:51:49] and for most stretches there are two tracks, and there is no branching. just the beginning and end, and then stations in between [17:52:03] so it is a quite small train system [17:52:53] is it not connected to other systems? [17:53:05] not in a way that passengers can ride, as far as I know [17:53:15] maybe for servicing or commercial traffic [17:53:18] that's very rare here, it's mostly all one system [17:54:15] the only differences are electrified versus not [17:54:29] so you have different kind of trains for some sections [17:54:33] right [17:54:53] anyways, I saw your post on the forum about moving to the Orbiter forums :D [17:55:02] I was just lamenting having forgotten to ask you about it on Tuesday again, heh [17:55:54] yeah, but I was thinking about it yesterday, so there is that [17:58:14] but even a well working NASSP forum can't reverse that decision now [17:58:22] excellent [18:01:16] I can't wait for the new forum to open [18:01:25] I really do think we'll get a lot more traffic [18:05:20] yeah, probably [18:08:33] looks like military history book scanning has stopped, for the time being -- they're just working on processing and uploading all the ones they scanned [18:08:49] maybe we'll get another item once they're done with that [18:10:31] I have a feeling they are just going to scan the conference paper collection and then go find a different section of the university library to scan lol [18:10:55] can they not accidentically get some boxes from NARA? [18:14:05] haha if only [18:20:26] arghhh [18:20:38] the stupid left-handed Orbiter coordinate system gets me every time [18:24:02] left-handed coordinate system? [18:24:04] whyyyyy [18:25:18] there was a reason for it [18:25:31] graphics engine or something [18:25:33] surely it is a bad reason [18:27:11] it's DirectX [18:27:28] https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/17519/why-does-directx-use-a-left-handed-coordinate-system [18:30:27] okay, so the bad reason is not orbiter's fault [18:30:30] but it is still a bad reason [18:32:16] yeah [18:40:20] and now after figuring that out I have the Apollo EVA attitude! [18:40:39] Apollo 9* [18:42:47] nice! [18:43:46] yeah, lighting on the hatch is about right [18:43:48] like this [18:43:48] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwXF6Zoo-GY [19:21:31] hey [19:21:42] hey Alex [19:25:31] working on a new REFSMMAT option [19:25:56] nice [19:26:21] so what the RTACF would often do for various calculations is come up with a attitude rather than a REFSMMAT directly [19:26:51] and then it would use the present REFSMMAT plus the attitude (relative to the present REFSMMAT) to calculate the new REFSMMAT [19:26:59] looking at Optimal node shift maneuver, whats that? [19:27:24] a maneuver that only changes the longitude of the ascending node, not the inclination [19:27:46] there are only two points in an orbit where that is possible, so it's calculating the TIG for it [19:27:56] and then it just rotates the velocity vector [19:28:29] so the input is an increment of the ascending node angle, not the angle by which the velocity vector is rotated [19:28:58] seems to be the option used for Apollo 9 SPS-2 to 4 [19:29:04] and the docked DPS burn [19:29:06] I think [19:31:17] I'm not so sure about that though [19:31:27] the inclination does seem to change with some of those maneuvers [19:31:43] but it's definitely an option in the general maneuver processor, so it should be added anyway [19:38:09] about the REFSMMAT, the one for the Apollo 9 EVA would be calculated that way [19:38:31] calculate the desired attitude, then the REFSMMAT for which that attitude has 0,0,0 IMU angles [19:39:07] cant wait for day three of apollo 9 [19:52:12] ill have to fly Apollo 9 and 10 once all the MCCs are done [19:53:03] some fun stuff to do [19:53:11] just not that whole lunar landing business [19:56:52] anything with the lem is fun for me [19:57:25] even rendezvous? :D [19:57:47] once i get it right it will be fun for sure [19:58:16] that's the right approach [19:58:31] still have to get past the plane change and cdh [20:00:00] will probably do that tomorrow [20:01:17] i think the reason i went over the plane change was that the calculations were taking far too long [20:01:35] before the state vector fix [20:02:16] could be [20:02:28] usually the calculations are all quite fast in lunar orbit [20:07:13] it was mainly the 6 75 [20:08:14] yeah, I think that is when P32 or P33 is calculating the burn [20:08:28] after that it just display different things it has already calculated [20:08:53] and then one you master rendezvous with PGNS, you can re-learn the whole thing using AGS lol [20:09:07] and then with the charts :D [20:09:37] yeah i think i will stick to PGNS for now [20:09:43] then maybe ags [20:09:44] good choice, haha [20:12:59] AGC is clearly the best computer :D [20:13:04] I am in no way biased [20:14:54] and you were the one that fixed the AGS [20:15:22] with a lot of help from you and Ryan, yes [20:15:30] love the agc [20:48:07] night! [04:41:51] .tell indy91 scans are up for chapters 5 through 10 [11:08:51] good morning [11:08:54] hey [11:09:13] major problem with the plane change [11:09:33] when i null the dv's the numbers wont change with the kill rotation on [11:09:49] kill rotation? [11:09:52] you mean att hold? [11:10:03] kill rotation in the mfd [11:10:17] why would you use that? [11:10:26] it's only really helpful for IMU alignments [11:10:30] they only change when its off but the att hold doesnt seem to be working that good [11:10:31] and even then it's cheaty [11:11:03] hmm [11:11:22] i have a scenario at 2 minutes till ignition [11:11:33] great, I'll take a look for oyu [11:11:34] you [11:11:46] tig is at 125 56 27 [11:11:58] 30 minutes before CDH? [11:12:04] yes [11:12:22] sure [11:12:32] I have to look at some sources as well [11:12:40] I'm not sure I ever did the plane change maneuver :D [11:13:08] https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjngee3js6y2t7o/BEFORE%20CSI%200001.scn?dl=0 [11:14:33] just going to quickly finish a P52 on my Apollo 9 flight [11:15:21] alignment for the EVA [11:20:44] this can't be right [11:20:50] in your scenario [11:20:52] the DV vector [11:23:32] is it too high? [11:23:58] and what is this orbit? [11:24:10] totally wrong [11:24:18] did you burn CSI at all in this scenario? [11:24:25] yes [11:24:31] let me check if I even opened the right scenario [11:24:33] :D [11:25:20] it's the right one [11:25:35] ideally you should be in a 45x45 orbit [11:25:44] it's actually 25x54 [11:26:30] something is really off [11:26:40] do you have the Before CSI scenario as well? [11:26:48] yes [11:27:44] https://www.dropbox.com/s/9kp3f1crg85ov2k/BEFORE%20CSI.scn?dl=0 [11:27:51] unfortunately I have to tell you, that this pre PC scenario won't work [11:28:01] it's just too far off [11:28:04] for some reason [11:28:44] ah I see [11:28:50] the pre CSI scenario is also super off [11:29:08] ideal is about 9x45 [11:29:14] but your apolune is way low [11:29:23] your orbit is 9x26 [11:29:55] what insertion parameters did you use in P12? [11:30:06] you have to use the ones from the lunar liftoff page of the RTCC MFD [11:30:21] i just loaded the liftoff tig [11:30:40] yeah, that's the issue [11:30:56] the default parameters that P12 is using is a 30NM apolune [11:31:40] you will have to do the liftoff again I think :( [11:33:00] what you have to do is load numbers in Noun 76 [11:33:18] did the Checklist MFD not tell you that? [11:33:42] no it just says start p12 then load tig [11:34:11] " F 06 76 VH Final, Hdot Final, Xrng (Input PAD Values)" [11:34:51] VH is the horizontal velocity [11:34:56] Hdot the vertical velocity [11:35:09] Xrng is crossrange, always leave that alone [11:35:21] but you have to input the VH and Hdot it gives you on the lunar liftoff page [11:35:33] never saw that in the mfd [11:36:02] I've just quoted it the line from the checklist file [11:36:19] maybe you overlooked it or Ryan only recently added it, no idea [11:36:26] maybe [11:36:28] but that's what you always have to do [11:36:50] theoretically it's a situation from which you can recover [11:37:11] your phasing would be all wrong though, so the DH that P32 have you probably wasn't 15NM [11:37:23] probably much lower [11:37:33] the apolune of your post-CSI scenario is 54NM [11:37:41] so maybe it gave you as low as 6NM [11:37:49] nah, this really isn't good [11:38:06] sorry to say, but you'll need to launch again [11:38:12] okay [11:38:15] that is fine [11:38:21] this time with the right P12 inputs [11:38:24] TIG and velocities [11:38:46] the default ones in P12 are meant for a contingency [11:40:34] but all that doesn't really explain the DV you got for the plane change maneuver [11:40:51] it was way different than it should be [11:40:58] did you use the CDH DV by accident? [11:41:17] when you went through P30 for the plane change? [11:43:35] instead of the DV from V90? [11:52:38] new orbit after insertion is 8.2 by 41.5 [11:54:02] much better! [11:54:15] and rincl is 0.12 [11:54:24] basically like before, right? [11:54:37] last time it was 14 [11:54:38] and it will drop to about half after CSI again I guess [11:55:18] when you get to the P30 for the plane change burn, please tell me the DVs you enter [11:55:27] because I think you didn't do that quite right [11:56:12] i am using a build before Ryan's checklist updates [11:56:37] ok [11:56:48] dont remember entering DVs for anything [11:56:55] that seems bad then [11:57:26] when P33 saves the DV for the CDH maneuver, that DV also appears in P30 [11:57:42] and if you don't change it there, then you are burning the CDH DV instead of the plane change DV [12:00:45] i will try this again with the latest build [14:14:28] hey Thymo [16:50:50] hope this works [16:52:14] morning! [16:52:20] Hi Mike [16:52:36] hey [16:52:56] forum section for NASSP on the Orbiter Forum is in the works [16:53:14] \o/ [16:53:20] I told them to add dseagrav as a moderator [16:53:40] and I wanted to ask Thymo to be one as well [16:53:43] what about you Mike? [16:54:08] I would be down for that :) [16:54:11] great [16:54:39] probably not much else to do than to sticky some threads etc. [16:55:05] sounds good [16:56:45] are you guys moving to the orbiter forum now [16:58:08] yep [16:58:21] as the main development and support forum at least [17:00:50] maybe it will get more visitors [17:01:10] at least it won't have the problem of the difficult registration process [17:01:23] and it will show that NASSP is active [17:12:46] I think I might be able to finish scanning the astrionics handbook tonight [17:13:30] oh, what is even still missing? [17:14:03] ah, the last few chapters [17:14:39] I'm especially lookinf forward to the LVDA diagram [17:15:34] if there are any changeds [17:15:35] changes [17:15:57] one of these days I should request the other Saturn Systems Handbook from UHCL [17:16:05] wait they have another one? [17:17:24] oh yes [17:18:00] in the Archive Search [17:18:05] where you are never looking :P [17:18:05] ohhhh [17:18:09] have you requested anything from that yet? [17:18:19] hmm [17:18:22] not sure [17:18:34] I don't think so [17:18:47] it also has a 1965 astrionics handbook [17:18:59] and two Saturn systems handbooks [17:19:04] Saturn Launch Vehicle systems handbook, AS-204 / LM-1 [17:19:10] Universal Saturn Launch Vehicle systems handbook AS-508 and Subsequent Vehicles [17:19:59] also [17:20:00] Lunar Roving Vehicle systems handbook [17:20:04] which is already scanned [17:20:40] and already available on ALSJ [17:20:58] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRVSysHndbkA15RevA.pdf [17:21:05] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRVSysHndbkA17.pdf [17:21:48] interesting [17:21:59] I wonder if Lauren can even scan that stuff for us [17:23:30] I've never really understood the difference [17:23:50] I worry that the archive search items are physically somewhere else, or something [17:23:51] oh, another one [17:23:52] MSC-07164, Saturn Launch Vehicle systems handbooks SL-1 [17:24:07] but they have been partially scanned [17:24:11] worth asking about [17:24:16] so maybe someone has requested them already [17:24:24] yeah, I'll ask for the AS-508 one [17:25:29] along similar lines... do you know how to go about looking for pictures that might not have been scanned yet? I want more of the pre-test interior shots from LTA-8, and I assume knowing that one of them has the ID S68-21511 can get me somewhere [17:28:00] nah, no idea. never searched for that [17:57:18] depressurizing both CSM and LM for the Apollo 9 EVA is fun [17:57:25] but then there isn't really anything to do [17:59:07] hahaha [17:59:33] you would make a great astronaut [17:59:48] "Man, that was a fun interaction with the ECS! Now I have to go out on an EVA though. Booooooring" [18:00:20] wel don't simulate EVA, that's the problem :D [18:00:22] we* [18:01:00] I'm sure it would be fun to do from a first person point-of-view [19:22:45] will the transearth evas be simulated on the j missions? [19:41:51] astronauthen96__, eventually, sure [19:46:59] Hey [19:47:04] indy91: You pinged me? [19:47:10] yeah [19:47:29] do you want to be a mod of our subforum on the Orbiter Forum that is currently being created? [19:47:45] I told them to add dseagrav [19:47:53] and I also asked Mike to be one [19:47:57] Yes, I'm down. [19:48:11] great [19:49:24] It also appears I still have a mediawiki database running on my box. I don't think it has the nassp wiki imported into it though. [19:50:02] the wiki isn't connected to the forum anyway, so it's a separate problem [19:51:06] Well, since we were on the topic of web stuff I though I'd mention it. [19:51:16] right [19:51:31] yeah, it would be great to have a wiki where new people can edit articles [19:51:36] however that is accomplished [19:52:42] When can we expect to move to the new forum? [19:52:59] very soon [19:53:05] it's already being worked on [19:53:10] Cool. [19:53:21] https://www.orbiter-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39 [19:53:25] If they ask what user they should add. This is me: https://www.orbiter-forum.com/member.php?u=14916 [19:53:36] I would expect a new section to appear there for us [19:53:41] I should probably post something.. :p [19:53:45] ok [19:53:52] haha, Mike has also 0 posts :D [19:54:14] I think... [19:54:26] It's just that there are so little posts that by the time I see a new one you already solved their problem. :P [19:55:12] hehe [19:56:49] yeah, I have zero posts too [19:57:35] if you want to: [19:57:36] https://www.orbiter-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70 [19:58:42] hmm, might not be a bad idea, to get past the 2 post cutoff lol [19:58:55] I suppose I'll post their the day the forum goes up. [19:59:21] hmm [19:59:46] I'm curious what this AGC clock issue is, that the guy recording Apollo 8 had [20:00:04] 8 doesn't use standby at all, right? [20:00:16] yeah [20:00:22] and he had it after launch [20:00:28] weird [20:00:37] It's cosmic radiation. [20:00:40] some power loss would do it [20:01:09] I'd buy radiation for more modern technology, but the AGC is super resilient to that :P [20:02:05] yep [20:04:14] our scenarios begin at T-4h [20:04:44] and because our CSM starts pretty much "cold & dark", there is a startup checklist with items that would have actually been done before T-4h [20:05:15] the AGC circuit breakers are closed as part of that. When that is done for the first time, the clock is initialized properly [20:05:41] if you pull the AGC breakers at any time after that and keep it that way for a few minutes, then the clock would also be off by a few minutes [20:06:04] how is the clock initialized? [20:06:19] TEPHEM in the memory versus simulation MJD [20:06:36] okay, so it's an MFD uplink? [20:06:44] no, that's done in code [20:06:53] just once, during the first activation [20:07:32] there is a "PadLoaded" flag in our code [20:07:38] how does it get into the AGC, though? are you just poking an erasable memory location? [20:08:06] yeah, we just put it in TIME2 and TIME1 [20:08:14] gotcha [20:08:25] how was that done in real life? [20:09:13] should be specified in the GSOP section about prelaunch [20:09:34] hahaha [20:09:38] in other words, "rtfm" :P [20:09:45] or not [20:10:16] Probably through GSE equipment? [20:10:23] yeah, via uplink [20:10:29] they would be doing some checks I guess [20:10:47] when the backup crew enters the CM, P02 would already be running [20:10:57] and the CMC would be ready [20:11:28] Isn't the CMC uplink set to accept as part of the prelaunch procedure? [20:12:51] I think so [20:12:58] there could be some final uplinks maybe [20:16:15] TEPHEM is usually set to midnight on the day before launch [20:16:37] so it could happen any time after T-48h [20:17:04] they probably load a precise GMT [20:25:58] and it probably would already be running during the countdown demonstration test [20:26:04] but then powered down again or so [20:26:18] there is a lot of activity in the CM in the weeks before launch, not just hours [20:30:59] night! [22:52:24] https://www.orbiter-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=102 [22:52:31] the subforum is up! [11:38:12] hey [12:08:46] Thymo_, can you try to create a new development thread? Might not be allowed to do that, since you still have 0 posts [12:09:41] I can try but it'll go into the moderation queue just like my introduction post (which is still waiting). [12:11:30] ah, so you did that post [12:11:34] ok, nevermind then [12:11:47] I told them to add you and Mike as moderators, let's see what happens :) [12:12:13] I suppose we want to call it "NASSP Development thread". Do we want to have a dev thread for each version? [12:12:30] Yeah, I'm not a moderator yet. [12:12:46] Are you? It just shows dseagrav as forum manager. [12:13:38] yeah, that's what they told them to do [12:13:52] and I only just sent them the message about you and Mike, so it's going to take a bit [12:14:00] I didn't tell them to add me as a moderator [12:14:24] I have my minions for that :D [12:14:37] no, I think you and Mike will do a better job at that than I would do [12:16:47] Haha, no problem. [12:18:26] good morning [12:18:28] Hey [12:18:53] got a 604 program alarm for my csi calculation [12:19:57] indy91: I also want to look into moving NASSP to a github organisation like vagc. Then we could add all maintainers to the project and maybe grant some more people commit access. What's your opinion on that? [12:20:35] hey [12:20:54] well right now me and dseagrav are basically the only ones with access [12:21:12] so if either of us is away for a while, nobody could be commiting anything [12:21:23] so yeah, I think it would be good if a few more people had access [12:21:45] also my rincl after insertion is 0.05 [12:22:08] oh, very nice! [12:22:18] you probably won't need a plane change maneuver then [12:22:37] not sure about the program alarm [12:22:50] hmm [12:23:04] CDH to TPI Time < 10 minutes [12:23:11] I would bet you entered a wrong TPI time [12:23:31] i did this right before bed and i was tired so maybe [12:23:32] in P32 [12:24:06] yeah, I don't think your trajectory could be that much off that this is a "real" alarm [12:24:25] you would have to launch 10 minutes early or so [12:24:29] surely a typo [12:33:07] One thing about giving more people commit access is that so QA is lost, which you've been doing an amazing job at. [12:33:21] s/so QA/some QA/ [12:36:48] haha, yeah, I've found many bugs in pull requests :D [13:10:00] Okay, I'm heading home. I'll be back in about 50 minutes. [14:52:22] Well, maybe a little longer than 50 minutes. Had to run some errands. [14:53:42] haha [15:03:41] Alright. When this post gets approved I should finally be able to post without waiting so long. :) [15:22:33] just wondering am i allowed to post videos on the sub forum or is it just for development? [15:31:31] I suppose we can make a screenshots/video thread. [16:41:18] morning! [16:41:59] hey [16:42:19] astronauthen96__, there are general threads for Orbiter videos and screenshots [16:42:25] what's up? [16:44:23] you are now a moderator [16:44:41] oh snap [16:44:46] time to ban that indy91 troll [16:45:03] :D [16:45:29] I'm not sure you can actually do that [16:45:32] maybe you can [16:45:43] hehe [16:47:15] I do need to find something to post about to get my post count up to two though [16:48:59] might make a VirtualAGC thread for general/development discussion on that, that doesn't necessarily have to do with NASSP (yet) [16:51:03] even less with Orbiter though [16:51:06] but maybe here: https://www.orbiter-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12 [19:49:39] whoa, lots of stuff in the subforum now [19:49:46] I guess all of the NASSP-related threads got moved there [19:50:37] oh yeah [20:22:02] night! [10:04:46] good morning [10:04:52] on mcc1 now [10:05:53] hey [10:06:04] which mission? [10:06:08] 11 [10:06:15] rendezvous [10:06:17] oh wow [10:06:20] you made it! [10:06:31] with no prog alarms [10:06:36] how was CDH and TPI? [10:06:44] good i hope [10:06:53] you will see with the MCC1 Delta V [10:06:58] it's nominally 0 [10:07:16] if you are really good, then it can be as low as 1 ft/s or lower [10:07:16] i think r1 and r3 were 4 i think [10:07:28] 0.4 or 4.0? [10:07:35] 4.0 [10:07:44] hmm, that's not great, but ok [10:08:24] just null it real good then MCC2 should be basically 0 [10:13:45] also when i run the mcc program the first tig is counting up [10:27:29] and i keep getting 50 18 in the program 35 when it is not supposed to [10:31:18] yeah, the computer doesn't really have a TIG for the MCCs stored [10:31:31] so it's counting up from TPI or so [10:31:37] or when you started P35 the first time [10:32:10] how the TIG for the MCCs works is this. When you press PRO on the 16 45, then the TIG gets set to 3 minutes later [10:32:33] and the 50 18 is from P20 that is running in the background [10:32:52] what you have to do there is press PRO, that will make it maneuver to the right tracking attitude [10:33:02] and once you have done that once, press ENTR on the next 50 18 [10:33:17] that will enable the continuous tracking [10:33:18] i was wrong about the dv's r2 was 4.4 1 and 3 were less than one [10:33:33] ah, so just some out of plane error [10:33:35] interesting [10:34:23] what did you use for DVY for the TPI? [10:34:56] not sure what you mean [10:36:58] I believe there is a procedure using V90 again [10:37:11] oh [10:37:18] you probably did everything right [10:37:37] per nominal procedure, TPI is taking out the out-of-plane velocity [10:37:52] that leads to an exactly in-plane position at about the time of MCC1 [10:38:13] and when you then burn the 4.4 ft/s DVY (in R2) during MCC1, you are perfectly in-plane [10:38:34] the Align Plane MFD might show 0.0° or 0.1° after MCC1 [10:38:46] i will check that now [10:40:29] 0.01° I meant [10:51:45] its 0.05 [10:52:15] periapsis is 45 [11:00:10] it will get down to 0 once you are at the CSM :D [11:12:01] mcc2 dv's were less than 1.0 [11:12:24] and i can see it approaching with the hud [11:12:53] awesome [11:13:21] took a few attempts, but I think this was a successful rendezvous :D [11:13:29] just don't forget the braking schedule [11:13:42] yeah i saw that in the checklists [11:14:31] and then at the end, station-keeping [11:14:39] docking is CSM active [11:15:10] so the csm initiates docking? [11:15:51] yep [11:15:58] never knew that [11:16:00] LM just does attitude hold in the right attitude [11:16:05] i thought the lem did it [11:18:47] the LM can do active docking, but nominally it's done by the CSM [11:47:15] found the csm but cant get it lined up with the docking mfd [11:50:00] you don't need the Docking MFD [11:52:26] try to have 0° yaw and roll with the LM [11:53:06] im am under the csm by alot [11:54:01] i did manage to get it lined up but it kept going up and i couldnt stop it in time and i went past it [11:54:25] you need to be station keeping first [11:54:33] as little relative movement as possible [11:55:27] and then as I said, LM should be 0° yaw and roll, CSM should have 0° yaw and 300° roll [11:55:35] and then you just have to align the pitch [11:55:56] from one moment one you should keep the LM totally passive, no translational thrust [11:56:02] only attitude hold [11:56:07] CSM can do the rest [11:56:20] it takes some practice [12:26:30] would you mind just looking at this scenario https://www.dropbox.com/s/6smzzz4p8q48539/%28Current%20state%29%200002%200002.scn?dl=0 [12:35:49] sure [12:36:08] is that the pre docking scenario? [12:36:48] yes [12:37:08] still trouble with docking? [12:37:14] yes [12:39:48] I think first you need to establish good attitudes for CSM and LM [12:41:42] what exactly were your issues [12:42:15] it just seems off to the side [12:42:47] did you update the CSM for the rendezvous? [12:42:51] like the updated REFSMMAT? [12:43:10] before landing? [12:43:31] before liftoff [12:43:42] but you don't have to to get a good docking [12:43:47] it's still good [12:44:19] the best technique is to establish the right docking attitude and then only work with the CSM translational thrusters [12:44:28] so maneuver to 0°/105°/0° with the LM [12:44:36] and to 300°/285°/0° in the CSM [12:44:46] okay [12:45:13] and then switch to the CSM and work with the translational thrusters to get into the right docking position [12:45:22] that way you are already in the docking attitude [12:45:29] and only have to correct your position, not the attitude [12:46:22] the CSM and LM are too far away from each other [12:46:29] they should have been station keeping much closer [12:46:55] maybe you should close in with the LM a bit at first [12:47:01] and then do a proper station keeping [12:47:08] and then CSM active docking [12:47:44] it's actually the same technique for the LM approach [12:47:55] keep attitude fixed and only work with the translational thrusters [13:33:29] Hey [13:41:41] hey Thymo [13:50:16] What's up? [13:53:48] watching F1 [13:55:25] Ah nice. Monaco really is an awesome circuit to drive on. [13:56:13] @indy91 docked and saved [13:56:31] translation control was a pain [13:57:24] it's much nicer when your CSM and LM are closer together [13:58:17] i was pretty close to giving up [13:59:14] sounds like your RCS propellant was also close to giving up [13:59:45] was it low? [14:01:05] you tell me [14:01:08] after docking [14:01:20] if it took a while and was a pain, you probably used up a lot of it [14:06:11] just the translation [14:07:08] but i guess it all uses the same propellant [14:09:07] rotation and translation [14:10:13] It's just a difference in how the thrusters fire. [14:10:23] yeah [14:11:37] @Thymo have you done a rendezvous? [14:42:01] Hey [14:48:52] hey Alex [14:49:09] @AlexB_88 i finished the 11 rendezvous [14:49:38] Awesome [14:49:52] it was quite a pain [14:56:36] hey Alex [14:57:19] bye Alex [14:57:28] @indy91 thanks again for all your help [14:57:35] hey Alex [14:57:38] astronauthen96__, no problem [14:57:40] Hey [14:57:50] Congrats on the forum! [14:58:35] yeah, it was all very quick and easy [14:58:44] now we just need to fill it a bit with activity [14:58:59] Haven’t had time to do much NASSP lately, with work and stuff [15:00:06] I'm still slowly making my way through Apollo 9 [15:00:17] Nice [15:00:28] How far are you? [15:00:51] so will the LEM disappear eventually [15:01:04] i cant do more then 30x right now [15:01:23] finished EVA day [15:01:44] so thinking about the rendezvou stuff now [15:01:50] astronauthen96__, what do you mean disappear? [15:02:15] "decreate" [15:02:39] why would it do that? [15:02:57] Nice [15:03:03] i think thats why i cant do more than 30x acceleration [15:03:37] Anyways I think I’ll lose contact on my iPhone HGA, I’ll be back on Monday! [15:04:11] cya [15:04:24] later [15:04:47] astronauthen96__, completely powered down the LM will not be as resource intensive, but I don't think it makes a big difference really [15:05:01] not running the LGC and AGS will probably help [15:05:13] have you jettisoned the LM yet? [15:05:17] i already jettisoned it [15:05:47] ok [15:05:57] and was everything powered down? [15:06:12] eventually that will happen anyway, it will run out of power [15:06:27] do you know when [15:07:47] did you pull lots of circuit breakers before jettisoning it? [15:07:54] no [15:07:59] ok [15:08:05] i still have a before jettison scenario [15:08:19] pretty sure the Checklist MFD should have given you a procedure for that [15:08:20] maybe [15:09:07] maybe they didn't power it down on Apollo 11 [15:09:17] they didn't even deorbit the LM on Apollo 11 [15:09:20] i got lost in the flightplan [15:09:23] they started doing that on Apollo 12 [15:09:35] there is a procedure in the flight plan for the lm [15:09:49] it will be maybe 5-10 hours until the LM is completely out of power [15:09:54] if everything was still running [15:09:56] perform lem closeout [15:11:08] yeah [15:11:22] and it uses a "CB Post Docking Chart" [15:11:31] lots of circuit breakers are opened with that [16:42:08] @indy91 might be arriving one hour early [16:54:28] morning! [16:54:42] Hi Mike [16:54:58] just finished my apollo 11 rendezvous [16:55:27] nice [17:01:44] indy91: I forgot to mention it yesterday, but the completed astrionics system handbook scan is up in that folder [17:07:24] great [17:08:10] Ron has added it already to the website it looks like [17:08:39] i left the inclination at 0 [17:10:11] yeah if you leave it 0, then the older method to calculate the TEI is used [17:10:35] but the new method is always a manual inclination input right now [17:10:45] so you would have to do trial and error to find a good TEI solution [17:11:04] the older method usually needs more DV, but it's not too bad [17:11:08] for most missions [17:13:03] so why is there new development thread up yet? Lazy mods, you have to do everything yourself... :D [17:13:08] no new* [17:16:46] could it be in the flight plan? [17:18:26] the inclination? [17:18:36] it's for some missions actually [17:18:52] the early missions had a return inclination limit of 40° [17:19:04] there are some numbers at the last page of the detailed timeline [17:19:15] and some missions had the nominal and contingency TEIs at the limit, so then the inclination was specified [17:20:23] the number would be in the Spacecraft Operational Trajectory [17:20:27] let me look [17:22:44] you know what [17:22:49] Apollo 11 might actually be at the limit [17:24:50] yep [17:24:55] Apollo 11 was at the 40° limit [17:24:59] I never knew that [17:25:06] so I would try that [17:25:16] ascending and descending node, whatever gives the lower DV [17:25:21] and 40° inclination of course [17:28:36] thewonderidiot, can you sticky the new development thread? https://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=39586 [17:29:33] done [17:29:40] great, thanks [17:30:12] And we probably will want posts about installation, news etc. [17:30:25] I guess we can create them step by step when it comes up [17:31:45] also about the development roadmap [18:06:09] https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/family-release-regarding-the-passing-of-apollo-skylab-astronaut-alan-bean [18:07:08] down to 4 moonwalkers :( [18:07:16] :( [18:37:55] http://vanbeersweb.nl/ [18:38:06] vanbeersweb.nl/ [18:38:11] https://vanbeersweb.nl/ [18:38:20] https://google.com [18:38:22] Hmm