[16:38:50] NASSP Logging has been started by thewonderidiot [16:54:25] Hey Mike [16:55:37] good evening [16:56:10] good morning! [17:00:02] @indy91 mission accomplished! [17:00:24] your CM is in the water? [17:00:29] yes [17:00:33] great [17:00:51] last I read (in the chat log) was that you had trouble finding the transearth MCC calculation in the RTCC MFD [17:00:56] I guess you found it then :D [17:00:58] after splashdown my crew was at critical for some reason [17:01:00] yep [17:01:25] a few minutes after splashdown? [17:01:38] yes [17:01:45] yeah, I think that is a known problem [17:01:57] it did that in the apollo 8 reentry scenario as well [17:02:13] when you open the hatch, it doesn't properly mix the "fresh sea air" with the air in the cabin [17:02:30] and the CO2 scrubber of the suit circuit, just like basically everthing else, is powered down [17:02:38] so the issue is the CO2 level in the cabin [17:03:09] we have to do some fixes on that [17:04:09] i've only been doing nassp for 5 months i never thought i would do the full 11 mission [17:04:16] now you have! [17:04:32] reentry and everything worked fine on your first attempt? [17:04:36] yes [17:05:12] i did some practice the the apollo 8 entry preparation scenario [17:06:13] had to do 2 course corrections on the way back [17:06:14] ah, good [17:06:32] how much DV were they? [17:06:55] i think they both were around 4fps [17:07:14] hmm, only the first one should be of any significance [17:07:29] in my experience [17:07:39] first one about 2-5 ft/s [17:07:52] oh, I know [17:08:14] you used the wrong calculation option for MCC-6 or MCC-7 [17:08:31] i burn 5 and 7 [17:08:35] well wrong as in "spends too much DV" [17:08:47] MCC-6 and 7 would only ever be corridor control burns [17:08:58] that should be one of the options, when you cycle through them [17:09:04] so no longitude control for MCC-6 and 7 [17:09:17] that will cut down the DV for those MCCs a lot [17:10:04] the options are Midcourse, Abort and Corridor Control [17:10:13] Midcourse is the usual one for MCC-5 [17:10:31] Abort would only really be used for the TLI+X abort burns, between TLI and LOI [17:10:51] and Corridor Control option only fixes your reentry angle [17:11:06] and that's what would be used for MCC-6 and 7 [17:11:12] Now you know for your next mission! [17:11:17] yeah [17:11:44] I guess it's similar to how slightly different options are used for MCC-1 and 2 versus 3 and 4 [17:13:36] not sure why my ptc refsmmat was putting my burn attitudes in gimbal lock [17:14:33] yeah, that's strange [17:15:08] but the direction of the necessary DV for the MCCs is also pretty random, so... [17:15:30] the entry refsmmat worked [17:16:37] ah, even MCC-5 would usually be a corridor control burn only [17:17:06] if the splashdown longitude would be way off with that, then MCC-5 would also do longitude control [17:17:34] and a corridor control burn should be always in a good attitude, even with the PTC REFSMMAT [17:17:55] the actual mission did just that [17:18:02] " minus 0004.8, plus all balls, plus 0000.1" [17:18:04] for the DV vector [17:18:29] having almost the whole DV in the DVX direction is an indication for a corridor control burn [17:29:53] Having some issues with the p23 navigation, my residuals are way too high. Just to confirm, the near Horizon option requires me to overlap the nearest point on the horizon to the star correct? [17:30:27] Also, if I do a state Vector update from the MFD does the p23 navigation really matter in the grand scheme of things [17:31:07] I'm certainly no jim Lovell lol [17:31:36] we all are no Jim Lovell [17:31:45] in addition to that, the Orbiter Earth is spherical [17:32:01] but the AGC expects an ellipsoid [17:32:26] nobody of us every managed to do a full return to Earth with just P23 navigation [17:32:32] ever* [17:32:46] but you understood the technique correctly [17:32:59] overlap star with horizon closest to the star [17:33:03] Well I feel slightly better now. So I can pretty much ignore my terrible p23 results then and just go with the MFD uploaded State Vectors? [17:33:24] you are using the MCC scenario that gets updates like Maneuver PADs, right? [17:33:31] correct [17:33:37] Then you basically never have to use an MFD [17:33:55] you will get state vector updated periodically [17:34:00] Even better then. I guess I'm still thinking of the old version 7 beta days from years ago [17:34:09] usually they come with midcourse correction updates [17:34:33] Ok cool. I guess p23 is just left in the checklist as a historical accuracy then [17:35:23] pretty much [17:35:35] P23 works pretty well when doing star/lunar horizon marks [17:36:09] also, one of the TEC days was all under the mcc6 part of the checklist [17:36:46] but Earth horizon marks, the majority of what was done on Apollo 8, are not totally to be trusted [17:37:19] the mission control feature is optional. That's why there are two launch scenarios for each mission [17:37:21] MCC and non-MCC [17:37:45] I haven't really updated the Apollo 8 MCC updates since the NASSP 7 release, but I don't think there are any big issues [17:38:25] astronauthen96__, might need some better checklist organization then [17:38:46] messierhunter, if the MCC runs into trouble, then I'm sure you will tell me :D [17:38:51] thanks for beta testing, haha [17:43:00] All the MCC has been working fantastic so far. Thanks so much for that feature it's really amazing [17:43:57] great that it's working [17:44:06] the PADs can be a bit buggy right now unfortunately [17:44:14] we are having some CTDs with it [17:44:44] only really the TLI PAD and the Block Data PAD for Earth orbit [17:45:12] I guess you made it past the TLI PAD, so, it's less likely that you will get such a CTD [17:46:26] the mission control updates is what I am working on right now [17:46:28] Apollo 9 [17:46:36] Apollo 7, 8 and 10 are basically complete [17:46:43] Yeah tli worked fine fortunately. I did miss the pad at t plus 5 hours and it won't come up when requesting the previous Pad but I think that's because I was too busy with a bunch of p23 frustration and I missed seeing it [17:48:16] the one at 5 hours is "Block Data 1" [17:48:25] that's for a direct return abort [17:48:35] so not necessary for continuing the mission [17:48:54] Ok, good to know [17:49:11] similar to the TLI+90 minutes and TLI+4 hour PADs you got in Earth orbit [17:49:20] I noticed the next item on the checklist for p21 asks for the LOI insertion time. Should I just use the historical time or was that included in one of the previous pads [17:49:21] oh and I read about that in the chat log [17:49:36] those PADs come up with a 5 minute delay between them [17:49:53] that's what I figured was a good time to write the whole PAD down by hand and check each item [17:50:09] hmm [17:50:22] I don't think it was included with a PAD [17:50:32] maybe use the flight plan time for LOI [17:50:59] Jim Lovell played around with that time to find the closest approach to the Moon [17:51:19] to also check how good the onboard navigation of the AGC is [18:07:23] I see [19:32:25] ohhh man [19:32:35] "So, I powered up my beast last night and managed to keep all the smoke inside the components, :) [19:32:35] Powered up with only A01 and A02 and after jumpering ALGA, STRT1, STRT2, SBY, MSTP, and MSTRTP to ground I was able to check out the timing signals at several connectors. I'm getting clean T01 - T12 and I'll be checking the R/W/C times as well as the phase timing soon." [19:32:50] this guy's AGC is coming to life :D [19:34:13] Hey @thewonderidiot [19:34:21] just finished Apollo 11 [19:34:34] nice [19:41:27] That's just awesome! [19:41:45] wow [19:45:10] gonna work on apollo 9 now [19:49:45] hopefully it continues to go that smoothly [19:50:00] I think two or three more modules and it should trace through GOJAM correctly and try to TC 4000 [19:50:32] and he has enough backplane in place to execute all of the instructions except for the I/O instructions [19:52:33] but yeah, this thing is going to be put together and running Aurora in no time :D [19:52:58] and then? [19:59:36] haha, I don't know what he's going to do with it after that [19:59:53] I guess the plan is mostly "build a function AGC" [20:00:13] yeah, it's about the journey, not the destination :D [20:40:02] night! [03:10:12] I wonder if that F-5 FBW AGC program was ever saved... [03:10:18] Was it a F-5? [03:14:15] F-8 [03:14:30] the program's name was DIGFLY, and the MIT museum has some info on it [03:14:41] I don't have any leads on an actual listing, though [03:15:19] if you happen to know anybody at the AFRL, that is our biggest potential score for AGC code [03:16:00] MIT transferred all of the change records for all of the AGC programs to Rome Laboratory, where they were all entered into a big database, stored on tape [03:16:36] if they still have that, we'd be able to reconstruct just about all of the versions of all of the programs from it [03:18:53] it made it up to at least revision 39 -- the MIT museum has "register maps" (presumably erasable memory layout) for DIGFLY 39 [03:53:01] hmm, I need to see if NARA has aperture cards for LDW 370-28001 [03:53:22] that's the level 3 PGNCS schematics for LTA-8 [11:59:25] morning [12:10:56] hey [12:11:22] working on adding proper support for the Apollo 11/12 No PDI+12 style maneuver [12:11:50] oh cool [12:12:11] I guess part of the lambert page? [12:12:14] yeah [12:12:20] there will be 3 options [12:12:30] General, NCC/NSR and TPI/TPF [12:12:40] the last two is what the real two impulse processor had [12:13:00] but it probably wouldn't be able to calculate the Apollo 7 phasing maneuvers [12:13:21] so that's what the "general" option will be fore, so that we don't loose any capabilities [12:13:34] right [12:13:47] and I guess the direct ascent tweak burn [12:14:12] that would be possible to calculate with the NCC/NSR option [12:14:15] but general as well [12:14:36] ah I see [12:14:47] the NCC/NSR option additionally calculates the NSR DV and then finds the TPI time [12:14:58] so the NCC/NSR TPI/TPF have the offsets pre-configured? [12:15:10] TPI/TPF uses no offset [12:15:30] and in the RTCC the offset inputs were always a phase angle and a DH [12:15:38] right [12:16:10] I don't think there was a option in the RTCC to automatically calculate the right T2 for the No PDI+12 [12:16:22] but there was a multiple solution display [12:16:39] where the DH and T2 would be varied and several parameters for that would be displayed [12:16:48] so easy to find the right T2 manually [12:16:58] I'm going to implement some variation of that [12:18:46] NCC/NSR is the same as CSI/CDH? [12:19:02] kind of [12:19:20] the No PDI+12 profile is the same as Apollo 7 rendezvous [12:19:42] first maneuver is NCC-1 (or the abort maneuver for the No PDI+12) [12:19:54] second maneuver is NSR or CDH [12:20:13] there can be a CSI maneuver in between, but it's nominally 0 [12:20:24] NSR (or CDH) can be ground or onboard calculated [12:23:48] so how it's probably going to be is that the TPI time will be calculated based on lighting [12:24:20] and on the Lambert page it will then display the difference between that TPI time and the one calculated by the NCC/NSR option based on elevation angle [12:24:35] and then T2 can be easily adjusted [12:24:41] or the DH as well [12:39:44] and before I tackle the Apollo 9 rendezvous, I'm going to request two relevant documents from UHCL [12:42:40] I can't find the final rendezvous techniques document, but there is a document with (maybe) the minutes of the final meeting for the rendezvous techniques [12:42:54] happened on January 20, Bill Tindall calls it a "gruelling session" [12:45:06] interesting [12:45:54] I think I know most things about the Apollo 9 rendezvous profile, just could use some additional details [12:46:04] yeah [12:46:05] good morning [12:46:14] and the other document I'll request is the rendezvous techniques document from December 1968 [12:46:15] hey [12:46:20] hey [12:47:09] oh lol [12:47:21] the document abou the meeting IS a Tindallgram [12:47:29] but the version I have isn't very readable [12:48:16] I should still request it and send it to the people running the Tindallgrams website [13:06:21] I see you fixed something in the coast integrator [13:07:46] something I broke in the previous commit [13:08:09] before both of them, some variables in dynamic memory were not deleted [13:08:27] before the fix, the variables were deleted before they were used [13:08:34] baaaaad [13:09:05] so pretty much everything using the coast integrator (half of the RTCC) would be broken or unreliable [13:09:09] should be good now [13:12:40] haha great [13:15:31] I was debugging it, saw a good state vector going into the coast integrator, returning a bad state vector [13:15:34] oh noooo [13:15:43] but luckily it was an easy fix [13:50:18] cant wait for the 9 rendevzous [14:25:27] are you kidding me Lauren [14:25:33] request sent: 15:50 [14:25:43] all three requested documents availabel: 16:11 [14:27:12] granted, only 21 pages (probably) had to be scanned [14:27:13] still [14:40:25] Niklas i got your last build but its not on the forum with buildbot [14:42:21] ah [14:42:27] it's on neither forum [14:42:44] dseagrav wanted to change it to the Orbiter Forum [14:42:54] probably doesn't work properly yet [14:49:34] but it should be a good build [14:49:37] tiny change [16:26:58] maybe Lauren is really a robot [16:34:01] one of the documents I requested is AMAZING [16:34:25] it's basically step by stpe instructions on how to calculate the Apollo 9 rendezvous sequence in the RTCC [16:34:29] with all inputs etc. [16:34:34] only problem, it's a bit dated [16:34:37] September 1968 [16:34:49] but it looks very usable [16:34:53] many good info in there [16:40:31] nice [16:57:10] morning! [17:00:14] so, buildbot did post the build this morning to the forum thread [17:00:19] and I as a moderator can see it [17:00:44] but it has been moderated by somebody else or something [17:00:49] can't yet see why it's not visible to other people [17:03:10] hey [17:03:13] ah, that makes sense [17:03:53] oh, is it just because this is its second post so it needs to be approved? [17:03:54] I don't really care much about the build bot. Just a nice check that it actually did a complete build [17:03:59] possible [17:04:06] let me try approving it [17:04:25] can moderators do that? [17:04:27] or only admins [17:04:35] I hope I'm allowed to do it, because I just did [17:04:38] can you see it now? [17:05:44] nope [17:05:50] uhh [17:05:51] yes [17:06:08] it's there [17:06:45] cool [17:10:04] AlexB_88, what offset were you using for the No PDI+12 [17:11:33] hmm I think I was using CDH -78 0 15 [17:11:45] so 78NM behind [17:11:50] any ideas what phase angle that is? [17:11:51] yeah [17:12:00] not sure [17:12:04] the input in the RTCC would be an angle [17:12:22] if it's close to a round number, then that should be the baseline input [17:12:24] I basically used the plot chart to judge those offsets [17:12:48] right [17:13:08] I'm just trying to find the input the RTCC would have used for this [17:17:59] -4.5° it seems like [17:18:08] that would be 78.266 [17:18:10] NM [17:35:21] so I'm fishing around in the NARA drawings collection again [17:35:44] I figured out that LDW 370-28001 is the LTA-8 equivalent of the level 3 PGNCS drawings [17:35:59] so hopefully they have that; I don't know if they ever made system handbooks for LTA-8 or anything [17:48:16] also blindly grasping at drawing numbers associated with the Computer Test Set and the Portafam, which they are pretty much guaranteed to not have :P [17:50:34] haha, that would be some luck if they have it [17:55:53] also over the weekend I put this together: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1muPH5ap9-qlfIZuDXAt5kTqBeansX5WasZ6TPzwDJT0/edit?usp=sharing [17:56:03] as a preliminary thing, I'm sure there will be more things I think of to add [17:59:53] looks like ALSEP deployment in the cuff checklists [18:00:07] or the cuff checklists in general :D [18:00:38] quite the test plan [18:01:26] hehehe [18:01:29] oh! [18:01:33] speaking of checklist [18:02:10] https://www.rrauction.com/bidtracker_detail.cfm?IN=177 [18:02:18] they really went overboard on the preview images for that one [18:02:41] and I have them all saved :D [18:02:45] perfect [18:02:46] lol [18:02:58] just wanted to make sure you had seen it [18:03:10] yeah, thanks [18:03:22] there's also https://www.rrauction.com/bidtracker_detail.cfm?IN=109 but there are less previews there [18:03:25] looking through the, there is the auto rate procedure again [18:03:30] it* [18:03:43] and the PTC initiation procedure with the DAP [18:04:33] we have revision A of the Apollo 15 LM Data Card Book [18:04:44] let's see if these are a later revision... [18:05:29] oh, these aren't in the data card book [18:05:48] these would be in the timeline book [18:05:52] which we don't have for 15 [18:06:17] hmm [18:06:18] no [18:06:30] apparently there was a separate "rendezvous chart book" [18:08:10] and I hadn't saved these yet. Good to have it [18:11:04] on Apollo 12 these charts were still in the Rendezvous/Abort Book [18:11:20] on Apollo 13 and later this was the separate book for charts [18:19:25] haha, look at this crazy chart [18:19:25] https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B9%2F6%2F3%2F3%2F9633572%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D [18:19:46] must have been added after the Apollo 16 trouble with the re-rendezvous [18:19:56] hehehe [18:20:09] looks like something that you would find useful [18:20:13] and very few other people :P [18:20:38] I didn't know that 16 had trouble with the rendezvous [18:20:45] not the normal rendezvous [18:20:48] the SPS had trouble [18:20:55] so the LM temporarily returned back to the CSM [18:21:00] after undocking [18:21:12] oh, this was the backup TVC actuator failure? [18:21:17] yep [18:21:22] I didn't know they redocked after that [18:21:28] I'm not sure they did [18:21:37] oh, just rendezvoused to stay close [18:21:38] got it [18:21:39] LM just returned back to the CSM until they could figure it out [18:22:02] yeah, if the LM had followed the normal trajectory it might have been "phasing away" [18:22:10] right [18:22:16] not sure how late their landing was then [18:22:17] which isn't ideal if the resolution is a return-to-earth abort [18:22:31] yeah, all of the DPS propellant would have been needed for TEI [18:23:10] they couldn't waited all that many revs with continuing on [18:23:15] right [18:23:17] eventually the landing site is rotating away [18:23:47] PDI at about 104:17 [18:24:17] does the 16 transcript have a lot of nice padloads for the late landing or did they just silently uplink the changes? [18:24:18] normally 98:35 [18:24:36] probably just uplink [18:24:40] damn you uplink [18:25:00] so 3 revolutions late [18:25:16] they stayed in the low orbit for that time, so one rev is less than the usual 2 hours [18:25:32] CSM circularization burn was at the normal time relative to PDI [18:26:08] "plus 0003.6" [18:26:14] that's the crossrange from the PDI PAD [18:26:20] up to 8.0NM is ok [18:26:26] normal is 0 [18:26:47] I'm not sure if the 8NM also applies to the terrain model [18:27:53] yeah, only manual padload related change during that time is a PIPA bias update [18:32:51] boo [18:38:05] a second PDI was planned anyway [18:38:18] so normal PDI and one revolution later [18:38:27] 3 revolutions later isn't super different [18:39:09] name of the procedure to stop the PDI preparations and transition to the second opportunity? "Go-Around" [18:39:11] because pilots [18:40:20] hahaha, that's awesome [18:40:45] although to be fair, that is probably technically even more accurate than the original use of the phrase [18:40:53] since they are quite literally flying all the way around it [18:41:14] haha, yes [18:41:21] well [18:41:32] traffic pattern [18:41:57] going once around the airfield [18:42:04] that's probably where it's coming from [18:42:18] so kind of similar [18:42:28] PDI go around is even more circular though :D [18:43:34] AlexB_88, I am out of buttons on the Lambert page [18:43:35] what do [18:43:52] I'd like an elevation input there [18:44:07] but I might have to settle for having it somewhere else [18:44:21] same as you can't input the landing site coordinates on each page they are used [18:51:02] eventually I'd like a setup like LTMFD [18:51:10] where you have just generic buttons [19:01:24] ooooh, they did have LDW 370-28001 for LTA-8 [19:01:32] looks like I need to do some aperture card stitching tonight :D [19:02:15] this was made when the computer was still 2003100-021 [19:02:46] was that one of the in between states? [19:02:49] I forgot [19:03:07] it's kind of difficult to remember these number, unless you are you :D [19:03:11] numbers* [19:03:53] I don't remember exactly what the difference between -021 and -071 was [19:03:57] pulling up the compatibility charts now... [19:04:18] oh damn [19:04:59] 2003100-021 was before ECP 301, unfortunately [19:05:05] which is what introduced the thermal instrumentation [19:05:14] I was hoping to see some of that instrumentation in here [19:05:21] ah, sad [19:05:51] no bother, just more things to beep out [19:06:08] I'm still going to run through all of the pin numbers in here to see if there are differences between it and LM-4 [19:07:06] actually [19:07:11] some of it might be shown in the mechanical drawings [19:07:58] so you got a quick response from NARA about what they have? [19:08:30] I think you mentioned that they are quite quick about ti [19:08:53] but then they want moneys to actually do something :D [19:26:21] they want moneys to do some things [19:26:31] yeah they didn't have the other two, unsurprisingly, lol [19:26:36] but this PDF I just got sent for free [19:27:11] it is hard to predict -- for aperture card scans it seems like I get one for free, assuming I wait long enough between requests [19:27:22] I think every time I've asked about a document they have wanted money though [19:27:32] like, a physical document vs. an aperture card one [19:30:49] right [19:31:31] the LOI and Return-to-Earth targeting documents are constantly fighting for the number 1 spot on my NARA wish list, haha [19:31:57] after I've had some progress with the TEI targeting, LOI is currently in the no. 1 spot [19:32:03] recently* [19:32:11] yeah the first time I asked for a document from them, they responded and said it would be $24 to scan [19:32:26] after I gave them my payment info, it took them just under 24 hours to turn around the PDFs [19:32:30] at least I would know how many pages it is [19:32:42] and they didn't charge me because there was "a delay" from scanner issues [19:32:43] lol [19:32:52] haha [19:33:08] sabotage + well timed request = profit! [19:33:16] a flawless plan [19:33:44] will just work for the top spot of the list though [19:33:50] not the 1000 documents below that [19:33:52] yeah, it's worth a shot [19:34:11] I think you should email them about one single document and see what they say [19:34:17]