[21:33:50] NASSP Logging has been started by thymo [21:33:53] Hey o/ [21:34:05] haha [21:34:06] hey Thymo [21:34:23] -208.9 0.0 +48.2 sounds better, AlexB_88 ? [21:34:40] Accidentally rebooted the box today. I though I was using the keyboard of the Winblows machine next to it and hit ctrl alt del. :P [21:35:13] In other news. I successfully repaired my laptop today. :D [21:35:53] great. what was broken? [21:37:09] https://www3.lenovo.com/medias/lenovo-laptop-thinkpad-e550-main.png?context=bWFzdGVyfHJvb3R8NTcxODZ8aW1hZ2UvcG5nfGhlYS9oZmQvOTMxODIxNDA3NDM5OC5wbmd8YWM3NzJiNWZmNjcyMDViMGQ1ZDU0NmFiYmM3NGZlNDgyNjljODMwZTBkOWVlNThmYTllMjU2Zjk0YWU3ZDg2Mw [21:37:19] Those 3 mouse buttons above the touchpad [21:37:38] ah yeah, I have a similar one [21:37:55] It started with just the left one. So I grabbed the service manual on how to disassemble it. [21:38:16] The manual went as far as getting they keyboard and front assembly off. [21:38:24] From there on I just had to guess what was right. [21:38:38] Took out the touchpad from the assembly. [21:38:50] Reconnected it, aand none of the buttons work. [21:39:29] So I disassembled the whole touchpad and used lots of contact spray on those buttons. Put it back together, tested it. Still not working. [21:39:56] So eventually I gave up reassembled everything again. Turned it on and all of a sudden the buttons worked just fine. :) [21:40:08] My guess is that the contact spray needed a little longer to dry. [21:40:15] haha, probably [21:40:27] well good that you got it working again [21:40:31] good night! [21:41:27] im off too, night! [12:29:38] good morning [12:31:55] hey [12:33:04] do you think if i burn mcc1 i might arrive slightly earlier than last time? [12:33:43] which misison are you talking about? [12:33:52] 11 [12:34:20] possible, yes [13:13:49] hey [13:13:59] hey Alex [13:14:29] close to being done with a fairly big update. Should make planning MCC/LOI/DOI much easier [13:14:49] I think you said something about getting a good DOI solution last night with 17 before logging off [13:14:57] yeah [13:15:04] by manually choosing one of the LOI solutions [13:15:12] ah, right [13:15:30] oh, and I have to correct a bunch of the pericynthion altitudes preloaded in the RTCC MFD [13:15:39] they have to be relative to mean lunar radius, not landing site [13:16:01] so Apollo 17 is even as low as 49.35NM pericynthion altitude [13:16:40] ahh [13:16:43] bad me [13:17:22] it probably doesn't tell you anywhere, so, probably my fault [13:17:29] but I think that is consistent with the real RTCC [13:17:41] any kind of flyby altitude is referenced to mean radius [13:17:54] also important for constraining the min and max flyby altitudes [13:18:56] I've added a bunch of stuff [13:19:06] LOI option to choose Min DV, solution 1 or 2 [13:19:14] for the direction of the ellipse rotation [13:19:26] then, DOI perilune altitude [13:19:31] ah yeah that sounds like the way to do it [13:19:32] normally 50k feet [13:19:38] looking forward to testing it [13:20:04] I'm having ok results with my Apollo 17 scenario, but I think it's old and not on the right trajectory [13:20:12] do you have a recent one I can use for testing? [13:20:15] somewhere early in TLC [13:20:35] sure [13:21:00] a mission like Apollo 10 has 60NM flyby altitude [13:21:20] https://www.dropbox.com/s/aszxfqqpvgg9pdz/Apollo%2017%20-%20After%20TLI%20cutoff.scn?dl=0 [13:21:31] is that post CSM sep? [13:21:40] no [13:21:42] hmm [13:22:07] don't have any later one? [13:23:50] yeah but I really only did CSM sep and then tested with the CSM alone so I have a bunch with the CSM alone is that ok? [13:24:22] yeah, should be ok [13:24:32] anything between CSM sep and the first MCC [13:24:57] lack of LM doesn't change anything about the amount of orbit rotation [13:26:08] although per the flight plan, I would have to do a free return maneuver at MCC-1, for the CSM only mission :P [13:26:48] wow [13:26:59] I didn't know they would have done a 4000 ft/s LOI with the CSM only [13:27:06] what kind of crazy plane change is that [13:28:40] https://www.dropbox.com/s/wqswvgsbjcmn52m/Apollo%2017%20-%20Before%20MCC-2.scn?dl=0 [13:28:44] thanks! [13:28:54] no prob! [13:30:36] oh, and one thing I forgot a few times [13:30:44] the DOI rev counter on the DOI page [13:31:03] that has to have the right number for the TLMCC calculation that includes the DOI [13:31:17] so 11 for most missions [13:31:21] right [13:31:28] seems lik Apollo 16 and 17 used 10 revs only though [13:31:33] they landed on rev 13 [13:31:36] other missions on 14 [13:33:15] hmm [13:33:28] I'm having difficulties getting the desired 60NM apolune after DOI [13:33:41] or at least with the normal PC altitude parameter [13:33:56] what they targeted for was 60x13.8 at the time of DOI-2 [13:34:16] so more like 59x15 after DOI-1 [13:34:21] which we don't have to do [13:34:40] so I have to tweak LOI perilune altitude and PC altitude manually to get a better result [13:34:47] and it has a higher DVZ [13:34:50] for DOI [13:40:29] I guess that's just how the DV optimization ends up doing it [13:42:49] and I guess they would have something similar in the real RTCC to to get the desired DOI-1 on Apollo 17 [13:42:58] would have done* [13:43:46] yeah, they would have targeted 15NM for after DOI [13:43:56] and chosen the solution that gives 59NM apolune after DOI [13:44:28] I'm choosing the actually targeted parameters as much as possible [13:44:36] it's giving me +77 ft/s DVZ [13:44:43] actual one during the mission was 44 or so [13:44:57] but I bet it's the DV optimization [13:45:37] as long as it gets you into the right orbit... [13:48:11] yeah [13:50:35] I'll push what I have, so you can play around with it [13:56:42] awesome [14:18:25] Good morning [14:21:59] hey [14:24:16] hey Ryan [14:24:37] that Apollo 17 CSM only mission seems to have an inclination of 40° or so [14:24:44] hence the very large LOI burn [14:25:41] at least they are doing a bunch of photography with the SIM bay on something at 40°S [14:39:50] interesting [14:40:17] just building the modules now, with your update [14:43:26] works great [14:46:29] so I think the best way about calculating the MCC is with TLMCC page up on 1 MFD and Lunar insertion on the other MFD, then you can easily adjust things so the DOI DV is where you want it [14:49:00] yeah, that works [14:49:17] in most cases you shouldn't have to adjust much [14:49:25] mostly so that the post DOI apolune is 60NM [14:51:30] and for that I guess you just play with LOI perilune? [14:51:41] and PC altitude [14:51:53] first LOI perilune probably [14:52:01] that has the most direct effecrt [14:54:31] hmm [14:54:56] when I try to return Apollo 17 to free return, it gives a reentry time before TIG of the MCC :D [14:55:08] not good [14:55:30] just a case of choosing the right PC lat though [14:56:43] also, maybe it is now redundant to have the nodal lat/long pre-loaded in the RTCC MFD for each mission? [15:03:10] it's realistic to have that [15:03:21] the RTCC had nodal targets pre-mission [15:03:28] every mission [15:04:33] right [15:05:08] I think maybe some of them need adjusting though [15:06:19] maybe a good way would be to simply calculate the nodal target with the MCC/LOI/DOI optimization and use that nodal target for a given missions pre-flight value [15:06:36] morning! [15:06:40] hey [15:11:09] "Hi Mike, The requested documents require review for appropriate availability. (Review does not necessarily mean the document will be made available to a non-NASA audience, though.) We will request review and respond as soon as we have an update from the issuing NASA Center. In the interim, please let us know if you have any questions or if we can help with another matter." [15:29:24] he [15:29:53] we've awoken the bureaucracy [15:32:46] the current best case scenario is, that we can make them review documents on an individual basis [15:33:18] and in the likely case that there isn't any actual problem with making the document available, it becomes available to us, and maybe even on the general NTRS [15:33:54] worst case scenario, after a lengthy review they don't give a shit and don't make it available to anyone [15:34:58] a lot of these certainly were available on the public NTRS at one point [15:35:03] not necessarily all of them [15:35:38] so there wasn't really a problem with making them public in the first place, just the mass takedown of documents they weren't sure about 5 years ago [15:35:45] yeah [15:35:50] so, the question is [15:35:56] I wouldn't be too sad about documents that never were available anyway [15:36:21] do I make our argument now? link to the other data books that are available and explain why we want it? [15:36:33] hmm [15:36:56] it might help. Doing that later in the process wouldn't help anymore [15:36:59] yeah [15:37:07] and that case can easily be made then about the LVOTs [15:37:14] even pointing to the public NTRS itself [15:37:32] which still has the Apollo 14 one, and others [15:38:06] I really don't think making that argument can hurt [15:38:22] that additional argument might never even reach the people doing the review [15:39:46] I'd say go for it [15:40:16] the person you are in contact with probably won't start a witch hunt taking down the Virtual AGC website [15:46:12] probably, he says :D [15:46:48] okay, I'll send an email as soon as I get in to work [16:26:48] indy91, I see the P27 update at about 175 hours on 10 has an entry target, yet I do not see this on the flight plan [16:27:49] is that ever mentioned in the flight plan? [16:28:18] I would think they uplinked their best latest estimate for the splashdown location each time [16:28:29] Not sure [16:28:43] I dont see it in 10's [16:29:16] Its mentioned in 11's flight plan [16:29:44] I'm sure there were these uplinks [16:29:46] Uplinked at the MCC7 time [16:29:51] Oh I am not doubting that [16:30:05] Just scrutinizing is all :P [16:30:16] right [16:30:26] so, in the transcript they say target load [16:30:35] when the uplink something for P30 [16:30:40] 175:27:00 McCandless: 10, this is Houston. If you'll go to Accept on your up telemetry, we'll give you a new state vector and target load. Over. [16:30:56] the thing about the entry target update is, that it's usually combined with the P30 uplink [16:31:17] And if there is no P30 (ie MCC scrubbed) [16:31:17] because they placed the target lat and long in the erasable memory right after the TIG and DV [16:31:23] very much on purpose [16:31:38] can also be uplinked separately of course [16:31:41] Ok [16:31:47] Which is probably the case here then [16:31:47] but it's easy to uplink it as a block [16:31:58] that's why it's placed that way in the memory [16:32:26] in GSOP terminology: [16:32:31] CMC External Delta V Update [16:32:41] CMC Retrofire External Delta V Update [16:32:44] CMC Entry Update [16:33:06] the retrofire one is P30 target plus entry target [16:33:26] Retro would be a EPO deorbit? [16:33:27] anyway, that's why when the transcript says "target load" or so, it's quite possible that latitude and longitude were also in there [16:33:42] yeah, I guess it was mostly meant for that [16:33:51] Makes sense [16:33:59] I burned MCC 5 on this flight [16:34:07] you really need to give the CMC an update for the splashdown target when you do a deorbit [16:34:08] 6 was scrubbed [16:34:14] Yeah haha I bet [16:34:17] because you are not headed that way already before deorbit :D [16:35:06] I guess I just added a entry target update wherever useful [16:35:40] it's just important so that the CMC doesn't steer anywhere it can't properly reach [16:36:07] so if the theoretical update is small, then might have not bothered to do it [16:36:47] Yeah that all makes sense [16:37:05] maybe the mission rules have a better guideline, not sure [16:37:07] I am surprised I had to burn MCC5 given the accuracy of everything so far [16:37:14] I had to burn MCC5 as well [16:37:16] it was 2.6fps [16:37:18] on my 10 flight [16:37:43] The actual only needed an EI-3h corridor control burn [16:39:05] I think I still have MCC-5 set up to do longitude control [16:39:11] what was the DV vector? [16:39:15] for MCC-5 [16:40:20] Hm I do not remember offhand [16:41:05] I remember the yaw was 36 in PTC REFSMMAT [16:42:44] ok DV was -2.0 0 -1.6 [16:43:45] corridor control is usually the DVX value only [16:43:49] so still 2 ft/s [16:44:19] I'm sure there is something still causing inaccuracies, haha [16:44:51] Well at least MCC-6 was scrubbed :P [16:46:08] MCC-7 probably as well [16:46:21] But I still find it interesting that 11's flight plan says "entry lat and lon" for the uplink specifically [16:47:12] okay, our case has been made to the STI help desk [16:47:27] and scanning of ND-1021042 volume 2 has been completed [16:49:41] the last few pages are in real bad shape, heh [16:50:02] http://fold1.gainesville.archive.org/0/items/republish/apollolunarexcuracel/apollolunarexcuracel_jpg/apollolunarexcuracel_0342.jpg [16:50:49] ouch [16:51:27] good thing the real meat of the documents are in the middle -- this is just an appendix saying how to read the schematics :D [17:04:51] what is the trigger for the MCC7 decision around 186h? [17:07:35] I got the message at 185:45 or so, I thought I was behind on the timeline about 20 minutes, and the rest period isn't supposed to end until 186h [17:10:42] EI - 6h [17:11:39] hmm [17:11:43] that's a bit too early I guess [17:11:51] should be like a 1/4 hour later [17:11:54] I'll change that [17:12:13] Yep that lines up perfectly [17:12:34] it says EI-6h in the top right of that flight plan page [17:12:44] that's why I did that, but it's not quite right [17:12:51] Ah yeah [17:13:07] and what's the MCC-7 decision like? [17:13:17] Scrubbed [17:13:20] ah, good [17:13:32] that's a new setup there [17:13:41] it's just a calculation plus message [17:13:48] no PAD or uplink [17:13:59] Which is good [17:14:21] so the MCC seems to not have fallen apart with that [17:15:08] Apparently not [17:15:20] Just thread started thread completed and mcc-7 has been scrubbed is all that happened [17:15:54] it did a full MCC calculation, but so close to the Earth it's very fast [17:17:15] Now what happens there if I needed an MCC7 like the actual mission? [17:17:27] What would the thread say [17:17:32] Because there is no uplink yet [17:18:04] MCC-7 will be executed [17:18:07] is the message [17:18:41] it's still going to do a proper calculation at the time of your normal MCC-7 update [17:19:15] so if you would fire your RCS thrusters now, it would still give you a full MCC-7 update [17:19:38] that's a case like "unexpectedly, we have to burn MCC-7 after all" [17:19:59] not really likely of course [17:20:34] so it's going to do the scrubbed/not scrubbed evaluation again and give you updates and uplinks based on that [17:20:36] in an hour or so [17:20:54] EI - 4.5 hours [17:22:21] Ok [17:22:54] So I am getting close to entry obviously and will be ready to do the same fly through with 9, where are you with the MCC's there? [17:23:30] after rendezvous day in my flight, but I already implemented most of the updates for the next two days [17:23:45] got a bit distracted with DOI calculations. Blame Alex! [17:28:57] wait wait I thought we were blaming LOI [17:34:03] Haha [17:34:16] I should be able to start it without any issues though right? [17:40:14] yes [17:40:21] Great [17:40:33] there is a SPS maneuver on the day before the rendezvous, after the docked DPS burn [17:40:42] it's doing the circularization for the rendezvous [17:40:47] the TIG was way off for me [17:40:53] as compared to the flight plan [17:41:13] I believe it's a combination of the previous maneuvers not being targeted quite right [17:41:17] but that's the biggest issue [17:41:28] I have some ideas how to fix that [17:41:44] but that can wait, I will try to finish Apollo 9 first [17:42:09] Ok [17:42:20] I will probably ask you questions as I work through it as well [17:42:30] sure [17:42:42] and I will fix things along the way with the MCC [17:42:51] just like that MCC-7 decision thing [17:42:55] Assuming no major issues in entry, I should have a very complete 10 checklist to PR [17:43:07] Lots of fixes, mostly minor, but lots none the less [18:06:30] quite dusty right now on Mars [18:06:38] yeah, poor Opportunity :( [18:06:43] hopefully it pulls through [18:07:00] even Curiosity is affected a bit [18:07:08] giant storm [18:08:34] as long as its signals are still getting through, Curiosity shouldn't have any issues though [18:32:07] gotta love RTGs [18:32:41] yep [18:33:12] indy91, having fun with these new TLMCC functions, seems very sturdy and stable with all missions [18:33:23] good to hear [18:33:38] nice to be able to see your LOI/DOI DVs from TLC [18:34:13] before it was always leaving us in suspense as to how it would end up after LOI haha [18:35:18] There was another update for DCS that includes some flaps behaviour changes for the hornet. Might have more luck with deadstick landings now. [18:36:00] Thymo, you just have to practice with the Shuttle in Orbiter, haha [18:36:15] you'll learn how to fly and land a brick that way [18:38:19] AlexB_88, ok, the main issue with these flybys I calculated was the ignition point, it didn't like 35h for MCC-2 [18:38:22] Haha [18:38:43] the Apollo 17 CSM only mission would have done MCC-1 at 12:30h [18:38:56] about 600 ft/s to get back to free return [18:39:31] I can iterate manually on the PC latitude much better for that TIG [18:40:11] I guess if you are changing your PC latitude by any significant amount that late in TLC, you wouldn't end up back at the Earth [18:40:32] that's why the targeting only worked at all close to the right value [18:42:44] so I guess if you are not FR and want to get back on FR then you must do it at MCC-1 no later [18:43:22] or FR with 60 NM OC that is [18:43:28] PC* [18:44:51] oh you can do it later, just, you have no flexibility with your PC latitude [18:45:16] ah ok gotcha [18:45:35] they would have used a 20° lunar inclination [18:45:44] pretty standard profile, with LOI and a CIRC burn [18:45:50] CIRC being identical to LOI-2 [18:45:57] but that terminology was outdated then [18:46:28] the penalty of not burning MCC-1 is high as well [18:46:37] 600 vs. 900 ft/s [18:50:13] oh, I am getting really close to the flight plan values, if I do a TLMCC option 2 with the fake landing site 20°N, 0°W, 0NM alt [18:54:03] Any idea why the gimbal motors are started before SM sep? [19:00:16] are they? [19:01:02] It's on the entry summary list [19:01:09] 35m [19:02:56] hmm [19:03:04] I don't remember it from other missions [19:03:15] I have a very vague memory about this though [19:04:13] Yeah I do not remember it from any other mission either [19:04:16] maybe the mission report talks about it or something [19:06:40] I dont see anything about it [19:07:07] I think I remember reading about this, somewhere [19:09:46] Well if you come up with something let me know haha it just seems odd [19:10:29] will do [19:24:49] I think I still have entry procedures messed up in my mind, I know I have a 0.05g attitude and a horizon check attitude [19:25:02] What attitude do I maneuver to for SM sep before the yaw [19:25:59] Is that just the 0.05g attitude? [19:26:58] horizon check attitude I think [19:27:17] and right now the horizon check is done with the COAS direction, not the 31.7° line [19:28:03] normally you would be in entry attitude. Then maneuver to horizon check attiude shortly before SM sep [19:28:12] then SM sep at 45° yaw [19:28:22] back to 0°, and then track the horizon [19:28:41] I wish you very good luck with tracking the horizon, because you have to do it at night [19:28:45] so basically not possible [19:28:49] Yeah I know I saw the remarks [19:29:23] The 10 entry summary has the horz track attitude after separation [19:29:31] horizon check is at E-17 minutes [19:29:58] you are basically doing horizon tracking just before SM sep and continue it afterwards [19:30:02] maybe it means that? [19:30:18] you would basically track the horizon all the way to EI [19:30:30] and if the error needles agree with your visual attitude, then you give control to the CMC [19:30:34] if not, manual all the way [19:31:20] yeah [19:31:32] you maneuver to the horizon check attitude [19:31:38] then you stay inertial and 45° yaw [19:31:52] Ok [19:31:52] then SM sep, back to 0° yaw [19:32:07] at that point you aren't directly tracking the horizon anymore [19:32:13] That is what I thought, the wording confused me [19:32:14] because you didn't change your pitch during SM sep [19:32:25] so you have to do a pitch maneuver basically [19:32:30] and then maintain horizon tracking [19:33:54] And that pitch up maneuver before sep, with the gimbal motors on, they move because the SC is in SCS control [19:34:15] yeah, they would do that [19:34:22] Just seems like a waste of power [19:34:29] fuel cell power [19:34:43] but yeah, no idea why they would do that [19:35:03] Well battery as well [19:35:10] The bus ties are on [19:35:11] right [19:35:21] maybe what I am remember was just the Checklist MFD, haha [19:35:25] and not any other documentation [19:35:25] Haha [19:35:46] Well the current checklist MFD for entry is a mirror of that entry summary [19:36:40] yeah [19:36:51] Apollo 11 doesn't seem to have it [19:38:36] Yeah nor did 8 [19:38:57] yep [19:39:43] does the crew mention it? [19:39:46] on Apollo 10 [19:40:46] I cannot find an instance in the transcript for it [19:42:20] uhhh [19:42:28] the actual Apollo 8 checklist does have it [19:42:31] Oh really? [19:42:34] yep [19:42:40] I guess I didn't remember that [19:43:36] is our Apollo 8 checklist based on the flown one? [19:43:39] Nothing on their transcript either that I can see [19:43:46] or is it older [19:44:31] Which entry checklist are you looking at [19:44:52] The flown one? [19:45:44] yes [19:45:57] well, these aren't actually flown I think [19:46:01] Well yeah [19:46:03] The binder one [19:46:08] Not the summary doc [19:46:27] Entry Checklist, S/N 1003 [19:46:51] Yeah thats what I used for checklist MFD [19:47:02] And it indeed has the gimbal motors as well [19:58:28] actually, it wouldn't waste battery power [19:58:43] SPS gimbal motors are powered through the SM buses [19:59:12] <- needs to learn the CSM electrical system like he knows the LM [19:59:37] I'm checking if there is anything interesting powered through those motors [19:59:48] but doesn't seem to be anything else, no [20:00:10] overcurrent sensing circuit for the motors, that's it [20:04:05] Back to the SM busses, when the batteries are tied to main A and B, arent the SM busses also pulling power from A and B? [20:04:12] I guess I need to look at the wiring [20:04:23] Or at least a flow chart for the layout [20:05:12] Fuel Cells -> SM Buses -> Main DC Buses [20:05:51] Oh ok [20:05:58] the Fuel Cells are the only power the SM Buses are getting [20:06:29] So the batteries are supplementing the main dc busses because the gimbal draw is adding a load to what would normally flow that way [20:06:41] gimbal motor draw [20:10:03] I ended up at -14.09 lat -164.87 long [20:10:06] yeah and you also want to loose power during a SPS maneuver [20:10:13] don't* [20:10:44] Last entry pad from MCC was -14.20 and -164.89 [20:11:35] yeah, the latitude difference is of course expected [20:12:16] 0.02° in longitude is about a nautical mile [20:12:24] Yeah [20:14:06] the DC main buses are located in the CM, so it would be wasteful wiring if the SPS gimbal motors were powered by them [20:14:18] Oh absolutely [20:14:23] so directly by the SM Buses directly. Not much is directly on the SM buses though. [20:14:36] RCS power? [20:14:42] the Service Module Jettison Controller is also [20:14:58] which is doing the firing of the RCS just after sep [20:15:27] Oh the jettison controller powers it after seo [20:15:28] sep [20:15:44] Before that is it through the DC bus? [20:15:45] the jettison controler is powered by the SM buses [20:16:03] it doesn't have any function before SM sep [20:16:10] SM jettison controller [20:16:19] Oh ok [20:16:20] it has some time delays [20:16:35] it starts a rotation by firing the RCS for a few seconds [20:16:53] and I think it just fires the SM away from the CM until depletion [20:16:55] And a translation away [20:16:58] yeha [20:17:10] through the secondary RCS coils [20:17:17] direct RCS basically [20:17:24] Right to induce a tumble and keep the SM clear of the CM through entry and to aid in breakup [20:17:36] yep [20:17:44] although I'm not sure about tumble [20:17:56] I would think it's giving it a rotation to keep it stable [20:18:08] I'm trying to find a list of what is all on the SM buses [20:18:28] I think for the J-Missions, there are two inverters in the SM also [20:18:40] using powered from the SM buses for the SIM bay equipment [20:18:43] power* [20:19:08] Ah here [20:19:09] [At the beginning of this sequence, fuel cell power is automatically tied to the manual coils of the -X SM RCS engines. The -X SM RCS engines fire automatically following the spacecraft separation until fuel depletion or the fuel cells are depleted. Approximately 2 seconds after the CM/SM separation, the SM+ roll RCS engines are also fired automatically for about 5.5 seconds. This will assist in the atmospheric [20:19:09] breakup of the SM as it induces a tumbling when it reaches the sensible atmosphere.] [20:20:32] ah [20:20:44] The SMJC only gets triggered during a normal sep, not Mode 1 abort [20:21:40] the SMJC is the last part of the SECS that hasn't been properly modelled with relays etc. But it was working fine and realistic enough before, so I didn't bother to change anything [20:22:00] maybe at one point, if the SM is a separate vehicle throughout a mission [20:26:44] good night! [12:16:06] hey [12:16:34] hey Alex [12:22:20] the next Apollo 9 maneuver requires a new general maneuver calculation. So I am tackling the General Purpose Maneuver Processor properly [12:22:30] nice [12:22:32] be prepared to have like 50 new orbital maneuver options in a few days, haha [12:25:13] great [12:25:30] I guess you have the RTCC requirements doc for that one? [12:26:56] even better, it's in one of the few RTCC equations documents I have [12:27:03] a bit outdated though, like, 1967 or 1968 [12:27:16] the Apollo 10 RTACF Support Plan document has an extended list [12:27:32] so I'll implement that extended list as far as I can [12:31:50] I'll set it up so that you don't have to click 50 times to get to the last option [12:32:02] you will basically give it maneuver type and point [12:32:33] the first maneuver in the list is "plane change at equatorial crossing" [12:32:48] so that would be maneuver type plane change and maneuver point equatorial crossing [12:33:18] right now I have 12 maneuver types and 7 maneuver points, but not all of those combinations are valid [12:35:44] a bunch of those maneuver types are combinations. Like, there is circularization maneuver and node shift separately, but also as a combination maneuver [12:39:01] my index finger thanks you for that ;) [12:41:24] there also is an interesting option, that probably was used for the last SPS maneuver before a deorbit maneuver [12:41:40] placing the periapsis at a specified longitude in a specified number of revolutions [12:41:54] but that also pretty much sounds like "DOI as LOI-2", doesn't it? [12:43:47] oh, and our mysterious solver of problems has posted something new [12:43:48] https://github.com/dseagrav/NASSP/issues/362 [12:43:56] maybe that's something for you to check [12:44:05] he has modified touchdown points [12:49:55] oh nice Ill check that for sure [12:55:27] Im working on fine-tuning the constants in ARCore.cpp, with updated 1st guesses for PC time, Latitude and updated preliminary nodal target derived from the new optimizations that you added for LOI/DOI [12:55:43] ok [12:56:09] also, there might be a slightly diminished productivity over the next month from me [12:56:34] starting about today and ending on July 15th :D [12:56:52] on the same not, congras for qualifying for the World Cup in 2026! [12:56:55] congrats* [12:57:10] note* [12:57:16] haha thanks :D [12:57:35] all it takes is bribing FIFA [12:57:41] So we have 8 years to get good enough to actually have our team on it :D [12:58:12] Oh I probably will be pretty absent to, after all its summer! [12:58:14] you'll have your team there in any case, good luck getting out of the group stage though [12:58:25] haha yeah [12:58:35] good morning [12:59:30] hey [13:00:20] For me my diminished productivity is usually from April 15th to June 10th, Stanley Cup Playoffs :) [13:00:50] Unfortunately my Montreal Canadiens did not partake this year [13:01:18] at least Ryan seems to have been happy about the results [13:02:27] I am too frankly, The Capitals have been trying for way too long to win it [13:03:34] lots of division championship wins over the last decade [13:03:48] yep [13:04:52] I know nothing about ice hockey. I watched the games at the Winter Olympics though [13:05:02] Germany was doing super well, because all of the NHL was missing :D [13:09:44] yeah I remember that you guys kicked our ass :D [13:28:28] indy91, so for Apollo 15 and 17, the correct LOI ellipse seems to be Solution 1, so I have added LOIEllipseRotation = 1; to the constants for those missions. What do you think? [13:29:03] yeah, sure [13:41:10] also, for other missions that dont necessarily use the DOI optimizing during TLC, still seem to benifit from playing with the LOI elipse option. For example in my Apollo 12 TLC scenario, forcing Solution 1 makes the PC coordinates and LOI DV much closer to actual [13:45:09] so here is how this works in the real RTCC [13:45:17] in the TLMCC targeting, not LOI [13:45:28] it starts the iteration with basically a nominal LOI DV [13:45:35] or rather in angular format [13:45:43] delta velocity, delta flight path angle, delta azimuth [13:45:59] that probably would force it to assume the nominal LOI solution [13:46:51] we don't have or use long tables of nominal values, so we can't really profit from starting the iteration close to nominal [13:47:41] so I guess playing around with the LOI ellipse switch is what we have to do for now [13:47:59] right [13:48:52] so basically by flying the mission and seeing what ellipse option works [13:49:08] yeah, I guess [13:49:24] maybe eventually I'll make our calculations closer to the actual TLMCC processor [13:49:43] then this switch will only be necessary for the LOI calculation itself [13:49:45] well for now it seems to work pretty good [13:49:53] right [13:50:52] also, if we ever get the RTCC Requirements for later missions from NARA [13:51:08] that would also help with making the TLMCC processor more realistic and also make it work right for all missions [13:51:31] NTRS doesn't have anything more on this really [13:51:35] not even the restricted variant [13:53:39] in the unlikely case that the restricted NTRS is a viable source for us, then I'll request the LOI targeting RTCC Requirements first, then the Apollo 10 LVOT [13:53:59] Apollo 10 LVOT probably being the most important document to get for the 8.0 release [14:21:46] indy91, does the Apollo 9 SIVB maneuver to the attitude in the flight plan? Or is it different? [14:21:53] For sep [14:22:05] it can be slightly different [14:22:09] also, hello [14:22:31] did they get an update? I'll check [14:22:34] Hello haha [14:23:17] the LVDC usually commands LVLH attitudes [14:23:30] so, if the time if insertion is a bit off, this inertial attitude also can be a bit off [14:23:38] I don't remember it being much though [14:23:41] So what does the crew use for N17 and N20? [14:23:48] The FP values? [14:24:09] *N22 [14:24:56] we have that checklist page actually [14:25:05] They appear to be loading very specific angles around 1h55m [14:25:13] Which is before the maneuver of the SIVB [14:25:45] https://p1.liveauctioneers.com/1581/120523/61364781_3_x.jpg?version=1523547598&width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp [14:25:54] here are the specific angles [14:26:00] from the CMP Checklist [14:26:40] Yep that is what is in the transcript [14:26:51] maybe I can improve the LVDC presettings for this, I have better documentation now [14:30:29] I will put the FP values into the checklist for now [14:35:10] sure [14:35:40] I may of asked this before, but anyone have an early TLC scenario for Apollo 14 & 16? [14:37:04] you asked for 14 already, I don't have one [14:37:11] Nor do I [14:37:22] yeah, and no 16 one either [14:50:14] Yeah my RPY at sep is 179.84 100.90 15.66 [14:50:36] So the only one that is really off is pitch [14:51:21] indy91, PR sent [14:51:43] I just have 14 & 16 left to fine-tune [14:55:05] I wonder why it's so much off in pitch [14:59:38] This may not be a simple question, but how does the LVDC compute its separation attitude? [15:02:39] usually the attitude is preloaded as pitch and yaw relative to LVLH [15:03:02] and then it should go directly to intertial attitude hold, after it calculated the inertial attitude from that once [15:03:19] for Apollo 9 it's -10° pitch, 15° yaw [15:06:30] doesn't work quite like that, because it's a TD&E in Timebase 5, so Earth orbit [15:06:49] it's using old equations from the Boeing document for this [15:07:02] there is no "directly to inertial attitude hold" for this [15:07:12] but I wonder [15:07:19] if the TD&E attitude is so specific [15:07:35] maybe they loaded an inertial attitude for the sep [15:07:48] then those angles in the checklist would always be valid [15:07:57] That sounds plausible [15:09:07] And I do not see any mention in the transcript about needing to change them or any other issues [15:10:27] From the Saturn IB EDD I know how to implement that, but I was never sure if the Saturn V LVDC actually could do inertial attitude hold [15:10:37] or rather, have inertial angles in the presettings [15:11:20] Given the decimal precision I think it could [15:11:41] And the fact new angles were not voiced up [15:12:51] unfortunately I would have to slightly tweak the LV IMU angles [15:13:04] the SCOT actually has those angles [15:13:13] but the IU "REFSMMAT" would be different [15:13:35] our LVDC assumes a spherical Earth [15:13:41] AGC doesn't [15:13:54] that's why you will always get some error during the first P52 in orbit [15:13:59] the difference might be small though [15:20:36] the archived NTRS also has the Apollo 9 LVOT... [15:20:37] Attitude docked is 121 280 346 [15:20:39] uhh [15:20:42] restricted NTRS* [15:21:34] hmm, maybe [15:22:32] 19720078856 AS-504/D mission launch vehicle operational trajectory update 1969 [15:22:36] this might be it [15:22:42] morning [15:23:09] hey [15:23:11] speaking of: "Hi Mike, I can share this information with the issuing NASA Center. I think they will appreciate knowing the background for the request." [15:23:20] sounds good [15:23:43] over/under on how long this review process takes? :D [15:24:15] before this decade is out [15:24:47] lol [15:24:51] "issuing NASA Center" it's just a PDF with 50 year old data dammit! [15:24:57] Well if it has to go through DC, the city is going to be perpetually hung over this week [15:25:22] would that help or hurt our case? :D [15:25:36] hahaha [15:25:44] Good question! [15:25:46] the Data Books were issued by the MSC [15:25:57] They either wont get to it, or wont care and process anything [15:25:57] so I guess they have to ask someone at Johnson? [15:26:13] sounds like it [15:27:00] "we can't help you, Mike, we can't reach the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, sorry" [15:27:05] damn! [15:27:45] Niklas, I might not have time until this evening since work has been hectic, but we should start putting together a spreadsheet of things that we really want from restricted NTRS [15:27:56] since it seems like there is actually some small probability of success through this channel [15:28:14] ok [15:28:25] I already know the first top spots [15:28:31] LOI Targeting and the Apollo 10 LVOT [15:29:11] and I want to get that Bench Maintenance manual before we try to do anything with AGC 602 [15:29:19] Hey hey [15:29:21] makes sense [15:29:27] yeah, let's open a spreadsheet [15:29:29] So I get the nav check around 3h15m or so, the crew got theirs much earlier [15:29:31] hey Thymo [15:29:35] heya Thymo [15:29:54] SV update in the flight plan is at 3:15 [15:30:06] SV update yes [15:30:14] Funny how small the world is. Ran into a NASSP user on the DCS forums. [15:30:22] Nice! [15:30:36] I have run into a few on reddit (of course its the Apollo sub) [15:30:51] It's that Vinny guy. [15:33:31] we already have a 1970 one and it didn't have any more padloads [15:33:37] but this one still might have [15:34:20] but it's not too high on my priority list [15:34:47] also, one NTRS ID higher is [15:34:48] 19730069927 Lunar module systems handbook LM-8 vehicle 1970 [15:34:48] haha [15:35:14] that's a good one :D [15:35:16] might just be the same exact document that UHCLhas [15:35:20] Oh i know that one well [15:35:45] I can close my eyes and see the diagrams :) [15:37:22] Thymo, wasnt that the guy who was on this perpetual journey into deep space, posting his distance and velocity from the sun on Orbiter forums almost every day for many months? :D [15:38:29] Surely sounds like he'd do such a thing. [15:38:56] I was thinking man, is he just letting his PC run the whole time? [15:42:34] It does but the spacing changes, so its typed every time haha [15:50:30] I might just have found something useful for the first time on the NTRS list and that is still available [15:51:16] no, not actually new [15:54:58] So I am trying the new LM TD points. They seem to work pretty well [15:56:02] One thing though is that on some occasions the LM will load up-side down for some reason, like when you change the LM surface coordinates in the scenario editor and apply [15:58:42] hmm, might require most testing then [15:58:46] or tweaking [15:59:55] yeah [16:00:38] indy91 for the evasive after LV sep, is the attitude in the FP for the maneuver or after the maneuver? [16:01:15] I would say for the maneuver [16:01:20] but it's tricky to get there in time [16:03:03] Yeah [16:03:16] Its close to a 50 degree pitch down so I assumed it was for the manauver [16:03:19] maneuver [16:04:36] Actually it is a 50 degree pitch straight down how about that [16:04:46] must be a 2°/s maneuver or so [16:05:42] I got there in time [16:05:46] Without a fast rate [16:05:51] Normal DAP rate [16:06:24] 50° in 2:30 minutes [16:06:39] yeah, should be possible [16:06:49] I just remember having trouble with that [16:07:00] I got to the attitude with 12 seconds to spare haha [16:07:03] maybe too slow starting the attitude maneuver [16:07:15] P47 came up at tig-5s [16:08:09] have fun watching the S-IVB do its things on its own [16:08:17] including the S-IVB restart [16:08:24] Ah yeah [16:09:13] second restart is not simulated yet [16:09:36] but Apollo 9 also had weird timebases etc., difficult to all implement with the current LVDC [16:11:35] Hm SCS minimum impulse why would 2 jets fire [16:12:26] always does [16:12:33] it's just firing them for a short amount of time [16:12:50] uhh [16:12:54] hmm [16:13:04] let me think about that for a moment, haha [16:13:06] I thought min imp deliberately did not [16:13:18] Finer control at the cost of some translation [16:14:15] no, it's indeed firing two thrusters [16:14:33] you have to disable some Auto RCS switches to get even lower RCS rates [16:16:06] Oh I see [16:16:18] I thought I read somewhere that min imp did that [16:16:35] Apollo 8 transcript perhaps idk haha [16:16:37] yeah, I think our wiki is wrong about that [16:16:52] CSM alone P23 probably would have used a single thruster config [16:17:21] SCS minimum impulse mode uses the normal thruster select logic [16:17:55] Ok [16:18:16] So when is the SIVB supposed to maneuver [16:18:40] it will be a bit off relative to the flight plan [16:19:17] the restart at least [16:19:26] maneuver back to LVLH should be on time [16:19:27] 4:25 [16:19:33] it's just not very fast [16:20:24] Ok [16:20:27] I am at 4:24 [16:21:12] so the answer to your question is, as per flight plan, haha [16:21:33] I like that answer [16:21:43] I see thrusters [16:29:17] Hmm I get no csm power to the lm unless I reset first, I do not think that is correct [16:40:12] Also, what triggers the SPS-1 gimbal angles call [16:42:48] hmm, I'm not sure I even implemented that [16:42:53] but it's 0/0/0 anyway [16:43:00] or close to it [16:43:28] Yeah that explains why I never got one haha [16:43:43] I'm not sure why I skipped it [16:43:48] It's in the flight plan, but I don't even see it in the transcript unless I missed it [16:44:29] Looks like they waited for the SPS-1 pad [16:45:23] ah [16:45:25] and I did the same [16:45:42] the gimbal angles on the PAD will be with the launchpad REFSMMAT [16:45:59] and because you'll do a P52 option 1, the burn attitude with the updated REFSMMAT is 0 by definition [16:46:21] Ok [16:46:27] I can omit it then [16:46:34] Bye bye SIVB [16:46:48] Now it looks like ullage fired at the TIG time [16:46:57] Should that be before the TIG?? [16:49:12] TIG might have been late [16:49:41] it's solving the restart equations for that burn, just like any lunar missions [16:49:48] so TIG can vary [16:50:11] Ok [16:50:16] Close enough then :) [16:50:17] and of course the ullage will be firing until a few seconds before TIG [16:50:34] Looked good from the CSM window [16:50:55] And about the CSM/LM power? [16:51:11] Any idea why a reset is needed? I am pretty sure it shouldn't be [16:53:18] ok I think I fixed the LM upside down issue [17:02:43] indy91, I was expecting many more things to have shown up on this list while I was heading into work, lol [17:05:12] oh, I have some more, but I didn't want to add too many things at once :D [17:05:26] rcflyinghokie, no idea about the power thing [17:05:40] how did you see that just setting it to CSM Power didn't work? [17:06:06] you should go for it, and add all the things [17:06:12] will do [17:06:17] we can sort through it later, and I'm going to make a scraper to check for everything just to be sure [17:06:41] maybe make the really important things bold or something [17:06:59] the really important things are in there right now [17:07:06] that is why I just bolded the whole lot :D [17:07:10] everything I add now is slightly reduced importance [17:26:19] thewonderidiot, what about documents that we can get from UHCL as well? [17:26:45] let's leave them out of this list until it turns out that UHCL actually only has a packet with the distribution for the thing ;) [17:27:41] ok [17:27:52] or maybe add them in italic so they get hit by the scaper [17:28:00] and I can delete the italic ones after scraping [17:28:14] Sorry, indy91, I had the test meter on 4D, and had no power indication when simply switching it from OFF to CSM [17:28:28] Then when I rest and put it back to on I had a load [17:28:31] *reset [17:29:23] I believe it doesn't need to be in reset first [17:29:28] I have to run out though [17:29:53] it could be another LM initialization thing [17:30:00] anything else would surprise me [17:30:15] the CSM power latch in the LM gets created in the right state [17:30:21] shouldn't need a reset [17:36:57] indy91, I think I got these TD points down, just doing some final testing before my PR [17:38:43] ok [17:41:44] this restricted NTRS is so random [17:41:59] Apollo 7 and 14 rendezvous procedures are on it [17:42:18] but not 10 others for CSM or LM that are still on the current NTRS [17:45:17] haha [17:45:36] well that makes sense, the ones that are on current NTRS shouldn't be here :D [17:45:50] but it is very weird and dumb that just those ones are restricted [17:45:51] ... [17:45:58] I now understand what you mean [17:45:59] we have Apollo 7 [17:46:02] it was on NTRS before [17:46:04] I need coffee [17:46:38] and I thought you just meant, that those on the current NTRS don't belong THERE and should be restricted :D [17:46:47] oh god no [17:46:48] in a joking way of course [17:46:50] have you met me? :P [17:46:53] lol [17:50:14] your bold to non-bold ratio is off, Mike :D [17:51:03] in my NARA list I had started rating documents from 1 to 10 [17:52:14] do we have [17:52:15] Final results of the supplemental testing and analysis of the COLOSSUS 1A /revision 249/ Flight program for the [17:52:15] Apollo 9 mission [17:52:16] ? [17:52:45] uhh, not sure [17:53:00] and I can't help it, I'm tempted to bold the AGC test set connections manual [17:53:01] lol [17:53:43] yeah, I'm sure it's all important [17:53:56] only my top 2 are 10/10 important [17:54:40] haha, and just like UHCL, NTRS has a lot of LVOTs for unlaunched launch days [17:55:08] this stuff is paper gold for me [17:55:22] stuff I didn't even dream still existed [17:55:38] yeah, I can imagine [17:56:26] PR sent [17:57:34] I'm kinda sad there's no ND-1021042 supplement [18:01:18] oh, Sundisk GSOP [18:06:15] uh????? [18:06:21] what [18:06:33] oh, information [18:06:34] lol [18:06:37] they scared me [18:06:39] "Guidance program symbolic listing information for AS-202" [18:06:48] that's going to have a lot of information about Corona [18:06:55] sounds good [18:06:58] assuming it's about the AGC [18:09:39] Apollo/Saturn test and checkout plan. Volume 2 - Saturn 5 launch vehicle AS-504. Section 1 - Flow plan and listings [18:09:42] wonder what that is [18:17:13] that's there for a bunch of missions [18:19:45] General war antiballistic missile system /ABM-1 model/, programming specifications manual. Volume 1A - Data input/output subsystems. Part 2 - Program listings [18:19:47] see now THAT [18:19:51] THAT I can see being restricted [18:21:39] yep [18:21:47] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740002687.pdf [18:21:59] that's what that one is [18:25:16] basically just a list of procedures, no procedures itself [18:27:00] yep [20:17:22] So I tested the TLMCC/LOI/DOI targeting with the 2:40 launch delay with Apollo 17 [20:18:19] that also works very well with the default parameters, just substract 2:40 from the PC time and TLAND [20:19:29] and then fine-tune the PC time so that you cross REV 2 at the flight plan 90:59:22 minus 2:40, so 88:19:22 [20:19:57] so very minimal adjustment required [20:20:12] good to know [20:20:45] did you see the new post by ggalfi? [20:21:29] yeah I did, Ill try and test his idea and see how it works out [20:21:41] just trying to comprehend exactly what he means [20:26:39] this will need some testing, but I think I'll be able to use the actual RTCC equations for a general plane change maneuver. [20:26:45] and probably others as well [20:27:05] hasn't happened much before that actual RTCC equations make their way into our RTCC [20:27:56] from this document [20:27:57] http://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20100525011430/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730062602_1973062602.pdf [20:28:25] would be really nice if we could find the AS-500 equivalent of these... [20:31:08] oh nice [20:31:38] this is actually only AS-200 Mission Planning [20:31:58] not even the "orbit trajectory computations" book [20:32:07] or AS-500 Mission Planning [20:32:23] but a lot of the mission planning tools were the same as used in real time [20:32:31] so this is a really good resource [20:32:46] Have you ever considered adding clock sync to the RTCC MFD? [20:33:36] I first wanted to add the general parameter storage, that is used by all open RTCC MFDs [20:33:38] like GETbase [20:34:20] then I'll add some tools for a GET update [20:34:29] I was wondering that because then it could use the proper TEPHEM (the one you update the MFD from the CMC's memory) [20:34:37] sounds good [20:34:46] yeah, that will come [20:34:54] awesome [20:36:28] next time you commit something referencing an issue, it would be great if you could add the issue ID, so that a reference to the commit appears in the issue discussion [20:36:32] in this case #362 [20:36:50] ah yes [20:36:57] will do [20:37:25] like [20:37:25] https://github.com/dseagrav/NASSP/commit/53c5e6d39318d391efe2132501ba8041a57bb0eb [20:37:39] great [20:39:16] night! [22:36:11] night [13:04:05] good morning [13:05:31] very excited about my apollo 11 mission [13:23:25] great [13:25:58] Good morning [13:28:59] hey [13:29:47] How's it going? [13:31:07] deep in the general purpose maneuver stuff [13:31:20] but it's useful, the next Apollo 9 maneuver (SPS-6) needs one of them [13:31:39] Well good [13:31:46] I am about to burn SPS-1 [13:32:00] interesting that the maneuver angles are down with the remarks [13:33:02] what do you mean? [13:33:51] oh on the Maneuver PAD form? [13:34:03] I am used to seeing the attitude up towards the velocity [13:34:05] Yeah [13:34:10] Apollo 7 and 9 are very similar [13:34:22] Apollo 8, 10-17 are essentially identical [13:34:35] so it's an Earth orbit style Maneuver PAD, I guess [13:34:43] Ah that makes sense [13:35:56] So if I did a preferred alignment, why are they not 000? [13:41:00] the angles on the PAD are with the launchpad REFSMMAT [13:41:31] Ohh ok [13:42:12] "Gimbal angles with pad REFSMMAT" [13:45:39] Hmm I just loaded my quicksave and I have no LM current flowing [13:46:18] Would it settle down to zero? [13:46:30] I don't remember it doing so in my 10 flythrough [13:46:31] close to 0 maybe, yeah [13:46:58] Well it's still powering, because I have bus voltage in the LM [13:47:14] So nothing to worry about I don't think [14:10:23] SPS 1 complete [14:10:58] Perigee is 10nm lower than that on the FP [14:11:19] But it matches your maneuver pad spot on [14:12:40] yeah, SPS-1 can't do much about that [14:12:58] that's mostly the LH2 continuous vent [14:13:35] I think [14:14:12] Resulting in a 10nm higher perigee before the burn? [14:14:59] yeah, I think so [14:17:25] That sounds right [14:18:20] do you have the Apollo 11 LVOT? [14:18:30] PDF page 97 shows it very nicely [14:19:45] Not handy [14:20:39] Have a link? [14:20:43] https://web.archive.org/web/20100527070036/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690072999_1969072999.pdf [14:23:33] Yeah I see that [14:24:10] might not be quite 10NM, but close [14:24:33] Yeah it is [14:24:41] Also 9 was lighter [14:25:50] and our S-IVB is also subject to drag [14:26:06] while this shows not only is the LH2 vent stronger than drap, it even raises the orbit [14:26:11] drag* [14:26:31] How much drag is modeled on ours versus the real thing in LEO [14:27:14] for the S-IVB stage we only use the very simple drag model [14:27:16] SetCW (0.1, 0.3, 1.4, 1.4); [14:27:37] I believe this means, that with the CSM side forward, the drag coefficient is 0.1 [14:28:33] not a lot [14:29:59] I only see 0.1 Newton with a S-IVB in Earth orbit [14:31:27] Not much [14:32:29] the drag coefficient is probably too low [14:32:56] I have some data for the CSM from the CSM Data Book, which I can implement [14:33:47] Might need the offsetting LH2 venting at the same time to make sure the orbits don't decay too much [14:34:20] yeah and I'm sure I can find better numbers for the S-IVB as well [14:34:22] Side question, were GDC alignments performed after every P52? [14:34:49] in reality the GDC would drift a bunch over the hours [14:34:59] so you probably would want to do that, yes [14:38:03] Ok [14:38:14] I see it on some flight plans and omitted on others [14:40:43] Ok I get a nav check pad right before the block data [14:41:10] I dont see that mentioned [14:42:07] what's the GET? [14:42:27] there should be a SV update with nav check PAD at 7:20 [14:42:32] and Block Data 2 at 8:27 [14:43:57] Oh maybe the nav check came with the SV update [14:44:06] those always belong together [14:44:13] the nav check is FOR the state vector uplink [14:44:14] Gotcha [14:44:44] uplink to CSM slot, then a check with P21, then V66. That's the reason for it, I guess. [14:50:15] Guess I need to add that [14:51:14] I'm not sure that was done every time [14:56:18] Yeah I cannot tell [14:58:23] They do the first one [15:01:31] And what is this 6-4 deorbit TIG [15:02:20] contingency deorbit opportunity [15:02:21] Right before powerdown on the FP [15:02:24] orbit 6, area 4 [15:02:34] And that is just a marker in the FP? [15:02:35] Apollo 7 got a full update for that one [15:04:14] yeah, nothing to do there [15:04:28] the crew must have gotten the Block Data for that before the flight [15:05:15] Block Data 1, for orbits 1-8 [15:05:58] the only reference to that I ever found was for Apollo 16, where in the Launch Checklist there are filled out PADs for the first few opportunities [15:08:43] he have an Apollo 9 document about Contigency Deorbit [15:08:52] 6-4 lands at 160°W [15:09:06] So they probably had the info onboard [15:10:08] yep [15:10:19] written pre flight, maybe on the morning of the launch or so [15:10:44] https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap16fj/csmlc/a16L5-9.gif [15:10:54] here is how it would have looked like [15:12:58] Oh ok [15:14:16] so the same as any Block Data during the flight, but probably written more carefully :D [15:15:01] they are all calculated on the fly, at least the TIG and DV [15:15:33] you just have to point the 31.7° line on the horizon, put the DV on the EMS and burn it [15:15:49] That could be fun [15:15:56] so it can be used without any platform data from IMU or GDC [15:16:57] should definitely be survivable at least [15:18:57] That reminds me, I need to learn how to better read the EMS to fly a manual entry [15:19:25] I did a bunch of practice when I first implemented the EMS range calculation properly [15:19:39] I got quite good at it, definitely possible to land within about 10NM of the carrier [15:20:01] if you use the 2-1 deorbit opportunity, then that's the closest you get to do an "Abort Once Around" like the Shuttle abort :D [15:20:49] Haha nice [15:21:00] Without having to land a brick on a runway, of course [15:21:17] yes, just a brick in the water [15:21:32] Well, a buoyant one [15:21:36] true [15:21:46] Though who knows if the shuttle could float? [15:22:34] CM has the softer water landing, for sure [15:25:42] Oh yes [15:25:51] Landing on water without floats is always a bad time [15:26:46] I wondered about the separation maneuver that Apollo 16 PAD mentioned [15:27:03] apparently you do this [15:27:21] maneuver the CSM/S-IVB manually to CSM heads-up, 31.7° line on horizon [15:27:33] and do the sep in that attitude, 20 minutes before the deorbit [15:27:42] 24 seconds of +X translation [15:27:45] that's the sep [15:28:12] Is that the AOA abort? [15:28:37] any Earth orbit abort before CSM separation from the S-IVB [15:28:56] I wonder why the attitude for the stack [15:29:21] the CSM and S-IVB will have a clearly defined relative profile then, I guess [15:29:42] and like the deorbit maneuver in the same horizon relative attitude it can be done with both attitude references onboard lost [15:30:26] Apollo 12 Separation Procedures: https://web.archive.org/web/20100523134243/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073281_1974073281.pdf [15:30:46] PDF pages 22 and 23 [15:30:55] oh, and 24 [15:31:01] 24 is a plot of the relative motion [15:31:30] the CSM is below and behind the S-IVB at SPS ignition [15:31:36] so no chance for a recontact really [15:31:46] below and ahead* [15:32:32] see why I like Mission Planning and Analysis Division documents so much? :D [15:33:03] I do! [15:33:08] That's pretty cool [15:35:38] For the SPS 2 uplink, why the "verb 66" [15:36:15] maybe I read that in the transcript or so [15:36:47] same is done for SPS-3 and 4 as well [15:40:24] Interesting [15:59:41] Ok SPS-2 time [16:00:40] Orbit before the burn is 126.5x99.0 [16:00:52] Resulting should be 190.3x99.1 [16:01:52] And that approx 10nm is still consistent [16:02:33] yeah [16:02:51] the burns are all hapenning close to perigee [16:02:57] so non of them cancel out the 10NM error [16:04:01] It shouldnt mess anything up later should it? [16:04:23] I think the main thing it messes up is the circularization burn, SPS-5 [16:04:57] also a bunch of additional orbit phasing, but the rendezvous sequence still was only like 8 minutes off [16:07:19] Hmm the stroking isnt working this time [16:07:51] maybe it's not so visible [16:07:54] Ah [16:07:57] I'm sure it's working [16:07:59] And it's only 40% [16:08:02] yeah [16:08:05] Yeah I remember 100% working [16:08:18] will get manually changed between burns [16:08:23] I was making sure I didn't miss anything [16:08:37] But yeah I think it was harder to see [16:10:49] CMC has me in a 189.1x99.0 [16:10:56] here is what I am going to do. I'll add a constant thrust LH2 vent soon-ish. [16:11:27] that should be easy to manage [16:11:33] anything more complicated can come later [16:11:43] just have to implement the polynomial in the LVDC for this [16:12:25] because, this does mess up Apollo 9 a bit [16:12:32] I really don't like the 10NM difference [16:12:45] it doesn't matter as much for lunar missions [16:12:54] the TLI TIG simply is later or so [16:13:03] Yeah [16:16:16] So for all of these SPS gimbal angle updates, are they just given with the maneuver pad instead? [16:18:04] I'm not sure [16:18:15] I might have simply omitted them [16:18:31] Should I remove them from the checklist? [16:18:53] hmm [16:18:59] I will probably add them at some point [16:20:06] Ok [16:20:43] What is odd is SPS-2 gimbal angles are missing from the flight plan [16:22:10] because it doesn't have much of an alignment before SPS-2 [16:22:37] the SPS-3 angles are so that they can maneuver to the burn attitude, before they realigned the IMU [16:22:47] so that would still be with the SPS-2 REFSMMAT [16:24:26] I this these are gimbal trim angles? [16:24:30] *think these [16:24:54] no [16:24:56] IMU [16:25:00] When they read up the block data at 8:27:59 they include SPS gimbal angles [16:25:15] I mean stuff like "SPS 3 Gimbal Angles" [16:25:20] that's IMU [16:25:26] Ok [16:25:34] I am just trying to find the missing SPS-2 [16:25:35] Block Data get trim angles as a remark, yeah [16:25:46] missing what? [16:26:14] IMU angles or gimbal trim angles? [16:26:42] The flight plan is missing "SPS-2 Gimbal Angles" [16:26:56] I don't think that is the case [16:27:26] That it is missing? [16:27:31] yes [16:27:38] as I said above, after SPS-2, they got the IMU angles to maneuver to for the SPS-3 burn attitude, but still with the SPS-2 REFSMMAT [16:27:54] Oh I misread [16:27:59] I see what you mean [16:28:07] before SPS-2 they only had a P51 and were in drifting flight [16:28:24] before the SPS-2 update I mean [16:28:39] so the REFSMMAT is pretty much random until the P52 option 1 [16:29:27] so I don't think giving the crew SPS-2 IMU angles before the P52 option 1 would have been useful [16:31:05] Yeah it makes sense now [16:32:38] since I implemented those (not), I've done a bunch of REFSMMAT and attitude conversion for CSM and LM [16:32:44] so, I can easily add that calculation now [16:32:55] found the RTACF requirement for it [16:33:11] Very nice [16:34:33] should be pretty simple [16:44:59] morning! [16:45:28] Did any sextant star angles get read up for these SPS burns? [16:45:29] hey [16:45:40] not sure [16:45:41] I would think no because of the heads up attitude? [16:46:09] yeah, by default it tries to calculate the sextant star check at TIG [16:46:33] if you find any Maneuver PAD in the transcript with a sextant star check where it's missing for us, let me know [16:46:42] Sure [16:46:53] thewonderidiot, any update about the NTRS situation? [16:46:57] nope! [16:47:15] it has only been a day or two, lol [16:47:31] well, so far there was almost daily correspondence about it [16:47:44] did we both edit the spreadsheet about 9 hours ago? :D [16:47:53] I think I saw you in there, lol [16:47:59] hahaha [16:48:05] yeah I keep thinking of new things to look for [16:48:27] just remembered to look for that rendezvous support program user manual [16:48:34] and it's indeed on NTRS! [16:48:41] excellent [16:50:04] I wish I had a concise history of everything I've ever searched for on the UHCL site, lol [16:54:05] haha [16:56:03] So for SPS-3 they read up sextant star angles [16:59:55] And SPS-2 and 1 [17:08:02] https://archive.org/details/apollolunarexcuracel [17:08:06] ND-1021042 volume 2 is up [17:08:20] And also just tried full stroking the gimbals didnt even move [17:25:07] hmm [17:25:13] I am trying again now [17:25:23] when was the last time you flew Apollo 9 and these maneuvers? [17:25:30] Was that before we switched to the Orbiter Beta? [17:25:39] the stroking would just be some kind of jittering [17:26:23] I think it was after the beta but before the COM fixes [17:26:36] for 7 seconds after the V68 [17:26:50] I remember seeing the SPS gimbals actually oscillate [17:26:55] On the GDI [17:27:30] magnitude is 0.1185° at 100% [17:27:45] so you should be able to see it, yes [17:27:55] I think I remember it jittering [17:28:46] I didnt see anything again [17:29:08] I can take a look [17:29:16] and I guess I'll have to add the sextant star checks [17:29:48] time for them in the flight plan is about 30 minutes before the burn [17:29:53] that is consistent with Apollo 7 [17:30:01] https://www.dropbox.com/s/sulguyqt82xvjf4/Apollo%209%20MCC%20-%20SPS-3%200001.scn?dl=0 [17:30:13] Thats before loading the ESTROKER address [17:30:15] all I need to change is the delta time to TIG and it will come up with a check on the PAD [17:30:28] Great that would mirror the actual pads nicely [17:30:31] if any star is visible then that is [17:30:52] Both SPS 2 and 3 pads used star 21 [17:31:32] quite possible that we will get the same [17:33:25] I'll be back in a bit, let me know if the stroking works in that save for you [17:33:44] sure [17:51:28] I could clearly see the jittering [17:51:39] it's very low amplitude, as I said, 0.11185° [17:51:42] 0.1185° [17:51:55] but, it was easy to see [18:20:38] Hey [18:21:26] hey Alex [18:24:37] good evening [18:29:08] What’s up? [18:29:58] still working on general purpose maneuver stuff [18:30:10] one of the AGC documents has finished scanning [18:30:32] Oh nice [18:31:42] Any updates on the LVOT? [18:32:00] which LVOT? [18:32:27] The Apollo 10 one you spoke of [18:32:37] oh, that's still in the future [18:32:44] Mike requested the LM Data Book [18:32:44] Ah ok [18:32:52] and now the NASA bureaucracy is working on that [18:33:02] lol [18:33:19] but for the case that is sucessful, Mike and I started a list of thing we would like the from the restricted NTRS [18:33:37] so no guarantee we get the LM Data Book and even then, no guarantee we get any of the other documents [18:34:00] right [18:34:20] LOI Targeting or Apollo 10 LVOT are at the top of my list [18:36:06] I’m going to cut out here but I’ll be back Sunday, cya [18:37:25] by the way, Mr. German citizen, they haven't asked me about my nationality or anything yet, so there's no reason so far that you can't request these things if this pans out ;) [18:37:40] yeah, will do [18:37:45] for sure [18:37:58] and all others here can grab one document from the list :D [18:38:19] haha [18:41:38] we already know the procedure from dealing with UHCL [18:59:30] now that I think of it [18:59:44] we've been doing this the opposite of UHCL [19:00:19] for UHCL, I found the document collection and you made the first request [19:00:20] :P [19:00:46] the time it takes to get a document is also the opposite [19:01:01] because Lauren is a champion [19:01:56] very true [19:05:11] this whole procedure is still weird to me. Why so they even have to ask someone at the "issuing NASA center"? [19:05:25] why is this document not marked as available to the public or not [19:05:50] maybe they never had the case where an outside requested a document that isn't publicly listed? [19:05:55] outsider* [19:06:01] do* [19:07:31] if they have to process every request so much, then no wonder that NASA has no time building new rockets [19:16:41] hahaha [19:16:58] yeah I'm not sure [19:18:18] I mean I'm not complaining, because I'm still baffled that they're actually processing the request instead of outright rejecting it [19:18:39] right [19:18:43] keeping our hopes up :D [19:19:29] I wonder if we will hear anything at all next week [19:20:43] I guess the gain changes for the SPS make this harder to see than I remember, I remember the GDI oscillating a lot more, but does this look right? [19:20:53] https://www.dropbox.com/s/1m5xucs2il9nvqy/2018-06-15%2015-17-00.flv?dl=0 [19:23:03] yeah [19:23:07] it's the needle twitching [19:23:13] that's the stroke test [19:23:30] pitch and yaw alternating [19:23:30] okay surely this isn't what it says on the tin [19:23:46] "19790075656 LM abort guidance software 1967" [19:24:17] on the list it goes :D [19:24:24] or not [19:24:29] https://web.archive.org/web/20100508120451/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790075656_1979075656.pdf [19:24:44] lol [19:24:45] just a Bellcomm memo [19:24:48] off the list it goes! [19:25:01] I hope you are checking every document on the archived NTRS [19:25:05] makes the list shorter :D [19:25:16] I'm going to tweak the scraper to use this spreadsheet tonight [19:25:37] I've only checked the ones I've bolded manually [19:25:56] yeah, that's good. Sometimes one of the archives isn't available [19:26:14] so it could happen that you don't find a document in the archive, but it's there anyway [19:27:39] indy91 thanks, I saw the twitch this time, but I still had the higher amplitude needles in my mind from before the COM and gain changes [19:27:50] So thats what I was looking for if that makes sense [19:27:51] hmm [19:28:13] maybe what you remember is the cross product steering changing it's targeted direction every 2 seconds? [19:28:21] that was more pronounced with the old behavior [19:29:17] Well before The needles would oscillate up and down from about 3 to -3 each oscillation decreasing in magnitude [19:30:59] 3°? [19:31:43] Yeah it was very large [19:31:54] 3 on the GDI [19:32:14] hmm [19:32:24] so, I think I read the GSOP wrong [19:32:39] the amplitude should be higher [19:32:56] 0.02 radians max [19:33:00] that's 1.146° [19:33:11] maybe something is wrong [19:34:25] That is closer to what i saw [19:34:38] I dont know for sure if it was 3 but it was greater than +- 1 [19:35:02] it might have to do a correction larger than 1°, to stay in attitude [19:36:23] hmm [19:36:33] how can the stroke test not work right [19:36:48] all I can think of is a V46 missing [19:37:45] I can try again and make sure it's in there [19:38:53] but there definitely is a stroke test happening [19:38:57] just the amplitude might be wrong [19:41:29] Does doing a V46 while in P40 hurt [19:42:02] yes [19:42:12] NOT PERMITTED WHEN TVC DAP IS ON. [19:42:14] well [19:42:17] it doesn't hurt [19:42:21] it just doesn't do anything [19:42:22] But doesnt do anything [19:42:26] lol [19:43:29] Ok I have a V46 and I am entering the full stroking addresses [19:43:32] Les see what happens [19:43:34] Lets [19:43:51] Confirmed my DAP as well 21102 01111 [19:46:02] yeah, I am trying it again as well [19:46:12] the test needs the 80ms bandwidth mode running [19:46:30] but it should always switch over to that at 6 seconds after ignition [19:46:36] just a DAP thing it does on its own [19:46:49] although, I think that's a padload [19:48:20] Also, when doing the MTCV test, the RHC fires RCS and moves the engine bell simultaneously? [19:48:25] MTVC* [19:53:29] have you direct RCS enabled and are you using the keyboard? [19:53:51] Yes to both [19:54:06] keyboard is always full deflection [19:54:25] so you are causing the RCS to fire that way [19:54:30] So thats why the MTVC sucks with it haha [19:54:32] secondary coils through hardover commands [19:54:47] yeah, either use a joystick or have Direct RCS disabled [19:54:49] I remember that now [19:58:30] I am going to start putting flight plan ullage times into the checklists I think [19:58:53] I know they aren't necessary, per se [20:00:21] Eh actually, harder to do since we use a standard P40 for many burns [20:00:38] I'll add "Ullage per flight plan" [20:02:44] the Maneuver PAD should probably have that [20:03:19] The actuals didn't did they? [20:07:29] Back in a bit [20:50:11] .tell indy91 also with the 9 pads, it is missing the dVR (N42) [09:04:28] good morning [09:06:57] good morning as well [09:07:45] oh, he is giving me too much credit. I've simply recycled the Apollo 7 Maneuver PAD for the Apollo 9 MCC. Not the slightly different Apollo 9 style Maneuver PAD :D [09:08:06] how is 9 going? [09:09:35] I'm implementing calculations for general purpose maneuvers. That will be useful for SPS-6 of Apollo 9 and other maneuvers as well [09:10:36] SPS-6 put the perigee of the orbit at 90NM, so that you can deorbit with the SM RCS, if the SPS fails [09:11:18] didnt know you could deorbit with the rcs [09:11:56] yeah, it's a contingency procedure [09:12:11] there are even crazier procedures [09:12:20] like, using some of the CM RCS propellant as well [09:12:55] you can't properly translate with the CM RCS, but the thrusters are oriented in such a way, that pitching up and down at the same time gives you a translation [09:13:31] https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap15fj/csmlcindex.html [09:13:39] here are the procedures for it [09:13:45] SM RCS deorbit & entry [09:13:50] Hybrid RCS deorbit & entry [09:13:57] hybrid deorbit is the one using both SM and CM RCS [09:15:15] and there is one more fun procedure, in the case that CSM separation from the S-IVB fails in Earth orbit. In that case you can dump a bunch of LOX from the S-IVB to lower your perigee a bit and then do the rest with the CM RCS. [09:15:42] so you would do a direct CM separation from the still connected SM/S-IVB [09:15:56] they really did think of every possible scenario :D [11:21:44] @indy91 also about the p23's how exactly is it used to "navigate" [12:25:24] how it works in NASSP or in general? [12:29:12] in general [12:59:56] @indy91 i know it updates the state vector but i don't understand the navigation part [13:18:55] using the sextant [13:19:01] which has a split line-of-sight [13:19:31] so one sextant view is pointing at the Earth horizon [13:19:39] and the other at the navigation star [13:19:50] you superimpose that star over the horizon closest to the star [13:20:26] and with a bunch of geometry, the AGC then determines the position of the CSM from that [13:40:49] First LM day for my Apollo 9 flythrough is coming up [13:41:03] Where did you stop again? [13:47:15] after the rendezvous [13:48:56] Ok I still have some time [13:51:21] did you look into the stroking any further by chance? [13:51:36] nope [14:02:20] I've tried it myself though. I am not really sure if it's actually going on or not [14:02:37] something is going on I think, but, not really sure [14:04:13] I didn't change anything that would have an influence on the stroke test, I don't think [14:04:39] if it worked before [14:07:18] Well I know I saw it visibly on the GDI before [14:07:24] It was very obvious [14:07:42] My only thought is the SPS gain [14:08:03] Because that was changed after the COM issues were fixed [14:08:11] the stroke test just gets added to the DAP commands [14:08:31] and yeah, the overall behavior migh thave changed, but nothing substantial [14:09:39] I even reverted one change [14:10:00] so the only thing that is different to before October is the TVC bandwidth [14:12:21] maybe what you saw was more the reaction to the stroke test than the stroke test itself [14:14:29] Could have been [14:16:46] Is there any easy way to know for sure if it is working? [14:19:53] THE STROKE TEST IS PERFORMED ONLY IN THE PITCH AXIS [14:20:08] I didn't realize that, haha [14:21:42] there is an erasable memory location we can look at [14:21:51] that's where the stroke commands are stored [14:21:57] and then added to TVC pitch [14:22:19] E6,1614 [14:23:45] Yeah I remember the pitch GDI being the one to move [14:24:01] And not the yaw [14:32:58] So I dont know if its my changes or being in EPO, but my LM cabin is 66 degrees and glycol in the 50's when I opened it [14:33:12] Even with 50 and 100x acceleration [14:34:35] might be your changes [14:34:46] pretty sure I had high temperature when I first entered the LM [14:34:56] Well that is good to know [14:35:22] Suit was 58 and cabin 66 when I got the displays up [14:35:33] Glycol 55 [14:40:06] do your changes also make the glyocl pressure stable? [14:40:09] more stable* [14:42:12] No the are all heat exchange/radiator changes [14:42:29] They shouldn't have effect on the loop pressure [14:42:38] But I will get there [14:59:23] Did every SV update for 9 as a docked stack or csm alone come with a V66? [14:59:31] an uplinked V66 I mean [15:03:27] not sure [15:04:12] Which ones did you include a V66? [15:05:24] SPS-2 to 4 [15:05:30] CMC update for the docked DPS burn [15:05:38] SPS-5 [15:06:03] EVA day update [15:06:16] CMC rendezvous update [15:06:42] never when there is only a SV update though [15:06:54] that's when they also got a nav check PAD [15:11:30] Ok [15:13:23] but I honestly can't remember how I decided that [15:13:32] maybe I saw it in the transcript each time [15:13:34] maybe [15:17:32] I just want to add it to the checklist MFD so it's expected [15:58:53] Ok this may seem like a silly question, but which suit hoses go to which crew member [15:59:03] Panels 300 301 and 302 in the CM [16:02:01] 300 is RH, 301 is LH 302 is CTR [16:02:15] so whoever sits there [16:02:47] Other than launch the CDR is center I believe [16:03:05] I am just making DOFF and DON PGA checklists for the CM [16:04:11] CMP is on the left side for TD&E and reentry [16:04:35] uhh [16:04:36] so yes [16:04:40] other than launch I guess :D [16:04:56] CMP also on the left side for any maneuver I guess [16:05:03] Right [16:05:21] and CMP in the middle, LMP on the right for launch [16:05:23] *Correct [16:05:23] except Apollo 11 [16:05:47] Buzz sat in the middle for launch [16:05:53] Really? [16:06:06] Any idea why? [16:07:47] Hi Ryan [16:07:53] it was crew preference [16:08:25] By why the preference, there had to be a deciding factor to break the norm [16:10:13] something about him being trained to fly backup cmp for apollo 8 [16:11:38] yep [16:11:48] Interesting [16:11:49] Buzz had trained as CMP [16:11:52] saw it in a documentary [16:11:59] Yeah I knew he was the 8 backup CMP [16:12:30] Cool factoid :) [16:13:44] and did they switch positions in the lem after the eva, in the liftoff recording buzz is giving calling out switches and buttons on the left side of the lem [16:14:19] maybe Buzz is looking at the checklist [16:14:28] and Neil is doing the checks and switch settings on the left [16:14:46] the LMP probably wouldn't do anything on the left side, unless the CDR isn't in the LM [16:14:59] like at the beginning of the LM Activation and at LM closeout after docking [16:15:47] Yeah they wouldnt have switched positions after EVA [16:15:54] There would be no way to swap back [16:16:08] Too crowded I would imagine [16:54:32] morning! [16:55:06] hey [17:46:04] alright, the scraper is running against our spreadsheet [17:46:14] my bet is on 0 [17:46:32] mine too [18:01:52] yep, nothing [18:14:41] I still can't believe that the list is basically useless with the archived NTRS [18:14:58] did we really manage to find everything there is already? [18:15:19] maybe [18:15:42] the stuff on the spreadsheet is also the heavy hitters [18:15:43] I was still searching through stuff. Although, most of it was just individual documents and not vast ranges of good stuff [18:16:04] and some of what I was finding is on the current NTRS as well [18:16:55] the public one [18:17:17] which means those things wouldn't be on this list [18:17:32] hmmm [18:17:35] yep [18:18:03] I believe in 2012 or so NTRS stopped allowing complete harvesting of documents [18:18:16] and the last archived NTRS we have is from 2011 [18:18:34] if only there was some additional online archive having stuff from that time period [18:18:47] because I believe they added lots of documents still, until the shutdown in 2013 [18:18:58] yeah that would be great [18:21:42] unrelated, but I just finished out laying out a little tiny 8.5mm circuit board for my AGC :D [18:21:50] progress :D [18:22:05] the AGC used custom integrated circuits for its sense amplifiers, which I've been struggling to figure out what to do with [18:22:18] they were in 9-lead TO-5 cans [18:22:31] I found one website claiming some South Korean university online library has a lot of NTRS documents. But that website never worked for me, must have gone offline at some point. [18:22:36] and then I realized that modern technology is small enough that I can make a circuit board small enough to fit in such a can [18:22:58] http://imgur.com/a/bOTLP3J [18:23:15] whatever works :D [18:31:56] lol, they are so tiny that I can get 50 of them for $28 [18:35:41] there are some large ranges of NTRS documents on the restricted list that are not available anymore. I wonder if these were added to NTRS in 2012 or so. [18:36:02] Because, some documents that I believe were always restricted are in the middle of public documents [18:38:03] hmm, maybe [18:38:14] also, at some point the NTRS links changed [18:38:27] old [18:38:28] https://web.archive.org/web/20100528081531/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710005842_1971005842.pdf [18:38:34] new [18:38:34] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710005842.pdf [18:38:52] right [18:39:05] the scraper hits both of those for each thing it tries [18:39:26] ah [18:39:26] good [18:40:19] although right now, the archived PDFs all fail to load for me [18:42:23] what do you mean? [18:45:17] the archive.org link I just posted [18:45:24] it says the PDF fails to load [18:45:44] oh, has that worked before? [18:46:00] hmm [18:46:02] not sure [18:46:10] not that specific one at least [18:47:24] ok, probably was just that Apollo 14 LVOT [11:44:59] good morning [11:49:43] hey [12:03:27] hey [12:31:00] oh damn! [12:31:07] UHCL does have the RTCC documents [12:31:23] IBM RTCC Apollo Programming Series, AS-500 Mission Planning, Mission Systems, Volume 1 [12:31:28] IBM RTCC Apollo Programming Series, AS-500 Mission Planning, Mission Systems, Volume 2 [12:32:01] date is November 29, 1966 [12:32:07] but that might be deceiving [12:32:27] the AS-200 documents have an early date on the first page as well [12:32:41] but some updated pages ranging into 1968 [12:35:27] this document probably has the actualy equations used for the TLMCC processor, RTE processor etc. [12:35:31] actual* [12:35:59] ohhh [12:36:00] nice [12:36:38] might not have anything beyond 1968 though, but still, could give us lots of new information [12:36:50] both volumes 1 and 2 are listed twice though [12:37:08] both volumes would have about 1000 pages [12:37:16] so I wonder if they were split up [12:37:33] Volume 1 in box 13 and 14, Volume 2 in box 14 and 15 [12:37:56] I might just request the one in box 13 at first [12:38:09] should be easy to tell, if half the document is missing [12:42:26] I'll wait a bit to request it still, I'm doing about one request per month right now, more often just seems too much :D [12:42:34] although my last few requests all were just a few pages [13:21:03] love the p23's [13:21:57] I hate them :D [13:22:17] crap results? [13:22:26] pretty much [13:23:19] Well I get close to all balls usually, but its that the state vector doesnt always converge like it should [13:55:59] not sure why they only did two sets for the TLC [14:09:48] Apollo 8 and 10 did more [14:10:04] I guess the ones Apollo 11 did was only practice for the CMP [14:10:16] and not also testing if that kind of navigation even works properly [14:25:21] yeah, I think it just takes a TON of marks for it to start getting accurate [14:26:52] just working on some updated Apollo 16 RTCC MFD numbers [14:57:59] note to self: never update liftoff MJD in the RTCC MFD when you are doin a test run with the CMC cb pulled. There I was like why the heck is my MCC-2 DV over 13000 fps :D [15:00:37] 12.5 fps, thats more like it [15:11:10] Hi all [15:11:43] hey [15:11:51] how is apollo 8 going? [15:12:41] 26 hours in, going ok but it just did a ctd on me for the first time while in p23 [15:13:11] Switched optics speed and Orbiter suddenly crashed [15:13:19] very strange [15:13:34] are you using windows 10? [15:14:31] I was rendering a previous recorded segment in the background though so I wonder if that was a bridge too far. Normally I don't try to render while recording in Orbiter but by overnight render came out corrupt so I decided to redo it while also trying to record the next segment [15:14:36] Yeah I'm using Windows 10 [15:15:27] i am on day 1 for apollo 11 [15:17:03] As a side note, while syncing up the original Mission audio I noticed that the stated altitude and velocity of Apollo 8 in the original audio perfectly matched the GNC reading of the project Apollo MFD, that was around 21 hours I think. Quite cool to see how well it matches the historical mission [15:18:35] Let me know how Apollo 11 goes, I may try to record a playthrough of that mission for the 50th Anniversary next summer if the Apollo 8 webcast goes well [15:18:52] i already did one full mission for 11 [15:19:13] so this will be my second one [15:20:02] How much more challenging is it compared to Apollo 8? I haven't really tried out the LM yet at all, are there checklists to help you along with flying it or do you pretty much just have to know what you're doing going into it [15:20:23] it was very easy [15:20:34] the checklists are all there in the mfd [15:20:43] have not done 8 yet [15:20:44] Ok cool, thanks [15:21:12] Does the Apollo 11 scenario do anything to simulate the 1202 alarms? [15:21:17] nope [15:21:44] i think the reason for that was they misplaced a switch [15:22:40] and the most difficult part of course was the rendezvous from the moon [15:22:55] Shoot well I guess I'll just have to accept that, but it would be nice if there was some way to force too much data into the computer to force those alarms to happen. I remember one time I started up an Apollo 8 scenario in the version 7 beta and for whatever reason it threw up some sort of 120X alarm. [15:23:45] No yeah I guess that would be quite a challenge [15:24:01] it just takes a bit of practice [16:30:12] indy91, PR sent [16:39:23] off to work, later guys! [17:14:08] morning! [17:30:28] hey [17:31:01] IBM RTCC Apollo Programming Series, AS-500 Mission Planning, Mission Systems, Volume 1 [17:31:07] the UHCL Archive Search has this [17:31:26] I am currently working a lot with the AS-200 version, which has lots of actual RTCC equations [17:32:33] hahaha how did you just now find that? :P [17:33:27] I knew about it before [17:33:42] but I only recently realized, how useful these documents are [17:33:50] it's pretty difficult to find the good stuff [17:34:22] they don't have much of an organization in these documents [17:34:30] it's basically RTCC module after RTCC module [17:34:38] and the dates on them are deceving [17:34:52] first pages say 1967, but there are lots of pages from 1968 [17:35:03] same for this AS-500 one [17:35:12] UHCL says it's from 1966 [17:35:28] which, if true for all pages, would be not very useful for me [17:35:33] ahh, like how all of the AC electronics modules only say the date they were just published [17:35:44] substantial changes in the LOI and RTE targeting were done between 1966 and Apollo 8 [17:35:47] Don's revision from 1972 still says 1966 on the first page [17:35:51] yep [17:35:52] like that [17:36:13] it's been only 3 weeks since my last request [17:36:20] and this will have 1000 pages or so [17:36:27] it seems to be split up even [17:36:36] Volume I appears twice, in boxes 13 and 14 [17:36:41] same for Volume II [17:36:43] boxes 14 and 15 [17:37:18] so, I'll wait till my selfimposed month is over, then I'll request the part in box 13 :D [17:37:29] lol [17:37:31] I have enough to do with the AS-200 one anyway [17:38:22] all my recent requests were only a few pages [17:38:43] maybe Lauren wants the good old time back, when I request 10 SCOTs with 300-800 pages :D [17:39:16] hehehe [17:39:38] worst case scenario, I get 1966 info [17:40:09] which means useless for TLMCC, half usefull for LOI and a little bit useful for RTE, because I don't have much on that at all right now [17:40:35] but for all of these the substantial changes didn't stop until Mid 1968 [17:41:02] I know that from an Apollo Experience Report on guidance and targeting stuff [17:41:36] hmm, will this be the first request from the archive search? [17:41:36] return-to-Earth from lunar orbit is where I really have no idea which approach they took [17:41:47] yeah, I think so [17:41:59] there isn't even a report number [17:42:23] title, location, box and date should be enough though [17:42:41] yeah, I'm curious to hear what she says about it [17:43:28] same [17:45:02] you know what. My last request was 18 pages to scan and took only 20 minutes. I'll request it today. Who ever though of one request per month anyway :D [17:46:42] that's really just how it turned out over the last few months. I requested something and it kept me busy, along with other documents, for another month [17:48:38] hahaha [17:48:43] that's the spirit :D [17:49:07] this document will probably have LVDC equations actually [17:49:18] or rather, Powered Flight Processor [17:49:25] how the RTCC simulated a TLI burn [17:50:15] oh nice [17:50:36] but it all really depends on how many updates the document got [17:50:49] the AS-200 one probably never got many past 1968 [17:50:58] not until Skylab preparations anyway [17:51:53] the AS-200 document contains stuff for AS-200 ONLY missions [17:52:05] so Apollo 5, CSM Earth orbit only calculations [17:53:38] hmm [17:53:58] in the AS-200 document, the most up to date part is the state vector propagation method [17:54:06] 10/21/68 [17:54:15] pretty up to date for a AS-200 document :D [17:57:57] this doc would be from IBM, right? [18:00:59] hmm [18:01:18] https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/NARASWoverflow/CorporateIndex.pdf [18:01:21] pdf page 108 [18:02:33] hrm actually that may not be useful [18:04:05] for ND-1021042 it shows the revision they had [18:14:54] yes, IBM [18:15:14] three AS-200 documents were on the archived NTRS [18:15:17] Volume 1-3 [18:15:57] http://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20100525011430/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730062602_1973062602.pdf [18:16:07] that's how Volume I looks like [18:18:24] that page 108 shows the parts that will be in the AS-500 Volume I and II, I think [18:35:45] and those sections' dates as of whenever this was released [18:36:12] ND-1021042 was on revision S which came out 9/21/67 [18:37:59] I don't believe in release dates :D [18:38:23] lol [18:38:24] every single page has a date on it. Every single page could have been updated [20:09:21] night [15:32:07] hey [15:33:21] hey Alex [15:33:31] I requested that AS-500 document [15:33:52] and I'm currently a bit stuck with the general purpose maneuver stuff [15:36:25] nothing like some real RTCC equations to get you unstuck ;) [15:36:47] oh, the AS-200 document already has some help [15:36:51] but it's not easy [15:37:10] I'm testing with my Apollo 9 post LM jettison scenario [15:37:20] which is in a fairly circular, but not quite circular orbit [15:37:36] and finding the apoapsis point for that is causing the problems [16:43:57] no reply yet from Lauren means she is busy scanning? I hope so :D [16:44:38] morning! [16:46:41] hey [16:52:10] what's up? [16:52:51] working on finding the apoapsis of an orbit [16:53:11] additional challenge: small eccentricity, Earth orbit with all the perturbations [16:53:22] yeah that makes it a lot harder :P [16:54:03] the RTCC, as written in the AS-200 Mission Planning documents, distinguishes between the cases e > 0.005 and e < 0.005 [16:57:36] https://i.imgur.com/kh5sWu0.png [16:57:51] this is the local perturbations of the eccentricity over an orbit [16:58:07] thanks, Earth orbit... [17:01:39] these graphs look all quite fun [17:02:10] true anomaly is not linear at all, despite the small eccentricity [17:03:04] locally calculate apoapsis height varies from 130 to 138, periapsis from 123 to 129 [17:03:06] so much for circular [17:03:50] wow [17:06:52] argument of latitude stays quite linear [17:06:53] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_of_latitude [17:07:19] so what the RTCC does is a sine approximation of the orbit, radius as a function of argument of latitude [17:07:29] never worked much with that, so I have some new stuff to learn [17:07:59] what the RTCC does to find the times and points of periapsis and apoapsis that is [18:11:21] One oddity about the Apollo 16 numbers I came up with: I iterated the PC time to get the correct REV 2 time and LOI ellipse solution 1 gives a nice 58.5 by 8.2 NM DOI. The weird thing is the node itself, the SCOT (and in the post mission report) says the node longitude was around +176.8 however the node I came up with is at +173.04 [18:12:08] In comparison the Apollo 15 node I had came up with was much closer to what the SCOT said it should be [18:18:41] you sure solution 1 is right? [18:19:56] well solution 2 gives a DOI of 169x8.2, so yeah im leaning towards 1 :D [18:22:31] right [18:29:17] oh and I did more testing with that issue where if you calculate an early MCC with option 4, it will give non-sense DVs. It does not seem to happen on Apollo 16, I can calculate an MCC as early as GET 10 hours and it will give a good solution. On Apollo 17 however, any solution calculated before GET 20 hours gives very weird DVs, like 15000 fps [18:31:35] it probably finds a different solution, one that is not a figure 8 around the Moon, free return or not [18:31:39] I'll take a look [13:11:32] morning [13:23:22] hey [13:35:38] I made a PR last night, forgot to add the LOI ellipse option for 13 [13:36:57] ah, right [13:37:01] merged [13:38:29] thanks [13:38:35] any news from Lauren? [13:40:03] not yet [13:44:38] good morning [13:45:39] hey [13:47:04] i have a question about the evasive maneuver [13:47:28] does it change the trajectory at all? [13:52:21] of the S-IVB? [13:52:25] or the CSM [13:59:23] the S-IVB evasive maneuver is supposed to change the trajectory, so that it flies around the Moon on the other side as the CSM/LM [13:59:48] so instead of returning to Earth, the S-IVB is slingshot around the Moon into a solar orbit [14:02:25] astronauthen96__ what mission? [14:26:24] 11 [14:27:04] sps [14:27:41] ah [14:28:27] the TLI will have planned in such a way, that the trajectory change caused by the evasive maneuver is compensated [14:28:32] will have been* [14:28:37] interesting [14:29:13] i thought that mcc2 would correct the evasive maneuver for some reason as it is pointed in the opposite direction from the evasive maneuver [14:31:18] hmm [14:31:28] the flight plan says the MCCs are all nominally zero [14:31:58] SO what does STDN stand for in the Apollo 17 lunar surface checklist? "STAY/NO STAY From STDN" [14:33:06] MSFN + STADAN = STDN [14:33:21] hmm [14:34:10] yes [14:34:16] they were merged in May 1971 [14:34:28] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_Tracking_and_Data_Acquisition_Network [14:35:12] ah ok [14:35:16] thanks [14:36:40] also, looks like just before power-down on the moon, STDN gave the LM some gimbal angles to load in V41 N20 [14:37:38] yeah, I have seen that [14:38:17] any idea what it's for? [14:38:27] hmm no idea [14:38:37] but there is one clue on the next line in the checklist [14:38:50] "IMU parking angles" [14:39:34] after the V16 N20, Verify Angles, it says "NO ATT, NO DAP, GIMBAL LOCK, ALT, & VEL Lts - ON" [14:39:45] GIMBAL LOCK is the one that stands out to me [14:40:12] so those angles must have been in gimbal lock? [14:41:24] 113:55:02 Fullerton: Okay. These are the IMU parking angles. Plus 295.86. [14:41:29] 113:55:31 Fullerton: Okay. Y will be plus all zeros. And plus 084.14. Over. [14:45:13] Apollo 16 does the same [14:49:49] Looks like 15 doesnt [14:50:35] hmm, why would you use that kind of attitude [14:51:21] something with the accelerometers maybe? [15:17:04] good question [15:22:27] or it's something clever with alignments [15:23:49] right [15:24:27] another thing I was pondering, T3 must be the exact same as T2 but just one orbit later, correct? [15:24:38] there is an interesting emergency liftoff prcoedure [15:24:54] does T3 use the same profile? [15:25:07] I thought it was just a nominal liftoff after one rev [15:25:44] well there if there was a comm failure then there is no provision in the procedure for updating the P12 targets [15:26:17] HDOT is 19.5 fps by default I think, so wouldnt T3 have to be based on those targets? [15:26:50] could still be the nominal profile [15:27:01] just with 15x30 as the initial orbit [15:27:06] and then 30x45 after CSI [15:27:13] and 45x45 after CDH [15:28:45] ah ok [15:29:20] hmm [15:29:27] that Apollo 13 document says otherwise [15:29:39] T3 is the first to use 9x45 insertion [15:29:57] nominal TPI lighting and nominal insertion orbit [15:30:33] what did the astronauts even get for T3? [15:30:59] just the P12 TIG? [15:31:03] yeah [15:32:04] maybe they used the nominal targets that are pre-filled on the ascent PAD (if there was comm failure) [15:52:23] Apollo 13 Data Card has no T3 entry [15:52:32] do we have the Apollo 14 Data Cards? [15:52:38] Apollo 15 already has it [15:53:02] we do not have the Apollo 14 LM Rescue Plan, so if the procedures changed for that mission, then we don't know about it [15:59:57] hmm I think On 13 its part of the ascent pad [16:03:01] the T3 TIG? [16:03:12] ah, derp [16:03:15] there it is [16:09:48] CSI TIG + 1:33:00 = TPI TIG [16:09:52] that's pretty short [16:11:41] but still, with everything I have found, apolune for the T3 abort is 45NM [16:44:39] morning! [16:55:34] hey Mike [16:57:25] what's up? [17:02:33] not much else than World Cup [17:02:49] still making slow progress with the general purpose maneuvers [17:03:19] no news yet from Lauren. I requested the AS-500 RTCC document yesterday morning. [17:03:33] hehe [17:03:41] no news yet for anything hear as well [17:03:49] although that is much more to be expected :P [17:03:53] *here [17:03:54] haha [17:04:05] the next Florida garage find news you mean [17:04:32] yeah, nothing there, and nothing on the LM data book [17:04:43] ah, right, almost forgot about that :D [17:04:54] haha that is probably the right approach :D [17:06:23] I also almost forgot that a 3D printed DSKY was promised to me a while ago [17:06:35] not that I was ever expecting much from that [17:06:48] We did the 1202 alarm tests for fun mostly [17:06:56] so pulling the suit fan cb should turn on the ECS caution and H20 SEP comp lights [17:08:08] ok [17:08:11] but it doesn't? [17:10:40] nope [17:11:07] hahaha yeah I was thinking about that the other day [17:11:37] strangely enough, the guy who is doing those 3D printed DSKYs will be part of our booth at SpaceFest [17:11:45] so I'll get a lot of time to talk to him in a couple of weeks [17:11:46] but its weird because it seems to work during the activation checklist (Those lights are on on the C&W panel until you activate the suit fan) [17:12:08] but not when going through the lunar surface check [17:12:33] neither light is going on? [17:13:31] ECS light gets suit fan #1 failure logic [17:13:52] that is: Suit Fan switch in 1, DP Sensor shows low pressure difference [17:15:25] AlexB_88, which part of the lunar surface checklist? [17:15:52] Apollo 14 LS check [17:16:01] page 4-1 [17:16:15] ah because its on Suit Fan 2 at that time [17:16:19] oh 14 [17:17:14] but it seems to say that those lights would be on with the switch in SUIT FAN - 2 and the suit fan 2 cb open [17:19:41] it only says the lights should be out at that point [17:19:46] not necessarily on [17:20:16] by pushing in the Suit Fan DP CB you switch on the DP sensor [17:20:26] and theoretically those lights could be on then [17:20:35] might also be some CWEA change [17:20:56] in our CWEA the ECS light is connected to the suit fan 1 failure signal, suit fan light to suit fan 2 signal [17:20:57] right [17:23:58] Ill have to check if UHCL has the Apollo 15/16 LS checklists [17:27:40] APOLLO 16 APRIL 16 LAUNCH CHANGE C LM ( LUNAR MODULE ) lunar surface CHECKLIST [17:27:57] great [17:31:31] uhh [17:31:34] we already have that one [17:31:47] I have a PDF of it at least [17:33:10] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/surface16.html [17:33:20] but not sure where my PDF of it is coming from [17:33:50] and 15 is available as well [17:33:54] AlexB_88, do your research :D [17:36:18] here is 15 [17:36:18] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15_LM_lunar_surface_checklist.pdf [17:37:02] so we have all of them lol [17:37:12] except 13 [17:37:31] yes, we don't have 13 [17:37:45] the flown one is at Space Center Houston [17:37:55] Apollo 16 FULL LM LUNAR CHECKLIST [17:37:59] that's such a strange file name [17:38:02] where did I get this [17:38:17] I saved in February 24th this year [17:38:24] it on* [17:38:27] hahaha [17:40:19] but the individual pages are on the ALSJ in any case [17:40:53] you have the full 16 LS checklist in one file? [17:41:12] yes [17:41:16] Apollo 16 FULL LM LUNAR CHECKLIST [17:41:19] that's the file name [17:41:23] I didn't choose that file name [17:41:32] so I must have downloaded it from somewhere [17:41:47] I don't think you mentioned it in the channel -- at least my logs don't have anything like that on feb 24 [17:41:56] this is apparently the flown version, hand scanned by Charlie Duke, haha [17:42:03] would it be possible to dropbox it? [17:42:12] oh, I have an idea [17:42:37] maybe it was from dseagrav's archive [17:42:57] oh that sounds likely [17:46:54] not that I am finding it [17:49:43] did you find it on there, Alex? [17:53:33] hmm I dont have the link for dseagrav's archive right now [17:53:46] its on my other pc [17:53:50] thanks, Google Activity, for being a good spy [17:53:52] https://www.reddit.com/r/apollo/comments/7zt5m1/apollo_16_lm_lunar_checklist/ [17:54:30] that's where I got it and it's still there [17:54:44] probably just the ALSJ pages assembled into a PDF, I think [17:54:53] awesome thanks [17:56:34] did the J-class LM's have more O2 capacity? [17:58:03] yes, more H2O and O2 [17:58:09] additional tanks I believe [17:59:06] it would make sense [17:59:22] maybe I can get Ryan to compute some temporary numbers for it [17:59:28] like we did for the CSM [18:01:46] I'm sure you have enough O2. What could go wrong? [18:05:31] ok, death [18:14:29] at 130 hours I have 45% left, maybe it will be enough [18:14:43] anyway Ill be back in a bit! [19:28:47] reply from Lauren [19:29:25] no problem with scanning archive search documents :D [19:29:36] now let's see how useful this is going to be [19:29:46] if it's all 1966, it's not great [19:30:52] oh boy, are the PDFs large [19:32:05] let's see [19:32:12] 2nd page is already from mid 1967 [19:32:15] oh man that is awesome [19:32:20] early 1968 [19:32:35] I need to spend more time in the archive search [19:32:39] 12/30/1968 [19:33:04] that's practically 1969 :P [19:33:25] lots of pages from late 1968 [19:33:33] so this should be valid for Apollo 8 [19:33:41] now, what is actually in this [19:34:10] it's 500 pages [19:34:22] smaller than I thought actually [19:34:45] lots of low level subroutines [19:36:25] TLI guidance subroutine, with equations simulating the LVDC behavior [19:36:29] just as I thought [19:36:32] :D [19:36:56] so far all the pages are for simulating burns [19:36:58] I might do what I did for the history search, and make a spreadsheet with the full contents of the archive search database [19:37:17] also some numerical integration stuff [19:37:52] "return to Earth reentry curve fit program" [19:37:54] getting closer [19:38:57] now some subroutines I recognize from the TLMCC requirements [19:39:18] it does a curve fit for the pericynthion time of optimum non-free return trajectory [19:39:27] and this seems to be the subroutine for it [19:39:39] in other documents this was pretty much a black box [19:40:52] "RTE Trajectory Computer" [19:42:01] this is so random [19:42:15] all subroutine descriptions, but not much of an order [19:43:44] and that's it. I think there is a lot of missing stuff [19:44:02] there are some really great descriptions I need to study some more [19:44:10] but 500 pages is not enough, haha [19:44:13] did you request the whole lot, or just the one folder like you were originally thinking? [19:44:47] I requested box 13, but said that box 14 might have the rest of Volume 1 [19:44:51] so not quite sure what I got [19:45:22] also [19:45:24] "There are some missing pages, such as no 17/21 on page 196 of the first file, but I checked the holdings and this is the way the document was delivered (it may have to do with all the change notices at the front)" [19:45:55] yeah, sounds likely [19:45:57] file names are [19:45:58] CENTER-RTCC-13-002-001 [19:45:59] and [19:46:01] CENTER-RTCC-13-002-002 [19:46:05] so probably just box 13 [19:46:07] Don's copy of ND-1021042 got jumbled due to all of the revisions too [19:47:17] on the other hand, the 2nd file doesn't start where the 1st file ends [19:54:04] so it remains on the list for NASA STI then :P [19:54:47] er no [19:54:49] it's not on that list [19:57:00] yeah and I'll ask Lauren about it as well [19:57:12] if anything from box 14 is in this [19:59:04] so, this new document contains a bunch of good stuff. Not exactly what I was mostly hoping for (TLMCC full mission logic, LOI, Moon-centered RTE), but that might still be coming [20:01:04] the TLI guidance is derived from [20:01:11] AS-501 Iterative Guidance Mode Equations [20:01:18] NASA TMX-53421, March 30 1966 [20:03:29] oh man, AS-501 [20:04:51] this RTCC document even derives all the IGM equations, haha [20:05:16] it will work very similar to the Boeing document [20:05:38] and I believe Apollo 8 flew a LVDC version that was very close to those equations anyway [20:09:26] Good afternoon [20:09:29] hey [20:10:40] hey Ryan [20:11:23] Gotta get used to not working from home and having to commute to DC monday thru friday haha, these last two days have put my sleep schedule to the test [20:11:35] oof [20:11:38] how long is the commute? [20:12:18] Well I only have to drive about 25-30 minutes but its a 45 minute metro ride to the FAA building [20:13:01] dang [20:13:01] Switching from working from home schedule to this schedule abruptly is no fun [20:13:17] yeah that is rough [20:13:28] Oh well, pay increase was worth it haha [20:13:55] I haven't heard many good things about commuting in DC... [20:14:04] Well the Metro isn't bad at all [20:14:23] Especially since I get on at the end of the line and ride in, I always start with an empty train so I get a seat haha [20:14:42] ah, that's good [20:14:51] I finished reading Failure Is Not An Option finally today, so I need a new train book [20:14:57] so is Alaska still on hold, or is this the new indefinite plan? [20:15:04] oh! have you read Don's book? [20:15:15] https://www.amazon.com/Sunburst-Luminary-Apollo-Don-Eyles/dp/0986385905 [20:15:20] Yeah, long story short they wanted me to get a multi engine rating first, so hopefully next summer I can fly for a season [20:15:30] ah gotcha [20:15:46] Not yet, I was going to read Ignition next and then Moon Lander [20:16:00] Not sure which first honestly though haha [20:16:03] Ignition is what I'm reading right now, and I was just thinking about picking up Moon Lander :D [20:16:28] I have read excerpts from Ignition but I wanted to read the full thing [20:16:30] it's my birthday in two weeks, guess I'll give a hint to one of parents to get me Sunburst and Luminary, haha [20:16:34] Ignition is great, but man I imagine you are going to enjoy it so much more than me as a chemist [20:16:37] Haha indeed [20:16:42] yesss Don's book is so good [20:16:48] Oh yeah I will geek out about it I am sure [20:17:14] Hmm scrolling up I see Alex wanted some J mission consumables [20:17:20] Ignition is from...? [20:17:30] a long time ago, but it was just reprinted [20:17:38] I think it was originally written in the early 70s [20:17:44] YEah [20:17:49] that doesn't me google it, who is the author? [20:17:49] I want to say 72 [20:17:51] but, propellant tech hasn't changed a whole lot since then [20:17:52] https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0813595835/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1 [20:17:53] help me* [20:18:20] ah [20:18:22] thanks! [20:19:07] definitely recommend it [20:19:08] I guess the correct question would have been: "Ignition is by...?" [20:19:12] haha yeah [20:19:21] same word in German [20:19:41] "by" and "from" that is [20:19:41] right [20:24:05] I think I already have a copy of Failure Is Not An Option on my bookshelf waiting to be read too [20:25:21] I still haven't finished it, some audiobooks got in the way [20:26:13] I'm not bad with finishing books, I just tend to start 3-4 at once, so it takes longer [20:26:15] haha yeah most of my home time lately has been listening to podcasts and tracing through AGC 602 pictures [20:26:22] oh wow, I could not do that [20:27:02] brain memory practice, haha [20:29:34] this is how I've gotten through many many hours of podcasts recently: [20:29:35] also nice in this new RTCC document, it has some of the same subroutines as the AS-200 one, but with better descriptions [20:29:56] tracing through pictures of tray B modules and making schematics [20:29:59] almost done with B9/B10 there [20:30:25] indy91, lots of German flags out on the roads today! [20:30:44] what for? [20:31:37] I would think related to the World Cup is my guess [20:31:48] we played two days ago [20:31:51] and lost [20:31:57] to Mexico [20:32:11] next game is Saturday or so [20:32:26] haha yeah, I figured that out because there were cars driving around with people holding mexican flags out [20:32:39] I was walking around thinking "wtf is going on" before I remembered that the world cup was happening [20:34:04] yeah, it was an unexpected victory [20:37:13] AlexB_88 did you want some J mission LM consumables? [20:40:25] Ah yes I was curious about that. So did the J-class LM have more O2? [20:40:38] indy91, nice on getting the doc [20:41:10] yeah, it's pretty good. And maybe we will get more of it, this might just be half of Volume I [20:41:41] is volume 2 also useful? [20:41:44] yes [20:41:49] haha okay [20:41:55] but I don't know how it's separated in the AS-500 one [20:41:55] so, potentially 3x more [20:42:02] yes [20:42:09] all of Box 14, and a bit of 15 [20:42:15] I can request the next if you want [20:43:05] I'll do that myself, I have a bit to digest with what I have so far [20:43:18] haha sounds good [20:43:36] AlexB_88 yeah the J mission LM's had 2 O2 and 2 DES H2O tanks [20:43:48] Same size as previous LM's just two of them [20:43:51] ah ok [20:44:31] I believe the quantity gauging select also had the capability to select other tanks but I do not remember [20:45:28] a J-Mission Systems Handbook would be nice [20:45:43] Since the plumbing is easy, I can offer two ways to change your local config [20:45:47] Ill see if I can make it to 172 hours on the normal config tanks [20:46:01] I can totalize the volume and masses like I did with the CSM [20:46:27] Or I can give you the two tanks plumbed, but actually that will cause headaches with gauging haha [20:46:31] So here: [20:46:41] #J-Mission Conversion [20:46:42] # DESH2OTANK <0.0 0.0 -1.0> 403.798 0.001 [20:46:42] # CHM 2 302092.5 0.0 371932831.3 [20:46:43] # VALVE IN 1 0.01 # GSE fill [20:46:43] # VALVE OUT 1 0.01 # to H2OTANKSELECT [20:46:44] # VALVE OUT2 1 0.01 # to PLSSH2OFILL via Des H2O Valve [20:46:45] # [20:46:51] #J-Mission Conversion [20:46:52] # DESO2TANK <0.5 1.0 -6.0> 179.5509079 0.0000001 [20:46:52] # CHM 0 43553.93936740 43510.38542803 21390288.86 [20:46:53] # VALVE IN 0 0.0001 [20:46:54] # VALVE OUT 1 0.0001 # To DESO2MANIFOLD [20:46:56] # [20:47:07] Just replace the current tank in your config of the same name with those and no # [20:47:20] good night! [20:47:22] Night! [20:47:27] great thanks [20:47:47] so thats double what we have already, correct? [20:47:52] Yeah [20:48:08] I dont think it will mess with the C/W [20:48:12] yeah that should be good enough for now [20:48:28] I can add that commented in the config like we did for the CSM [20:48:40] Yeah I can PR that [20:48:43] sure [20:48:44] I have it locally [20:49:04] But also, the quantity, like the CSM, will ready 100 until you have used half your O2 [20:49:08] read* [20:49:15] yeah [20:49:16] Because that code is based on a max fixed value [20:49:31] Also, remember to select the J mission batteries [20:49:45] I have modified the CSM definitions for the J-config quantity [20:49:56] Ah I remember that [20:49:59] we already have that commented in the nassp definitions [20:50:03] We can do the same for the LM [20:50:06] yes [20:50:30] The nice thing is a J mission LM will be easier to produce [20:50:46] Only a few electrical changes and panel changes [20:51:07] The plumbing is all the same, just 2 tanks feeding the same point instead of 1 for O2 and H2O [20:51:09] I think that should be a good enough way to "do" J-mission flights in NASSP 8 as technically we do not support J-mission LMs before later releases [20:51:18] Oh absolutel [20:51:25] absolutely* [20:51:35] I am not in any rush for a J mission LM haha [20:51:44] I need to figure out the glycol stability [20:51:52] I got the temperature under control I believe [20:52:00] No more super hot LM from time accel [20:52:26] yeah [20:52:35] Let me know if those numbers work I have not tested them I just computed them haha [20:52:58] CSM needed some pressure tweaks because of how the H systems are coded [20:53:04] sure [20:54:45] #define LM_DES_H2O_CAPACITY 114795.157 //Pad fill 76% [20:54:45] #define LM_ASC_H2O_CAPACITY 14651.03355 //Pad fill 76% [20:55:05] so I guess those are the numbers in nasspdef.h to change [20:56:28] Oh shoot I forgot about the 76% conversion [20:56:31] One sec [20:56:48] I'll have new numbers for the water [20:57:50] #J-Mission Conversion [20:57:51] # DESH2OTANK <0.0 0.0 -1.0> 403.798 0.001 [20:57:51] # CHM 2 229590.3 0.0 282668951.8 [20:57:52] # VALVE IN 1 0.01 # GSE fill [20:57:53] # VALVE OUT 1 0.01 # to H2OTANKSELECT [20:57:53] # VALVE OUT2 1 0.01 # to PLSSH2OFILL via Des H2O Valve [20:57:54] # [20:58:11] So #define LM_DES_H2O_CAPACITY 229590.3 //Pad fill 76% [20:58:22] For a J mission [20:58:37] ASC are the same [20:59:20] there doesnt seem to be a value for DES O2 in nasspdefs [20:59:50] Hmmm let me look [21:02:14] Ah [21:02:18] Ok it returns the mass [21:02:25] in lemswitches.cpp [21:02:31] double LMOxygenQtyMeter::QueryValue(). [21:02:47] case 1: // DES [21:02:47] return (lem->ecs.DescentOxyTankQuantityLBS()/(48.0))*100; [21:02:52] Change 48 to 96 [21:03:45] ok [21:04:01] case 1: // DES [21:04:01] return (lem->ecs.DescentOxyTankQuantityLBS()/(48.0))*100; [21:04:02] //case 1: // DES [21:04:02] // return (lem->ecs.DescentOxyTankQuantityLBS() / (96.0)) * 100; [21:04:11] But just comment out the case you dont want haha [21:04:40] I am surprised it isnt running through the SCERA [21:10:38] Wonder if that is an oversight [22:18:02] oops lost all voltage from batteries 3 & 4 at 157 hours or so [22:33:55] im thinking its weird because 1 & 2 are still above 30 V [22:56:39] night! [00:34:37] .tell AlexB_88 its because that bus has a lot more draw right now, same bus that used to die first when doing ascent [12:10:04] hey [12:12:30] hey Alex [12:25:30] getting into the combination maneuvers of the general purpose maneuver processor now [12:28:53] oh nice [12:29:06] there is a lot, haha [12:29:08] I guess that new doc helps a bit [12:29:18] no, not for this [12:29:24] I haven't found the GMP in there [12:29:45] there should be a lunar orbit compatible version of it though [12:29:59] so I'd expect it to have been in the complete AS-500 document [12:30:20] the combination maneuvers are also just combinations in their calculation, so I should make good progress with it [12:31:00] I found a bunch of other things that are in both AS-200 and AS-500 documents [12:31:17] one general question [12:31:30] in the RTCC, the maneuver calculations usually returned an impulsive solution [12:32:06] and then with another processor, in a separate step where you could choose engine, ullage option etc. it would be converted into a finite burn solution for AGC, AGS or manual [12:32:19] is this something I should implement as well? [12:32:46] that would add another step to any calculation in the RTCC MFD, before you get a valid Maneuver PAD [12:34:57] one advantage would be that you can choose SPS vs. RCS for any maneuver [12:35:20] that's an option for the Maneuver PAD right now, but not for the maneuver calculation itself [12:36:02] from Lauren [12:36:04] "Yes, the remainder of the document is in the next box (apologies for neglecting to mention that!), and is a little bit larger than what I sent yesterday" [12:36:11] I knew it! [12:37:48] also [12:37:50] "Please let me know when you’re ready and I can put the rest of that volume in the queue for scanning." [12:38:00] when I(!) am ready??? hahaha [12:39:09] every time I request something from the JSC History Collection I get more and more the feeling, that Lauren wants all these documents scanned as much as we do :D [12:55:16] "ok, i'll get back to you when I am ready, which is uhmmm, errr, NOW!! [12:57:47] in my email to her I said I already have a lot of pages to digest [12:57:51] sorry :D [12:59:56] oh haha no, I am not in any more hurry to see have that doc then you [13:00:20] I guess the 1st half is a lot of reading material [13:00:29] it is, yes [13:01:01] and it's fun to see routines alluded to in RTCC Requirements in the actual RTCC equations [13:01:23] the TLI simulation is also potentially useful, to check our IGM equations of the LVDC++ [13:02:57] and I would expect the really great stuff from the TLMCC and RTE processors to be in the second part of the document [13:03:04] and hopefully LOI [13:03:06] About "is this something I should implement as well?" I think that if it makes it more realistic then sure [13:03:31] yeah [13:03:39] the real RTCC had a mission planning table [13:03:50] an impulsive maneuver would be transfered to that [13:03:58] and it shows orbital parameters, engine options etc. [13:04:36] that would then calculate a DV with finite burntime comepensation and formatted for AGC or AEA etc. [13:04:59] and then it gets transferred to a routine calculating the octals for an uplink from that [13:05:03] all still in the RTCC [13:05:30] and that would then be transferred to Goddard, I would imagine, and from there to MSFN [13:05:40] that's basically the workflow [13:06:49] maneuver planning table, not mission* [13:07:16] a lot of the pages in these RTCC documents are about the transfer between different modules [13:07:38] formatting inputs and outputs, calculating parameters to be displayed on some console etc. [13:14:05] would you do all this for NASSP 8, or rather go with the current structure of the MFD for 8, then plan an RTCC MFD overhaul for NASSP 9? [13:16:57] yeah, maybe for NASSP 9 [13:20:34] internally it's already done for a few calculation pages [13:20:51] but it's doing the finite burntime compensation directly following the maneuver calculation, without user input [13:22:16] right [13:24:47] btw I lost all power from batteries 3 & 4 at 155 hours on Apollo 15 [13:25:15] weird thing is that batteries 1 & 2 are still ~33V [13:27:05] I guess the powered down configuration has something on the LMP bus [13:27:20] that draws a lot [13:27:50] lighting maybe? [13:28:47] maybe you can play around with the lighting rotary switches and CBs to check what draws the most power in the LMP bus in the lunar stay configuration [13:31:31] and other CBs* [13:48:23] yeah [13:48:41] I guess following the Apollo 14 LD checklist wasnt the greatest of ideas [13:48:46] LS* [13:49:09] well, usually it is, haha [13:49:10] It probably has a powerdown config that works for 40 hours, but not 65 [13:49:24] wait, which mission are you flying? [13:49:29] 15 [13:49:31] ah [13:49:41] and you thought the LS Checklist wasn't available [13:50:10] Im using the 14 LS check to get the correct procedure for our current version of the LM [13:51:06] hmm [13:51:32] while there are differences of course, I would think the LS checklist from the correct mission would still be better [13:51:51] yep [13:52:36] if I do a quick comparison between the CB configs of the two missions, Apollo 15 powers down a bit more [13:52:41] lighting for example [13:55:11] we are really lucky with the LS checklists [13:55:13] only one missing [13:56:33] yeah [13:58:21] and ill be darned, looks like there so happens to be 4 fresh batteries lying in that crater over there! (quickly quicksaves and deletes the battery section of the scenario file) [13:59:08] must be one of those planned robotic LM missions [13:59:15] bringing the batteries there [14:01:01] Really? Was there such a thing planned? [14:03:02] early on, didn't get very far in the planning [14:03:26] oh and I think ill be able to test the improved direct ascent today [14:06:37] great [14:06:47] I still have to test the time critical one [14:08:47] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM23_LM_Derivatives_LMD1-13.pdf [14:08:52] a few LM alternatives [14:08:57] good morning [14:09:38] hey [17:03:53] morning! [17:05:47] hey Mike [17:06:17] what's up? [17:06:32] you'll enjoy two quotes from Lauren, when I asked about the other box [17:06:38] "Yes, the remainder of the document is in the next box (apologies for neglecting to mention that!), and is a little bit larger than what I sent yesterday" [17:06:47] oh excellent [17:06:47] "Please let me know when you’re ready and I can put the rest of that volume in the queue for scanning." [17:06:52] hahaha [17:06:53] awesome [17:06:57] when I am ready??? [17:07:01] Lauren is the best [17:07:24] "queue for scanning", so some kind of army of interns or students doing the scanning [17:07:53] yeah, I used to be afraid that it was just Lauren doing all of the grunt work, and we were adding a lot to her pile [17:07:58] but I'm pretty sure you're right [17:08:36] yeah, makes me not feel so bad as well [17:09:41] I would have been surprised if this was all there is to Volume I [17:09:50] for AS-200 it is [17:09:57] Volume I: 966 pages [17:10:05] Volume II: 1034 pages [17:10:13] wow [17:10:14] Volume III: 652 pages [17:10:17] haha [17:10:19] that is a big document [17:10:22] Volume 3 is boring though [17:10:29] just input/output formats [17:10:34] I think I only know of one that can top it [17:10:56] although I don't have page counts for anything [17:11:23] some SCOTs are close [17:11:27] up to 900 pages [17:11:40] Volume II with the Trajectory Parameters [17:11:47] the "Apollo G&N System Job Description Cards" manual is 11 volumes [17:11:56] haha [17:11:58] restricted NTRS only has 3 of them :P [17:12:25] CSM Data Book, Volume I, Part I with mission specific amendmends for Apollo 13-17 is 1523 pages [17:13:48] haha right the data book! [17:13:54] speaking of which [17:14:04] I guess there is no LM Data Book news [17:14:05] there is nothing to speak of :P [17:14:28] NASA is stopping development of the SLS for a week to process the request [17:14:36] hahaha [17:14:52] yeeaaah [17:15:21] only thing on my end was a short email conversation with the archive.org people about stitching together the foldouts in ND-1021042 vol 2 that were shot as two images due to their size [17:15:47] to try to grease the wheels I did all of the stitching myself: https://photos.app.goo.gl/kTLBnxawgpxvaGec9 [17:16:05] so she's looking into if it's possible to work that into their system [17:17:55] they should pay you, instead of the other way around :D [17:18:59] haha [17:19:37] that would be nice [17:19:44] oh, maybe what Lauren means is that for any future request, they might want to be able to offer the PDF of Volume I as one package [17:19:57] so basically, if I request the part in the other box now, they can do that [17:20:08] but really this is super easy, Microsoft ICE is magic [17:20:18] oh yeah, that would make sense [17:38:36] so when are you going to be "ready" for the rest of it [17:38:38] ? [17:38:40] :P [17:44:41] well, it's not like I have nothing to read with the 500 pages I already got :D [17:44:58] hehehe [17:45:29] in this we differ, I would be trying to get the rest of it ASAP :D [17:45:39] I think having one of these manuals scanned made me even more antsy for the rest of them [17:46:03] I believe in the concept of "too much of a good thing is bad" [17:46:37] ok, sending the request [17:47:52] oh, and the last part of her email from today [17:47:54] "Also, I will be out of the office from June 22 – July 5, but will have access to email – if anything comes up during that time I can forward requests to our archives assistant." [17:47:58] just so you know [17:50:40] oh nice [17:51:56] request sent [17:52:02] impatience won [17:52:12] hahaha [17:52:21] I wasn't trying to convince you to request it or anything [17:52:25] not at all [17:54:14] it's really difficult to say what is in Volume 1 and what is in Volume 2 [17:54:49] was there a separate purpose for the two volumes, or did they just break it up because they went past the reasonable page limit for a single volume? [17:54:53] there is a table of contents, but I find it hard to say if the AS-200 document is even structured like that [17:55:04] just length [17:55:22] Volume 2 is the only one with a table of contents actually [17:55:28] and it has Volumes 1-3 [17:55:41] just split up because of size, according to that [17:56:13] it starts with section 2.1.8 [17:56:30] heh [17:56:35] and a few pages further there indeed is a page saying that's the section there [17:56:51] but I haven't seen any other pages like that, saying 2.1.9 is starting or so [17:57:16] oh wait, for this part it's saying the section at the top of each page [17:57:29] it doesn't do that in Volume 1 at all [17:57:33] just the name of the subroutine there [17:57:39] very weird [17:57:44] so that is basically just a collection of subroutines [17:58:13] and that's even worse with what I got from AS-500 Mission Systems so far [17:58:48] one small table of contents for section 2, load modules [17:59:14] but that isn't actually what follows on the very next page [17:59:16] very confusing [17:59:35] in its essence, the document is just a random collection of RTCC subroutines [17:59:43] all of the volumes really [18:00:37] that's why it took a while for me to consider it useful at all [18:00:50] because I was just seeing load modules, calculations for RTCC console displays etc. [18:01:52] one thing I wonder though, if there was any streamlined way to calculate numbers for the Maneuver and Entry PADs [18:02:09] with everything I found so far, you would have to use like 10 different processor to get all those numbers [18:02:15] hahaha [18:02:50] all I really know is that the CAPCOM got a copy to read to the astronauts [18:03:02] but who wrote it and how exactly it got there, not sure [18:05:43] most of the numbers would be on the Maneuver Planning Table [18:05:54] but I don't think it has a e.g. sextant star check [18:06:10] or Backup GDC Alignment angles [18:21:01] Chuck Deiterich, from 2003 correspondence - "There is quite a bit of protocol in the PAD process. Empty PADs were in tablets of no carbon required (NCR) paper. We would make about 6 copies and use a red ballpoint on the top (original) so the CapCom would be sure what was part of the printed form and what was data." [18:26:07] oh, he's going to be on the flight controllers panel at spacefest [18:28:14] When I corresponded with David Woods about the Apollo 8 high speed procedure, he wanted to ask Chuck about it, he was the Apollo 8 RETRO. [18:28:31] at some Spacefest, two years ago maybe [18:28:35] didn't get the chance though [18:29:52] we pretty much understand that procedure though [18:55:33] alright 5 minutes to ascent [19:17:55] indy91, tweak burn: DVX -2.6, DVZ -6.3 [19:19:00] I almsot think that would of been scrubbed in reality [19:43:51] great [19:50:34] the bad new is AGS SV updating by the RR seems to give bad results [19:50:57] my RR SV was way off after 5 or so marks [19:51:03] my AGS SV* [19:53:35] what is the procedure to allow RR updates? [19:57:19] if there is anything wrong still, it must be a different behavior of the rendezvous downlink list [19:57:23] but I kind of doubt that [20:01:19] TLM to high [20:01:22] RR mode to LGC [20:01:28] 417+1 initializes radar filter [20:01:34] 411+1 allows updates [20:01:45] did you get mark counts in 621? [20:01:53] did all that and yes [20:02:37] thewonderidiot, it shouldn't matter which downlink list is sent, right? [20:02:53] for what? [20:03:02] PGNS to AGC RR update [20:03:05] AGSÜ [20:03:08] AGS* [20:03:11] oh [20:03:25] did you do your tests with V47? [20:03:28] I wouldn't think so [20:03:33] but maybe [20:03:46] can't check right now, busy with work [20:05:59] also I am trying to figure out this YAW/ROLL maneuver [20:08:11] what's that? [20:08:24] before TPI on Apollo 15 [20:08:31] I think it was to keep lock with the RR [20:08:44] yeah that could be, TPI attitude is all weird [20:08:52] not pointing at the CSM at all [20:12:40] oh, I think I know what that maneuver is [20:13:06] when pitching down to the TPI attitude you would go through the zenith of the RR antenna [20:13:18] so you avoid that by rolling a bit [20:13:38] and yaw as well I guess [20:15:16] or maybe the attitude would be close to the zenith, not quite sure [20:21:41] mu insertion RINC with the CSM was also a bit high 0.14 degrees [20:22:01] thats despite a final P57 with +0.01 error [20:22:22] weird [20:22:34] what was your crossrange? [20:22:44] did you update the RLS? [20:23:05] up-to-date CSM state vector? [20:26:29] 0.7 NM and yes to both [20:27:03] was it maybe residuals? [20:28:04] I doubt it, because my residuals for DVY were very low, but the tweak burn indicated 9 fps for DVY [20:28:41] but I omitted doing it with the tweak, instead just letting TPI take care of it [20:29:09] weird [20:43:20] night! [12:31:19] good morning [12:39:15] Hey Alex [12:40:44] morning [12:42:56] hey guys [12:57:32] AlexB_88, any more ideas about your ascent issues? [12:57:50] bad AGS RR updates, large relative inclination etc. [13:00:35] hmm maybe the AGS doesnt like RR updates with high rINCs [13:01:48] and I wonder if P57 has anything to do with the large out-of-plane error [13:07:35] don't think the AGS should have problems with high RInc [13:07:49] and I don't know what else than the P57 would be the cause for the out-of-plane [13:11:49] it might be the spiral segment that is causing it [13:12:33] before I would omit the spiral angle altogether and never had this high an rINC at insertion [13:13:19] but then again I'm not sure because I did get a very low error on my P57, like 000.01 [13:13:39] spirale should be fixed and give good alignments [13:13:49] yeah [13:24:03] so in P12, F 06 76 you have FINAL VH, FINAL H DOT in R1 and R2 which you obviously change. In R3 it shows the cross-range which in my case was 0.7 NM. Do you set this to 0 or do you leave it alone? I did not touch it and left it at the computed value and I am pretty sure thats correct [13:32:10] yeah, you leave it as it is [13:32:58] how I understand it from the GSOP is that the LGC calculates the crossrange first and then after you PRO on that display calculates an out-of-plane position from the CSM as the target [13:33:33] so if you set the CR to 0 there, then the LM will be inserted into an orbit parallel (at the time of insertion) to the CSM orbit [13:33:57] basically the minimum DV solution, because you cancel out none of the CR [13:34:23] you really only would change the CR if it was excessive [13:34:27] usually greater than 8NM [13:34:48] then it becomes better to just do a plane change maneuver [13:35:29] I guessed that scenario would have ruled out direct ascents [13:36:53] yeah [13:37:37] they would only do the short profile when every system is working well [13:38:04] otherwise they revert to the concentric profile, which allows more errors and inaccuracies [13:50:49] so I did a a Nav Check with PGNS after insertion and this is what I see: [13:51:04] P21: lat: -6.72 long -125.86 [13:51:22] PAD: lat: -6.66 long -125.96 [13:51:35] quite a big difference [13:53:33] yeah [13:54:24] that was at insertion [13:54:55] I did another Nav Check right after MCC-2 during docking and the error was only 0.01 in both lat and long [13:55:28] yeah, RR updates [13:55:33] that proves 2 things, the CSM state vector was very good, and the RR updates in PGNS is working very well [13:57:18] as a debug tool, I'd like to set up some permanent solution to determine how good an alignment is [13:57:47] oh I have an idea of what I can do now to test [13:58:04] Ill dock with the CSM and do a V42 [13:58:10] in the PAMFD [13:58:27] since they should have identical alignments [14:01:04] V42: +00.143 +00.013 -00.020 [14:01:17] ah, close to the RInc [14:01:24] so it probably was alignment [14:01:59] is that 1st one the yaw? [14:02:11] ughh I mean roll [14:04:03] yeah, should be roll [14:05:56] I guess saying roll/yaw isnt the correct term because on the surface it would have been a 0.14 yaw error and during ascent that translates to a roll error [14:07:14] but I bet if I hadnt incorporated the spiral angles, it would have been a smaller error [14:08:06] outer gimbal [14:09:08] I'll add a page to the RTCC MFD giving V42 angles with respect to the current REFSMMAT, IMU alignment and actual orientation in space [14:09:35] just so that we have a way to give our IMUs a perfect alignment [14:09:41] and to check on an alignment [14:12:53] but I wouldn't be so quick and still blame the spirale [14:13:24] it does baffle me that the star angle difference (N05) was so low during P57 [14:13:29] yeah [14:13:39] must have been luck [14:13:52] maybe it was something with the gravity align portion [14:15:57] @AlexB_88 just wondering how low were your angles? [14:17:42] did you mark on Alioth? (LS Checklist page 12-2) [14:18:01] lowest i got was 00003 [14:18:51] which is 0.03° [14:19:00] so the expected alignment error is also 0.03° [14:19:02] which is ok [14:19:23] it helps to have the green star markers off [14:19:37] actually, that's not helping [14:19:59] the markers are more accurate for the 1969 sky [14:20:13] the stars in Orbiter are the sky as of the year 2000 [14:20:23] and some stars move quite a bit in that time [14:20:37] so if possible, mark on the markers, not the stars [14:21:09] i didn't know that [14:21:23] ok to be fair, you mostly see a difference in the CSM sextant [14:21:36] in the AOT it's not easy to see that they don't 100% line up [14:22:00] most of my marks in the csm are 00000 [14:23:00] yeah, that's fairly easy to achieve thanks to the small FOV of the sextant [14:23:22] atronauthen96__ 00001 [14:23:37] did Apollo 15 only do gravity + celestial body before liftoff? [14:24:21] that should be pretty accurate though, or else we would have a general issue with the PIPAs [14:25:24] yes [14:26:28] depends on an accurate RLS I think [14:27:41] ohhh [14:27:44] I have an idea [14:27:55] it could be the libration vector [14:28:21] I'll have to check what the error is like at the time of liftoff [14:29:37] no, not the libration vector, haha [14:29:48] Alioth? [14:29:57] a star [14:30:11] the checklists gives stars to use for the alignment [14:30:21] which aren't in the AGC star catalog [14:30:27] so it gives a unit vector [14:30:46] Hamal on page 12-12 [14:30:50] that's the final alignment [14:31:06] you are using the Apollo 15 checklist now, right? [14:31:08] not 14 [14:32:23] im using a combination of both actually [14:32:50] but I did not use those stars [14:32:54] ok [14:33:16] just picked ones that were visible in the AOT, did not think that would be an issue [14:33:58] I guess the only issue would be a star that is almost 90° vertical [14:34:27] then the two alignment vectors would be straight up and down [14:34:32] and doesn't improve your alignment at all [14:35:02] which could be your issue, but probably not [14:36:18] do you remember which star you used? [14:38:57] 170:49:11 Mitchell: And, Falcon; Houston. For your P57 (on Surface 12-11 and 12-12), we'd like to use star 5 (Polaris) , again, and you should find it in detent 3, at a cursor of 184 and a spiral of 282. [14:39:04] and they used Polaris anyway [14:40:34] also just wondering what the pipa bias means i can't find it on google [14:41:05] PIPAs are the accelerometers in the CSM and LM [14:41:09] part of the IMU [14:41:25] and in reality they will have a slight bias [14:41:43] so they would show a small acceleration, even when there is none [14:41:58] which can be cancelled out by the AGC doing calculations [14:42:27] before a flight the PIPAs would be tested, their bias calculated and those bias values would be loaded in the computer for the bias compensation [14:42:40] during a flight you could also change those [14:43:10] Apollo 9 had a pretty bad bias change at liftoff, their CMC showed them in a 90x100 orbit instead of 100x100 [14:43:26] that got fixed by uplinking a new value for the bias compensation [14:43:40] there is a procedure for a PIPA bias check in the checklists as well [14:44:45] and did they get the doi pad during the TLC i have the apollo 11 spacecraft films dvd and during the day 3 tv transmission when they were in the lem i think i heard the capcom talking about them being ready to copy the doi pad [14:46:05] must have been LOI [14:46:16] DOI for Apollo 11 is many hours later, on the next day [14:46:21] yeah maybe i heard it wrong [14:46:45] 100:20:32 Duke: Roger, Eagle. Coming at you with a DOI PAD: 101:36:14.07. Noun 81, minus 00758, plus all balls, plus 00098, plus - correction, 00572, perigee plus 00085 00764 030 000 293. Noun 86, minus 00759, plus all balls, plus 00090. Rest of the PAD is NA. Stand by on your readback. If you are ready to copy the PDI data, I have it for you. Over. [14:47:13] much later than TLC [14:47:25] 056:29:18 Aldrin: And we're ready to copy DOI PAD. [14:47:27] very strange [14:48:45] for the rest of the transcript i don't see a doi pad [14:49:19] indy91, so how does this new function to send REFSMATTS between vehicles work? [14:49:38] oh, haha [14:49:42] they are just joking around [14:49:48] that is what i thought [14:54:14] they, the context matters. I think they said this during a TV broadcast, explaining one of the documents (probably the Data Cards) where they write stuff down [14:54:38] so Aldrin saying that at that point basically means "we are ready for the landing" in a joking way [14:54:51] AlexB_88, I already forgot myself [14:55:22] SEN button the REFSMMAT page [14:55:32] set the other vehicle as the target [14:55:35] ah [14:55:36] e.g. on the lambert page [15:00:34] yes they did they were showing the data cards [15:05:31] making some tests with P57 right now [15:07:21] I gave myself a perfect alignment as a base-line for the test: by teleporting the LM to the CSM and docking and doing a V42, and stealing its REFSMATT and uplinking it to the LM as a straight REFSMATT (not desired) [15:07:34] then teleporting back to the LS [15:07:39] love the p57's [15:08:08] now I will try a bunch of different P57s and see what gives the bad alignment [15:10:40] that procedure can be made much easier, haha, without teleporting [15:11:00] but only when I added that RTCC MFD page [15:11:29] just a bit confused as to how the refsmmat in the lem works [15:13:50] is there a p52 option 1 equivalent at all? [15:19:58] hmm I stronly think it is the spiral now [15:20:26] with a prefect alignment I tried the P57 gravity+star align [15:21:03] and saved right after taking the cursor marks [15:21:30] I then tried 2 tests, one with updating the spiral angle and another without updating the spiral angle [15:22:28] updating the spiral angle cause a 0.11 torquing of the outer gimbal while not updating it only 0.04 [15:23:14] so maybe our spiral is still slightly imperfect [15:23:24] much better then before of course [15:23:57] or maybe we still need to play with FOV in the AOT [15:42:22] or maybe we need to stop playing with the FOV :D [15:42:28] Did you use 60? [15:43:39] yes [15:45:39] did you get small star angle differences with your tests? [15:45:50] yes [15:45:54] 0.02 for both [15:46:21] that's so weird [15:46:32] it seems the star angle difference is not a good measure for small errors in the spiral [15:47:10] I'm not convinced of that yet [15:48:13] well I have been making many P57s without even updating the spiral angle (especially before when the spiral was wrong) and it still gave me low N 05s [15:48:17] the star angle difference being small while giving a not-so-great alignment can only be the case, if both vectors (2 stars or star+gravity etc.) are off by the same amount [15:49:43] it calculates the angle between unit vectors [15:49:54] once from the star catalog, hardcoded in the LGC [15:50:05] and once the actually measured vectors [15:50:29] and the display is simply the difference between the angle between those vectors [15:51:51] angles* [15:53:03] Very weird [15:53:04] I get the same N05 (0.02) in my 2 tests (1st with leaving the spiral angle of 34.1 in the LGC as is, 2nd by updating it with the 34.9 with the spiral) [15:53:05] did you also use different stars? [15:53:37] or are you only marking on one [15:53:43] no same star for both tests [15:53:53] which one? [15:53:57] 07 [15:54:03] its off to the side [15:54:16] above or below the 45° centerline of the AOT [15:54:20] made sure it wasnt vertical [15:54:27] above [15:54:48] hmm [15:54:53] did you try Polaris? [15:54:58] as suggested in the transcript [15:55:25] ill try now [15:57:03] and did you also try the different techniques? [15:57:43] like star/star gravity/star? [15:58:07] yeah [15:58:21] I have been testing with gravity/star only for now [15:58:25] ok [15:58:37] for that, make sure the RLS is good, that's quite important [15:58:46] yes it is [15:59:04] I found one interesting thing in the GSOP [15:59:28] the displayed star angle error is different for the gravity+star technique [16:00:29] hmm [16:00:40] or maybe it means the gravity error angle with that [16:00:43] F 06 04 [16:00:48] is that 0 for you? [16:03:10] yes I get 0 on 06 04 [16:03:38] yeah, that's what the GSOP was talking about, not the N05 [16:03:59] that would actually give non-zero, if the RLS was off [16:04:03] in other news, polaris gave a lower OG torquing 0.068 [16:04:44] is Polaris closer to the horizon? [16:04:52] and the N05 was -0.03 [16:04:54] yes [16:04:58] its lower [16:05:08] I wonder if that is relevant [16:05:09] by a bit [16:05:53] Alpheratz is even lower, maybe ill try that one [16:07:25] nothing interesting in the program notes about this [16:07:33] back in a bit [16:11:27] oooh [16:11:54] on Alpheratz I get a -0.04 OG torque [16:21:02] and I just went back to my Ascent scenario with the bad alignment, re-did P57 using Alpheratz and it greatly improvd it [16:21:17] 0.14 error down to 0.04 [16:31:16] hmm, I'd say that behavior points more to a spirale error [16:31:44] error might be a function of angle from the centerline [16:32:35] in better news, rest of the Volume I has been scanned [16:33:51] nice [16:34:26] you know what also hinders AOT markings? The markers [16:34:32] haha [16:34:37] they are too big [16:34:46] you and astronauthen96__ say the same thing, haha [16:34:53] they are good for P52 markings with the CSM [16:35:08] yep, because the work good for the sextant crosshair [16:35:10] they* [16:35:13] but the AOT seems to need more precision, especially with the spiral [16:35:30] and the much larger FOV [16:35:33] yeah [16:36:06] the new RTCC document has an insertion control sheet [16:36:11] latest date is 4/4/69 [16:36:12] I brought the marker from 1.5 down to 0.2 and now its a tiny cross. I can precisely place it between the 2 lines of the spiral [16:36:14] not bad [16:36:28] yeah, maybe we should change the marker [16:36:37] and that gave me good results [16:37:00] and table of contents. no wonder the previous documents were confusing [16:37:07] these are the first pages of Volume I [16:37:08] I think we should make it smaller so there is no empty gap in the middle of it [16:37:26] would that work well with the sextant as well? [16:37:34] yes I am sure [16:37:53] maybe not reduce it to 0.2 but just enough to close the gap [16:38:16] so that you can precisely see the intersecting point on the cross [16:41:43] first new document is only AS-500 Systems Integration, not AS-500 Mission Planning [16:41:48] so not super useful [16:42:03] lots of manual entry device descriptions, how the RTCC people interacted with the processors [16:43:00] second document starts with [16:43:11] "Lunar Surface Local Vertical REFSMMAT Subroutine" [16:43:16] so more promising :D [16:43:29] nice [16:47:52] some nice subroutines, but nothing major unfortunately [16:48:03] I believe this is the actualy part 1 of Volume 1 [16:48:11] that was in box 14 [16:48:17] the second part was in box 13 [16:49:30] still haven't found a table of contents for Volume II though [16:49:55] so the missing, really good stuff might just be in Volume 2 [16:50:19] hmm [16:50:26] no, what I said is not quite accurate [16:51:52] morning! [16:52:47] hey Mike [16:52:52] got the rest of the RTCC book [16:53:17] the structure is very confusing [16:53:22] haha [16:53:27] structure? [16:53:35] sounds generous :P [16:54:18] what I already had was AS-500 Mission Planning [16:54:26] now I got AS-500 Systems Integration [16:54:50] no telling what Volume 2 would have [16:55:01] but this was all Volume 1 so far [16:55:17] Volume 2 probably will have more mission plannning [16:55:37] for AS-200, Systems Integration is Volume 3 [16:55:55] huh, weird [16:56:22] later, guys! [16:56:43] as incomplete as Mission Planning still is, there has to be more of it in Volume 2 [16:57:01] AS-200 seems much more complete in comparison [16:57:16] AS-500 had random subroutines without order and any other routine calling it [16:59:14] AS-500 Systems Integration has fun stuff like [16:59:19] "DSKY Numerical Displays" [16:59:44] O_o [16:59:45] changes DSKY telemetry (DSPTAB) to a format for display on TV [16:59:49] whoa [16:59:54] haha [16:59:58] so for mission control [17:05:18] ah, I am dumb [17:05:31] the archive search description has the right title [17:05:55] IBM RTCC Apollo Programming Series, AS-500 Mission Planning, Mission Systems, Volume 1 [17:06:03] this is what I got yesterday [17:06:08] IBM RTCC Apollo Programming Series, AS-500 Systems Integration, Mission Systems, Volume 1 [17:06:10] this today [17:06:15] not the same title... [17:06:23] reading comprehension [17:06:33] so there still is [17:06:36] IBM RTCC Apollo Programming Series, AS-500 Mission Planning, Mission Systems, Volume 2 [17:06:47] this will be good! [17:06:48] IBM RTCC Apollo Programming Series, AS-500 Systems Integration, Mission Systems, Volume 2 [17:06:52] this will be boring [17:07:00] IBM RTCC Apollo Programming Series, AS-200 Systems Integration, Mission Systems, Volume 2 [17:07:06] and this is both boring and I already have ti [17:07:07] itr [17:07:08] it [17:07:51] so I'll guess I'll work with what I have for now and at some point request Volume 2 of Mission Planning [17:09:20] the same thing about the markers? [17:09:41] hahaha [17:10:02] reading is hard :P [17:11:16] yeah it's much easier to line the star up without the marker [17:17:40] we'll probably make the markers smaller [17:17:46] or closed in the center [17:25:05] also during lem activation should i be doing v66's? [17:27:09] well initially you won't have any state vector in the LGC [17:27:24] the initial state vectors are uplinked to both slots [17:27:30] so rather do that than a V66 [17:27:35] okay [17:27:42] altohugh it probably doesn't matter [17:27:50] they might even have uplinked a V66 there [17:34:13] DCS has a sale it seems [17:34:23] 50% off for the MiG-21 [17:34:38] guess this is the time to get it then [17:35:56] did you guys see the trailer for first man? [17:40:58] I have not [17:46:34] now I have [17:47:03] i will definitely be seeing it [17:47:25] Neil wasn't exactly the most eccentric astronaut personality [17:47:43] so I wonder if the movie will work on that character level [17:48:02] he was in a bunch of exciting situations, for sure. Most of which were in the trailer :D [18:04:36] indy91: yesssss get the mig [18:04:48] I was actually going to start flying it again this weekend [18:14:43] I'm thinking about picking up the F-5E and Mirage 2000 this time around [18:28:22] I am confused by the DCS versions... [18:29:35] 2.5 is what I should have, I guess? [18:29:39] I am pretty sure everybody is [18:29:45] even Eagle Dynamics [18:29:56] I have no idea :D [18:30:00] Thymo might know [18:30:24] I still had 1.5 installed [18:30:37] previously anything with 2.X was in Beta or so [18:30:52] but now the updater wants to install 2.5 [18:30:58] so I guess that is what I'll get [18:31:41] just a 18GB update, no big deal [18:33:40] hahaha [20:45:51] Yo [20:47:24] .tell indy91 Just run `DCS_updater.exe update @openbeta` for 2.5 beta and `DCS_updater.exe update @release` for 2.5 release. [20:57:36] Just got accepted as a TA at my college. :D [20:59:35] nice! [20:59:37] what for? [21:01:16] Assisting students with their programming questions [21:02:10] right I know what a TA is :P [21:02:32] but I mean, at least at my school TA's were for particular classes or departments [21:20:35] Well at first this will be for the course "Introduction to Programming" which is in Java. If they like what I do they'll also hire me for "Object Oriented Programming" and "Android Programming". [21:20:54] awesome :) [21:22:06] Very much so yes. I tend to help people out naturally, now I'm going to get paid for it (and very good too). [21:22:23] oh man that's really awesome [16:42:52] morning! [16:48:03] hey [16:48:19] what's up? [16:48:20] yeah, I just finished that update [16:48:27] :D [16:53:51] I picked up the F-5E and Mirage 2000 last night [16:54:06] trying to decide what to start flying this weekend :D [16:54:24] and now I own a MiG-21 [16:54:27] a virtual one [16:54:50] world cup and a new bird. Bye, bye any NASSP progress [17:17:56] hahaha [17:17:59] yeah [17:18:14] sadly I probably will only be able to fly a little bit this weekend [17:18:27] SpaceFest is only a week and a half (!) away [17:22:59] you are there with your company or privately? [17:24:00] privately, haha [17:24:23] my company does not care about all of the AGC stuff I do :D [17:24:28] other than think it is kind of neat [17:24:30] lol [17:25:09] you were talking like you have business to attend there, but it must be AGC related then :D [17:31:12] haha the AGC is my business there :D [17:31:28] this is where I'll be seeing that AGC and mapping it out [17:31:46] and I've somehow worked my way into co-hosting the booth with the AGC [17:32:09] haha, great [17:32:38] if there is any way I can support your effort with the AGC there, let me know [17:32:49] will do, thanks! [17:33:28] I expect I'm going to be asked questions about using the thing operationally, and if you're awake I might bounce them off of you, if you don't mind [17:33:37] I know how it works, but not how to use it :D [17:33:37] sure [17:33:43] I know how to use it [17:33:58] I know what the interpreter does on an operational level [17:34:09] so our knowledge is perfectly complementing [17:34:23] if that is the right word [17:34:51] haha yep! [17:34:52] complementary [17:36:35] speaking of the interpreter, the RTCC documents have subroutines down to the level of vector math [17:36:59] for some reason I found 3 different subroutines calculating unit vectors [17:37:15] three? [17:37:19] that sounds excessive [17:37:20] lol [17:37:24] different names, yeah [17:37:33] one is returning magnitude as well [17:37:53] but that's just typical for these documents, quite confusing over all [17:37:58] I assume this was the magnitude before it was made a unit vector [17:38:02] and not just also giving you a 1 [17:38:02] :P [17:38:09] yeah, probably, haha [17:38:36] AGC has the star directions stored as half unit vectors, probably because of some scaling reason [17:38:50] oh it does that a lot [17:38:56] I remember seeing that everywhere when transcribing [17:39:25] I think I remember transcribing a rationale, but I don't remember what it was [17:40:03] oh, one interesting thing about the AGC. Usually it tries to be very efficient about memory and processing power use [17:40:30] right, because it doesn't have very much of either [17:40:56] good morning [17:41:10] but when I implemented some of the alignment coordinate system transformations I noticed that the GSOP section 3 (DAP) used a very similar routine as one of the IMU alignment routines [17:41:15] was just playing flight simulator x and now im gonna activate eagle [17:41:39] basically, one of them is returning the transposed matrix of the other routine [17:41:47] and I wonder if these were actually different in the AGC [17:41:50] or just in the GSOP [17:42:06] hmm [17:42:11] astronauthen96__, I just bought a new plane for DCS, so I have some distractions as well, haha [17:42:36] thewonderidiot, I'll have to look up the GSOP again to find the names of those subroutines [17:43:47] but a transposed matrix shouldn't be much of a computational effort [17:44:03] I think there's even an interpreter instruction to transpose a matrix [17:44:04] so having that twice would be a waste of fixed memory [17:44:14] that's what I was about to ask [17:44:15] the interpreter is crazy [17:44:22] so that should be easy [17:44:41] no reason to not use a IMU alignment routine in the DAP and just transpose it [17:44:46] or the other way around [17:45:09] hmm, no, I'm wrong [17:45:33] I think the routine in the DAP was DCMTOCDU [17:45:39] not sure if that's the name in code [17:45:46] it is [17:45:53] i see the clock procedures have changed [17:45:53] it takes a direction-cosine matrix and extracts CDU angles [17:46:24] there's a routine in ATTITUDE_MANEUVER_ROUTINE called TRANSPOS, that does the transposing [17:46:35] ah [17:47:16] only really looks like that's called from KALCMAN3... [17:47:33] "CALCGA" is the similar calculation for the IMU transformations [17:47:53] although now that I think about it, that one might use fixed addresses in the erasable memory [17:48:31] but you would just have to give CALCGA the same matrix as DCMTOCDU, except transposed [17:48:58] and probably an identity matrix as well [17:49:01] that might be the problem [17:49:40] that you would have to assign temporary memory, so that you could one routine for both purposes [17:52:22] that's what I am doing in my RTCC MFD code. I took DAP equations from VECPOINT [17:52:31] but I didn't implement the DCMTOCDU function [17:53:11] and instead used CALCGA for it, with an identity matrix and the transposed matrix as the input, that the DAP is using in VECPOINT [17:54:00] I already had CALGA in RTCC code, because it's used a bunch to calculate e.g. maneuver attitudes [17:54:44] input for that is usually the REFSMMAT and a direction cosine matrix, as DCMTOCDU would use. Just transposed I guess. [17:55:22] astronauthen96__, yeah, a clock update via uplink would usually only be done if MCC-H notices that the AGC clock is off. [17:55:45] I'm kind of surprised at how little transposing I'm seeing in the code [17:55:48] First it's always the simultaneous pressing of ENTR on the DSKY while the clock is up [17:55:57] surely there must be more than just one [17:57:01] well often you don't need the transposed matrix as a whole, but you can get away with multiplying the 3 vectors that make up the matrix in the right way [17:57:39] ahh [17:57:42] gotcha [17:57:57] Luminary should use a transposed REFSMMAT in the descent guidance initialization [17:59:06] hmm [17:59:08] or maybe not [18:00:34] yeah, in the GSOP there a lot of component-vise multiplications of the unit vectors that make up a rotation matrix, that would usually need a transposition [18:01:41] in the end you are just switching around parts of the matrix, if you are transposing a rotation matrix [18:03:11] makes sense [18:04:38] did you find CALCGA in the code? [18:04:58] if yes, can you post a link? [18:05:20] ah, found it myself [18:06:28] hmm [18:06:44] looks safe to use it for the DAP [18:07:20] put identical matrix in XSM, YSM and ZSM [18:07:36] it's used from P51-P53 and IMU PERFORMANCE TESTS 2 [18:07:40] and transposed direction cosine matrix in XNB, YNB and ZNB [18:08:11] identity* [18:08:49] this might be someone working on the DAP not knowing what someone working on IMU transformations is doing :D [18:12:25] hehehe [18:12:45] hmm [18:12:57] but DCSTOCDU is probably more efficient to use than CALCGA [18:13:03] which might be important for the DAP [18:13:16] although this wouldn't be used in real time [18:13:33] just when a new desired attitude is calculated [18:19:48] I just want to prove that the AGC developers could have done this more efficiently, haha [18:21:06] hehehe [18:22:34] just wondering what exactly does the p51 do in the lem? [18:24:38] same thing as in the CSM [18:24:57] just in the LM way [18:25:09] you have to find the stars yourself, because you have no initial alignment [18:25:25] during p51? [18:25:31] yeah [18:25:41] or you are ignoring any previous alignment [18:25:42] there is no procedure for that in the checklist mfd [18:25:52] it wasn't ever done, I think [18:26:19] but you have to find stars for the p52 before doi [18:26:23] https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap12fj/pdf/a12_lm_g&n.pdf [18:26:32] you'll find the procedure in there [18:26:55] is P52 giving you program alarms because it doesn't find any stars on its own? [18:27:00] 405 [18:27:03] no [18:27:14] it just says 00200 [18:27:32] P51 or P52? [18:27:35] p52 [18:28:06] and i got 00001 [18:28:25] you must have pressed ENTR on the 00015 then [18:28:56] i just did what the mfd said [18:29:21] not a good long term strategy, haha [18:29:27] I don't know what the MFD says [18:29:50] but it should only ever show you 00200, if it didn't find stars on its own [18:30:01] so either you told it you want to find stars manually anyway [18:30:12] or it failed to find two stars and gives a program alarm [18:30:38] the 2 means the front detent, which is usually used in P52 [18:30:54] i could definitely see a bunch of stars in the AOT [18:31:04] yeah, it's pretty weird [18:31:31] i have a scenario before the p52 if you want to see it [18:31:33] I don't really understand it myself, but P52 in the LM often fails to find stars (including 405 alarm), even if you would think it has stars available [18:31:38] sure [18:32:36] https://www.dropbox.com/s/r860tfuerhxtqpu/BEFORE%20DOI%20P52.scn?dl=0 [18:32:56] you have to maneuver the lem so it points to the sky [18:35:09] ok, the checklist does do the ENTR on the 00015 display [18:35:17] PRO means the LGC is searching for two stars [18:35:27] ENTR means you manually input them [18:35:36] to prevent the program alarms I guess [18:35:42] then it shows 00200 [18:35:47] it might have been a checklist change [18:35:58] last time i think it said to press pro [18:36:07] and then Ryan was too lazy to add the stars from the LM Timeline Book [18:36:15] so not really your error, haha [18:36:24] lol [18:36:40] https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/Apollo11-LM-TimelineBook-excerpts.pdf [18:36:50] this is the flown checklist for this part [18:37:09] you are on page 3, it uses stars 25 and 33 [18:37:32] i think i used 33 and 37 [18:37:47] checklist doesn't really say if they would have used the automatic or manual option [18:37:58] the actual checklist I mean [18:38:24] so the ENTR press plus the lack of giving any stars to input is definitely not good by the Checklist MFD [18:39:09] so you if want to manually input those stars, you have to change the 00200 to 00225 and 00233, with V21 [18:39:17] then it will at least auto maneuver you [18:39:20] yeah i did that [18:39:26] but 37 instead of 25 [18:39:31] we'll have to ask Ryan, why he included the enter there [18:42:46] all I wonder is if Buzz wrote down the stars before the flight, during the flight (from CAPCOM) or after that P52 [18:44:42] ah [18:44:49] from the technical debriefing [18:45:07] ARMSTRONG "We did that on the flight plan stars, Acrux and Antares" [18:45:51] not that I am seeing stars in the flight plan... [18:49:39] heh [18:51:28] probably more like, planned stars [18:51:33] the once used during sims [18:51:37] ones* [18:51:39] yeah [18:56:36] 183 pages manual for the MiG-21 [18:56:37] weak [18:56:46] I'm used to 900 pages AOHs [19:12:50] hehehe [19:13:11] the fishbed is a pretty simple plane [19:13:35] Thymo: we need to get a #nassp DCS server set up somewhere [19:47:42] no new manual scanning this week :( [19:47:50] hopefully we get a new volume next week [23:07:51] thewonderidiot: DCS doesn't have dedicated server support (yet). So anyone that wants to host a server will need a rig with a GPU. [23:08:09] oh weird [23:08:25] And run Windows above all. [23:08:34] huh [23:09:03] They're planning on releasing a dedicated server this or next year though. So who knows. [23:09:52] well, we should still try to find a way to fly together [23:11:38] I usually play on public servers or one of the people I fly with hosts a mission. I can also wink and ask a friend of mine that has an NFO gameserver to put one up. :) [23:12:09] I might have some time tomorrow evening (my time). I'm pretty busy with college deadlines coming up though. [23:12:22] But I can probably spare an hour or two. [23:12:35] I need to take a break at some point after all. [23:13:51] haha yeah [23:13:59] .t Thymo [23:14:32] I'm going to take a while to get back into it. it's been quite a while since I've done any DCS [23:14:55] still trying to decide if I want to go back to the MiG-21 or start with learning the F-5 or Mirage 2000 [23:16:07] I've got the Mig. [23:18:01] and Niklas does now too [23:18:18] I guess I'll start out with the Mig again [23:18:22] I do love that plane [23:19:14] but like you I really ought to be doing work this weekend in preparation for SpaceFest and not goofing off in a mig :P [23:31:08] Aight. I'm gonna get some sleep. Night! [11:25:40] Good morning [11:25:44] hey Ryan [11:26:15] I think I was going through Apollo withdrawal this week [11:26:20] haha [11:26:33] I have something for you to look at [11:26:45] Apollo 11 LM checklist [11:26:54] And making matters worse, our front conference room faces the air and space museum (I am right across the street) [11:27:08] Sure one sec let me pull it up [11:27:28] sneak in when the museum is closed, make pictures of checklist :D [11:28:17] I guess they still never got back in touch with you about those... [11:28:51] NASA STI also hasn't contacted Mike this week again about the LM Data Book on the restricted NTRS [11:29:18] No they arent [11:29:28] I am going to send another email next week I think [11:29:45] checklist thing is about the P52 between sep and DOI [11:29:59] Ok [11:30:04] it does an ENTR on the 00015 [11:30:09] so manual star selection [11:30:18] but it doesn't provide any stars to use then [11:31:26] is that the general P52 checklist? [11:31:30] Yeah [11:31:43] so why is it using manual star selection? [11:31:44] I believe it's the one from the 12 G&N dictionary [11:32:35] Hmm there was a reason i used the enter I think [11:32:51] yeah, I'm sure it was changed at some point [11:32:54] It must have been from one of the checklists mission specific [11:33:03] P52 was one of the early ones I wrote haha [11:34:29] they might have used manual selection for that P52 [11:34:55] but I think it's not good to use ENTR there, without even a note saying "use flight plan stars" or so [11:35:05] or having the V21 to input the stars [11:35:25] Actually, I had changed the procedure to use PICAPAR in the 9 and 10 LM checklists already [11:35:37] It just hadn't made it to 11 [11:35:52] ah [11:36:00] technical debriefing says [11:36:01] ARMSTRONG "We did that on the flight plan stars, Acrux and Antares" [11:36:48] if you are changing it to PRO anyway, then that's all that needs to be changed I guess [11:37:24] I mean, if we have viable stars and either put them in a checklist or MCC, I can simply put a PRO/FAIL case on these [11:37:39] I still need to anyways for the accept/reject the star angle [11:37:45] Like I did for the CM [11:38:52] that specific P52 usually give you an alarm due to not finding a star pair, I think [11:39:04] Did they have stars in the FP for that? [11:39:25] 405 alarm? [11:39:33] yes [11:39:37] 25 and 33 [11:39:41] and yes, 405 [11:39:58] actually, no, not in the flight plan [11:40:05] not that I could find it [11:40:16] Well if there are stars listed for specific P52's I would be more than happy to add them in, similar to the P23, normalized procedure but it tells you when you start which stars [11:40:16] not sure what Neill is referencing there [11:40:27] but the LM Timeline Book has handwritten 25 and 33 [11:40:33] Read up perhaps [11:41:04] written down during the mission at least [11:41:19] same pen as the star angle difference and torquing angles [11:41:35] and I'm pretty sure this is Buzz's flown copy [11:41:57] Well here is what I will do for now, I will make all of them PICAPAR, add the fail condition to the star angle, and then double back and make a fail condition to enter stars manually if they are available [11:42:10] yes, torquing angles in the Timeline Book are identical to the transcript [11:43:07] where is that fail condition for manual stars? [11:43:27] where do you want* [11:43:56] initially always PRO or a PRO/ENTR option there? [11:44:02] Yeah [11:44:09] or only manual stars, if you got a program alarm [11:44:52] Well I could leave it as PRO for just pressing forward, and I could make the fail procedure of manual entry come up, or selectable, when a 405 comes up, or specific stars are requested [11:45:14] So the base procedure would be PICAPAR [11:45:36] yeah, I think having PICAPAR as the base procedure is the least complicated way [11:45:44] No problem [11:47:36] least complicated for you :D [11:49:10] Hey believe it or not this is a break from the mental gymnastics I have been indoctrinated on this week [11:49:40] Did we decide on a rejection angle for the LM P52? [11:52:17] I'd say +00010, but I'll try to find something better [11:52:33] Ok I will start with that [11:59:46] it's not in the mission rules or mission techniques for lunar orbit [12:00:23] but there has to be some error value that is too bad to start PDI [12:00:57] I would imagine so [12:02:45] They normally got nice small numbers though [12:03:11] Makes me wonder if the angle is closer to the .03 than the .10 [12:03:16] For the rejection criteria [12:03:41] Apollo 11 had 0.03° [12:05:08] Yeah but that still seems like a higher margin to me [12:05:16] 0.10 I mean [12:05:30] But yeah if you come up with something let me know [12:05:55] I wonder what the procedure would be though [12:06:09] they don't really have the time to repeat the P52 [12:06:14] before DOI I mean [12:07:38] The third star check was performed before DOI, right? [12:08:44] And I guess if they had to redo it, and it was going to mess up the DOI timeline, they would waive off the DOI for a rev? [12:09:00] So they have time to figure out what happened [12:09:22] yeah, probably [12:20:59] I don't think 0.1° is too high [12:21:10] Ok [12:21:22] so, usually the allowable crossrange is 8NM [12:21:48] let's assume you do a powered descent with a crossrange IMU alignment error [12:22:47] there probably is an alignment error threshold, that would lead to more than 8NM CR after an aborted landing [12:23:04] but that number should be quite large [12:25:06] a rough calculation with 0.1° error, 10 minutes of thrusting at 5m/s gives 1.7NM error [12:25:15] 5m/s² [12:27:11] Well within safety margins [12:31:01] looking at the dispersion analysis documents [12:31:16] the 3-sigma value for IMU misalignments is 0.0567° [12:31:51] wait, that's not how that works [12:32:11] 1-sigma is 0.0189° at least [12:33:02] For the LM? [12:33:19] And P52 [12:33:20] hmm [12:33:31] in general, for the Apollo 10 rendezvous [12:35:04] or maybe that is how it works, haha [12:35:31] so you could say that 0.0567° exceeds what usually is allowable [12:35:42] so maybe make the value we use 0.06? [12:35:55] that seems like a good number [12:37:17] Yeah I agree [12:37:53] As long as you take multiple marks (I believe most missions used 4) that number is easy to stay under [12:37:54] I had the addendum for the Apollo 10 rendezvous dispersion analysis, now I found the first document [12:38:05] I average 0-0.2 right now [12:38:09] *0-0.02 [12:38:20] it has: 0.018° for the LM and 0.011° for the CSM as the one-sigma IMU misalignment [12:38:41] Surprisingly close given the instrumentation differences [12:38:47] good morning [12:38:49] Morning [12:38:55] had a severe problem with pdi yesterday [12:39:03] crash? :P [12:39:10] Thats usually as severe as it gets haha [12:39:19] is started ascending as it neared touchdown [12:39:29] and this was an autolanding [12:39:47] but i did do lem activation right to pdi without saving and reloading [12:39:48] I have never seen that [12:39:59] That shouldnt be a factor [12:40:13] i must have done something wrong [12:40:14] My thought is something increased the throttle, do you have a joystick plugged in? [12:40:25] no [12:40:49] Hard to diagnose [12:41:18] too many LPD commands could cause this, but that isn't a factor for auto landings of course [12:42:37] Was it in P65? [12:43:04] cant remember but i will try my before pdi scenario [12:44:22] and the before lem activation was from my last mission [12:44:30] the scenario [12:55:13] would that be a factor? [12:55:15] Yeah watch the program just in case after P64 [12:55:17] Yes [12:55:31] Not the LM activation [12:55:37] But it not being in P65 [12:56:17] so the scenario was maybe from last month [12:57:34] I dont think any changes that would mess with landing were made [12:58:41] i will go try my pdi scenario now [13:10:08] indy91, where are you with 9 MCC (just curious) [13:16:24] still working on the general purpose maneuvers [13:16:41] when I am done with them, I still have to use them for some Apollo 7 and 9 maneuvers [13:16:47] and then I can continue with the MCC [13:17:50] world cup is slowing down the progress [13:20:09] Hey I understand, hockey did the same to me [13:20:49] I haven't burned the docked DPS yet so I have a ways to go [13:21:02] I have been adding proper doff and don pga procedures [13:21:43] fun [13:22:45] Not that they do much yet in the CM [13:22:49] and Mike made me buy the MiG-21 for DCS [13:22:53] Haha [13:22:55] so even more reason for slow progress [13:23:04] Yeah I need to get back into DCS [13:23:07] its been a while [13:23:37] and another reason for slow progress is that I can actually use a bunch of things from the RTCC documentation, which requires a lot of code additions [13:23:58] like low eccentricity handling [13:24:13] Oh nice [13:26:53] which is needed in Earth orbit, the gravity is not like a nice Kepler orbit [13:27:36] this is how much the eccentricity changes during an orbit: https://i.imgur.com/kh5sWu0.png [13:27:55] that's the Apollo 9 trajectory in my latest scenario after the rendezvous day [13:28:00] so a near circular orbit [13:30:01] the normal functions finding the point of apogee and perigee don't even work for that [13:30:40] so that's another reason why it's been a while since my last commit, haha [13:31:53] I didnt realize it was that much of a change [13:32:21] yeah, for the near circular orbits [13:33:15] Is that normal from earths gravity field? [13:33:26] yeah, it's mostly the J2 element doing that [13:33:31] the polar flatness [13:33:37] or rather equatorial bulge [13:33:37] I know lunar gravity had a bunch of orbit changing mass concentrations [13:33:44] Ah [13:34:05] yeah, so this J2 of the Earth is very strong, but also quite regular [13:34:19] lunar perturbations are weaker, but more irregular [13:34:33] So earths were much easier to predict [13:34:37] yep [13:34:53] and on the other hand, you can get away with using Kepler orbit calculations in lunar orbit [13:34:58] for the short term at least [13:35:21] I am sure they saw effects in the J missions [13:35:49] yeah [13:36:10] they tried to shape the orbit after DOI so that they would be in a 60x60 at the time of TPI for the rendezvous [13:36:15] never quite worked out that way [13:36:39] Apollo 15 had to do an additional DOI at the beginning of their PDI day, because the orbit had changed so much [13:37:14] They had a much higher inclination as well, put them over areas of the moon that had not been flown over before [13:37:34] yeah, that will have made the mascons there less predictable [13:38:37] locally calculated perigee and apogee heights are also fun with this Apollo 9 orbit [13:38:54] perigee varies from 123 to 129NM [13:39:06] apogee from 130 to 138 [13:39:25] I kind of knew that from looking at the parameters in the EPO [13:39:39] you get inserted to 100x100, but over the course of an orbit that changes to more like 100x110 [13:39:46] without drag or LH2 venting [13:39:49] just gravity [13:47:44] 10nm in 1 orbit? [13:48:16] Thats based on a mean radius or launchpad altitude? [13:49:48] same thing in our NASSP world [13:50:03] at the time of insertion you have 100x100 [13:50:16] the mean orbit is more like 100x110 [13:50:25] but one orbit after insertion you would have 100x100 again [13:50:41] I can do an analysis with a state vector just after orbital insertion [13:50:51] I have a nice MATLAB script to generate these graphs [13:51:18] Oh fancy [13:51:23] I miss my MATLAB access [13:51:35] That and Mathematica [13:51:40] it's working in Octave as well [13:51:45] I am using that right now [13:52:19] I have never tried that actually [13:52:27] I am probably so rusty anyways [14:00:17] ok, I took a state vector from my first Apollo 9 scenario after orbital insertion [14:00:44] perigee height varies between 99.5 and 103.25 or so [14:01:11] apogee height between 103.75 and 111.75 [14:01:37] and I think relative to the launchpad radius the LVDC targets about 103NM [14:01:38] With just gravity, of course [14:01:41] yeah [14:02:13] the insertion is at a fairly high latitude as compared to the whole orbit [14:02:44] so that probably is a factor in the overall orbit being not 100x100 [14:04:50] R_T=6563366.0; [14:04:54] that's the LVDC target [14:05:35] that's 102.6NM relative to the launchpad [14:05:44] and that's also what you would expect to have on the DSKY [14:05:51] 102.6NM circular [14:10:02] we usually get the right altitude, but perigee is 99-100 [14:10:15] so we probably need some tailoff thrust tweaking [14:13:02] Also that ullage firing after ECO might add something incorrect [14:30:31] I think that should be accurate [14:30:44] Ok [14:30:46] but it would indeed add a bit of DV beyond the targeted 100x100 [14:30:56] but that is expected [14:32:09] At least I think the ullage is right. Thrust, ISP etc. should all be good. [14:32:52] Time as well? [14:33:02] oh yeah [14:33:05] Ok [14:33:05] down to 0.1 seconds [14:33:21] that is part of the flight sequence program [14:33:30] commanded through the switch selector [14:33:41] so we know the commanded times down to the 0.1 seconds level [14:33:56] Then I trust its right ;) [14:34:00] So I am running into a problem I have not had before, runaway cooling in the LM with no PGNS/AGS up [14:34:53] flood lights to all :D [14:35:45] Yeah I did haha [14:35:50] Still not enough [14:36:01] But I also turned their heat down more locally [14:36:32] I think its a function of the heat exchanger and the cold glycol [14:37:00] More tweaks ahead [14:38:58] what a project the LM ECS has been and still is, haha [14:39:43] Oh I know [14:39:53] At least its down to the little things [14:40:04] Not it doesnt work, but it's not quite right [14:40:43] Unlike my failed attempts at making propellant tanks, that was a total "it doesnt work" [15:10:04] love activating the lem [15:15:57] indy91, is there a good way to determine coordinates for the radiators around the LM (putting the LR on the underside etc) [15:16:41] I've never looked into that [15:21:22] I've reversed engineered it a bit once [15:21:28] to see if it was actually working right [15:21:45] so I pointed the CSM in various directions to see if it was working right [15:23:42] And the result? [15:26:44] it works right, of course, haha [15:26:56] so the ones in the CSM are set up correctly [15:26:58] like RCS quads [15:28:47] Guess I can play with it for the antennas, I copied the coordinates for the RCS quads from the SM to the LM [15:29:24] coordinate system of the LM is also different [15:29:31] I figured [15:30:19] not sure why my quads are red [15:32:01] thruster pair failure [15:32:08] but in NASSP it's currently a bit sensitive [15:32:25] you can clear the red flag by cycling the thruster pair switch to closed and back to open [15:32:32] or by cycling the CWEA circuit breaker [15:39:35] That's amazing. Just turn it off and on again. [15:41:07] yeah, doing that with the CWEA breaker does quite a lot [15:42:39] Hey at least that system worked its way to completion [15:43:43] Back to ECS, I think the super cool cabin is partially because of the split heat between the primary and secondary glycol [15:43:58] I think the radiators for those will fix things [16:09:21] Hey [16:10:17] hey Alex [16:11:38] Hey there [16:12:12] indy91, when you get back, where are the values for how much heat the crew generates [16:50:53] morning! [17:20:03] Hey Mike [17:20:26] what's up? [17:23:23] Trying to figure out why this android app works in the VM but segfaults on my phone. [17:50:54] ah so it's not just me :D [19:57:35] rcflyinghokie, double heat = 10.0 * number * dt; //heat [19:57:54] so, uhh, 10 Joule per second per crew member [19:58:11] hey [19:58:26] hey Mike [19:58:37] my ebay watches totally lit up this morning [19:59:02] there's an auction next weekend with a whoooole bunch of LM systems handbooks, among some other things [19:59:14] I think I've seen that auction [19:59:17] https://www.goldbergcoins.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/62/lot/131686/ [19:59:22] https://www.goldbergcoins.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/62/lot/131687/ [19:59:27] etc. [20:00:07] the LM-1 one we already have, of course [20:00:43] there weren't really many LM changes. In the long run all we really want is: LM-1, LM-3 to 7, LM-8, LM-9 to 11 [20:00:54] so one before the Apollo 14 changes [20:00:58] and one for the J-Missions [20:01:05] https://www.goldbergcoins.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/62/lot/131692/ [20:01:07] that's 3 and 4 [20:01:37] https://www.goldbergcoins.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/62/lot/131722/ an AOH [20:01:53] July 15, 1968, am I seeing that right? [20:01:54] LM-10 AOH https://www.goldbergcoins.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/62/lot/131733/ [20:02:03] for the LM-4 one [20:02:12] LM-8 https://www.goldbergcoins.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/62/lot/131734/ [20:02:13] uhh [20:02:27] yeah [20:03:08] the most deceiving Systems Handbook we have is the CSM-103 one from 1968 [20:03:09] doesn't look like there are any J-mission LM handbooks, sadly [20:03:15] haha [20:03:31] that's what caused us to have one CSM optics switch, instead of two :D [20:03:41] nice. [20:07:13] the LM-5 to LM-9 one probably is useful for the LM-3 to 7 period I mentioned [20:09:53] tomorrow: no important world cup games, no other set appointsment so I should have plenty of time to work on NASSP deve..., uhh, the MiG-21 [20:12:42] Haha. I hope to have some time for DCS this weekend. [20:13:02] I might in a bit if I get tired of working on this app. [20:13:16] is getting head tracking set up right now [20:13:18] Not saying that I was tired of it to begin with. [20:13:47] I so so need to get head tracking at some point. Each time I play I notice how much I miss it. [20:14:06] it makes a world of difference [20:14:12] I can't imagine playing without it [20:15:22] woo [20:15:36] I think I am going to try to make a module B11 schematic before I start playing though [20:16:13] Ping me when you do. I suppose I'll be around for another 4 hours or so. [20:16:21] oh yeah of course I am, because I have a giant update to install [20:16:27] I haven't played since 1.5 was the latest and greatest [20:16:45] ahaha, I just did that update yesterday [20:16:50] 18GB or so [20:17:02] "DOWNLOADED 5.0GB / 29.1GB" [20:17:07] lol [20:17:23] and then today I did a bit of manual reading and setting up the joystick right [20:17:30] so I am all set for the training missions [20:17:33] sweet [20:17:46] yeah I need to get my hotas and pedals going again too [20:18:07] FYI, I'm on openbeta for the hornet. [20:18:22] I think I have mine set for beta too [20:18:46] Sweet, then I won't have to uninstall the hornet and downgrade. [20:20:13] When we do fly, I've got a TS set up on my box. Might be a little easier than using IRC while flying. :P [20:21:42] I'm using the release version right now [20:21:54] prepares for another 30GB download [20:22:28] lol [20:22:36] okay pedals are still functional [20:24:03] The update to openbeta shouldn't be too big. I believe it's around 8-9Gb. [20:49:16] I've started watching The Orville last week. Have you seen it? [20:50:21] I haven't. I've heard mixed things about it. How do you like it? [20:54:31] I like it. A lot of it's based on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Sometimes I need to remind myself of that because suddenly a detail is different. [20:55:07] They could ease up on the comedy IMO, but a friend of mine that already watched it told me it will get better. [20:55:26] Overall, I like it a lot and can definitely recommend it if you like TNG. [20:56:05] I've watched every single episode of TNG [20:56:07] so yes :D [20:57:30] in Germany, it's actually kind of hard to not watch every single episode of TNG. There have been endless reruns on many channels since it first aired. [20:58:01] I guess I'll give The Orville a try then [20:59:20] Haha. Very much so. I make sure to turn on the TV every time I'm in a german hotel just to giggle at the german star trek voice overs. :D [21:00:13] I wonder why Star Trek is rerun some much over there. Is it really that popular in Germany? [21:00:27] TNG is, I guess [21:00:40] it's also very nice for reruns, because its episodic nature [21:01:10] Right. Most modern series are just one gigantic story cut into smaller ones. [21:01:29] While with Star Trek you can got to most random episodes and watch them just fine. [21:01:31] yeah, that's why it's not working as well for e.g. DS9 [21:03:27] interesting, tomorrow the channel usually having TNG is boradcast the last episode of TNG [21:03:37] and it's not on air anywhere on free TV for a while [21:03:41] and then* [21:03:52] probably just a few weeks break :D [21:04:29] Monday, not tomorrow [21:04:38] Haha [21:04:49] but then it's lots of Voyager and TOS [21:04:57] Why is everything in Germany dubbed anyway? [21:05:26] not everyone speaks English [21:05:36] but I guess we also have enough German speakers so there is an audience [21:05:51] for Dutch you probably would have the same 3 voice actors over and over, haha [21:06:00] lol [21:06:34] although, I've actually seen a Harry Potter movie dubbed in Icelandic, with my aunt [21:06:48] for them it's actually only a handful of voice actors [21:07:12] Haha, I sometimes recognise the same voice actor on completely different series indeed. [21:07:20] no TNG from Tuesday on, but that TV channel still has a Star Trek block from 3pm to 8pm every weekday [21:07:21] But most stuff is in English here anyway. [21:07:32] We do have dutch subtitles though. [21:08:17] It's also more convenient to listen to your own language [21:08:38] even if you speak English, it requires more concentration to listen to than your first language [21:09:38] wikipedia says it's because of the time after World War 2 [21:09:52] Germans didn't speak English then, German cinema didn't have many movies yet [21:10:05] but there was an increasing market for people wanting to watch movies [21:10:18] so they dubbed them [21:10:40] nowadays most people know English [21:11:12] and I personally always prefer original versions anyway [21:11:32] but I guess that's the reason [21:11:50] I can imagine that. I don't personally experience that, when speaking or listening to english I completely switch over. When people suddenly speak dutch to me it takes a second to even be able to bring up a response in dutch if I was speaking english. [21:11:52] lack of foreign language skills in the 50s and 60s [21:12:26] I even have accidentally replied to people in english when they were asking me something in Dutch on occasion. [21:12:48] haha [21:13:15] my brain can switch over the vocabulary quite fast usually, but sentence structure is more difficult [21:13:29] my favourite experience with this topic was during a student exchange [21:13:52] for Latin classes. Obviously nobody speaks Latin anymore, but we did an exchange with some students in Belgium [21:14:01] that one time we had to translate a text to English [21:14:21] so a German (me) and a Flemish speaking Belgian had to translate a text from Latin to English [21:14:29] that was rather difficult, haha [21:14:45] especially thinking in 3 languages at once [21:17:04] Yes, very recognisable. [21:18:40] When I was in London two years ago I even managed to divert to a posh accent too just hours after walking around there. [21:20:08] hehe [21:22:17] A girl I know also does a lot in English and when we're discussing something we often tend to just end up speaking english if it's more convenient for the subject (or just for fun). [21:25:06] yeah, that has happened to me as well, when we were just talking to a colleague from Spain and then we were alone, but because the conversation just continued, we simply continued in English as well [21:25:29] took us a bit until we realized we could also switch to German, if we wanted to [21:26:39] night!