[11:19:51] NASSP Logging has been started by indy91 [16:46:18] morning! [16:47:06] hey [16:50:41] what's up? [16:51:15] fine positioning some stuff being displayed on a RTCC MFD page [16:51:36] it's the second proper mission control display I am adding to the MFD [16:51:57] ooo nice [16:52:02] even more numbers than on the first one [16:52:18] both displays have lots of orbital parameters [16:52:27] first one is more for low Earth and Moon orbits [16:52:59] this second one, Space Digital Summary Sheet or Space Digitals, is for translunar and transearth trajectory evaluation [16:53:28] for example, the Apollo 16 mission I am flying has mission rules for the execution of translunar MCCs [16:54:00] these are constraints on the closest approach to the Moon and the node between approach trajectory and parking orbit [16:54:11] both have to be within a few miles of nominal [16:54:17] if not, burn an MCC [16:54:25] oh wow, that's a lot tighter than I would have guessed [16:54:37] and this display has all the numbers for the evaluation of this [16:55:15] awesome [16:55:28] also for the return to Earth [16:55:39] currently my vacuum perigee is 23,000 NM [16:55:47] height that is [16:55:49] not exactly free return, lol [16:55:58] but it's very close to the SCOT value, so all good [16:56:32] it's Apollo 16 after all, free return is an outdated concept :D [16:56:55] hahaha yeah, that got outdated by 12 already didn't it? [16:58:16] well, Apollo 12-14 still were close to free return after TLI [16:58:27] just with a high lunar flyby altitude [16:58:45] Apollo 15-17 were inserted directly on a non-free return trajectory [16:59:16] only constraint: close enough to free return to get back to Earth with just the DPS [16:59:52] aha, gotcha [17:01:10] and the exact number from the mission rules is +/- 10NM of nominal pericynthion altitude [17:01:30] I am within 1NM, so I don't expect to have to do another course correction [17:01:52] MCC-2 was good enough [17:02:36] Alex had asked for such a display for some time. And it kind of is needed to fly lunar missions with just the RTCC MFD, so no MCC [17:02:53] at least to evaluate the lunar flyby conditions [17:12:06] so really dumb question then [17:12:24] why would you want to fly the mission using only the RTCC MFD, if the MCC MFD can already do it? [17:14:42] MCC is no MFD [17:15:01] and it's fairly constricted to a nominal mission [17:15:09] not much flexibility really [17:16:04] for the MCC functionality I basically implement each step you would also do with the RTCC MFD [17:16:06] but automatic [17:16:22] and that's a lot of work for each mission and has only been implemented through Apollo 11 [17:16:36] so for Apollo 12-17 you would need the RTCC MFD right now anyway [17:20:46] any first time NASSP user should fly missions with the MCC of course [17:29:45] aha, gotcha [17:52:19] oh man [17:52:21] https://www.rrauction.com/preview_itemdetail.cfm?IN=4166 [17:52:28] I am so tempted to try to win that and see if I can get it working [17:54:13] ah, that auction [17:54:18] also has a LVDC memory module [17:54:23] and some checklists [17:54:29] yeah that one's price estimate is a bit high for me :P [17:54:41] and a DSKY EL screen [17:55:00] one of those checklist I really want. And it has some new pictures of pages that weren't there for previous auctions [17:55:06] oh nice [17:55:16] including the page with the procedures for loading the erasable load update [17:55:30] so just ONE page away from the page I really would want... [17:55:34] d'oh! [17:55:38] with the backup padload [17:55:39] which checklist is it? [17:55:47] Apollo 10 Alternate and Contingency [17:56:17] https://www.rrauction.com/preview_itemdetail.cfm?IN=4288 [17:56:50] https://d9qs7xii78j0x.cloudfront.net/content/images/538/larger/3389188_17.jpg [17:57:14] that's basically the same page as this one from Apollo 15: https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap15fj/csmgc/9-01.gif [17:57:33] and then on the next page: https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap15fj/csmgc/9-04.gif [17:57:44] this is what I really would want from Apollo 10 or 11 [17:57:50] that one is also pretty pricey haha [17:58:01] even more for Apollo 8 or 9, but they didn't fly a backup padload on those missions [17:58:12] is this one of the ones Ryan was talking to the Smithsonian about, for 11? [17:58:16] yes [17:58:23] they have the flown 11 one [17:58:28] I don't even need a flown one [17:58:41] but it's very hard to find any copy of that checklist [17:59:22] maybe in some future auction they add even more photos [17:59:39] but somehow I don't think that is a page they would use a photo from [17:59:50] it's just numbers, not even some interesting procedure [18:02:58] yeah, nothing pretty to look at for anybody but... those of us in #nassp pretty much haha [18:03:24] and Ron [18:03:34] yup [18:04:01] huh [18:04:03] https://www.rrauction.com/preview_itemdetail.cfm?IN=4172 [18:04:06] this is interesting [18:09:20] what even is that [18:15:21] I have no idea [18:15:46] I do know that for ground testing, there was a thing called the "buffer box" that sat between the AGC and whatever core rope simulator they were using [18:15:59] but this doesn't seem like it has big enough connectors to be that [18:16:14] but maybe it is? [18:16:22] it would be super useful if it was that [18:17:57] but I don't think it is [18:28:20] is it Block I or II? [18:28:59] no idea! I would guess Block I based on its part number [18:29:24] but I don't think MIT's buffer box was different between Block I and Block II [18:34:16] "The Monitor uses the same interface cable and buffer box for both Block I and Block II. However, the cable between the AGC and the buffer box is different for Blocks I and II" [18:34:57] oh there we go, the MIT buffer box has an ALGA switch on it [18:35:02] so this is definitely different [18:36:48] some buffer [20:25:19] good night! [16:46:42] morning! [16:48:02] hey Mike [16:48:08] what's up? [16:48:26] got an email from Mike [16:48:32] oh man I hate that guy [16:49:14] some interesting memos [16:49:38] yeah, I didn't look through them in depth [16:50:02] but I did see one at least that gave some scaling for Zerlina erasables, and some suggested values for them [16:50:17] oh, I must have missed that one then [16:50:38] but I saw one, I think a Tindallgram, talking about the AGC versions for Apollo 16 and 17 [16:50:46] oh yeah! haha [16:50:56] they're perfect! [16:51:04] yeah, that one [16:51:18] we don't have Tindallgrams from that late a date actually [16:51:39] so that's a new one [16:51:42] awesome [16:52:48] man I really want to know what's in Silver's collection, but it's going to be really hard to find time to get out there [16:53:09] it would be really really good to know if there's anything about AGC hardware testing before November when I go and start powering things on [16:55:28] Colossus and Luminary are perfect. Except for all the things listed in the program notes [16:55:35] sssshhhhh [16:55:39] don't worry about those things [16:55:52] so Don has papers from Russ Larson and George Silver still [16:56:03] 14 feet worth of papers! [16:56:04] I don't think revisions of mission rules would be super interesting [16:56:24] they probably, in their final form, appear in documents we have for almost all missions [16:56:24] that's what I figured [16:57:05] also explains why Don had the handbook; he didn't need it, George Silver did [16:57:52] right [16:57:59] oh, and there was one really nasty memo [16:58:16] I couldn't quite figure out from who to whom that was actually sent [16:58:37] Eyles700401 or Eyles700619? [16:58:39] it ended with: I hope "you" sleep well at night [16:58:45] oh man [16:59:02] in reference to work hours past midnight someone was causing [16:59:04] let me find it [17:00:00] hm, not those -- although Ron has already asked Don if he's okay with those two being posted, haha [17:01:47] oh, I think I know which one you mean that is about Zerlina scaling [17:02:08] Norton701125 [17:02:43] the one I meant was Norton710505 [17:02:57] J.L. Norton to J. Garman [17:03:36] but I don't know who J.L. Norton is [17:04:02] hmmmm [17:04:05] I don't think I do either [17:04:55] John Norton from TRW apparently [17:06:27] oh, I remember now [17:06:37] but I don't really where I heard the story [17:06:56] ohhhhh yeah [17:06:58] that guy [17:06:59] haha [17:07:02] he was the poor guy documenting AGC software as an external person [17:07:31] https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/faq.html#MoreAmusingStories [17:07:34] there's some about him there [17:07:46] I wonder if he had a hand in the Symbolic Listing Information? [17:08:05] that came from TRW and is just about the best user's guide for the AGC there is [17:08:10] "The way he’d do it is, he’d take this awful assembly language and translate it back into his own version of a readable higher order language. The Norton Document, as we called it, that he put out for every version of every program, all typed by hand—no word processing in those days—was our Bible. We actually used it the same way somebody might use a Fortran listing or higher order language listing of a program to analyz [17:08:10] e their program. " [17:09:28] somehow I associated Garman with MIT, but of course he was a MSC guy [17:09:38] so now the memo makes more sense to me [17:10:19] "With the millions of dollars that you give to MIT, it seems to me that they should br able to produce documents on their own, rather than having to drag my name into their excuses to NASA as to why the document is lousy" [17:10:21] lovely [17:10:27] lol [17:10:42] yeah I have never gathered that Norton was particularly friendly :P [17:11:10] to be fair, his job was probably in the top 10 worst Apollo jobs [17:11:16] definitely [17:11:39] Garman has only good things to say about him in the oral history [17:11:44] despite the tone of the memo, lol [17:11:51] hehehehe [17:26:16] I finished the Space Digitals display today, so I can continue with Apollo 16 now [17:26:25] I checked it in a few scenarios [17:27:27] in my Apollo 11 scenario at the beginning of LOI day the trajectory is spot on, free return, theoretically doesn't need any course correction any more [17:27:56] my MCC-2 must have been very accurate [17:28:17] one uncoupled RCS firing probably could already screw it all up, lol [17:46:46] hahaha [17:46:47] wow [19:31:22] good afternoon [19:31:35] very excited about my saitek rudder pedals coming on Monday [19:42:57] sounds awesome [19:43:10] wonder if it can be used with nassp [19:44:11] probably not, I think [19:44:33] depends if it is a separate device [19:44:46] for the PC [19:52:08] hey [20:26:05] night! [11:00:53] morning! [11:19:05] hey [11:19:20] thewonderidiot, up early or up late? :D [11:54:07] early! [11:54:16] at the airport for a flight to Boston lol [11:54:54] I would have regretted passing this up [12:04:28] so are you going to Don or what? :D [12:08:27] yup! [12:08:32] he's picking me up at the airport [12:08:52] haha, great [12:08:56] should be there in... 6 hours [12:09:09] so I guess you'll have a look at all the papers he has [12:09:14] yep [12:09:25] be ready for lots of questions for whether or not I should scan things :D [12:09:36] yeah, that's what I figured [12:10:12] let me quickly book you a flight from Boston to Fort Worth [12:10:55] while you are scanning things anyway ;) [12:11:36] hahaha [12:15:22] ok, let's look at this Zerlina document again [12:15:33] to confirm all the scalings [12:15:48] if it's even all padload stuff [12:17:12] might not be [12:17:22] but he does give "reasonable values" for at least one of them [12:18:34] scalings are more important to me, but reasonable values could be useful as well [12:19:11] also I'll be sure to ask Don if he has any recollections for any of them [12:20:12] plane's boarding! I'll catch you later [12:20:43] cya [13:14:46] Forgive my absence! Its been absolutely relentless with work and home stuff as of late [13:14:57] Uh oh [13:15:36] Gotta play catchup [13:15:45] 4 weeks old, haha [13:16:15] Yeah I have been training as a watch officer for the NTSB in addition to my aviation safety work [13:16:26] So working 50-60 hour weeks with commute [13:16:46] sounds busy [13:16:48] How are things going? [13:17:01] not that much news really [13:17:31] was really sick for about half of your time of absence, so that hindered progress, haha [13:17:41] Ugh I am sorry [13:17:51] I am surprised I havent been with all work and no play [13:18:14] I implemented VHF ranging, but that might have been when you were here [13:18:28] Yeah that just got pushed when I was around [13:18:51] I'm flying Apollo 16 right now, so I added a few things for that [13:19:05] like lunar impact burns with the S-IVB APS [13:19:09] Oh cool [13:19:37] still need to add a page to the RTCC MFD to calculate the right numbers [13:19:47] but the PAMFD has the IU uplink for that now [13:20:20] my last two commits were 1 day ago and 16 days ago [13:20:22] That started on 13? [13:20:29] so something happened in that time :D [13:20:34] hmm [13:20:49] Haha yeah I was gonna say i only see like 3 updates in my git [13:21:01] I cannot remember if 12 did an impact [13:21:10] I dont think so but I am not sure [13:21:44] 12 did no impact [13:22:31] and I added two displays to the RTCC MFD that were available to the FIDO and the RTCC [13:22:38] one last month [13:22:48] basically like the Orbit MFD in Orbiter [13:23:00] and yesterday the "Space Digitals" displays [13:23:02] Oh yeah that was being worked last time I popped by [13:23:11] Space Digitals? [13:23:28] that has lots of numbers for translunar and transearth trajectories [13:23:39] will help with the decision to execute MCCs [13:23:50] when flying missions with the RTCC MFD and not the MCC [13:24:03] Oh very nice [13:24:20] has all the numbers you can want for closest approach to the Moon and Earth return [13:24:38] I like that [13:24:40] the FIDO Orbit Digitals display is for low Earth and lunar orbit [13:25:08] I've tried to model it as closely to the real display as possible [13:25:11] should be quite useful [13:25:17] Should be fun :) [13:25:35] I will pick up NASSP work on Monday while working from home :P [13:25:40] on my Apollo 16 flight the Earth return perigee altitude is about 23,000 NM [13:25:49] not quite free return [13:26:00] No, misses it by a little there I see [13:26:31] on the other hand, in my Apollo 11 scenario I tested, at the beginning of LOI day, the trajectory not only goes into the atmosphere but already has an acceptable reentry angle [13:26:36] -6.1° [13:26:44] that's like 1 ft/s for a MCC-7 or so [13:26:59] so must have been a pretty good MCC-2 [13:27:26] that's the kind of stuff it displays [13:27:56] the mission rules state the limits on pericynthion altitude and the altitude of the node [13:28:05] Could be helpful in planning a 13 mission's abort burns [13:28:19] and that's what I used for course correction execution decision in the MCC [13:28:27] so that can now also be checked with the RTCC MFD [13:28:32] Awesome [13:28:42] yeah, should be really useful for 13 [13:29:23] that's about it for updates [13:29:39] oh, Mike is in the air right now, he is flying to Don in Boston [13:30:04] planning to look at and scan the last few things Don hasn't given us yet, haha [13:30:34] already got a bunch of new memos [13:30:46] Oh very cool! [13:30:52] including one that finally confirms that the Apollo 16 and 17 flight ropes are identical to the Apollo 15 ones [13:31:00] so no updates, not even small revisions [13:31:16] in the words of Bill Tindall [13:31:26] Kind of makes sense as thats about when the missions were canned [13:31:26] "Colossus and Luminary are perfect!" [13:31:55] and they were working on Skylark at that time as well [13:32:15] Skylark got done not much later than the last Colossus and Luminary versions [13:33:07] But I wager the ropes were already manufactured? [13:33:45] well, the memo is about the decision to use the same software [13:33:56] ropes went into manufacturing then [13:34:21] don't know when they were done [13:34:33] but that should be interesting with Skylark actually [13:34:43] ASTP was quite a bit after Skylab [13:34:55] so I wonder if they ordered like 4 ropes of it [13:35:18] at once [13:35:21] or 1 for each mission, at a time when they got close to the mission [13:35:23] Could be [13:35:37] I would think with 18-20 cancelled they bulk ordered it [13:36:51] On another note I finally got my DCS up and running, I confess to doing a few arrested landings before bed each night [13:37:31] does DCS aircraft carrier landings well? [13:37:42] Actually very well [13:38:03] You can follow the NATOPS for the hornet landings almost to a T [13:38:23] And the hornet is free this weekend if you dont have one [13:38:29] But only for the weekend [13:38:33] oh [13:38:37] sounds interesting [13:38:38] Then it goes on sale in october [13:38:39] don't have it, no [13:39:10] Which modules do you usually run [13:39:43] the most I probably used the free one, Su-25T [13:39:49] but I also have the A-10C [13:39:51] the Hawk [13:39:59] and most recently the MiG-21bis [13:40:02] Nice [13:40:04] but didn't fly that one much yet [13:40:14] I have the hornet and the harrier [13:40:17] was too busy with implementing MCC stuff [13:40:26] Yeah I understand [13:40:36] I bought them in august but only started using them lastw eek [13:40:47] And only after work before bed haha [13:41:30] if you can do a carrier landing while sleepy then you can do it any time [13:42:10] Oh no its HARD [13:42:30] I would call it a night after like 10 attempts [13:42:53] I would say try it this weekend [13:43:09] Just open up the module manager in DCS and it will give you the option to download it [13:43:11] I will, if I get the chance [13:43:39] I know the feeling [13:43:43] if it can finish any necessary DCS downloads and updates before the weekend... [13:43:49] Oh thats right [13:43:54] internet speed [13:43:59] that took so long when I wanted to try the MiG-21bis [13:44:14] internet speed isn't so bad, but it's also many many GBs [13:44:53] I dont think the hornet was huge [13:45:09] DCS updates are huge, that's the problem :D [13:45:15] let's see how much it is right now [13:45:16] Ah yes [13:45:39] Do you run steam or standalone [13:45:40] only 800MB, yay [13:45:43] standalone [13:45:56] I had the A-10C on Steam but transferred it [13:46:08] that was before DCS World was a thing, I think [13:46:15] Ah yeah [13:46:35] I also don't really have the right joystick for the A-10C [13:46:45] it's good enough for any older planes though [13:46:54] Thats why I was asking about sticks last month [13:47:04] Alex sold me on the TM 16000m [13:47:14] for the Su-25T I used an Xbox 360 controller in addition to a joystick [13:47:20] Oh wow [13:47:21] for slewing controls etc. [13:47:43] my joystick doesn't have any analog control that would be good for that [13:47:48] but that system worked really well [13:47:52] Yeah I imagine [13:48:06] Su-25T isn't modelled super detailed, but it's quite fun to hunt for tanks with it [13:48:19] I havent done any weapons work in DCS yet [13:48:25] oh, the 800MB update just was the first step [13:48:32] now it's another 5903MB one... [13:48:35] classic [13:48:39] uh wow [13:49:24] yeah, weapons work is like 10+ hours down the road with most DCS aircraft :D [13:49:39] Yeah I am still working on the carrier work with the hornet [13:49:47] I can trap 8 times out of 10 [13:50:00] And 3 wire maybe 2 of those [13:50:07] So its getting better [13:50:58] But I will say the hornet is very worth it [13:51:06] I believe it [13:51:11] And of course its on sale next month with the persian gulf map [13:51:40] I did a bunch of carrier landings in FSX [13:51:48] there is a really good free T-45 Goshawk [13:52:01] and some good free carrier addons as well [13:52:07] was pretty realistic I think [13:52:12] I'm sure DCS is on another level [13:52:19] but it was fun getting the procedures down [13:52:30] Oh yeah I cut my teeth on carrier ops in FSX [13:52:38] I was part of a virtual squadron once upon a time [13:54:30] was that all FSX? [13:54:34] Yes [13:54:47] so not much shooty stuff to do then [13:54:51] Nope haha [13:55:35] Oh not to get too ahead, but this video is a HUGE help [13:55:36] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-M3VUy-_I [13:56:12] It follows the NATOPS manual very well [13:56:20] so much for getting Apollo 16 into lunar orbit today... [13:56:34] Alex was already making fun of me that I was flying the mission in real time [13:56:34] Haha [13:56:39] Oops [13:56:49] 0.1x time really [13:56:56] Yikes [13:57:08] but that was more due to being it bed all day for a 1.5 weeks [13:57:54] Yeah thats rough [13:58:50] after Apollo 16 I want to fly 7 and 8 again [13:58:56] to update scenarios, checklists and MCC [13:59:04] Yeah I am sure they could use some tuning with all the changes we have made as well [13:59:12] preferably I am getting that done before their 50th anniversaries [13:59:39] Cutting it close for 7 [14:00:10] oh right, that's early October, somehow I had late October in mind [14:00:36] for lunar missions I have been looking at LVOTs and that stuff so much that I will always remember the exact launch date, haha [14:00:41] not for 7 it seems [14:01:17] 11th I think? [14:01:37] Yeah 11th [14:04:46] did you ever check out that new Checklist MFD feature that dseagrav added? [14:05:41] I havent been able to play with it [14:05:55] What exactly is it doing [14:07:43] no idea [14:07:58] didn't understand it :D [14:09:06] Haha well damn [14:09:17] I need to ask for a better run down [15:31:42] good morning [15:33:16] @rcflyinghokie i just bought the saitek rudder pedals [15:33:19] very excited [15:54:42] They make a huge difference [16:12:35] Especially for steering [18:26:45] installing the Hornet now [18:27:23] it wanted me to also install the Su-33 and the Persian Gulf map, but there is only so much free weekend I can take at a time [18:28:42] rcflyinghokie, the Persian Gulf Map isn't required for the Hornet, is it? [18:28:48] No [18:28:52] ok, good [18:29:10] All three are free this weekend because the bundle with all 3 go on sale the 1st [18:29:33] ah [18:29:37] But of course you can just install one of the modules [18:29:53] don't really want to install to much just to not be able to use it anymore in 2 days [18:30:12] hard drive is so full already anyway, haha [18:31:20] Oh yeah i understand [18:32:59] Su-33, way too modern. I prefer vehicles that had their first flight in the 60s [18:33:17] hornet is pretty modern, though this is the older C model [18:33:24] Hornet had its first flight in 1978, just about acceptable [18:33:30] an F14 is in development [18:33:51] They are dropping a teaser of some sort october 7th [18:34:49] Hornet was only 500MB, definitely not too large, as you said [18:35:00] Thats why I am kind of gearing up because its my favorite aircraft of all time [18:35:02] guess I have some reading to do [18:35:08] the F-14? [18:35:10] Yes [18:35:26] Something about it [18:35:34] I have been obsessed since I was little [18:35:47] Top Gun [18:35:55] I knew you were going to say that :P [18:36:02] I almost added "no not top gun" [18:36:04] and endless reruns of the TV series JAG for me :D [18:36:10] !! [18:36:21] I was obsessed with that show [18:36:22] almost as bad as TNG [18:36:29] And that is what solidified my hornet crush [18:36:31] with the endless reruns on multiple channels [18:36:34] I saw that before topgun [18:36:40] tomcat* [18:36:54] guess we are both too young to have seen that in the cinema [18:37:55] Yeah [18:37:59] Came out before I was born [18:38:06] yep, there are still JAG reruns in German TV [18:38:12] I have them all on DVD [18:38:26] bit more of a niche channel nowadays, but Free TV [18:38:33] https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wxop704949jhd2/DCS-FA-18C-Hornet-Guide.pdf?dl=0 [18:38:38] https://www.dropbox.com/s/h036gfidib0q0jr/F18-ABCD-000.pdf?dl=0 [18:38:41] These will help [18:38:53] thanks! [18:42:52] And remember, you don't flare in the hornet ;) [18:43:11] Fly it to the ground [18:43:45] yeah, there are a few aircraft like that [18:44:01] mostly flying bricks with a decent amount of ground effect, I would guess [18:44:21] or is it flying to the ground because aircraft carrier? [18:48:55] Aircraft carrier [18:49:12] No flare landing is a design requirement [18:49:25] You can flare it though if you want on land [18:49:33] I see [18:49:41] But Navy pilots typically don't [18:49:46] yeah, flaring on an aircraft carrier makes you run out of flight deck [18:50:04] Actually its not the deck length per se [18:50:15] Its having a certain angle of attack for the hook to catch [18:50:41] oh, interesting, makes sense of course [18:50:44] So if you flare your AoA is too high for the hook to catch a wire [18:51:06] The AoA indexer and the E bracket will become your friends [18:51:48] Trim for on speed AoA (about 8.1) and use the throttle to control rate of descent, no pitch inputs [18:53:10] right [19:04:18] isn't Direct O2 supposed to affect the cabin pressure fairly quickly as well? [19:04:36] seems to not do much to that [19:04:42] suit pressure, sure [19:05:05] In the CM? [19:05:19] Of course the CM [19:05:27] Yeah it is supposed to affect the cabin [19:05:49] See the way its plumbed right now is that flows into a suit circuit and then the cabin as if the astronauts are always suited [19:05:59] The real CM, direct O2 would flow out of the suit connects [19:06:18] So unhooked with cabin flow or suit full flow it would blow into the cabin [19:06:52] In our CM, it overpressurizes the suit circuit first [19:06:57] yeah [19:07:02] You will notice the suit going up to 6 before the cabin increases [19:07:17] do those switches do anything yet? on panel 300 or so [19:07:21] suit flow etc. [19:07:24] As far as I know, no [19:07:43] I dont remember anything in code or the config that deals with them [19:08:26] so it definitely won't have any direct effect on cabin pressure, ok [19:08:32] guess we need to work a bit on that [19:09:30] Yeah, I was holding off until the CM ECS got a facelift, its kind of hard to fix on its own [19:09:46] Without doing something cheaty [19:11:27] I'll look into the coding changes required for that [19:13:43] I need to study the CM ECS again [19:13:48] It's not as simple as the LM [19:14:27] probably want to do that before flying Apollo 7 and 8 and creating our definite release scenarios for those missions [19:15:47] lots of subsystems in the CSM are way more complicated than in the LM, haha [19:15:57] SCS is another example [19:16:15] all the analog parts of the AGS and the control electronics are quite simple in comparison [19:20:15] Oh yeah [19:20:28] And the LM had the advantage of starting from almost scratch [19:21:48] Cut power to abruptly and broke my gear just now :P [19:22:53] more practice :D [19:26:10] Oh yes [19:26:16] Case 1 is hard [19:26:23] Case 3 is easy in comparison [19:26:40] Its an instrument approach with a loc/gs on a straight in [19:26:48] training scenarios? [19:27:01] well a case 1 is a visual recovery [19:27:05] case 3 is instrument [19:27:19] ah, right [19:27:31] but a visual has a break turn and the groove and such that all come together very tight [19:27:32] those are the names for those procedures [19:27:34] yes [19:27:57] straight in is probably easier, yeah [19:28:09] case 1 probably has the traffic pattern, right? [19:28:13] I remember that being tricky [19:28:24] always want to keep in mind where the carrier is [19:28:32] tricky without TrackIR or so [19:30:00] yeah [19:30:12] I just started using track IR [19:30:17] World of difference [19:30:29] But for me, the problem I have is distance from carrier on downwind [19:30:56] I am always too close or too far, and by a margin that makes my 27-30 degree turn into the grove harder to correct [19:32:24] being on speed and in the right config probably helps [19:32:31] at the beginning of your turn to downwind [19:33:27] but that visual judgement of the distance to the carrier probably just needs a bunch of experience [19:35:35] Yeah I have the speeds and altitudes and such [19:35:40] Its just that distance [19:35:51] I guess I dont know what "right" looks like when abeam? haha [19:37:17] carrier small, but not too small :D [19:38:55] kind of what you want in an Apollo CM really [19:45:39] Haha [20:01:38] Just dropped my first bombs, they missed :P [20:02:45] Another thing I have not done is flown on a multiplayer server [20:04:17] there was the idea once to have a multiplayer session with people from here [20:04:24] NA versus EU I believe :D [20:09:44] Haha that would be interesting [20:17:35] Hmm how does that work, just create a server? [20:20:42] no idea, never have done that either [20:21:18] I'll ask on the discord they are pretty good about that stugg [20:21:20] stuff [20:27:31] Good night! If Mike reappears and he asks if something should be scanned, the answer is yes. [20:27:44] Haha will do [20:27:46] Night! [20:28:27] .tell thewonderidiot if you come on and we arent here, if you want to know if something should be scanned, the answer is a resounding YES [22:11:54] .tell rcflyinghokie there is too much to do in 2 days. some of it is going to have to be no :P [22:12:32] .tell indy91 I hope you wanted padloads, because Russ Larson is going to give us padloads. Haven't opened the folders yet, but I peeked in one box and saw folders titled "Ap. 10 Pad Loads" and up [22:13:10] .tell indy91 best thing for me so far is a Block II AGC design review that goes into a lot of technical detail on circuit design [22:15:14] I got an update to Android Pie a couple of days ago. [22:15:27] Let's just say I'm currently trying to debrick my phone. [05:00:39] .tell indy91 correction, I have found the padloads for Apollo 11 through 17, as well as Skylab 2 [05:00:56] .tell indy91 the 11 padloads are from 7/1/69, which is later than the ones we have, right? [06:21:03] hey [06:21:05] I was just about to go to bed [06:21:14] good timing then [06:21:47] I jokingly told Ryan to tell you to scan everything, haha, he must have taken it seriously :D [06:21:56] hehehe [06:22:10] Skylab 2 padload? So you got CMC padloads as well? [06:22:13] there is so much stuff, if I scanned everything I would be here for months [06:22:29] yeah, it looked like CMC + LGC for 11-17, plus SL-2 [06:22:45] maybe earlier ones too, but that's what I saw in the couple of boxes I opened [06:22:50] CMC for 11 would be awesome [06:22:56] :) [06:22:57] for the DAP thing [06:23:08] don't need the checklist from the Smithsonian anymore then [06:23:22] I've been indexing as I go along [06:23:28] so far I've indexed the 6 Silver boxes [06:23:49] the Apollo 11 LGC padload is from 7/1/69? [06:23:58] or is that the CMC one [06:24:00] one of the two padloads was [06:24:03] I don't remember now [06:24:46] look through that and let me know if there is anything immediately important [06:25:12] oh, checklists [06:25:39] I took crappy cellphone pictures of most of them [06:27:08] I am working in a dark, somewhat dank basement, so apologies for awful quality [06:27:19] haha, no problem [06:27:29] Apollo 11 CMC padload is definitely number 1 for me [06:27:47] 12 to 17 we already have from CSM Data Books [06:28:06] the LGC ones would be also good to have [06:28:28] sounds good [06:28:39] we got 11 and 13 from Data Book excerpts and then some from Dons simulations [06:28:55] the first thing you said was Apollo 10 padload [06:28:57] I'll get all of them, just in case [06:29:02] did you misread? [06:29:07] I don't know [06:29:10] I thought I saw it [06:29:12] but I may not have [06:29:19] ok [06:29:19] tomorrow's first task is indexing the Larson boxes [06:29:30] and then once I'm done with that, or if I get bored of indexing, it will be on to scanning [06:29:31] Apollo 10 LGC would be really good to have as well [06:29:42] still never solved that LR issue [06:29:45] Larson also has books from the AGC Information Series from Raytheon [06:29:48] if it even is to solve [06:29:53] which I have been trying to find forever [06:30:00] awesome [06:30:45] also, thanks to some KSC "rope module status" reports, I now have a nearly complete mapping of rope module part numbers to the programs they contain [06:33:21] oh, one more thing in the Larson papers -- it looked like he had program notes for a lot of the programs [06:33:58] but yeah, bed time now. let me know if there is anything you want scanned, or anything you want more information about [06:34:01] night! [06:34:08] good night! [14:08:54] morning! [14:18:45] off to scanning :) [14:22:51] hey [14:23:23] already found a lot of stuff that are first priority? :D [14:35:11] Good morning [14:39:35] yeah, I wasn't serious about that, haha [14:40:26] I know [14:40:43] But hey we had to ask right? [14:41:36] true [14:41:50] he is scanning things right now [14:41:58] we will probably get a few more padloads [14:42:08] both CMC and LGC [14:43:22] Nice [14:43:38] Did you get to try the hornet by chance? [14:44:50] just a first flight [14:45:02] will do some more this evening [14:45:50] That PDF and the NATOPS have all the info you will need :) [14:46:01] yeah [15:32:40] Ugh background investigation forms suck [15:33:04] I swear I have spent a full workday or two on just researching and filling this stuff out [15:33:28] Sucks when the address history includes time in college, so many addresses and jobs [15:33:38] yeah [15:33:46] my cousin from Atlanta wanted to do an internship at the FBI [15:33:48] Of which 2 of the places I lived no longer exist so there is extra scrutiny :P [15:34:10] and because I visited them, from Germany, she had to give lots of details about me [15:34:14] Yep [15:34:23] because foreign relation and that stuff [15:34:44] Makes it easier for me that my family on both sides have been here since the 1700s :P [15:35:29] And most of my best friends are military officers with clearances of their own, as my girlfriend put it, I am probably the most clearable person she knows haha [15:35:59] But still, the paperwork, the addresses the names and references, ugh I wish I kept a list the last 10 years [15:36:18] I have been digging through my lockbox and my best resource my amazon purchases for dates :P [15:36:23] what names? [15:36:43] people you lived with? [15:36:49] I have to include names of relatives, people who knew me at each address, and also character references [15:37:07] And they cannot overlap, so I cant use the same person for multiple categories [15:37:16] Oh and job supervisors too [15:37:40] those people are super scattered for me now, haha [15:37:57] Its a pain :P [15:39:04] I didn't have to do that much paperwork for a background check. I always assumed that they would be doing all that work anyway. [15:39:31] Who knows, maybe an upgraded clearance will make it easier for me to get docs for NASSP :P (No, I really doubt it, actually) [15:39:33] but then there might just be more paperwork existing anyway here in Germany, haha [15:39:49] without me having to do anything [15:39:55] Nice [15:40:00] I have to give them so much information [15:40:18] The more details I can provide means a shorter investigation [15:40:29] Which means shorter time before a clearance and a pay increase :P [15:41:02] but maybe I am just not remembering it all. When I got that job at Airbus I had to move really quickly, do lots of paperwork all around and go to government agencies etc etc [15:41:14] Probably blurred together [15:41:19] and the first day of work was basically 100% paperwork as well, haha [15:41:24] and going from place to place to place [15:41:25] Yeah they usually are :P [15:41:58] and then they half rejected the clearance because I didn't need it. Not quite sure how that all worked. [15:42:00] Make sure you have your passport, many forms of ID and your first born child for a first day of work ;) [15:42:17] bring first born child to first day of work, got it [15:42:21] Haha [15:43:30] I have two half-brothers who are so young they could be my children. Does that count? :D [15:44:47] if my CSM were able to jettison the SIM door, then that would have just happened [15:45:04] I looked into that, we need 2 or 3 additional panels to make that work [15:45:10] and probably some rewiring [15:45:20] That reminds me, were there sim bay/scientific power switches on the panel before 15? [15:45:23] so it wasn't really worth adding all that just for flying Apollo 16 [15:46:17] Like the sep breakers on panel 5 [15:46:34] don't think so [15:46:55] I wonder when the SCI EQUIP section was actually added [15:47:09] do we have that right now? [15:47:12] Yes [15:47:19] hmm [15:47:20] Panel 5 under the lighting [15:48:09] ah, panel 227 [15:48:12] let's see... [15:48:36] it's not in the Apollo 14 CSM Systems Data [15:50:34] hmm [15:50:34] 227 had what, the switches for the sim bay [15:50:35] but [15:50:42] it's in the AOH [15:50:47] from 1969 [15:50:59] Uhh [15:51:05] panel 227 that is [15:51:09] with the SC INST switch [15:51:13] switches for the SIM bay are on another panel [15:51:18] What about the panel 5 breakers? [15:51:22] we have that bitmap, but it's unused [15:51:39] and for the SIM door jettison there is even another panel [15:51:45] which we don't have at all [15:52:07] which panel 5 breakers? [15:52:53] SCI EQUIP [15:52:58] Under the lighting controllers [15:53:13] SEP 1 & 2 and HATCH [15:54:45] always been there [15:54:49] not J-Mission specific [15:55:01] But not used? [15:55:17] checking in the CSM-104 Systems Handbook [15:55:21] from 1968 [15:55:29] the CBs are definitely there [15:55:42] I think it's all powered by the NON ESS buses [15:55:59] Interesting [15:56:10] And also interesting how that bus is powered for SPS burns [15:57:35] I've seen you added that in the checklists [15:57:42] but I thought it was a J-Mission thing only [15:58:33] have never seen it in a checklist before Apollo 15 [16:00:51] so there are panels 162, 163 and 227 with switches for science equipment [16:00:58] those get powered by the panel 5 CBs you mentioned [16:01:12] and they then get powered by the non essential buses [16:01:17] mostly bus 2 [16:01:26] but it doesn't say what was connected to that [16:01:37] probably was different from mission to mission [16:02:01] the panel on the J-type missions had their own source of power in the SM [16:02:07] so that's a different thing power wise [16:06:24] the SIM bay stuff is powered during P40 [16:06:41] but where have I seen the non ess bus being powered for that? [16:06:53] You used it in the checklists and I know it's done somewhere [16:07:18] oh, it's from Apollo 8 [16:07:29] that probably is the flight qualification equipment thingy then [16:08:40] yeah, flight qualification equipment [16:08:45] last flown on Apollo 8 I believe [16:08:53] Apollo 9 mission report says it was deleted [16:09:58] flight qualification instrumentation* [16:17:45] Interesting [16:17:57] What did that consist of? [16:20:06] actually, those should be having separate CBs [16:20:30] did a bit more research, AOH displays list says [16:20:49] Special equipment bay no. 1 and 2, special equipment hatch, nonessential instrumentation, voice recorder [16:20:58] those are all on the non essential buses [16:21:01] as of 1969 [16:21:24] but we have no Systems Handbook for that period, so I am not sure [16:21:30] especially that voice recorder [16:22:31] I'm not sure what that is [16:22:38] not the DSE it sounds like [16:33:12] yeah, not really sure, but maybe Apollo 7 and 8 had an extra voice recorder, as part of the flight qualification instrumentation [16:33:30] or something monitoring the SPS [16:33:37] as part of nonessential instrumentation [16:44:01] if we find the right checklists for Apollo 9-11 we can always remove that step from our checklists, if it really wasn't done anymore [17:31:50] Hi [17:33:31] Found some info on the waste stowage vent [17:35:10] http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/HSI-41539.pdf [17:36:13] Doc pg 4.1-11 or pdf around page 132 [19:31:59] Hello guys! [19:32:37] hey [19:33:26] PAD problem solved! Now everything works as it should [19:34:16] interesting [19:34:40] so the latest NASSP is more broken in Orbiter 2016 than I thought [19:35:06] Took some time but it went well [19:35:19] updating everything you mean? [19:35:46] not sure which Orbiter updates could be responsible for this, have to go through the revision list [19:35:51] yes, I am now using vesion 84 [19:36:19] only reason I am not using that version yet is that there is no dedicated DX9 Client for it [19:36:32] but there have been no graphics related updates in Orbiter [19:36:45] and I think rcflyinghokie has been using the latest Orbiter Betas without issues, so [19:37:04] should be all working fine [19:37:26] Yes, there is a working version [19:37:32] the last DX9 Client was made for revision 73 [19:37:33] I think [19:37:41] the updates tend to be hard to find... [19:38:04] 73 is the one [19:38:07] yeah [19:38:54] guess we have to make it even more clear now that NASSP 8.0 is developed for the Orbiter Beta right now [19:39:12] One good thing is that the panel becomes less stuted [19:39:33] stuted? [19:39:34] or jerky [19:39:40] oh [19:39:47] probably means better framerate then [19:39:50] or more stable [19:40:04] but we have to work on that in general [19:40:12] CSM main panel has terrible performance [19:40:22] it wants all of your CPU, all of it [19:40:25] I have not checked yet but probably yes [19:41:37] do you know where to find version 73? [19:42:01] you updated to the latest Orbiter Beta with a SVN client, right? [19:42:13] yes I do [19:42:16] I think you can choose any revision somewhere in the options [19:42:29] but your version is more up to date [19:42:29] I did not no [19:42:40] Yes version 84 [19:43:01] and there have been no graphics API changes on the Orbiter side [19:43:01] and D9 version 73 [19:43:23] so Orbiter Beta R84 plus DX9 Client for R73 should be working perfectly fine together [19:43:30] so you have the right setup now [19:43:43] no need to revert back to R73 [19:43:48] exactly works very nice [19:44:08] in fact, the latest Orbiter Beta fixes some things for which I had to add some workaround code [19:44:18] that can be removed now in our code [19:45:13] that outdated code causes no issues with the latest Orbiter Betas though [19:45:28] ok good [19:45:35] kind of disables itself, haha [19:45:46] ;-) [19:46:05] so you have less jittering now? [19:46:18] you were using the DX9 Client for Orbiter 2016 before though, right? [19:46:46] maybe that got some performance improvements. Or Orbiter itself improved some things. [19:47:01] guess I have no reason to not update to R84 as well now [19:47:23] yes I do and yes i thinks so [19:47:40] if people are using that anyway then I really shouldn't develop on an outdated build, haha [19:47:59] i think you can go for v84 [19:49:05] You should stay in the forefront :-) [19:49:25] definitely [19:50:03] I still keep up with Apollo 7. It takes some time when you have family and work [19:50:33] I will try to fly Apollo 7 soon [19:50:43] it didn't get any updates since the NASSP 7.0 release [19:51:03] so it could some (mostly smaller) updates for scenarios, checklists and MCC updates [19:51:37] Nice! [19:52:35] I think there is some error in the checklist [19:52:54] are [19:53:57] yeah, I bet [19:54:23] and some will always be there. Checklists covering 200+ hours of a mission will never be 100% right, haha [19:54:33] true [19:54:38] we can try our best [19:54:46] if you notice anything, feel free to mention it here [19:55:11] Ok i will. how is apollo 11 going? [19:55:27] MCC? [19:55:41] done [19:55:48] Cool! [19:56:28] But I will first get through Apollo 8 [19:56:51] some abort support still needed, but as I did it with the Apollo 8 MCC, that only covers a few cases [19:58:28] if you are flying only Apollo 7 for now, then Orbiter 2016 would be fine... or so I thought before today :D [19:58:47] I have a question about BMAG. do you have time? [19:58:51] sure [20:00:09] Why is BMAG 1 used at liftoff and not at1 / rate2? [20:01:29] hope you understand my bad english :-) [20:02:09] haha, mine is not perfect as well [20:02:45] well att 1/rate 2 would be bad in any case [20:02:55] at least better than mine [20:02:56] that would try to do attitude holding [20:03:05] not so useful during the launch [20:03:23] but normally you use Rate 2 for most orbital phases [20:03:52] AOH Volume 2 says: "This position provides most reliable configuration in event a rate gyro fails during boost" [20:04:01] Yes, but why not use rate 2? [20:04:12] ok [20:04:51] maybe it automatically switches to the second gyro if the first one fails [20:04:56] let me check the documentation [20:05:44] but if you need to make an abortion and go over to SCS, it's better to use att 1/rate 2, or? [20:06:46] you wouldn't want the SM RCS to try and fire during the boost though [20:07:10] true [20:07:14] so att 1/rate 2 is definitely not the right choice for boost [20:07:29] so the question is more, why rate 1 and not rate 2 [20:07:48] I'm not really an expert on the SCS either. But I know where to look for the answer, haha [20:08:00] :-) [20:08:43] I'm a little nerdy [20:09:29] so much to learn! [20:10:56] always, for me as well [20:13:17] so unsurprisingly, Rate 2 uses the gyro assembly 2 for the most part [20:13:20] rate 1 uses GA-1 [20:13:47] :-) [20:15:06] GA-1 and 2 are not identical [20:16:34] hmm, I still think it better to use att 1/rate 2 after LET has left. Then you have automatic control when the switches are in auto position. [20:17:08] do you know why [20:17:22] well you are switching to ATT1/RATE 2 in abort cases [20:17:35] Mode II, III and IV [20:17:51] ok, i did not know [20:17:55] but you probably don't want that before separating from the Saturn [20:18:25] https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap15fj/csmlc/4-03.gif [20:18:27] for example [20:19:08] The GA-2 BMAGs are always rate caged, GA-1 ones are not [20:19:09] Intresting [20:19:28] what that means is that if a gyro fails it might result in a bad attitude rate signal [20:19:39] and try to steer you in a bad way [20:20:08] in Rate 1 there might not be any rate damping etc. [20:20:11] have to check that [20:20:20] so it's just an attitude reference [20:20:37] that would explain why the AOH says it's better to use Rate 1 during boost [20:21:25] hmm [20:21:27] yes BMAG 1 is used as an attitude reference [20:21:29] that's not quite right [20:21:43] there definitely is still rate damping with Rate 1 [20:22:42] so what do I know :D [20:22:46] yes when using Rate 1 not att 1/rate 2 [20:24:47] so I don't really know why Rate 1 over Rate 2 [20:25:05] I can give you additional links for reading, if you want, maybe you can figure it out [20:25:17] Thanks! [20:25:50] how about a 300 pages Apollo training document about the SCS? [20:26:03] haa [20:26:15] way not [20:26:27] Why [20:26:43] https://history.nasa.gov/afj/pdf/apollo-scs-block-ii-training-program-196905.pdf [20:27:10] that is about as detailed or even more than you ever want, haha [20:28:02] Perhaps better just trust the checklist [20:29:34] Ok Indy, thanks I have to go. [20:30:06] ok, see you around [20:33:05] I will read the training program doc in bed [20:54:16] night! [05:23:27] . [07:01:05] .tell indy91 index is updated with all of the Larson boxes. same link. tell Guenter about anything high priority [07:25:03] .tell thewonderidiot wow is there a lot of good stuff [07:25:41] .tell thewonderidiot I'll assemble a list of documents where I am sure we have no other source [07:55:12] .tell thewonderidiot I am so sorry to request such a large document, but we could really use the Apollo 7 Final Flight Plan. Can't find it in any archive and it's the only final flight plan we don't have. [07:58:07] .tell thewonderidiot So many checklists! I want: Apollo 17 Basic CSM Rescue Book, Final Crew Charts for Apollo 17, Apollo 17 Basic LM Rendezvous Charts. None of these should be super large. [13:48:43] morning! [13:49:12] I will see what I can do, lol [13:49:29] this isn't the last chance to scan this stuff; Don is willing to ship it somewhere at some point [13:51:12] haha, ok [13:51:22] you can skip the flight plan then if you want [13:51:34] highest priority for me is just the Apollo 11 CMC padload [13:51:40] then any other LGC padload [13:52:07] those Apollo 17 documents are mostly nice to have, but I haven't found them anywhere else and they shouldn't be all that large [13:52:27] maybe 100 pages all 3 together [13:52:45] flight plan would be really large [13:53:05] and if Don is willing to ship things, I bet the AFJ would really like to have some of those checklists [13:53:47] and in general if you find a padload for Apollo 11 and earlier, CMC or LGC, that would help a lot [13:53:53] but I have only seen that 11 one [13:55:33] yeah, it's just 11-17 and SL-2 [13:55:43] SL-2 would also be good I guess [13:55:51] 12-17 for the CMC we have in the CSM Data Books [13:55:53] there is a folder for Apollo 10 stuff at the beginning of the box, but it doesn't have a padload in it [13:56:13] our main source of LGC padloads is Dons simulations [13:56:21] and the 11 and 13 ones we have of course [13:56:38] but it would be good to verify the LGC padloads from a proper document [13:56:45] so I could see the same thing happening with the CM [13:56:47] or are these parts of simulations as well? [13:57:10] the padloads. Do they have the format as in the Data Books? [13:57:30] no, these are all memos sent to KSC, with padload printouts attached [13:57:31] not simulations [13:57:35] uhh [13:57:36] nice [13:57:46] so, separate format altogether then, haha [13:57:53] haha [13:58:02] there's two different formats even [13:58:05] ok [13:58:23] we can study them in detail when they are scanned, haha [13:59:43] so I guess my requests are then: [13:59:57] Apollo 11 CMC padload, all of the LGC padloads, SL-2 padload, those 3 Apollo 17 documents [14:00:29] kk [14:00:32] will see what I can do [14:00:36] awesome [14:00:44] in that priority order as well, haha [14:00:59] I am already happy if I get the Apollo 11 CMC one [14:01:27] really just to curse at the CMC developers for their inconsistent scaling [14:07:13] lol [14:08:36] bleh, internet is flaky [14:08:44] if it didn't send: is there anything useful out of the 7 flight plan that I can extract? or do you really just need the whole thing? [14:08:59] hmm [14:09:10] in general the whole thing, because there will be small changes all over [14:09:23] let me look through the preliminary one if there is any important page I need [14:10:01] make a photo of: Table I SPS Burn Schedule [14:10:11] page 1-8 in the preliminary one [14:10:22] PDF page 15, so early in the document [14:11:08] yeah, that's it [14:11:10] kk [14:11:57] and if the other message didn't send: the 11 padload in the LM data book was not the flown one; are we sure that all of the ones in the CM data book are? [14:17:20] so, it might actually be the flown one [14:17:24] but it's not up to date [14:17:34] they might have left it as it is, and uplinked the updated numbers [14:17:54] an indication of this is that the Apollo 12 LM Activation Checklist has an item which changes a padloaded parameter [14:17:56] IMU bias [14:18:14] so the checklist must have been more up-to-date than the LGC padload [14:18:28] the CMC padload are always for a specific launch day [14:18:40] so looking at the TEPHEMs I am pretty sure they are all as launched [14:19:37] accessing the LGC erasable would also be more difficult on the launchpad [14:19:53] you could still uplink to the CMC or simply go into the cockpit [14:20:14] and the CMC is running for launch anyway [14:20:42] but the Apollo 11 LGC one is definitely out of date. It has a landing time one orbit earlier than in the flight plan [14:21:07] Apollo 10 style basically. They decided to land on rev 11 and not on rev 10 for Apollo 11 to have more time [14:21:29] so maybe they launched with that and uplinked the right number after LM activation [14:22:51] the padload on this memo is definitely dated 7/1 though [14:22:52] is there an Apollo 11 LGC padload? [14:23:04] CMC or LGC? [14:23:06] LGC [14:23:09] oh [14:23:26] more up to date than June 11th then [14:23:38] yeah definitely [14:23:42] so yeah, maybe the one we have isn't the final one [14:23:52] in the case of the CSM Data Book, it's from after Apollo 17 [14:23:59] and has Apollo 13-17 CMC padloads [14:24:18] so quite likely that they have it as launched [14:24:46] you can quickly check in the Apollo 11 LGC padload if it got updated [14:24:49] where'd the 12 CMC padload come from? [14:24:58] another CSM Data Book [14:25:02] also from UHCL [14:25:04] and from 1969 [14:25:10] that one only had the Apollo 12 one [14:25:11] ah [14:25:16] unfortunately [14:25:29] I'll just download those data books and cross check them [14:25:34] ok [14:25:54] ah, you mean with the CMC padloads you have there, if the dates are the same [14:25:59] yep [14:26:37] if you want to check on the Apollo 11 LGC one, look at: TLAND (EMEM 2400 and 2401) and tell me the time in hours GET under remarks [14:27:03] it's 100.847 hrs GET in the document we have [14:27:09] it should be about 102.847 [14:27:28] oooh [14:27:37] scan that one in any case [14:27:56] we have a wrong throttle down time, so maybe even the descent targets were updated [14:28:00] that would be really interesting [14:28:05] hahaha alright [14:28:12] so don't bother looking at anything specific, just scan the thing :D [15:02:12] okay, IRC on phone working [15:02:44] haha, good [15:03:12] let me grab the padload box real quick [15:05:03] okay, have 11. written on it is "from FSRR 7-1-69" [15:05:19] what was the one to check? [15:06:05] TLAND says 102:47:11.05 [15:06:08] ! [15:06:20] that's updated then [15:06:35] now I want the whole thing though [15:06:39] if there are any other updates [15:06:42] could be all over [15:06:52] haha of course. these are all short [15:06:57] yeah [15:07:15] but you already gave me a number to update our padload and launch scenarios right now, haha [15:07:27] hehehe [15:07:28] I wonder how close the number is I used [15:07:40] might not even be off by octal 1 [15:08:50] haha [15:08:59] all we had missing was the .05 [15:09:06] the rest is the same as e.g. in the flight plan [15:09:23] haha nice [15:09:27] it does make a difference for the octal though [15:09:35] because that's in centiseconds I guess [15:10:00] yeah, so 4322,17541 instead of 4322,17534 [15:10:12] nice [15:11:33] the rest can wait until you have scanned or photographed it. But that confirms at least that we do in fact have an outdated version of the LGC padload. [15:11:44] very interesting [15:15:37] I really hope the ignition algorithm constants are different [15:15:55] that would explain why our throttle down time is a minute latew [15:15:57] late* [15:30:50] good morning [15:31:21] hey [15:31:44] yo [15:31:58] got some saitek rudder pedals coming tomorrow cant wait [15:32:17] indy91, my downloads failed. would you mind getting me the dates on the CMC padloads? [15:33:22] sure thing [15:34:13] Apollo 12: 10/28/69 [15:34:48] Apollo 13: 3/30/70 [15:35:08] Apollo 14: 1/28/71 [15:35:29] Apollo 15: 7/9/71 [15:35:44] Apollo 16: 3/30/72 [15:36:09] Apollo 17: 11/21/72 [15:36:25] that's the date of the Data Book amendments [15:36:37] only date there is on those pages [15:36:54] thanks! also forgot to mention, there's two LM padloads in the 13 folder [15:37:11] Luminary 131 and Luminary 131 Rev 1 maybe? [15:37:12] the first is for 131, not 131A Rev 1 [15:37:15] yep [15:37:24] would be quite different [15:37:37] lots of changes to the padload necessary with that P66 update [15:37:58] and we have 131 [15:38:03] so that document might help [15:38:31] so definitely get that 131 one [15:38:39] what's the date on the 131A Rev 1 one? [15:38:47] is that the same we already have? [15:39:01] uh, maybe [15:39:18] I'm back in the digital development box lol [15:39:32] haha, ok [15:40:09] what's your process like? Are you making photos of some documents? Or are you assembling a large box and go somewhere for scanning? [15:41:03] now that I have the index done, I'm just going through the boxes again and scanning in priority order [15:41:25] some of these DDG memos are super great [15:41:42] I bet [15:41:45] I'm .... hold on [15:43:37] I took a picture of my super janky setup [15:44:50] https://photos.app.goo.gl/w6Nqp2uMY38NGgTG8 [15:45:26] so you are scanning everything right there [15:45:44] yup [15:47:15] how well preserved are the documents? Most don't look too bad in the photos [15:47:51] most of them look like they could have been printed yesterday [15:48:40] great [15:48:52] not quite Florida climate [15:49:07] the large blueprints are a bit corroded but I think that's just the material they're made of [15:49:13] haha yeah [15:51:09] I haven't even talked about the Apollo Mission Techniques documents yet. Like the checklists, I really would like to have them, but the useful information density isn't very high and UHCL will have most of them [15:52:09] I'm pretty sure I let out an audible "uh oh" when I hit all those, because I remember you talking about them :P [15:52:33] that's all Bill Tindalls doing [15:53:03] even better for me are usually some MSC documents derived from it, because they will have specific numbers for things [15:54:03] looking through the photos, well preserved indeed [15:54:26] like the Skylab SLM-1 CSM Rendezvous Book. Another one of those "nice to have, but not really useful right now" documents [15:55:29] the Apollo Mission Techniques for Apollo 9 rendezvous would have been on my request list, but I haven't seen it in the list. Only for other missions, which we already have or don't really need. [15:58:23] I found a document listing the social security numbers of all the AC Electronics employees at KSC. probably shouldn't publish that one :P [15:58:42] yeah... [15:58:59] good choice with the Apollo 14 padload photo, I can cross check the terrain model already :D [15:59:05] well, part of it [15:59:09] hahaha [15:59:57] definitely not the same [16:00:23] great! that came from some Luminary memo didn't it? [16:00:23] bad Delco Manual! [16:00:30] hmm [16:00:32] or that [16:01:11] should be interesting to compare that with what we have [16:04:07] these digital development memos are so good [16:07:56] they're just like the Luminary memos, just for hardware design [16:08:32] any Luminary memos we don't have yet? [16:08:54] one, which Don was excited about. #90 [16:09:13] Memo Indexes [16:09:43] yeah, so not really useful, haha [16:09:55] there's occasional Colossus memos too [16:50:20] so the light to this storage basement is on a 30 minute timer [16:50:51] every time I get too distracted to manage it, it shuts off and I have to find my way back to the switch :P [16:53:19] haha [16:53:51] you could use your own 29 minute timer to prevent that :P [16:54:05] oh, AGC assignments for the Skylab CMCs [16:54:41] old ones or newer? [16:55:33] middle-aged? haha [16:56:00] surprised they had some of those left [16:56:09] if they already used a really old one for Apollo 17 [16:56:10] C31, C34, C35, and C36, in mission order [17:02:42] another copy of the memo saying Colossus and Luminary are perfect! [17:03:29] Artemis did a good job earlier today getting my Apollo 16 mission into orbit, so I can't say anything bad about it [17:05:39] are you looking through the Larson papers right now? And yestersay you did a bunch of scanning of George Silver documents? Am I getting that right? [17:06:36] yesterday I cataloged the larson docs, now back to silver for scanning [17:06:42] ah [17:08:45] actually I am going to scan this copy of the 16/17 flight rope memo [17:09:22] somebody wrote on the bottom of this one "Behold these people, For they have created perfection!!!" [17:10:38] and it's only one page :P [17:17:31] Hey [17:17:42] hey [17:18:19] Got advanced screening tix for first man tonight can’t wait to see it [17:18:32] sounds great [17:20:17] nice [17:21:25] Don and his friend were talking about it last night at dinner. apparently Al Worden likes it, and Dave Scott thinks it's "a travesty" [17:21:35] Do you have to fly manually into orbit with Artemis or is it auto? [17:21:48] so it will be interesting, haha [17:22:50] lotisully86, what do you mean? [17:22:57] I love the flag controversy. I wonder if all the outraged people out there know it was blown over [17:23:08] you mean, launch to Earth orbit? [17:23:27] Ya if you switch from iu to cmc [17:23:43] first stage flight by the CMC is automatic [17:23:49] follows the pitch profile [17:24:01] after staging you have to take over manually [17:25:11] on to the next box! [17:26:00] Gotchya [17:26:43] you can fly the pitch angles on the boost chart [17:28:39] and then correct it when you notice the H and Hdot are off from nominal [17:28:54] haven't flown manually into orbit all that often, but it works pretty well [17:29:05] at least I managed a stable orbit [17:30:21] I tried it once or twice when it was first implemented, didn’t use the boost chart tho so things didn’t work out [17:32:01] I only asked because I misunderstood the boost checklist I thought a15-17 if you switched to CMC before end of first stage it would control entire launch [17:32:34] well, in a way it does [17:32:41] you have to steer it with the RHC [17:32:47] but the commands go through the CMC [17:32:58] CMC and IU have an interface [17:33:26] Right but not automatically I mean [17:33:49] yeah, not automatically after the first staging [17:34:05] but I guess that is what the checklist means [17:34:19] Saturn under CMC control [17:34:28] can mean both automatic and astronaut [17:35:12] Also why does the sivb roll at staging/ignition? Ullage motors? [17:35:34] good question, I haven't really figured that out [17:35:38] but it's weird [17:35:54] I have to investigate that some time [17:38:28] the thruster directions of the ullage motors are looking good [17:38:42] although the direction vector isn't normalized, I wonder if that causes an issue [17:39:02] the roll began when I made the S-IVB attitude thrusters much weaker [17:39:10] to the realistic values [17:39:26] so previously it probably could correct any roll rate instantly [17:47:28] Ya i remember it didn’t always used to roll [17:48:22] I'll go through it in 0.1x time acceleration [17:48:32] to see if the S-II is already causing it before staging [17:48:49] or something on the S-IVB [17:51:52] Maybe the touchdown points? It happens pretty quickly right [17:53:55] no, those shouldn't be doing anything unless it's touching the ground [17:54:19] looked at the torque after staging just now, it could be the ullage motors [17:55:39] There’s only two I think right? and they aren’t parallel I don’t think either they are separated by like 30 degrees or so [17:56:05] hmm, I think it's the positions of them [17:56:31] the directions are right I think [17:56:32] I just can’t find anything mentioning that they caused a roll at staging [17:56:45] V(-0.4, 0.0, 1) and _V(0.4, 0.0, 1) [17:57:09] that would be about 20° to the sides [17:57:21] but their positions are symmetrical it looks like [17:57:31] _V(3.6, -0.425, -3.6 + offset) [17:57:36] _V(-3.6, 0.925, -3.6 + offset) [17:58:26] are not symmetrical I meant [17:59:38] Right there was a 3rd one on the 200 series but they elminated it on the 500 and didn’t move the remaining 2 hence the positioning [17:59:48] oh, I didn't know that [18:00:10] so that would induce a roll then, unless the direction was adjusted [18:00:14] Weight saving I guess [18:00:54] let's see what I can find on this in the documentation [18:02:09] But if they caused a dramatic roll like that you would think it would be documented [18:02:26] yeah [18:02:34] and there is a short coast phase there as well [18:02:42] where the APS isn't doing anything yet [18:03:14] when that is over it can start fighting the torque [18:03:27] but not in that 1-2 second before [18:04:23] well, should only be half a second really [18:09:56] holy crap, this digital dev memo has the procedures for testing the different types of hardware restarts [18:09:58] noce [18:10:01] nice [18:10:48] That's awesome! [18:14:28] oh, there was a roll rate [18:18:51] lotisully86, there was a roll rate on Apollo 8 [18:19:06] flight evaluation report has a graph [18:19:53] Taking a look, [18:20:16] PDF page 346 if you have the same one [18:22:44] I’m looking at the wrong one I’ve only got 48 pages lol [18:22:59] Apollo 8 final flight evaluation right? [18:23:11] for the Saturn [18:23:19] Ah ok [18:23:28] http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/apollo_08_saturn_v.pdf [18:23:34] slow download [18:24:10] but I haven't really found a document saying explicitely that there was a roll rate due to ullage thrust [18:25:34] https://gwsbooks.blogspot.com/2017/07/s-iis-ivb-staging-was-never-videoed.html?m=1 [18:27:26] back in a bit [18:32:50] another box down! [18:43:19] thewond69, when are you flying home? [18:43:49] about 28 hours from now [18:44:11] who needs sleep anyway [18:44:43] lol [18:49:12] oh boy [18:49:25] next box is going to keep me occupied for a while [18:49:54] 11-14 padloads, and AGC information series which is huge [18:51:40] indy91, do you think the Comanche 44 / Luminary 69 program notes may help with the LR problem? [18:52:00] they might [18:52:30] well, probably not help, but maybe explain [18:52:46] heh [19:01:40] I'm just going to skip the block 1 AGCIS things [19:01:58] this is too much to scan [19:02:49] too much to scan is the motto of the week [19:17:19] oh boy this was a mistake. 11 foldouts in a row [13:01:52] morning! [13:02:07] hey Mike [13:03:31] how has the scanning been going? [13:03:44] I got all of the padloads and the three apollo 17 things -- except the way the rescue book was bound, I couldn't scan it directly easily, so I instead flipped through every page and took pictures with my DSLR [13:03:46] hope that works [13:04:21] yeah, should be good enough [13:05:36] I remembered why I didn't think there any other Apollo 11 LGC changes [13:05:42] TLAND would be updated in real time [13:05:52] even the 1969 sim from Don is from after the flight [13:06:00] so it probably has the actual TLAND [13:06:26] I find it unlikely then that Don would use outdated descent targets and ignition algorithm values [13:06:30] the 7 flight plan is also nigh impossible to scan because its pages are connected together in groups (with perforations), and then stapled awkwardly together in such a way that I even had trouble opening it enough to take a picture of the SPS burn chart, lol [13:06:32] but we will see [13:07:02] would need to get permission from Don to get rid of the staple at least [13:07:42] but I think today's main target is going to be "Contents of Luminary 1E", which has all of the PCRs, PCNs, anomalies, SCB meeting notes, etc. that happened between 1D and 1E [13:08:00] oh also [13:08:42] there is a page missing -- page 14 out of 18 -- from the 11 CMC padload packet [13:08:47] I triple checked and it is definitely not in there [13:09:00] damn [13:09:08] hope it's not the important part [13:09:19] hopefully [13:09:34] there's the folder with all of the raw scans [13:09:37] some still need processing [13:09:47] great, thanks [13:09:57] page 14 of the Apollo 12 padload isn't interesting [13:10:07] so hopefully that's the same for 11 [13:10:31] ah, now I will be busy with the padloads for a while! [13:10:54] that folder doesn't include the DSLR pictures yet, btw [13:11:17] ok [13:11:40] I am quite curious to hear if anything else changed for the 11 LM :D [13:12:23] changes should be easy to find on that one, I think, because it's one of the one that prints a revision for every location [13:14:05] certainly looks like a dozen or so things changed along with TLAND :) [13:14:19] that's promising [13:14:25] I'll take a while to look through these [13:14:38] want to do it carefully, step by step, adjusting padload worksheet and scenarios [13:15:31] also I was wrong about there being a 131 padload; it was only from a week or two before the flight padload so almost certainly still 131A Rev 1 [13:28:06] ok, coming to CMC DAP padload [13:30:31] first have to figure out again what the issue was with that, haha [13:31:29] lol [13:33:13] ah, there it is [13:34:02] EKTLX/I [13:34:07] that's three different values [13:34:14] from Comanche044 on [13:34:18] scaling is: [13:34:31] 17, 17 and 17 for Comanche055 [13:34:36] and also Comanche044 I assume [13:34:49] but it's 18, 16, 16 from Comanche67 on [13:35:04] and the annoying thing is, Colossus249 and earlier has 18 and 16 as well [13:35:16] just two instead of three values though [13:36:11] for a moment I got confused because of our Apollo 12 scenario [13:36:18] but that is of course also using Comanche055 [13:36:28] so it is as I thought [13:36:36] hahaha [13:36:41] sounds like a case of [13:36:44] changing the scaling of those values almost on a mission to mission basis... [13:36:47] "We should make these consistent" [13:36:50] "oh that was a bad idea" [13:36:58] it's consistent from Apollo 12 on [13:37:17] but it caused us a lot of trouble with Apollo 10 and 11 [13:37:30] because it basically has the same scheme, with those 3 values used [13:37:38] instead of 2 as it was in Apollo 9 and earlier [13:37:53] and we had figured out the right numbers for Colossus249 on our own [13:38:15] and the scaling is kind of consistent if you compare Apollo 8-9 and 12-17 [13:38:18] just not 10 and 11 [13:38:36] so lacking a padload there, that of course caused trouble [13:38:45] but the scaling there is finally confirmed [13:38:55] don't need the checklist from the Smithsonian anymore now! [13:39:07] :D [13:39:50] I am glad the important thing was not on page 14 [13:39:55] yeah, haha [13:40:04] there is an additional padloaded parameter in Colossus237 and 249 [13:40:15] that is now the only one I still don't 100% the scaling and value of [13:40:24] that would be the last piece of the CMC DAP puzzle [13:41:16] sweet [13:42:29] just will adjust the pitch polynomial in our Apollo 11 scenario and then I'll move on the LGC [13:53:31] and there is no TB6JOB in the CMC padload [13:53:47] Apollo 12 and 13 have a padloaded erasable memory program to start TB6 in the LVDC [13:53:59] we weren't 100% sure if Apollo 11 had that capability [13:54:05] but as I expected, it does not [14:03:57] hmm [14:04:03] so here is something interesting [14:04:31] Dons simulations have a difference to the padload documents [14:05:08] I actually changed that at one point from the outdated Apollo 11 LGC padload document to the value Don used [14:05:25] it's not much of a value, more like switching on and off [14:05:36] only 0,0 and 37777,37777 are valid numbers to use [14:05:46] so I'll probably change that back again [14:05:53] maybe Don was testing something with those [14:06:08] maybe, yeah [14:09:29] no changes to descent targets and ignition algorithm values [14:10:34] boo [14:14:04] in some Apollo 11 documents it says that 97.5% of the rated thrust is used for as the maximum [14:14:12] while everywhere else it says 92.5% [14:14:24] so I wonder if Apollo 11 used a higher thrust setting for some reason [14:14:37] that would explain the late throttle down we are getting [14:15:33] we don't the same issue with Apollo 12 and later [14:18:19] there is a very noticable difference in the reference position for ignition, part of the ignition algorithm padloaded parameters [14:18:27] between Apollo 11 and 12 [14:18:43] don't think the Apollo 12 LM was much heavier [14:28:15] good morning [14:28:27] something very strange happened with 11 [14:28:45] when i hit the lem ejection button my saitek radio panel lit up [14:30:47] lol [14:30:53] that is strange indeed [14:32:29] can't say I have an explanation for that [14:32:52] because so much is going on, the simulation often takes 1-2 seconds for the LM ejection to be finished [14:33:02] maybe it was because of that short hangup of the PC [14:33:40] or some bad memory leak of NASSP :D [14:33:42] I hope not [14:35:02] just wondering do you have rudder pedals? [14:35:50] no [14:35:55] 3-axis joystick [14:36:15] does that mean it can twist [14:37:47] yeah [14:38:03] yeah my pedals will be here in about 3 hours [14:38:05] just cant wait [14:38:34] 3 hours doesn't sound so bad! [14:39:07] might even be two [14:49:56] Apollo 12 descent targets are different than in Don's simulation [14:55:50] thewond2, the Apollo 17 documents are awesome, thanks for that! [14:56:08] crew charts aren't processed yet I guess? [14:56:49] oh those must be the camera ones [14:58:15] rescue book is larger than I thought [14:58:22] but lots of new stuff [14:58:27] Alex will love it as well [14:59:45] great quality scan [15:00:07] lol [15:00:31] to make up for what I did with the crew charts [15:01:24] haha [15:02:46] the special thing about the Apollo 17 rendezvous charts is the very first one [15:03:02] on Apollo 16 the LM had to return to the CSM for a while until they figured out the SPS issues [15:03:16] but that turned out to be more difficult then they thought [15:03:37] so on Apollo 17 they added some help for the LM to get back [15:03:42] crazy looking chart, lol [15:04:04] hehehe [15:07:14] interesting. In the Apollo 12 padload the target for P63 is different, but the one for P64 is the same as in Don's simulation [15:08:20] definitely looks like an update [15:08:25] if only part of it is different [15:08:40] so not Don using some weird, non-flown numbers [15:10:21] hmm [15:10:30] the sim is from March 1970 though [15:12:07] so which numbers to use... [15:12:41] the sim doesn't claim to be the flown numbers does it? [15:14:24] don't think so [15:14:38] I also tend towards using the numbers from the erasable load document [15:14:42] I wonder if we could tell by looking at the kstart tape list [15:15:07] what's that? [15:15:25] Date of the erasable load document is October 31st [15:15:30] so quite close to launch [15:15:46] kstart tapes were the tapes run to actually do the padload [15:15:59] the final report from AC has a listing of them [15:16:22] and one of the documents I scanned has a decoding key for their numbering scheme [15:23:57] there are a bunch of additional differences in the padload [15:25:15] one fairly significant one, which I might be able to check, which one looks more correct [15:31:18] padload document is better [15:31:40] one of the descent abort constants was very different to the simulation [15:31:52] and the one from the simulation is definitely off [15:32:59] maybe an early Apollo 13 padload even? [15:33:06] if it is from March 1970 [15:33:14] just testing Luminary116 [15:44:34] nothing to do for Apollo 13 [15:44:45] now the Apollo 14 terrain model [15:47:35] thewond2, I am a bit confused. There was a picture of "preliminary H2 erasable load Lum 178" [15:47:43] but that's not in this Apollo 14 padload document [15:47:51] was there another one for that mission? [15:48:23] uhh [15:48:25] wait [15:48:36] H3 [15:48:37] not H2 [15:48:53] wasn't easy to see, but it does say H3 [15:48:54] i didn't scan the earlier versions [15:49:07] if there were multiple [15:49:13] I may have messed up [15:49:24] terrain model values look the same [15:49:41] what you scanned didn't have any octals though [15:49:44] just engineering values [15:49:49] probably good enough [15:49:53] I know the scaling [15:50:27] and it's the final one anyway I guess [15:51:58] yeah, thought that was weird [15:57:36] if I have time I can go back [16:00:59] just got Done to sign my copy of his book :D [16:01:06] Don [16:01:31] great [16:01:52] "you got Done", you wished, not done yet! [16:02:14] heheh [16:12:06] Apollo 14 terrain model not looking good yet [16:12:08] not sure why [16:13:22] better if I assume there was a typo, haha [16:13:48] oh boy [16:13:51] so yeah, it would be good if you could take a good photo of page 14 [16:13:56] of that preliminary document [16:14:05] where you made a photo of page 13 [16:14:52] I'll just scan it when I'm done with this Luminary 1e binder [16:15:03] ok [16:21:10] lol, PCR 1096 [16:21:32] "Erasable Memory Deorbit Program Goes Fixed" [16:22:02] goes fixed? [16:22:09] oh [16:22:10] like [16:22:13] in fixed memory [16:22:16] that never happened [16:22:23] surely a declined PCR [16:22:42] yep. it's big though, 24 pages [16:23:20] where do you even find the memory for that [16:23:31] from when is it? [16:23:51] says 36 words needed [16:24:24] submitted 10/14/70, disapproved 11/5/70 [16:24:26] found when it was discussed [16:24:34] SCB Meeting #42 [16:24:39] on that date, yes [16:24:58] and yeah, disapproved [16:25:44] related must be PCR 1116 [16:25:49] Automatic RCS Steering [16:26:01] that's basically what P99, the deorbit program, also does [16:26:17] also disapproved of course [16:28:20] Apollo 15 terrain model is also different [16:28:25] but this document has octals [16:28:31] therefore I trust it :D [16:28:52] lol [16:29:13] 14 was the only without [16:31:41] 1116 is only 2 pages [16:32:58] really just has to enable cross product steering for P41 I guess [16:33:03] or is it a separate program? [16:34:28] doesn't look separate [16:39:31] Apollo 15 terrain model looks much better [16:39:36] can show you a graph soon [16:40:45] one thing I also have to consider is that the terrain model is single precision [16:41:07] so if a slope gives octal 5, I should be reverse calculating how many radians octal 5 gives [16:41:38] although that might already be considered in the padload document [16:47:37] https://i.imgur.com/U8y3Sns.png [16:48:13] the new terrain model is modelling more closely the almost direct overflight of Mons Hadley Delta [16:48:13] nice! [16:48:20] but it's even worse in the early part [16:48:26] which is mostly expected [16:48:42] Apollo 15 had DHs of 3000+ ft [17:19:41] nearing done with 1e [17:19:58] I can get you a page 14 snapshot shortly [17:20:23] great [17:40:27] okay, scan complete, just gotta put it all back together [17:49:58] got the box [17:50:01] now.... [17:52:23] indy91: https://photos.app.goo.gl/GhKXarjfg2oxor5E7 [17:53:08] thanks! [17:53:11] not a typo... [17:53:34] terrain model doesn't look great though [17:53:44] still worth scanning? [17:53:55] no, I have the numbers I need [17:54:20] ok. it'll be scanned at some point later then [17:57:32] hmm [17:57:40] one thing just occured to me [17:58:20] the last point of the terrain model is used as the base altitude of the terrain before the terrain model area is reached [17:58:45] terrain model stops at 600 meters altitude [17:59:02] and that point (-70km downrange) that altitude is very wrong [17:59:09] correct would be about -400 meters [17:59:10] but [17:59:22] even further away from the landing site that altitude is much better [18:01:43] also possible that the terrain left and right of the normal ground track is higher [18:02:19] so you don't just have to consider the normal groundtrack, but also the possibility that you could be coming in a bit from either side [18:02:49] I'll have to do more research before I would included this terrain model though. Don't like it yet, haha [18:04:48] hehehe [18:05:58] https://i.imgur.com/E6O4XJX.png [18:13:27] Apollo 16 terrain model is completely identical it looks like [18:13:39] padload document vs. what we got from the Delco manual [18:17:31] Don may have. 14 Delco book upstairs [18:18:53] I am getting the feeling I am not converting terrain model points to abscissa/slope correctly [18:21:10] haha [18:21:13] yes I am doing it right [18:21:19] at least when I don't typo [18:21:34] yeah, looks like the Apollo 16 one is completely identical [18:21:58] so that one we already had "as flown" [18:22:45] same for Apollo 17 [18:23:08] so I just need to look at Apollo 14 and 15 in more detail there [18:51:52] hello again [19:04:13] @indy91 love my rudder pedals [19:04:46] just won't be too useful with NASSP unfortunately [19:04:59] yeah [19:06:53] i cant find this on google but when you push on the right pedal is it supposed to yaw left? or the other way around [19:11:06] don't think that is right [19:11:46] https://image.slidesharecdn.com/basic-aero-and-cockpit-1246934136-phpapp02/95/basic-aerodynamics-and-flight-controls-21-728.jpg?cb=1338792289 [19:12:31] okay [19:15:32] just have to get used to using them [19:18:43] @indy91 cant wait to tell Ryan about the pedals [19:28:12] we're getting a new block 1 program lol [19:28:26] whaat [19:28:35] which one [19:28:46] Trivium by nit-picker [19:28:58] in this YUL manual Don brought down [19:29:00] :P [19:29:22] Trivium? [19:29:29] it's an actual listing printed on fanfold [19:29:44] does just enough to show how Yul works [19:30:01] super short [19:30:31] so just an assembly test [19:30:39] assembler* [19:30:56] yeah lol [19:31:03] still, it's something [19:31:20] yeah, haha [19:31:26] I will gladly accept all code [19:34:10] I am more picky [19:34:20] give me anything that can control a CM, haha [19:46:27] so picky [19:50:15] you know why this is special [19:50:28] it's our first example of a failed assembly [19:51:20] it's an assembly test and it doesn't even assemble? [19:51:52] so it tests how many errors YUL can generate [19:51:53] hahaha [19:52:12] they didn't define HUNTSVIL [19:52:55] so a lack of rockets :P [20:29:19] night! [06:31:11] .tell indy91 here's one for you: I believe I have finally solved the 99R1 mystery [06:32:33] .tell indy91 in the handwritten draft slides for the Luminary 1B FSRR, on the slide that lists anomalies fixed in 1B, Russ Larson penciled in "77  Software restart will not now cause up to 163 sec activity delay" [06:33:39] .tell indy91 that ticks all of the boxes -- because the STARTSB1 move makes ENEMA set the timers to 0, and it was *technically* fixed in Luminary 1A so it wasn't included in the list of fixes in 1B. the final printed slide deck didn't include it [06:34:52] .tell indy91 luminary memos say that LNY-77 was fixed in Luminary 102, and that its proper title is "No takeover when Abort from P60's". I couldn't find a copy of the anomaly report in any of the boxes. I'm not sure what "no takeover" means, exactly... so I'm curious if you have any ideas [11:02:11] . [12:27:52] morning [12:28:32] hey [12:29:33] you missed all of the fun of the last days! [12:30:08] oh really? [12:30:10] Mike flew to Boston and looked through documents that Don Eyles has in his storage [12:30:39] these aren't Dons own documents, but, I think, stuff he got from the widows of two of his colleagues [12:31:25] George Silver and Russ Larson [12:31:58] the Silver Papers mostly had stuff interesting for Mike and the Virtual AGC [12:32:09] but Larson had great things for us [12:32:13] padloads [12:32:19] Apollo 11 to 17, both CM and LM [12:32:49] Oh cool! [12:32:54] finally... [12:32:57] finally confirmed the scaling of a DAP padload [12:33:15] the main reason that I got Ryan to request one of those checklists from the Smithsonian [12:33:54] there will be a bunch of padload updates in the next time [12:34:13] we only had two real LGC padloads before [12:34:16] Apollo 11 and 13 [12:34:25] the rest were from the digital simulations [12:34:29] how do the real ones compared to what we've had so far? [12:34:45] which, as it turns out, don't always 100% agree with the flown one [12:35:03] among many smaller things, the Apollo 14 and 15 terrain models are different [12:35:27] we got those not even from the simulations, but graphs in Luminary memos and Delco manuals [12:35:34] For the different LGV versions? [12:35:41] LGC* [12:36:04] from we are currently using [12:36:15] oh right [12:36:59] 16 and 17 were identical with what we are using [12:37:46] which is pretty amazing, the ones we are using are from the Delco manuals, which has graphs of the terrain model [12:37:54] How did we get the Apollo 14 Fra Mauro model before anyway? Did we not only have the Zerlina simulation at Tycho? [12:37:56] nice [12:38:16] not sure what Zerlina had [12:38:22] but Tycho was purely my idea [12:38:38] I thought: what is crazy as landing a development LGC version? Landing at Tycho crater! [12:38:47] haha [12:39:05] the Apollo 14 terrain model was from a Luminary memo I believe [12:39:30] the one in the padload document really doesn't agree with the Orbiter terrain, so I have to check why that is [12:39:56] Apollo 15 model is also a bit worse than what we are using, but not really that much off [12:40:33] so that padload stuff will probably lead to bigger and smaller changes over time [12:40:39] but Larson had more documents [12:41:12] well first, Mike was himself there and scanned stuff, so this isn't a case where he could just mass scan everything, not really enough time [12:41:20] so maybe we will get more scans in the future [12:41:31] among them, Apollo 7 Final Flight Plan [12:41:45] loooots of Apollo Mission Techniques documents [12:41:52] but we might better get those from UHCL [12:41:59] and also a bunch of checklists [12:42:02] mostly Apollo 17 [12:42:10] I got Mike to scan 3 of those [12:42:23] CSM Rescue Book, LM Rendezvous Charts, Crew Charts [12:42:38] thats all really awesome [12:43:57] Probably very good material to practice all kinds of abort/contingency scenarios with 17 [12:44:19] yeah [12:44:23] I will have to get around to printing off that Apollo 15 flight data file that we recently got [12:44:38] UHCL has the rescue book for that mission [12:44:43] The important parts anyway :D [12:44:43] they have 14 and 15 [12:45:30] for the any-time LM liftoff you need to know the phase angle between CSM and LM at insertion to determine the right rendezvous profile [12:45:42] so for that I will probably next implement the Relative Motion MCC display [12:46:09] I just saw the Space Digitals MCC display, ill give that a try [12:47:15] oh right, you weren't even here since I implemented that one [12:47:19] I think it's really useful [12:47:25] haha no [12:47:53] The reason is in the last few days men and a few friends went to Oktoberfest :D [12:47:59] me and a few* [12:48:30] who would want to do that :D [12:48:53] My liver sure didnt [12:51:20] the Space Digitals page tells you the altitude of the node and pericynthion etc., but I still wasn't completely satisfied for my Apollo 16 mission planning [12:51:47] especially for the DOI [12:52:05] really needs a mission plan feature so that you can see if the DOI can be done without a large DVZ [12:52:22] and if the rev 2 crossing is still right, even without doing MCC-3 or 4 [12:52:45] How far have you gotten? [12:53:02] between LOI and DOI now [12:53:10] just after rev 2 crossing actually [12:53:24] I opted not to do MCC-3 or 4, even though MCC-4 would have been a few ft/s [12:53:31] Is tland looking to be quite nominal? [12:53:35] but the rev 2 crossing time was only off by 3 seconds anyway [12:53:42] haven't calculated DOI yet though [12:53:51] not sure [12:54:32] difficult to get PDI timing right with so much time in between and the gravity of the Moon not being quite like in reality [12:54:41] and I guess you will be the 1st to actually test a DOI from the new method of optimizing the LOI+DOI with the TLMCC option 4 [12:54:52] I will? [12:55:11] I think I had, but I had used a scenario late in TLC on 15 [12:55:16] ah [12:55:32] well, the worst problem I encountered so far was caused by you :P [12:55:41] landing site approach azimuth [12:55:51] you added those parameters to the RTCC MFD [12:55:57] and it was wrong for Apollo 16 [12:56:17] hmm did I not use the SCOT for that? [12:56:18] maybe a copy and paste error from Apollo 15 [12:56:34] SCOT has -91° for Apollo 15 and -90° for Apollo 16 and 17 [12:56:44] RTCC MFD had -91° for Apollo 16 [12:57:30] ah right [12:57:51] it's not so bad really, but LOI TIG and DV was more off nominal [12:58:07] and a bunch of parameters might need to be tweaked again [12:58:48] but not by much [12:59:33] yeah, I could probably come up with some new numbers quite quickly [13:00:24] oh and I see that PTC REFSMMAT time in there, so that means we can add that for the other missions I guess [13:00:58] yeah, I figured that one out for Apollo 16 [13:01:13] worked with every set of IMU angles in the flight plan [13:01:26] so I am quite confident that the REFSMMAT is right [13:01:39] oh, I haven't pushed that RTCC MFD update yet where I changed the approach azimuth [13:02:52] Apollo 12 LGC padload also gets a fairly large update [13:02:57] lots of things all around [13:03:23] P63 target and ignition algorithm constants were different [13:03:29] not by that much, but a little bit [13:03:34] P64 target was unchanged [13:05:11] I guess each mission will have a unique behavior if the real descent targets are now all from the real padloads [13:05:33] the jump from Apollo 11 to 12 is of course quite noticable [13:05:45] at the start of P64 on Apollo 11 you can barely see the landing site yet [13:06:11] and the descent targets for Apollo 15-17 were all tweaked for terrain [13:06:26] and I think we use the same ones for all those 3 missions right now [13:06:36] so that will give a different behavior per mission, yeah [13:06:52] man this is really cool I think [13:07:06] especially Apollo 15 will have to approach quite high and steep due to the high mountain it flies over [13:07:19] we use Apollo 17 values for 15-17 [13:07:30] 17 is also fairly steep, but 15 may be even steeper, haha [13:07:49] pushed the latest changes [13:07:53] great [13:07:58] including the Apollo 11 and 12 padload updates [13:08:09] and I just tried the Space Digitals display, quite impressive [13:08:11] working my way through the missions, haha [13:08:27] a lot of stuff in there [13:08:30] the only input on that page is a GET for which you can calculate the numbers in column 1 [13:08:32] oh yeah [13:08:47] I'll have a list somewhere that explains them all [13:08:54] column 1 is the manual GET input [13:09:05] column two has closest approach (CA) so the pericynthion [13:09:16] and the node (MN) [13:09:29] column 3 has vacuum perigee (VP) and entry interface (EI) [13:09:36] that's the main nomenclature [13:10:06] my Apollo 16 flight has a vacuum perigee of 23,000 NM altitude, haha [13:10:10] not quite free return [13:10:26] oh man this page will be awesome for testing/debugging [13:10:39] on the other hand, my Apollo 11 scenario before LOI-1 already return with a safer angle [13:10:42] safe* [13:11:18] what I don't fully understand is why the display has GET inputs for column 2 and 3 [13:11:33] it should be just depending on the current trajectory [13:11:46] but it might also work together with the mission planning table [13:12:22] so maybe you specify a GET for the mission planning table and it returns a SV at the time you specify, taking all maneuvers until that point into account [13:12:46] and from that SV the space digitals routines then calculate the parameters [13:13:08] right [13:13:26] but for now the page just displays the GET in column 1 [13:13:43] there also are a few others I don't fully understand where I only added the label so far [13:13:47] e.g. GET Axis [13:14:18] I am just testing my Apollo 15 TLC scenario (before M-2). Vacuum perigee is 24668.1 [13:14:21] maybe I'll figure these out eventually [13:14:32] Quite similar to 16 [13:14:37] my Apollo 16 number agreed quite closely with the SCOT [13:15:08] let's see what the SCOT says for 15 [13:15:42] 28,807 NM [13:15:52] eh, close enough [13:16:06] will change quite a bit with a course correction [13:16:38] after MCC-2 it will probably be close to the SCOT number [13:16:52] oh, and my S-IVB did impact the Moon [13:17:10] I didn't calculate a specific burn, only did the planned course correction [13:17:21] so it was 15 minutes early and not really the right coordinates [13:17:26] but at least it hit the Moon, haha [13:17:55] So, what the procedure to calculate the impact burn right now? [13:18:47] none so far, you can look at the postflight documentation and find the TIG, burntime, pitch and yaw for the S-IVB MCC-1 [13:19:02] and with the PAMFD you can command the S-IVB to do that burn [13:19:15] will add a page to the RTCC MFD to target specific coordinates on the Moon [13:19:28] that will give those 4 numbers you need to give the LVDC [13:22:07] ah, ok great [13:22:46] the "P" is latitude, right? [13:24:11] yeah, stands for phi [13:24:33] which is the greek letter often used for latitude [13:24:37] lambda for latitude [13:24:56] so SI is sphere of influence [13:25:17] yeah, time when it enters it [13:25:22] GETSE is SOI exit [13:25:25] and MN? [13:25:34] that's the number for the node [13:25:45] not sure about M, but N is for node [13:26:00] so HMN is height of the node [13:26:30] PMN latitude, LMN longitude, DMN is the angle between the approach hyperbola and the lunar parking orbit [13:26:42] so basically the plane change necessary for LOI [13:27:17] I used the RTACF display format, which couldn't use greek letters [13:27:30] not sure if I would be able to use greek letters in the MFD [13:28:05] the RTCC display could display greek letters and for the RTCC version I have the documentation explaining each displayed variable [13:28:33] so I tried a scenario after MCC-2 and the HVP is now 27030 [13:28:55] closer to planned, yeah [13:29:40] I can give you a link and PDF page where the description is, but you would still need to figure out which greek letter is which letter on your own [13:30:05] so I'll rather include a description in the RTCC MFD manual at some point instead of referring to a NTRS document [13:30:22] so for now, ask me :P [13:31:03] the heights in column 1 were also tricky to figure out [13:31:08] there are H, HS, and HO [13:31:24] S and O are spherical and oblate [13:31:50] so I believe these would only have 3 different values in Earth orbit, where the height above oblate Earth is considered [13:31:57] and HS is probably height about mean radius [13:32:18] while H would be above lunar landing site or Cape Canaveral [13:32:36] haha I think I am wrapping my head around most of it already ;) [13:32:59] yeah, once you understand what CA, EI etc means and what each first letter means most values make sense [13:33:09] GAM is gamma, flight path angle [13:33:33] PSI is heading [13:33:42] ADA is true anomal [13:33:50] which would be eta [13:33:52] good morning [13:33:54] so not sure why ADA [13:33:56] hey [13:33:58] and not "pounds per square inch" :D [13:34:04] just love my rudder pedals so much [13:34:30] hey [13:34:34] got the left/right thing figured out? [13:34:40] yes [13:36:07] Hey Alex i was just wondering do you have pedals? [13:46:42] astronauthen96__ Yep I do, but they are gathering dust right now in my closet lol [13:50:52] the Apollo 11 LM padload was an update over the previous document we have [13:51:05] it had an updated TLAND, one rev later, as the actual mission [13:51:19] but no changes to descent or ignition [13:51:31] so I still don't really know why we got throttle down 1 minute too late [13:51:36] get* [13:52:00] oh we still get that eh? [13:52:27] yeah [13:52:37] I forgot, was that only Apollo 11? [13:52:54] or do we also get that on Apollo 12 [13:53:47] hmm cant remember [13:57:35] will also have to try that some time with the updated descent target