[00:01:27] NASSP Logging has been started by thewonderidiot [00:13:34] I just crashed my network [00:13:38] Not fun [00:15:01] Notice my cpu0 on my router was stuck on 100% usage. Rebooted it through the control panel and [00:15:01] ded [00:15:15] Don't soft reboot your routers kids [00:15:57] After it came back up I couldn't reach any IP outside my LAN. Neither could people reach me. [00:15:59] HOWEVER [00:16:11] People that already had an active connection to my teamspeak were still connected. [00:16:58] For some reason the jffs on there failed to mount properly. So probably some config couldn't be loaded. [00:17:25] Just powercycled all my networking gear as a last ditch effort and everything worked again. Fortunately [00:17:38] .date [00:17:39] .time [00:18:01] Not a particular great time to do extensive network debugging. [15:24:56] hey [15:27:20] hey Alex [16:01:37] planning TEI right now [16:02:07] Im looking at the new constraints section, lots of stuff in there [16:02:27] anything to modify in there for TEI? [16:04:31] probably not [16:04:41] not for Apollo 12 [16:08:14] the solution gives a 16 D return, I'd like to force it to ascending [16:08:36] to agree with the SCOT, 18.8A [16:09:00] strange that it comes up with such a different solution [16:09:34] but you can easily force a specific inclination [16:12:30] with IRMAX? [16:13:08] no, on the calculation page itself [16:13:22] oh lol [16:13:38] right, I somehow missed that [16:14:00] lunar declination seems to be quite low [16:14:07] so small return inclinations [16:14:23] so maybe the ascending and descending solutions are quite similar in DV [16:16:22] and you enter an ascending solution with a minus inclination [16:16:25] -18.8 [16:17:19] it should probably say "optimum inclination" instead of ""Optimize DV" [16:22:07] yeah [16:22:31] so the tradeoff page, whats that for? [16:24:58] generates some graphs [16:25:05] TIG vs. DV mainly [16:25:12] doesn't work in lunar orbit [16:25:15] not yet anyway [16:25:23] it's useful in TLC only I would say [16:25:54] it can be helpful in figuring out which inputs to use for a normal RTE calculation [16:26:14] as the tradeoff display scans over e.g. several different time of landings [16:26:47] ah so for TLC abort pad's [16:28:17] not really, no [16:28:31] just to give the RETRO a general idea of many abort opportunities [16:28:43] how much DV it's going to be, when it will land etc. [16:28:58] the RETRO on Apollo 11 made several hardcopies of the tradeoff displays [16:29:04] early in TLC [16:29:10] and gave it to the recovery forces [16:31:41] ah ok [16:32:26] apart from the tradeoff display the RTE calculation would happen in two steps [16:32:53] abort scan table, which has an impulsive TIG, integrated trajectory, and no integrated reentry [16:33:07] that's where the P37 data would be coming from [16:33:24] and for actually performed RTE maneuvers there is the Return To Earth Digitals displays [16:33:43] fully integrated through, finite burn [16:34:02] the abort scan table can hold multiple solutions, like the new MCC display [16:35:19] the RTED only has two columns [16:35:38] all that will come [16:36:36] https://i.imgur.com/RKCfzc6.png [16:36:48] the best picture I have of the abort scan table [16:51:43] nice [17:09:15] well not as nice as I would like, as you can't properly see every label there, haha [17:19:15] I guess its a challenge to find all the proper formats [17:32:35] indy91, the RTE calculates a non-impulsive TIG straight away f I remember right? [17:34:02] yes [17:34:22] once I split it into the two displays (AST and RTED) that will change [17:34:44] but even then it's the RTE section that calculates the finite burn, not the MPT [18:49:49] hmm, in my testing with the AEG I seem to have found something. I get 100 meters max error after 4 hours, 500 meters max after 24 hours [18:50:01] that's not bad [19:09:24] nice [19:09:29] TEI done [19:09:52] but it was not as accurate as it used to be for some reason [19:10:05] my entry angle is -1.34 [19:11:25] I mean not really a big issue, MCC-5 will be just 4 fps to correct it [19:12:06] but usually it does much better then that [19:12:31] I'm suspecting something might of screwed my TIG up [19:15:42] morning! [19:16:57] hey Mike [19:17:42] what's up? [19:20:25] hey [19:20:34] AlexB_88, actually, I don't think it was better [19:20:43] at least not in the last maybe 1-2 years, not sure about before [19:20:45] Flying Apollo 12 with NASSP, just finsihed TEI [19:20:58] but 5 ft/s MCC-5 is quite usual in my experience [19:21:05] true [19:21:07] have to look into that some time [19:21:14] it should be at least a bit better [19:21:50] I will say that I routinely skipped MCC-5's due to being so low, previously [19:21:59] like less then 1 fps [19:22:21] it was almost too accurate, lol [19:24:34] it bet it was the update when I implemented the real moon-centered RTE targeting [19:24:42] I did something bad there [19:25:49] when I get back to that, all RTE solutions should run through the generalized iterator, that will makes things more accurate, I am sure [19:27:42] in the case of the moon-centered logic, the conic logic is the one from the RTCC documents and the precision logic is a weird mix of old and new [19:28:32] but there shouldn't be much of a precision logic, it's just: use conic solution as the initial guess and converge a precision trajectory on the same EI state as the conic solution [19:37:23] well on the first look I am not seeing anything obviously wrong [19:37:38] I'm sure I'll find it when I take a more detailed look [19:38:23] I had flown Apollo 16 with the new moon-centered RTE, and I remember it being quite accurate [19:38:32] hmm, ok [19:39:11] I wonder if it was something I did bad on my end with the MPT [19:39:17] Ill do some testing [20:15:47] there is 1 minute difference in TEI TIG between MPT active and unactive [20:16:53] MPT off: TIG was 172:23:22 MPT on and thats the DV vector I used for the REFSMMAT uplink [20:17:36] then closer to TEI I activated the MPT and re-calculated TEI and TIG was now 172:24:50 [20:18:10] I thought that was a bit weird [20:24:43] yeah that sounds like a bug [20:27:45] so I burned the later TIG, (with slightly different XYZ values as well) but I feel like the earlier one was the better solution [20:38:52] did you have the CSM+LM Asc config on the MPT? [20:38:58] in the earlier calculation [20:40:31] well the 1st calculation the MPT was inactive [20:40:37] ah right [20:40:41] you said so [20:40:44] but I have been in CSM only config for a while now [20:41:00] LM Asc is a crater on the moon now :D [20:42:02] lacking much friction it probably tumbled across the Moon for a while, I have observed that in the past [20:43:24] yeah it bounced into a very high sub-orbital curve [20:45:07] the DeltaGlider IV addon had the nice feature of breaking apart under the right conditions [20:45:19] sounds like something nice to have in the future [20:45:49] my LM hit the rim of a crater though so it really exaggerated the upward projection [20:45:51] yeah [20:46:03] haha [20:49:17] our SM breaks apart [20:52:42] true, almost forgot [21:01:40] for MCC-5, I have a DVX of -4.4 fps [21:01:54] on the MPT it shows as DELTAV 0.6 [21:19:54] hmm [21:20:01] probably an issue with the short burn logic [21:20:14] RTE maneuver is using the SPS by default [21:20:35] and 4.4 ft/s will be a rather short burn, especially with such a light CSM [21:20:57] guess I'll have to try and hack in the thruster selection for the RTE [21:21:35] 4.4 ft/s might be such a short SPS burn that the calculation gets confused [21:21:48] although it still shouldn't be that much off [21:23:26] right [21:24:01] also column 3 of the space digitals seem to not have any data for EI, just the VP state [21:24:33] this is with MCC-5 on the MPT [21:24:34] and what altitude is on the VP state? [21:24:37] oh [21:24:46] 59.5 NM [21:25:26] that's below EI altitude [21:25:35] so it should come up with a EI [21:25:41] another bug... [21:29:14] although [21:29:41] I think it might be possible that some EIs that barely go below the EI altitude might not be detected [21:30:39] without it being a bug per se [21:32:29] right [21:33:46] not quite sure though [21:39:37] alright did the burn [21:39:53] and now column 3 shows EI data [21:41:21] so, I do think it's a bug [21:41:48] and it probably happens because EI happens within one integration timestep of the beginning, which is the state vector at vacuum perigee [21:42:10] but I think it should work despite that. Have to dig a bit into it [21:50:32] good night!