[21:56:16] NASSP Logging has been started by thymo [14:31:28] hey [14:32:29] hey Alex [14:35:09] had an issue with the DKI last night, the solution worked well (with 2 maneuvers on the MPT) but unfortunately the transfer to MPT seems broken [14:35:43] when I go to click CLC to transfer the solution to the MPT, nothing happens [14:35:54] ok [14:36:38] I did some testing, 1st with the other rendezvous processors and they could transfer to the MPT just fine [14:37:25] LDPP, DKI and SPQ all use the same interface for this [14:37:50] then I retried the DKI, but with a fresh initialized MPT with no maneuvers, and still wont transfer [14:38:06] so it's possible if you have the SPQ or LDPP MPT page open, or you opened them after the DKI, that you break it [14:38:13] but I'll check [14:38:35] the better solution there is to add a button and make you cycle through the 3 options for that MED [14:38:40] I guess [14:38:57] right [14:40:37] can confirm, nothing happens [14:40:58] online monitor has a message [14:41:23] maneuver prior to present time [14:41:30] but that's not true [14:51:20] GMTI -3492115200.0000000 double [14:55:25] I think that is before present time [14:56:17] that's MJD=0 converted to GMT [14:56:48] ah [15:09:41] basically, it the DKI built a bad state vector for the MPT transfer [15:14:49] I think I have it fixed [15:15:47] the only thing, in DKI and SPQ, they are both mostly using conic and in-plane calculations. Definitely want to improve that some time. But it's a bit too simple for the MPT iterate option, which will try to achieve specific orbital elements [15:16:05] but it's not so bad, you would only notice that by a small DVY component [15:16:29] which would not normally be there for CSI or the NC maneuver of the DKI [15:17:54] pushed [15:18:16] so its better to not use iterate with the DKI/SPQ? [15:18:19] thanks [15:19:20] nah, it's fine to use iterate [15:19:31] ok [15:20:03] now I want to do a SPQ revamp, with plane change and optimum CSI mode :D [15:20:23] nice [15:21:19] I had the DKI with 15NM DH and when I calculate the CSI for it it's 14.2NM. Unacceptable accuracy! [15:22:17] you'll miss it by a mile! [15:24:45] other small things I found last night were, 1. I forgot to put a ; at the end of the M40,P2,X,Y,Z in the INP and when I pushed enter it caused a CTD [15:25:03] M40, ok, that's an old one, probably needs some better checking for that [15:25:46] 2. I tried to use the DMT on the PDI sim on the MPT and that caused a CTD [15:25:56] weird [15:26:06] I've done that successfully in the past, but will check [15:32:19] I also need to check the case of the missing ; in general [15:32:58] the M40 worked for me though [15:33:06] but the last entry, the DVZ, was bad [15:33:12] so might be random [15:36:16] ah I think it has nothing in the last part of the MED input then [15:38:01] right [15:38:11] tested the DKI updates. all good [15:38:32] missing ; is fixed as well, not just for M40 [15:39:28] if you have no empty space at the end then it will probably work fine now even without the ; [15:39:45] last night I still managed to get all my pads done even with the DKI issue. What I did for the NO PDI+12 was take the impulsive solution from the DKI, recreate the burn using the GPM direct input and then transfer to MPT from there haha [15:40:47] direct MPT input might work as well [15:41:27] I would of used INP, but did not know how to make it convert to non-impulsive [15:42:13] with specific DPS parameters (-15s, 0.4) [15:43:27] ah right [15:43:32] good question [15:43:51] ok, the PDI CTD is caused by that annoying longitude of the ascending node on the DMT again [15:44:47] I think I just have to zero that somewhere [15:44:56] would be difficult to calculate for PDI anyway :D [15:45:11] that's the actual longitude of crossing the ascending node [15:45:23] hard to do when you are not in orbit but sitting on the surface [15:47:51] right [15:48:18] ok, also fixed [15:48:21] just had to be nulled [15:48:24] awesome [15:48:26] wasn't calculated in all cases [15:48:30] so it had a random value [15:48:36] which can be too large to display [15:49:34] on that matter, is having separate PDI targets for the PDI sim coming soon on the to do list? [15:50:28] well, we could load that in the usual place in ARCore, it's a bunch of numbers, but not too many I think [15:50:38] better would be to have those mission specific tables [15:50:46] loaded from a text file [15:51:40] and pushed [15:52:52] yeah [15:53:42] for 17 used the PDI sim TIG, and biased it a bit for my PDI PAD [15:54:54] by basically just running the PDI sim on my previous Apollo 17 PDI scenario and then comparing the TIG with P63 [15:55:46] comes up to -19sec bias, kind of crude but hopefully its close [15:55:48] I can at last make it a non-hardcoded table in the RTCC already, which is passed to the descent guidance sim [15:56:31] sure [15:57:06] what is nice is that 15 to 17 all used the same targets [15:57:19] so they can use the same numbers [15:58:07] right [16:04:05] always the same game, can I figure out which RTCC table was used from the list of tables [16:04:26] might be more difficult for the descent targets, as it would only recently have been added to the RTCC program [16:04:34] when the document I have was made [16:15:18] might all be systems parameters, not in a particular table. Most of the IGM constants are like that as well [16:15:49] so I'll just add that to the RTCC, give it to the descent targeting, and it can be overwritten with new values in ARCore or wherever [16:18:01] sure [16:18:13] so part of the ARCore constants for each mission? [16:18:41] it can be modified there from the Apollo 11 default, yeah [16:19:06] ok [16:19:09] there is some weird scaling going on with those numbers in the LGC, so I'll work out the right engineering values from the padloads, haha [16:19:49] btw the PDI pad does not seem compatible with a PDI sim on the MPT [16:20:02] but maybe it never was [16:21:47] yeah, never was [16:22:13] would be annoying to set up I think [16:22:35] I'll figure out how the PDI PAD was generated some time [16:22:40] I wonder how they got TGO [16:23:23] I thought DMT the PDI maneuver and check the burn time, but 8 minutes looks a bit low [16:23:26] they ran it in the LM sim they had at MSC I think [16:23:43] ah [16:23:46] DMT has a 8 minute burntime? [16:23:59] that's weird [16:24:04] for the PDI, yes [16:24:25] 8:03 [16:24:42] should be like 9:50 or so with the current loaded targets [16:26:32] in any case, that would be the total time from ignition to landing on the DMT [16:26:40] TGO is P63 time-to-go [16:27:04] or is it [16:27:11] no [16:29:05] so get this, my DOI-2 is at 112:00:48, and my CSM CIRC burn is 7 seconds later at 112:00:55 [16:29:14] thats going to be interesting :D [16:29:56] it's all behind the Moon anyway, right? [16:30:10] so they wouldn't have tried to prevent that, no real time monitoring from MCC-H anyway [16:30:26] yeah I think [16:30:59] Ill probably just delay my DOI-2 a few seconds so I can at least push PRO in the CSM then switch back :D [16:31:31] I think you used too much SITEROT [16:31:37] "5 min max slip" it says for the DOI-2 in the timeline book [16:31:38] that is the reason :P [16:31:58] I think 2 seconds will be fine lol [16:32:10] maybe [16:32:48] well, I needed it to make my trajectory accurate [16:33:18] your perilune is located right now? [16:33:43] my DOI-2 is 20 seconds off from the flightplan [16:33:46] let me check [16:34:23] I have a DT B of 11:33.1 [16:34:26] for Apollo 11 [16:34:28] on the DMT [16:35:56] maybe it's the wrong descent targets [16:36:05] too heavy [16:36:10] maybe an early impact :D [16:36:22] LP 131.76 [16:36:32] -131.76* [16:36:40] hmm that seems wrong [16:36:54] MCT [16:37:06] what did you use? [16:37:11] orbit digitals? [16:40:05] yes [16:40:17] ok now with the checkout monitor [16:40:24] LONC: +20.244 [16:40:30] that looks better [16:40:40] thats before DOI-2 [16:41:37] I did U02,LEM,FPA,0,112:45:0,MCT; [16:42:08] 112:45 being a few minutes before peri [16:44:20] FPA 0 to figure out apolune/perilune, nice [16:45:53] yeah, maybe theres a better way but that seems to work well [16:46:17] oh, I was congratulating you on creative use of the tools available, haha [16:46:27] thanks haha [16:46:31] hadn't thought of this, should be quite accurate [16:46:55] I guess internally the same thing is done e.g. in the Space Digitals for pericynthion in column 2 [16:47:16] right [16:48:06] Apollo 13, about 1:50h after the explosion, probably the most hectic yet on the EECOM loop [16:48:10] I find it nice that there are so many tools now to dissect your trajectory [16:48:20] they are counting down the minutes until fuel cells stop working [16:48:37] crew barely got started in the LM so far [16:49:05] and watching the main bus A voltage slowly going down already [16:49:29] I think [16:51:14] morning! [16:51:17] nah, not dropping yet, but will be soon [16:51:18] hey [16:52:52] what's up? [16:53:57] fixing RTCC bugs that Alex is finding and listening to Apollo 13 EECOM audio [16:59:33] found something funny hand-written in the Apollo 17 LM timeline book (probably by Cernan), during the AGS control check: "If dynamics abnormal say SHIT" :D [17:00:26] haha [17:00:34] that's a checklist item derived from flight experience [17:01:19] yep [17:02:33] maybe he was a little nervous when doin that check :D [17:06:49] I don't blame him [17:12:33] two EECOMS are at the console right now [17:12:53] both said "go ahead, FLIGHT" when the flight director was calling :D [17:13:05] haha [17:18:01] ah, the famous docked alignment now [18:06:11] well, CSM is completely powered down now. I guess the EECOM loop won't be as interesting from now on [18:07:48] so back to FIDO? [18:08:06] yeah, from where I had left off [18:08:17] guess they'll start preparing for that flyby burn [18:08:20] 46h GET or so [18:08:32] oh bfore the accident [18:08:36] before* [18:08:47] yeah, that's where I will continue with the FIDO audio [18:08:59] got from launch to that time [18:09:00] right [18:09:16] I just listened to EECOM for this bit during the accident [18:09:19] on my end Im about to land Challenger at Taurus-Littrow [18:09:29] at 58:45h it's still the plane to only do a PC+2 [18:09:32] plan* [18:09:45] right [18:10:22] how did those simulatenous DOI-2 and CIRC burn work out [18:10:46] hectic but it worked out [18:11:08] I already found it hectic if they were a few minutes apart [18:11:38] I pushed PRO in the CSM at -5 seconds, then switched to the LEM and burned 1/2 of the burn, then back to the CSM to null residuals, then back to the LM to finish the burn [18:15:05] haha nice [18:24:25] https://www.dropbox.com/s/zhllvxlsuese5af/Screenshot%202020-04-07%2012.12.52.png?dl=0 [18:43:03] very nice [18:44:57] you know it's Apollo 17 when the LM is yawed so far [18:46:48] yep [18:48:57] https://www.dropbox.com/s/srv22o07szubuqb/Screenshot%202020-04-07%2012.48.42.png?dl=0 [18:49:04] not to far from the target [18:49:25] trajectory was pretty on-point btw [18:49:44] crossrange wise? [18:49:56] 0.1 crossrange [18:50:00] good to hear [18:50:16] at PDI ignition the timeline has height 56500 feet and that was exactly what my PGNS tape-meter read at ignition [18:50:29] and HDOT the same too [18:50:39] but I did cheat a bit [18:50:41] you placed your perilune correctly then [18:51:27] I used the LLS height data from online, not the one in the flight plan [18:51:40] the flight plan one is quite wrong actually [18:52:27] always that LLS radius, haha [18:52:43] btw, descent targets are the same for Apollo 15 to 17, but ignition constants aren't. Makes sense for 17, trajectory at PDI is quite different. [18:52:50] but to be fair, they would have improved it before PDI, using the CSM sightings I think [18:53:00] right [18:53:35] did you not test P24? [18:55:06] not yet [18:55:41] I guess I could of updated my RLS using it [18:56:00] and not just use the marker file coordinates to update it haha [18:58:20] a while ago I had tweaked the location in the marker file to be the proper location that was targeted based on pre-flight maps to find the right spot in the Orbiter 2016 moon terrain [18:58:44] right, markers and Orbiter 2016, that's still a bit of an issue [18:59:29] well, they do show correctly for the landing sites [19:01:10] right [19:03:03] testing to override the Apollo 17 LGC targets in the RTCC now [19:06:26] nice [19:06:50] can you give me a scenario to test that? I have some myself, but they are a bit old by now [19:07:23] some scenario after DOI-2 and before PDI [19:11:31] sure [19:11:50] 8 minutes before PDI, enough time? [19:12:05] sure [19:14:50] thanks! [19:15:18] np [19:17:35] hmm [19:17:45] are we still not using the right J-type LM weights? [19:18:04] yeah they are a bit off [19:18:30] LMDSCFUEL 8891.0 [19:18:33] we have this [19:18:42] but that's not all of the weight increase I guess? [19:18:54] I guess not [19:19:17] in any case [19:19:25] Im sure the empty mass should be higher [19:19:30] yes [19:19:33] Apollo 15 and 17 PDI time agree to the second between LGC and MPT [19:19:41] zero-fuel mass* [19:20:52] ah nice [19:21:10] 112:49:55? [19:22:08] uhh, I think so [19:22:17] 54.6 or so [19:22:58] my bias was good then [19:23:24] well I just started P63 [19:23:33] and compared N33 with the MPT [19:23:35] I had figured out the PDI time before DOI-2 by subtracting 19 seconds from the PDI sim [19:23:37] right [19:24:12] the 19 seconds I had gotten from my previous Apollo 17 PDI scenario [19:24:59] ah [19:25:06] well the issue is now fixed :D [19:25:12] just a bit too late for your landng [19:25:40] its all good [19:25:48] thanks for looking at it [19:26:36] I'll add the rest of the mission (12-14) and then the update should be done [19:29:18] ok [19:30:03] from the PDI sim, is there a way to get some info from it other then TIG, like TGO, ignition angles, crossrange [19:33:26] I mean, by using the various displays (checkout monitor, etc) [19:34:22] ignition angles on the DMT will be more accurate [19:35:06] but TGO and crossrange probably came from using the LM sim and its LGC sim [19:35:15] to get it 100% consistent [19:35:41] if not I'll find out in some way from the Apollo 11 MOCR audio [19:35:50] can't remember much about it on the FIDO loop [19:38:34] is the attitude for PDI on the DMT completely off? [19:38:44] might not be calculated at all yet [19:39:08] it was off earlier when I checked [19:39:28] most of the DMT values were just placeholder [19:39:42] need to add some things in the descent integrator that saves the data for the DMT [19:39:51] same for ascent [19:43:02] the PDI button will then also get some MED options [19:47:54] 12 and 13 also had identical descent targets [19:53:02] done [19:56:09] awesome [20:21:22] looks good [20:24:56] oh the PDI pad seems to reflect the changes [20:25:13] this is not with the PDI sim on the MPT of course [20:26:00] but just calculating the PDI pad [20:26:18] yeah, PDI PAD calculation uses the same function for the ignition algorithm [20:26:24] ah [20:26:31] well thats great then [20:26:41] it looks quite accurate [20:26:44] yeah [20:29:19] it works with previous maneuvers on the MPT as well [20:30:56] you mean like DOI? [20:32:06] I don't think the PDI PAD calculation works with PDI on the MPT though [20:32:50] yes DOI I meant [20:33:20] since on 17, you get the PDI pad, before DOI-2 [20:35:23] yeah, in MPT mode the PDI PAD takes the latest state vector on the MPT [20:35:31] so the DOI burnout vector in this case [20:37:17] right [20:38:16] I think some of the other pad's are a bit broken in MPT mode, but I am surprised that the PDI pad works well [20:39:18] yeah, I have to check them one by one [20:41:05] but I have to tell you, I am more and more impressed at the accuracy of the missions due to the latest work on the RTCC MFD [20:41:29] great to hear [20:43:09] and there is always more to do... [20:45:03] good night! [13:31:27] hey [13:40:15] hey Alex [13:40:35] something is broken about Apollo 5 attitude control, at least in some scenarios [13:40:50] scenarios where you start before sep from the S-IVB [13:41:45] but I did test the DPS-1 burn and with the slow throttle up I implemented a while ago it does not generate the thrust fail program alarm that happened during the actual mission [13:41:46] hmm bummer [13:42:02] so DPS throttle up and thrust decay is go [13:42:28] great [13:42:56] for the attitude control, it seemed to maneuver correctly to the thermal control attitude [13:43:13] but then it pitched a bit up too much, even more down, even more up and so on [13:43:48] I guess SPS throttle up/decay is on the list too? [13:44:00] must be some S-IVB code still influencing the LM, but not when you reload after sep [13:44:10] sure [13:44:23] for the SPS it's mostly not hardcoded in the CMC [13:44:36] so that would also go together with a bunch of padload updates [13:44:44] right [13:45:52] on my end, im flying my mission from before DOI-2/CIRC burn again [13:46:51] the reason is, I flew an early PDI abort last night, and when I ran P32, my DH was 30+ NM, ouch [13:47:00] huh [13:47:05] and I pretty sure I know why [13:47:34] your or my fault? :D [13:47:50] its the same reason my NO PDI+12 DVX is 94 fps instead of 107 or so as in reality [13:47:54] neitehr I think [13:47:58] meither* [13:48:03] neither* [13:48:09] its the CSM's orbit [13:48:54] I had 60x60 but the real one would be in a 70x55. Thats what the abort constants are expecting [13:49:22] oh [13:49:28] so high [13:49:29] so my plan is to re-do CIRC with the CSM in a 70x55, and then later Ill fix it [13:49:32] eccentric* [13:51:58] near-circular parking orbit shaped so that [13:51:59] after the powered ascent (or a descent abort), the rendezvous phasing is [13:51:59] improved. [13:52:35] actually, I don't think that is just gravity being different [13:52:50] that's too much for that [13:53:49] the LOPC targets a much more circular orbit [13:54:30] so re-doing all my pad's with the 70x55 CIRC burn, all the DV's and attitudes are now very close to reality [13:54:54] yeah [13:55:03] I'd target that [13:55:11] at about GET 120:00:00 or so Ill do a second CIRC to go back to 60x60 [13:55:40] because ours of course, I dont think will do that on its own [13:56:17] no that's what I mean, it didn't for them either [13:56:36] ... [13:56:38] or did it [13:56:59] SCOT says HA and HP didn't change during LOPC [13:59:20] I wonder if there is any way to make the gravity more realistic in Orbiter [13:59:40] I doubt it, but I'll look into it [13:59:58] would be interesting to know [14:09:58] so this time you update the descent abort constaints? Is the calculation for that compatible with Apollo 17? [14:10:22] hmm [14:10:42] I think I remember those being only for the Apollo 12 profile? [14:10:49] Apollo 11* [14:12:22] I might be wrong though [14:12:48] nah, it definitely works with 12 [14:13:00] 11 and 12 have quite different logic for it [14:13:13] the only thing that could be different is the rendezvous profile [14:13:17] from 12 to 17 [14:13:25] yeah [14:14:43] hmm [14:14:51] looks like 12 and 17 are quite similar [14:16:05] early abort is the same, (>= 10 mins) and late abort is up to 16:20 for Apollo 12 and 17:10 for Apollo 17 [14:16:29] that is all done automatically [14:16:40] the two modes [14:17:16] if the timing of Boost etc. is also the same then it should work fine [14:22:09] hmm [14:22:16] but it's not fully MPT compatible yet [14:24:15] interesting [14:25:07] so Apollo 16/17 and 12 are similar ealry abort is short profile and late abort is the long profile (boost,ham) [14:25:36] ah right [14:25:45] knew there was something like that [14:25:45] but Apollo 13-15 have the long profile for the early PDI's [14:26:15] would it work with that too? [14:26:26] the abort constants update [14:26:45] I don't think it does [14:26:53] I implemented it from a document for Apollo 12 [14:27:03] made some modifications so that it works with 11 [14:27:11] but not anything beyond that I think [14:27:32] but it just needs some options to choose the rendezvous profile [14:27:43] that too many modifications needed [14:27:47] not too* [14:29:09] right [14:29:32] I didnt think that would work at all haha [14:29:47] for some reason I thought it was Apollo 11 only [14:30:07] how do I select the TPI time? [14:31:09] might be the common TPI time in the MFD [14:31:15] probably a button on some other page :D [14:33:07] DKI TPI only option for example [14:33:12] ah yes [14:33:21] need to fix that [14:33:36] you shouldn't have to go to a different page like that [14:34:16] do you think that you could be the Apollo 13-15 profile selection if its not too hard as well? [14:35:46] yeah [14:36:19] it comes up with an insertion state vector, then has to do some processing, and then gives a state vector to the SPQ for CSI [14:36:32] what happens in between can be changed [14:36:45] although one problem, it automatically switches to the other profile [14:37:01] so the criterium for the switch also needs to be mission specific [14:37:06] Im going to test my Apollo 17 early abort again [14:37:17] with updated constants [14:37:37] maybe I can avoid having to re-fly CIRC and all :D [14:38:35] hmm [14:38:45] did the second phase for Apollo 12 have a HAM? [14:39:29] hmm I think it did [14:39:33]