[17:01:06] NASSP Logging has been started by n7275_ [17:01:08] think I'm going to wait on implimenting transient behavior, until I have a good time accelerometer-proof solution [17:18:49] you mean time acceleration? Yeah that can sometimes be tricky [17:19:50] a few years ago I wanted to implement better dynamic behavior of the SPS gimballing. Found some good equations for it in a MIT document. But turns out it's a stiff equation and was barely even stable at 60 fps without time acceleration. [17:20:13] so all I did was gave it a fixed gimballing speed, nothing more [17:53:45] morning! [17:59:21] hey Mike [18:11:00] what's up? [18:13:35] listening a bit to the Apollo 13 Booster Systems Engineer [18:13:42] actually, it's engineers [18:13:57] I always wondered why that one console in the MOCR had 3 displays instead of 2 [18:14:12] but that's because for launch through TLI it's 3 guys sitting there [18:14:23] BSE 1, BSE 2, BSE 3 [18:14:40] oh hah [18:14:41] BSE 3 is the one responsible for the IU, so I am listening to his loop [18:14:43] makes sense [18:15:18] and you? [18:16:23] failed again on Comanche 45 last night, haha [18:16:29] so just working on Aurora punchcards [18:16:42] going to finally add revision assemblies to pyul here soon [18:17:13] what does that do? [18:18:13] it lets me revise assemblies on tape, up to revision 1, 2, 3, etc. [18:18:19] right now I can only make new assemblies (i.e. rev 0) [18:18:37] so instead of passing in all cards for a program, I can only pass in cards describing the difference between revisions [18:19:07] ah right [18:19:39] I need to do it for Aurora to get an exactly correct listing printout because it has some DELETE cards in it [18:19:56] which are illegal (obviously :P) in new assemblies, since there's no lines on tape to delete [18:20:59] does that have to do with the line numbers on the left, where you got a bit of a hint how they handled the C45 fix? [18:21:57] yeah, so if you want to delete a particular line when doing a new revision, you run through a " 0123 DELETE" card to delete just card 0123, or "0123 DELETE THROUGH 0130" to delete a range [18:23:06] if you run through a card with the same number as one on tape, it just replaces it [18:23:27] or you can put in a card with a number in between two that are on tape and it will insert that new code in the right spot [18:25:17] right [18:52:10] but the card numbers overall in P40-P47 are the same between C249 and C55 -- but the SETPD VLOAD... sequence got new numbers, which means that for some reason those cards had to be repunched [19:00:22] I'm sure you tried this version, but they could have added the DELVSAB calculation and just moved the last part of the routine, the part above THETACON somewhere else [19:01:13] basically anywhere from S40.1 to THETACON could have been the insertion/goto [19:01:36] yeah true [19:01:48] the only thing I've really tried moving is the THETACON [19:04:50] but then why would the SETPD VLOAD... have been repunched [19:05:08] if they moved the end of the routine then they could have just inserted the VLOAD ABVAL... [19:06:43] right, it would have stayed the same between 45 and 51 [19:51:27] yes, acceleration, not accelerometer, lol [20:07:05] http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/mscforum/index.php?topic=178.msg23306#msg23306 [20:07:15] found my old post about the SPS gimbal drive [20:07:57] that was never going to work without using a different numerical method [20:42:12] yeah, our simulation is a very large set of interrelated differential equations. [20:42:17] makes sense [20:43:15] all of our system state propagation is done using Euler [21:07:43] yeah and there is not that much we can do about it [21:11:16] oh thewonderidiot, do you have a spare $1999? :D http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/016765.html [21:57:29] night [23:39:53] well, fingers crossed, but I think I got znc finially set up correctly [23:42:25] indy91, lol no, it's not worth that much. that guy has a habit of winning stuff in auctions, marking it up several thousand, and trying to sell it for like 5x normal market value :P [23:42:42] and nice! [23:42:45] ZNC is great :D [23:45:31] I have a couple raspberryPIs that I need to put to use [23:47:38] s/need/needed [01:11:15] yay! now it works with both mIRC and my phone. [01:11:51] sorry if I sent a bunch of weird connect/disconnect messages [01:32:41] hi. i was wondering, are there any up to date guides on how to do the apollo 11 scenario? [01:48:43] joqmos_ do you mean a specific scenario, or the whole mission? [02:05:27] in most cases, checklist MFD has been enough plus reading through the original flightplan [02:26:34] n7275: thanks, i figured out how to access the checklist [02:26:38] so many buttons! [02:27:38] also, has anyone experienced orbiter 2016 turning off ClearType? [02:34:40] there are a few options in the launcher settings [02:35:04] extras/performance options iirc [02:35:26] one of them disables cleartype [02:36:06] the other reënables cleartype on shutdown [02:37:59] but yes. its intentional. cleartype negatively effects orbiter's performance [02:38:37] back in the day, circa 2008 we used to manually disable and enable it when running orbiter [02:38:51] I think the options were added in back in the 2010 version [03:00:31] joqmos_ are you new to Orbiter or just to NASSP? [03:13:49] both haha [03:13:57] i'm completely out of my depth, n7275 [03:17:50] well, it'll be a learning process that's for sure. don't get discouraged. we're here to help [03:18:37] as far as missions go, Apollo 8 is probably the best one to start with [03:49:49] what does "ALT SET cont - as desired" mean [03:50:33] in the apollo 8 mission [04:01:38] help n7275? [04:32:41] just hit pro on the checklist mfd [04:33:55] its asking you to set the altitude for the ORDEAL system [04:38:31] by default it's set to 100 nmi so you don't have to change it at this point [04:39:14] https://web.archive.org/web/20100521081032/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740026211_1974026211.pdf [04:39:32] [not required reading] [04:45:17] hey, welcome joqmos_ :) [05:02:18] hey :) [05:18:36] aaand i gave up [05:18:59] i feel like i need to understand what i'm doing to be more successful but it seems a bit daunting [05:21:27] noooo [05:21:34] don't give up [05:22:46] eh i probably botched a couple steps that would've made me fail anyways [05:22:53] im gonna try again tomorrow [05:23:21] I've been using orbiter since 2006, and developing for NASSP since April, and there are still plenty of things I don't know how to do [05:38:18] The documents library on the VirtualAGC website is a great resource: https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/links.html [05:40:29] thanks :) [05:41:58] our organization is kind of a mess though so if there's a specific thing you're trying to look up don't hesitate to ask :P [05:45:02] I feel like we should have a sort of "usefulness" metric on that page or something... like "Symbolic Listing Information for Block 2" is hands down the best original documentation for AGC programming that exists, but it's mixed right in with a bunch of random documents that aren't super useful... and its title really does not make it stand out [06:34:26] thewonderidiot, agreed. [07:14:07] I have basic revision assemblies working in pyul :D [07:14:35] acceptor cards are correctly seeking to log sections, and I'm able to replace or insert cards [07:14:40] no delete support quite yet [16:13:04] hey alex [16:14:48] hows Florida? [19:28:53] good evening [19:34:41] morning! [19:39:54] what's up? [19:53:43] messing with yul revision assemblies [20:02:03] ah great [20:04:05] I just learned about INSERT merge director cards, which are handy [20:04:15] apparently a later addition to Yul [20:04:33] sounds like git [20:04:37] or at least, Hugh liked it [20:04:49] ANOTHER TYPE OF MERGE CONTROL CARD THAT SHOULD BECOME POPULAR HAS THE OP CODE "INSERT". [20:04:55] I didn't notice the "SHOULD" when I first read that :P [20:05:56] it lets you insert a group of unnumbered cards at a specific spot, with Yul automatically calculating the new numbers for you [20:06:20] and also lets you insert cards out of order wherever you want, although I don't know why you would want to do that [20:13:48] So I can just do `yul insert *; yul commit -m "Implement BURN BABY BURN"; yul push"? :p [20:14:27] nah you need a TINS card to make a new log section like that :P [20:18:07] when yo do "yul remote" and remember the Internet hasn't been invented yet [20:19:05] ARPAnet was around late '69 [20:23:48] hey guys [20:24:00] I think the closest thing to "yul remote" is tranferred assemblies between tapes :P [20:24:07] n7275, sorry I was afk for a while [20:24:21] its quite nice, warm and sunny [20:24:35] hi im coming back for my 2nd try [20:25:55] n7275 what was the document you told me about yesterday that was really useful? [20:25:57] also o/ [20:26:32] hey [20:28:03] Hey joqmos, welcome [20:28:13] AlexB_88, nice, meanwhile we are having our first night with sub zero temperatures :D [20:30:17] heyy, are y'all the developers? [20:30:20] that's crazy [20:31:17] i haven't gotten the thing off the pad yet, but it's really impressive [20:31:22] most of the people here are NASSP developers in one way or another, yeah [20:31:45] :o [20:32:05] thanks! it takes a few hours to get it off the pad using the standard launch scenarios haha [20:32:36] well if anything it shows you were successful in accurately simulating it [20:32:39] ;) [20:32:40] feel free to ask any questions [20:32:56] Atleast this is the place to find them, we're here pretty much every day. Forums aren't really used for discussion, this is quicker to discuss things. [20:33:21] Glad you like it so far. It's going to be a long but interesting journey. We're always glad to help and answer any questions [20:33:24] i feel like i'm a bit out of my depth, is there a good place to start? [20:33:29] i'm trying to do apollo 8 [20:34:04] it's not the most exciting thing, but follow the Checklist MFD for the prelaunch procedures does teach you the way around the cockpit [20:34:07] are you using the MFD? [20:34:10] ye [20:34:33] there is also a button to make the required buttons flash, I think it's not enabled by default [20:34:40] my thing is i feel like i'm pushing buttons without purpose [20:34:46] right [20:35:08] Apollo 8 is a good way to start. I started out with 7 back in the day and since it is so filled with complex activities it was a challenge. The Checklist MFD is a godsend for know when to press what button but it doesn't really give you an idea of why you're pressing it. [20:36:06] I can highly recommend looking into the Vol. 1 Apollo Operating Handbooks (AOH for short). Each subsystem is broken down into chapters where their operation is explained in detail. [20:36:07] eventually the buttons you are pushing will have a purpose. And one good thing to read is the Apollo Operations Handbook which explains a lot of it [20:36:13] yep :D [20:36:42] https://history.nasa.gov/afj/aohindex.html [20:37:40] Vol. 2 contains all the checklists, even for stuff like contingencies and malfunction. 99% of the procedures in the handbooks apply to NASSP, with the exception being the checklists applying to the 'human factor' like hooking up urine tubes and stuff. [20:38:06] um [20:38:09] urine tubes? [20:38:10] nvm [20:38:58] The checklist MFD directly uses the checklists from those handbooks. It's the ultimate test case to know if NASSP is working right, if the checklists used to operate the real thing work for us we know we've done a good job implementing it. [20:42:20] back in a bit [21:00:27] indy91, haha sorry to hear... Ill be heading back to the cold tomorrow [21:06:39] I'm still struggling a bit making the orbital guidance of the LVDC update universally applicable, especially for the Apollo 9 sequence of attitude maneuvers. But I should be able to work on it tomorrow and with that the update should be done soon [21:08:56] really want to get back to the RTCC side of things [21:17:42] nice! this has been a long update [21:21:51] sure has [22:24:59] night" [22:25:00] ! [22:38:58] n7275: Won't this code always go to status = 2 after 100 timesteps making it effectively useless? https://github.com/orbiternassp/NASSP/blob/ccf27803679bee361b591b980053b5626813c4e0/Orbitersdk/samples/ProjectApollo/src_sys/PanelSDK/Internals/Esystems.cpp#L428 [22:39:09] This is already present in Orbiter2016 [22:46:29] Hmm [22:47:36] I think the || status == 1 part needs to be removed [22:47:39] old code [22:52:50] ehh, no actually [22:54:07] There shouldn't be anything right now that makes the fuel cells go into the "starting" status [22:54:53] when SPSDK calls initfromfile(), they're initalized to '0' -- "running" [22:54:55] is it normal for terrain to be white in the apollo 8 scenario? [22:55:42] no... [22:56:11] all terain? [22:56:20] as far as i can see at least [22:57:32] did you follow this? https://www.orbiter-forum.com/threads/nassp-8-installation-guide.36801/ [22:58:50] my bad [22:58:56] darn orbiter uses svn [22:58:58] *shivers* [23:00:32] hey, its not CVS... [23:01:05] that's what i was thinking. double yikes [23:04:14] n7275: Ooh I get it now, I was confused by the startup stuff. That code is to bring it from running to stop and not the other way around [23:06:00] the startup code probably needs to be a lot more complex, once we simulate rollout and all that fun stuff [23:07:36] but it should never be called right now [23:16:09] but yes. that's for stopping not for starting [23:16:26] Are the fuel cells specced to 31V? I see you changed that. [23:24:04] I couldn't find an exact spec open circuit voltage, but "almost exactly 1 volt per cell" x 31 cells, and a spec range of "27-31 volts" lead me to change it to 31 [23:27:01] Makes sense [23:27:21] fixed the textures! thanks n7275 [23:27:22] Just reviewd it for you. Looks good functionally, excited to play around with it on 8 [23:31:55] joqmos: Nice to hear that it's working. Let us know if you're missing anything documentation wise on getting started with NASSP it's one of the blocking things for NASSP 8 release we still need to work on. [23:32:04] Next to Orbiter going out of Beta (iif ever) [23:36:56] there are a lot of spaces that should be tabs in some of these old files... [23:38:12] Yeah, it's a nightmare in some places [23:39:47] looks like that was half of my indentation problem [23:39:53] should be fixed now [23:40:24] Wrong tag in the commit message btw :p [23:41:40] I wanted that username but he beat me to it [23:41:42] ahhhhh [23:41:44] dammit [23:42:24] I should change mine to something more obvious than appending a random character haha [23:42:48] aaaaaaaaaaand we have lift-off [23:42:56] Congratulations! [23:43:00] started from the t-20 min scenario [23:43:12] i was doing the full t-4:00:00 before [23:43:16] Sweet! [23:43:36] Yeah, it's a good start. T-4h can be daunting to start with [23:44:56] oh weird. I wonder if other-Thymo knows Martin [23:46:52] What makes you think he does? [23:48:46] lol [23:48:56] I looked him up, he's from the same town as me [23:50:48] Okay, what did you do? [23:50:57] That didn't go well [23:52:05] You added another commit and merge commit on top of the old one without making any changes [23:52:44] If you hard reset to 4dc8965 and then do git commit --amend to change the message and do a force push you're fine [23:53:12] okay [23:53:33] walk me through this so I don't break anything else [23:54:47] git reset --hard 4dc8965 [23:54:48] git commit --amend [23:54:48] [23:54:49] git push --force [23:59:01] should be fixed [23:59:17] so sorry about that mixup [00:03:43] Looks good [00:03:52] Sorry for the shitty username haha [00:04:06] I'll have to come up with something better [00:21:55] random question [00:22:32] was the saturn v ever able to lift-off on its own, i.e. without input from mission control [00:29:13] A lot of preparation goes into it, the computer has a lot of data it needs to know where it is and in what orbit it needs to go. Most of that data was loaded in advance but things like orientation data (i.e. what way the vehicle is pointed) were continously updated all the way up to GRR (guidance reference release) a couple seconds before launch, after that it was pretty much hands off. [00:30:46] I'm not sure what would happen if all updates from MCC stopped but I'm sure it wouldn't be good. Probably a shutdown, at worst an auto abort at or just after launch because the computer thinks the sky is where the ocean is and tries to do a belly flop [00:32:01] As an example of the hands of nature of the launch phase, when an engine failed during the launch of Apollo 13 the IU (Instrumentation Unit that housed all the computers) automatically corrected by burning the engines a little longer [00:32:52] huh [00:44:43] it's a lot more like building a pyramid, than it is like taking the car around the block [00:46:38] it's like building a pyramid and riding it into space? [00:47:27] with a lot of procedures, yes [00:55:34] n7275: You should have enough rights to merge that PR now that you're in the organisation, I think. [01:05:07] doesn't look like I'm authorized [01:10:36] Probably a branch protection thing [01:10:37] Merged [01:10:48] I think I'm in the same user group as Alex, Ryan and Mike. Can they merge things? [01:11:28] its probably best if I can't...maybe we can revisit that in a year or so, lol [01:20:04] maybe it thought you were rewriting history? [01:25:32] no, I think I'd need to be a group owner, not just a member to merge into the the Orbiter2016 branch [14:31:17] n7275: I have an issue with the new fuel cells. When they are disconnected from the bus the demand drops to 0 and the pumps stop, that then results in them outputting 0V and shorting the main bus when you reconnect them. [14:31:40] I also fixed a save/load issue as it broke all scenarios that were not t-4h [14:35:01] Hey [14:35:07] hey Thymo [14:35:17] are we breaking things? :D [14:35:27] Only temporarily :p [14:36:32] I should have ran Matt's PR before merging it. I just tried it and because two new paramerters were inserted in the middle of the fuell cell string my temperature of 480°F is now read as clogging value [14:36:51] Essentially plugging all my fuell cells shut causing them to drop off the line [14:37:05] yeah that doesn't sound so good [14:39:24] PR is up to fix it [14:40:07] 1 sec [14:40:11] that sscanf should work with the longer and shorter version of the string, right? [14:40:41] Forgot a comment [14:41:01] Yeah, 0.00 is the same as 0.0000 [14:41:48] And the current value for clogging is replaced by a 0 on saving and completely ignored when loading [14:41:54] That's what that asterisk does [14:42:35] ah [14:42:40] I meant for old scenarios [14:42:48] where the string has a smaller number of parameters [14:43:01] Yeah, doesn't matter either [14:43:10] as long as the new parameters are at the end [14:43:43] I mean techincally, sscanf will return an error value that not all values were loaded but it will still load the others [14:43:50] yeah [14:44:18] The return value is the number of arguments successfully filled [14:44:30] so there now is separate H2 and O2 clogging [14:44:37] Yes [14:45:19] so clogg was previously saved [14:45:28] but it would always be 0, right? [14:45:42] can't we for backwards compatibility load that as either H2 or O2 [14:45:50] and then put the other one at the end of the string [14:45:51] Yes, because clogging was disabled although supported [14:46:03] that way we don't have a random 0 in the save string [14:46:29] Hmm, should work [14:46:52] I think that's a bit cleaner [14:48:22] and also doesn't break old scenarios :D [14:48:44] Testing now [14:52:47] Check now [14:55:38] any particular reason for 0.4f vs. 0.10f? [14:56:04] is lf better there than f? [14:56:15] but otherwise, without building and testing it, that should be fine [14:58:04] That's the temperature and power load, it already was that way. Don't know if increasing precision will have a noticeable effect, probably not. [14:58:37] %lf is to read in a double, You can't do %f since they're read into pointers so they aren't automatically promoted [14:59:04] oh hi. I guess I should've asked what out policy on supporting older scenarios was [14:59:58] always support older scenarios if possible [15:00:20] I think causing CTDs on all older scenarios is a no-go [15:00:34] otherwise we can always talk about it [15:01:10] I saw you mention it had a incompatability with the zeroes, that shouldn't have been an issue since 0.00 and 0.000 are the same values. I was kinda surprised when I had all buses drop off the line though :p [15:01:43] my upcoming LVDC update will have the LVDC inert and not do anything in older scenarios. But that only affects the first few hours of a mission, I don't think I would want to do that to the CSM [15:02:30] I should've paid better attention to the save load changes. But it's a dev build so it's not a super big deal if it breaks from time to time. [15:02:53] n7275: There is still that issue with disconnecting fuel cells, they die when you do that. [15:03:58] This is not just limited to disconnecting either, If you somehow manage to short out a fuel cell while it's on the bus it will also die. [15:04:05] yeah, it wasn't a big deal and easily fixed [15:05:14] Can I get a seal of approval on that PR then? [15:06:12] you can [15:06:34] Well, I'll take that into consideration going forward. I have flown Apollo 8 from -4 to the first o2 purge. that was my main focus as a test case. [15:08:31] it makes my brain hurt sometimes [15:08:36] I do one small change and think [15:08:50] how could this break Apollo 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 or 17 [15:09:12] and 5 [15:14:53] n7275: What document did you reference for this? I need to check some stuff [15:15:50] https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ApolloProjectOnline/Documents/SMA2A-03-BLOCK%20II%20Volume%201%2019691015/aoh-v1-2-06-eps.pdf [15:17:34] and the CSM 114 systems handbook, drawing 3.1-3.2 [15:21:11] Okay, I wanna know how they implemented throttling. Now the thrust gets stuck at 0 without load (power_load / max_power) and is unable to recover because power_load = Ampers * Volts and Volts is 0 [15:23:46] crap. [15:24:30] from the schematics, it's just pressure regulators on the supply [15:24:56] they should respond fairly quickly [15:26:03] Sidenote, We should also take a look at the power merge stuff used in systems feeding from both MnA and MnB because if one bus is shorted their should be protective diodes but right now that system just fails [15:26:52] and if there's current flow, reactants should be able to move. [15:28:36] Yeah but 1 amp * 0 volts is still 0 [15:28:47] yep, no good [15:29:46] I'd expect the fuel cell to still remain at or slightly below operatiing voltage when it is open circuit [15:30:23] yeah it should, I'll look at it in a minute. [15:36:46] Reading the AOH the terminal voltage is proportional to the skin temperature [15:38:05] And the regulators just regulate the pressure relative to the N2 pressure, but we don't currently simulate the latter. In any case the higher the load, the lower the reactant pressure the higher the regulators regulate [15:49:20] https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/HSI-41539.pdf [15:49:34] This also has some nice numbers on fuell cell operating data and limits [15:52:56] oh my... so many graphs [15:52:59] I can work with this [15:55:21] I'm going to read through all of sections 3.1 and 4.1 and then I should be able to impliment better temperature behavior [16:03:42] The study guide also provides a description on how the fuel cells are activated by GSE [16:03:42] https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/ApolloTrainingElectricalPowerSystemStudyGuide.pdf [16:10:44] It's from '65 though so still mostly aimed at block 1 [16:10:59] Same principles apply though [16:52:30] morning! [17:03:32] Hey Mike [17:23:23] what's up? [17:32:59] Not much been reading some EPS documentation and messing and finishing off some research for college [17:33:47] still working on LVDC orbital guidance [18:33:49] 0018 REF 2 LAST 126 4401 52 073 1 DXCH NEWLOC [18:33:49] 0019 REF 2 LAST 126 4402 3 4444 1 CAF EXECBANK [18:33:50] 0020 * DELETE THRU 25 [18:33:51] 0026 REF 73 LAST 126 4403 3 0002 0 CA Q [18:33:51] 0027 REF 9 LAST 34 4404 22 006 1 +3 LXCH BBANK [18:33:53] delete cards working :D [18:35:01] awesome [18:37:41] although assembly rejection is definitely very broken and I'm not sure how to handle it quite yet, haha [18:44:20] one mystery with this whole orbital guidance is Earth orbital alternative missions [18:44:43] I know that they could uplink something to the LVDC to inhibit TLI and allow TD&E in Earth orbit [18:45:04] but I have found 0 information on what attitude and what time that TD&E maneuver would be [18:45:09] oh weird [18:46:01] an Apollo 12 document about separation procedures just gives the exact same IMU angles as normal TD&E on the way to the Moon [18:46:29] I find that quite unlikely, that attitude is calculated from locally referenced pitch and yaw angles, which are immediately inertially frozen [18:46:51] so it might use the same local reference angles, as you still would want similar lighting conditions [18:47:12] but there is nothing in the presettings for this [18:47:32] maybe it was hardcoded and not changed from mission to mission or so [18:49:54] it's basically the Apollo 9 profile [18:50:04] but I have conflicting information about that as well [18:52:22] another very weak hint about attitude maneuvers is an Apollo 13 LVDC flagword [18:52:31] it has inhibits for maneuvers 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 13 [18:52:49] I feel like maneuvers 1 and 2 are the attitude hold just after first S-IVB cutoff [18:53:03] and maneuver 2 is 20 seconds later, maneuver to local horizontal [18:53:31] maybe 3, 4 and 5 are a sequence that gets enabled if TLI is inhibited [18:53:38] and then there is a gap and 9-11 are TB7 maneuvers [18:53:44] and 13 a TB8 maneuver [18:53:50] yes, very weak hints... [19:01:37] hahahaha [19:04:50] if maneuver 7 is the TB6 local horizontal hold just before TLI then there is a gap for every time base [19:04:59] so maybe a table of 14 maneuvers [19:05:18] and the last maneuver in each time base is set at a time of 99999999.9 seconds so that it never happens [19:06:05] it makes sense in my head [19:07:43] hehehe sometimes that is all that matters :D [19:08:45] and not even you can help me as the AS-206RAM logic for this all is certainly different [19:08:50] even the EDD is also slightly helpful [19:08:54] only* [19:09:02] the EDD is also for a generic Skylab launch [19:09:31] so it doesn't actually define much in terms of attitude maneuvers, the two special maneuver sequences you can define etc. [19:09:51] and it's early Skylab, they added a time base for deorbiting the S-IVB/IU which is not in the EDD [19:36:16] heh [19:36:29] so do you know what document would actually have a concrete answer, if we had it? [19:51:57] Saturn V LVDC listing :D [19:52:12] I'm sure there is some memo about it at UHCL, have to search for it [19:52:56] there is a memo mentioned in the Apollo 9 SCOT with TD&E angles for the LVDC and the reason behind them, but UHCL doesn't have it [19:53:08] Saturn V EDD of course could have the answer [19:53:14] probably [19:54:34] interesting variable names in the Apollo 14 LVOT [19:54:47] I think they confirm the maneuver numbers [19:55:10] T7M9 is begin maneuver to local horizontal in TB7 [19:55:21] T7M10 maneuver to sep attitude [19:56:05] then it seems to be one less maneuver than where I got the flagwords from, because there is no 11 [19:56:18] T8M12 is maneuver to LOX dump attitude in TB8 [20:01:21] hahaha [20:01:23] nice sleuthing :D [20:02:04] that list of mode codes with the maneuver inhibits could be outdated, as it has one more TB7 maneuver [20:02:47] or maybe just provisions for one [20:02:59] don't think any of the previous missions did more maneuvers there [20:07:40] but I think I'll go with this table of maneuvers, that's probably fairly close to what was actually coded. And it should apply to Apollo 9 as well [20:16:54] indy91: Did you know you have control of the engines using numpad + and - during launch? [20:17:06] yeaaaaah [20:17:41] Good thing, I pressed - and I got an auto abort [20:17:47] so, you can disable that by not making the Saturn thrusters engine groups that Orbiter has control over [20:17:48] Because the engines stopped [20:17:54] but [20:18:06] we have to do some sound coding for the engines then [20:18:19]