[17:09:12] NASSP Logging has been started by alexb_88 [17:09:14] piece of cake :D [17:10:00] you should just history delete all old maneuvers when they have been done [17:12:47] what I want to do for the MCC is the same steps as in MPT mode in the RTCC MFD [17:13:23] after the TLI PAD has been displayed TLI can be deleted from the MPT, but there are a few minutes between TLI simulation and the abort Maneuver PADs to the TLI PAD [17:13:32] so I kind of had to implement saving [17:28:01] morning! [17:32:46] hey Mike [19:38:35] one worry I had before working on mission plan table saving was that I had this in it: [19:38:42] union [19:38:42] { [19:38:43] //ExtDVCoordInd and [19:38:43] int Word67i[2]; [19:38:44] //R_N or P for TLI [19:38:45] double Word67d; [19:38:46] }; [19:39:37] apparently it's undefined behavior if I just use Word67d for saving [19:39:53] if it Word67i was actually "active" [19:40:43] there is another union even [19:41:16] but luckily I know when it uses which value [19:41:36] so when saving I do [19:41:40] if (AttitudeCode == RTCC_ATTITUDE_SIVB_IGM) [19:41:41] { [19:41:41] papiWriteScenario_double(scn, "Word67d", Word67d); [19:41:42] } [19:41:43] else [19:41:43] { [19:41:45] papiWriteScenario_intarr(scn, "Word67i", Word67i, 2); [19:41:47] } [19:41:55] and for loading I let it check for both [19:41:57] papiReadScenario_double(line, "Word67d", Word67d); [19:41:57] papiReadScenario_intarr(line, "Word67i", Word67i, 2); [20:00:43] hmmmm [20:01:08] yeah I'd be worried about precision loss changing the value on you [20:01:19] and depending on what those ints are you could end up with NaNs or denormalized numbers [20:02:04] oh but yeah if you know when to use ints and when to use doubles that works [20:03:05] yeah, luckily I do know [20:03:31] it's only TLI that uses the one version, in both unions [20:05:00] who knows what lunar ascent and descent are doing, but I don't have any RTCC documentation on those anyway :D [20:14:21] in the list of RTCC modules and tables I have there is a pattern, if it lacks a name then it has to be a recent addition [20:14:37] sometimes I am desperate enough to decide that I "know" what those are doing just based on that :D [20:16:50] so it just says PMMLWP [20:17:01] PMMLLWP* [20:17:13] in that case, Lunar Launch Window Processor, LLWP, easy :D [20:18:32] hahaha [20:18:59] sometimes it is amazing how much information can be pulled out of tiny clues [20:20:01] still thinking about JZXIFTAB [20:20:07] J is lunar ascent/descent [20:20:10] Z is a table [20:20:15] rest could be anything [20:20:35] might be the descent targets for PDI [20:25:54] could also be system parameters instead of in a table. Anything that is constant for a mission is usually simply a system parameter, global variable [20:31:26] but I think I said before, most of the IBM RTCC documents contain the programs of the LMSP, Lunar Mission Simulation Program, which I believe supports Mission E at most, not lunar orbit [20:31:51] some program flows are for LLP, Lunar Landing Program [20:32:02] but that is usually the state of development of Apollo 8 [20:32:11] so, what even is a lunar descent? :D [20:34:27] hehehe [21:13:18] I like how I discover a bunch of uninitialized variables thanks to implementing saving [21:13:21] like [21:13:22] Word82 -92559631349317830736831783200707727132248687965119994463780864.000000000000 [21:14:52] something worse than that actually crashes [21:33:04] hahahah [21:33:10] yeah that is not a very nice looking number [21:37:21] was kind of pointless to call it Word82, as only the TLI guidance uses that variable [21:37:31] but I didn't know, could have been dual purpose [21:57:13] night! [00:27:14] hells yeah [00:27:21] just won something incredibly cool on ebay [01:23:51] oh? [01:24:19] now I'm interested [02:14:16] n7275_: sorry got distracted lol, one sec [02:17:02] n7275_: https://imgur.com/a/RHWYdTz [02:35:13] did you have to sell a kidney? [02:37:12] that's amazing [02:54:00] haha nope [02:54:51] I got all of it for $434... which is less than $2.50 per drawing [02:55:31] (and that's ignoring all of the memos and manuals and stuff that's also in the lot) [02:56:07] er, bad math, $5.50 per drawing, which is still not too shabby [02:56:53] damn, that's a good find. [03:52:55] yeah I'm super stoked :D [03:53:03] I need to figure out how to best scan them [03:53:17] also holy shit we may have just made a major Comanche 45 discovery [03:54:20] .tell indy91 I need help digging up as much info about PCR 747 ("Remove TVCDAP initial attitude errors") as we possibly can [14:05:12] morning [14:24:46] hey [14:26:47] well, there is a bit of confusion about that [14:27:01] Hey guys [14:27:35] hey Thymo [14:27:46] what is getting removed there [14:27:57] remove "TVCDAP initial attitude errors" [14:28:00] or [14:28:18] remove attitude errors [14:30:14] Mike managed to solve bank 17 in Comanche 45 [14:30:25] it has a separate fix from the one we were working on [14:30:35] so the magic to fully solve it is all in bank 16 [14:36:20] nice [14:39:41] mike also won some drawings on ebay last night [14:45:45] looks like drawings of the Surveyor spacecraft? [14:46:22] I think Alex wanted to make a new model of it for NASSP and Apollo 12 [14:46:30] might be useful for that [14:51:44] yep, Surveyor. [16:21:57] I'm hitting a wall with this eps cooling project. may need a different approach [16:26:04] morning! [16:31:26] hey mike [16:33:13] hey [16:33:32] "Added a possible implementation of PCR 747" [16:34:02] I thought PCR 747 was the one that added ATTINIT, not something that bypasses it [16:35:51] PCR 747 is "Remove TVCDAP initial attitude errors", and ATTINIT is what calculates initial attitude errors [16:37:12] in Comanche 55, ATTINIT is bypassed for CSM/LM [16:37:13] hmm, I was never sure if it doesn't mean remove as in null attitude errors [16:37:42] then it must have been added with the larger DAP update [16:37:50] PCR 656 [16:38:21] that's my thought, yeah [16:38:36] it's also the last PCR in the list, so 747 must have been very late [16:38:53] thinking is that they removed it with this single-instruction patch between Comanche 44 and 45 [16:39:06] because it wasn't restart protected [16:39:07] and then did the CSM-alone thing as a more proper fix between 45 and 51 [16:39:19] nah, I don't think the restart protection is necessarily involved here [16:40:46] so what does ACB-30 apply to then [16:41:10] and why did they do PCR 747 at all then. Because they noticed it's bad for CSM/LM docked? [16:41:14] the GSOP section 3 revision history somewhat supports this -- rev 4 was for Comanche 44 and rev 5 was for 45/2, and PCR 747 is in rev 5 [16:41:21] yeah that's my guess [16:41:36] and didn't have time for proper fix [16:45:27] I really want to see revs 4 and 5 of the GSOP, haha [16:45:32] NARA has both [16:46:12] haha yeah [16:48:23] so, coming from Colossus 249, when I first tried Comanche and Artemis, I definitely did notice the transient at ignition [16:48:32] that's the initial attitude error being nulled out quickly [16:48:47] later GSOP even mentions that it would lead to engine excursions for CSM/LM docked, so it's not done [16:50:51] oh wow [16:51:04] I must be stupid, why did I not notice this before [16:51:10] DAP postflight analysis [16:51:12] Apollo 11 [16:51:48] "Only one significant change was made to the TVC DAP between the Apollo 10 and 11 missions" [16:52:08] and it describes PCR 749 [16:52:24] that definitely means that Apollo 10 didn't fly this feature [16:52:55] and it then goes on with an analysis of TEI which behaved differently to Apollo 10 because of that change [16:53:15] TEI [16:53:17] yes [16:53:20] only TEI [16:53:34] so I think that supports PCR 747 skipping over ATTINIT right? [16:53:37] yes [16:53:47] TEI was the only undocked SPS burn [16:54:02] and neither on Apollo 10 or 11 was ATTINIT used for CSM/LM burns [16:55:39] I think I had talked about this passage of the DAP postflight analysis, but didn't conclude that ATTINIT can't have been used [16:55:46] on 10 [16:56:11] "The software change was implemented to improve the short-burn cross-axis velocity cutoff errors" [16:56:23] Yeah that's what definitely gets improved a lot [16:56:27] it's very snappy at ignition [16:56:39] to quickly go to the required attitude [16:56:45] hey [16:56:49] hey Alec [16:56:50] x [16:57:00] I made up a new name for you [16:57:44] and my last name is Baldwin :P [16:57:50] lol [16:58:08] I was thinking of Alec Guinness, but that works lol [16:58:46] well anyway, I think bank 17 is solved. Anything else we need to figure out about it, Mike? [16:58:47] man so it's a really good thing we decided to skip 45 and go to 44, since the answer seems to be that ATTINIT was there but they patched it to skip over it without deleting the code [16:59:05] I guess we need to figure out if anything else went in other than COM-4 and PCR 747 [16:59:21] in bank 16 [16:59:26] yeah [17:01:25] ACB-30 seems to be in bank 24? if I'm thinking of the right thing? [17:02:14] what would that be? [17:02:19] or rather where [17:02:52] https://github.com/virtualagc/virtualagc/blob/master/Comanche044/P40-P47.agc#L553 [17:02:56] that's what I'm thinking [17:03:08] based on the comment and being surrounded by restart protection stuff [17:03:44] ah, so ACB-30 made it into Comanche 44? [17:03:50] I think so? [17:04:05] if it didn't then it must be in bank 16 [17:04:17] and also not be present in Comanche 55 if so [17:04:29] right [17:05:27] yeah that has to be it [17:05:46] but it's probably a good idea to think about other possible changes in bank 16 [17:06:01] there should be a good chance that it works without another one though [17:06:31] if we go off of change bars on that memo [17:08:32] entry roll error on downlist (PCR 746) would be in bank 5 (module 1) [17:09:03] PCR 735 (Powered list for P11) is also bank 5 stuff [17:09:14] then PCR 734 is new K2,K3 fixed constants, which we have [17:10:02] N73 is PCR 730 [17:10:09] K1 & FANG in erasable, PCR 729 [17:10:15] attitude in N62 above moon, P47 [17:10:21] (PCR 728) [17:10:43] and then ACB-30 [17:10:45] and that's it [17:13:08] http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ScansForConversion/Comanche055/0696.jpg [17:13:12] so it's the same as before, just that we put the fix at the end of bank 16 instead of 17 [17:13:43] not that this necessarily means anything, but those lines we think might be ACB-30 do have punch card numbers implying they were inserted later [17:14:11] yeah pretty much [17:27:17] it's annoying now because we have to solve the whole thing at once and can't divide it into the bank 16 part and the bank 17 part lol [17:42:28] on the other hand, they didn't put something at the end of both banks [17:45:15] AlexB_88, using the MCC and messing around with the RTCC MFD in MPT mode can lead to problems, not much I can do about that [17:45:21] but [17:45:43] what I will try to do is make it work without problems with the RTCC MFD in non MPT mode [17:46:07] right [17:46:16] the only things the MFD and MCC should share in that case are e.g. update liftoff time [17:46:34] but that shouldn't be a problem [17:46:50] better even, you don't have to update it in the RTCC MFD [17:46:56] I wonder, can you change the mission constants that MCC uses with the RTCC MFD, while in MCC mode? [17:47:26] not that there would be any reason for it, just out of curiosity [17:47:31] yes [17:47:43] which can lead to the MCC failing to work [17:48:07] you can also probably watch the MCC do work in the RTCC MFD [17:48:20] like, the MPT display [17:48:25] ah, cool [17:48:26] suddenly maneuvers will appear :D [17:49:15] MCC can now build the full TLI PAD with the MPT features [17:49:25] I think I'll fly a complete Apollo 8 mission and update the MCC [17:49:33] new TLMCC targeting, new LOI etc. [17:51:33] I guess there are a few interesting things you can do with the MFD to manipulate the MCC [17:51:59] changing the landing site or so [17:54:03] yeah [18:11:03] btw indy91 would you mind summarizing your PCR 747 finding on the issue? [18:25:50] sure [18:37:57] MIT E-2409, "COLOSSUS 2, TVC DAP Simulation Results," April 1969 [18:38:19] Apollo 11 DAP Postflight Analysis has this has preflight testing of the TVC DAP change [18:40:15] NARA has that [18:40:42] so does NTRS [18:40:49] 19690081692 Colossus 2 TVC DAP simulation results 1969 [18:41:55] but not available to the common folk [18:42:16] Apollo 11 DAP Postflight Analysis says* [19:07:29] AlexB_88, you were playing with the idea to build a model of the Surveyor for NASSP, right? [19:07:38] Mike might have something for you soon... [19:10:28] thanks! [19:12:57] also for the other things listed as having changed in GSOP section 3 from rev 4 to rev 5 [19:13:00] and the number of documents I have downloaded about Surveyor jumped from 0 to 10 [19:14:01] I'm correct in thinking that the GSOP sometimes lagged behind the code right? so it's not reasonable to expect that e.g. PCR 220 "Colossus Entry Logic Modifications" was between Comanche 44 and 45 even though that's where it was revised in the GSOP [19:17:17] good list [19:17:25] NTRS has some documents as well [19:17:38] including a list of document numbers [19:18:26] and yeah, the GSOP is sometimes a bit behind [19:21:46] indy91, yeah for Apollo 12 [19:22:14] I already have a mesh for it locally but its not mine [19:23:01] some drawings might help [19:23:11] thewonderidiot, PCR 220 even appears in section 5 of the GSOP [19:23:58] hmm [19:23:58] weird [19:24:14] earlier than Colossus 237 [19:24:19] hah [19:25:37] maybe there was a small change relevant for section 3 that they forgot to add [19:26:27] https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/COL72.pdf [19:26:36] page 2 [19:27:28] not sure what would be relevant for the Entry DAP there [19:27:42] maybe the first item, but I don't know the entry DAP well [19:28:27] oh nice find [19:30:27] section 3 has a fairly complete description of the entry programs, not just the DAP [19:30:37] so I bet it's a small editorial change that was missed [19:31:09] cool yeah makes sense [19:31:14] alright so what else is listed for rev 5 [19:31:48] PCR 766, "Fix P63 Logic" [19:32:00] PCR 767, "TVC Data Correction" [19:32:39] those sound like editorial changes as well, especially since they're not even listed in the Comanche 45 list of changes memo [19:32:43] section 3 has neither [19:32:45] 5* [19:34:12] the PCR numbers are fairly large [19:45:31] Fix P63 logic doesn't sound very editorial [19:50:11] could have been a flowchart error they noticed or something [19:50:55] yeah [19:56:50] this would be so much easier if it wasn't interpretive [22:10:22] I think I asked this before, but I think I'd rather have the RTCC being a namespace than one giant class. But I am not quite sure what the best way to do it is [22:10:51] there are system parameters, global variables, which have to be available everywhere [22:10:58] in the RTCC [22:11:20] then, there a bunch of functions in the RTCC which are basically classes [22:11:34] with "subfunctions" and class wide variables [22:11:57] not sure how that really worked in the real RTCC, but it's quite similar to a class [22:12:11] the TLI simulation for example [22:12:21] module name PMMSIU [22:12:32] but it has about 10 functions under that name PMMSIU [22:12:42] it needs access to a lot of RTCC system parameters [22:12:57] right now I give a pointer to the RTCC class to the TLIGuidanceSim class for that [22:13:05] doesn't seem like a great solution [22:17:51] There can't really be any access restrictions like in modern coding practices [22:17:58] everything has access to everything [22:53:22] night! [17:26:58] morning! [17:29:30] hey Mike [17:29:37] what's up? [17:30:20] flying a bit of Apollo 8 to see what all I can update in the MCC [17:31:19] and someone on the forum asked about a Earth-Moon transit plotboard they had in the MOCR, so I of course had to look up how it worked [17:31:31] haha of course [17:32:10] plotboard manual entry device codes and programs all start with a W [17:33:16] always good to know so I know what to look for [17:34:23] there were quite a few displays in the MOCR and SSRs [17:34:27] staff support rooms [17:34:32] basically mini MOCRs [17:35:44] a lot of them showed phase specific displays [17:36:03] https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/the-map-display-in-the-mission-operations-control-room-of-the-mission-picture-id1157144178?s=2048x2048 [17:36:18] that's the configuration in the translunar and transearth phases [17:38:11] that's the central plotboard [17:38:30] oh cool [17:38:51] the ones on the side were more configurable [17:40:12] there is a launch display I have already implemented in the RTCC MFD [17:40:26] it could be shown on both the plotboards or the individual screens of the flight controllers [18:03:54] iirc the actual display itself was created by a scriber cutting through foil on a glass plate [18:05:08] with a very powerful xenon lamp [18:06:06] ah, very interesting [18:06:59] if we were to implement it we probably have to store it in digital data [18:07:15] or paint on a bitmap or so :D [18:07:30] for the EMS we have it like this [18:07:32] SCRIBEPNTARRAY0 40 1 [18:07:32] SCRIBEPNTARRAY1 67 1 [18:07:33] SCRIBEPNTARRAY2 67 2 [18:07:38] so lots of data points [18:16:39] I like the bitmap idea. a lot of points, but it's closer to the physical reality. [18:17:50] yeah [18:17:51] but if you wanted a higher resolution rendered outside of the simulation, you're out of luck [18:17:56] true [18:18:53] How about vector? [18:21:35] sure, but that also requires saving lots of data [18:22:16] I am fairly sure there would be one data point every 12 seconds [18:26:45] hmm [18:26:54] not super convinced of that anymore [18:27:17] it's 6 seconds in some cases, it might be a larger interval for something like the Earth/Moon transit plot [18:30:08] should be 12 [18:54:54] is there a list if all the main displays? [18:55:01] *of [18:56:43] yes [18:56:46] HSI-209462 [18:56:54] one of the documents I gave you [18:57:25] PDF page 472 etc have a list of display formats for the small TV screens [18:57:44] plotboards on page 496 [19:02:16] awesome. [19:09:01] I'm a bit confused about the number of plotboards [19:09:38] there is a central one that can either be split in 3x20 and 7x20, upper and lower half [19:09:41] or two 10x10 [19:10:01] and then there is only one other 10x10 plotboard to the right [19:10:41] and to the left there are projectors, but I don't think they are driven dynamically [19:10:49] standard overhead projectors [19:10:59] and all the way to the right they usually have a TV feed [19:11:40] hmm [19:12:21] in some TV footage it does look like the one all the way to the right is driven dynamically, but it looks different [19:33:12] I would have to imagine they're fairly configurable. [19:33:40] separate projector for tv [19:34:42] and I think you'd need a separate projector for each color on the plots [19:52:26] "Scribing Projectors. Each of the four scribing projectors will be [19:52:26] capable of scribing computer-controlled line plots and characters in [19:52:27] any of seven colors." [20:14:00] I stand corrected [20:37:36] thewonderidiot, did we get any of the programmed guidance equations documents from NARA? [22:19:19] night!