[19:35:09] NASSP Logging has been started by indy91 [19:35:11] good evening [19:45:17] hey! [19:45:40] indy91: I closed the loop on the EMP, and it's now 100% reliable, and works in my scenario as well [19:45:46] ah fun [19:45:56] it does add additional load [19:46:01] right [19:46:13] too much or can it take it? [19:46:17] enough to cause a 1202 if I leave N68 up for long enough at the end of P63, but seemingly not enough to cause problems in P64 [19:47:02] which is fine by me, because it works really well for triggering the bug via 1202 as well :P [19:47:12] haha great [19:47:43] in doing so I realized something fun [19:47:48] if you trigger the bug via 1202 [19:47:54] the ABORT button does nothing whatsoever [19:48:01] because the AGC can't sense it anymore :P [19:48:17] you just push it, and nothing seems to happen [19:48:19] and that would also happen if the bug happened naturally? [19:48:23] yep [19:49:21] better switch over to the AGS then [19:49:32] it has the smarter abort logic on Apollo 11 anyway [19:49:40] haha yeah [19:49:41] the other thing [19:50:35] I can't get into P64 in your scenario for some reason [19:50:47] right when it's supposed to switch over, I get a whole bunch of 1410 alarms [19:51:24] interesting [19:51:50] and with your scenario using 99R0 it works? [19:51:56] yep [19:52:13] have to try that myself [19:52:14] I wanted to do some LNY-77 aborts from P64, and they worked fine from my scenario [19:52:36] I would bet on a NASSP version difference [19:52:46] being the problem [19:52:53] but what would that be [19:53:07] have to check what even causes a 1410 [19:53:35] ah [19:53:41] does it even get to throttle down? [19:53:48] oh good question [19:53:51] that might the problem [19:53:53] I wasn't paying attention [19:54:00] your NASSP verison doesn't simulate throat erosion yet [19:54:07] ohhhhh hahaha [19:54:09] but that should only make it a minute late [19:54:19] hmm [19:54:39] Wow I never thought about throat erosion [19:54:53] it makes quite a large difference for the throttle down time [19:54:55] Did the computer actually have a compensation for that? [19:55:05] nah [19:55:29] I think for e.g. P40 burns it just assumes the thrust value of an uneroded DPS [19:56:25] as would be found in an initial DPS burn, that makes sense [19:56:47] and during any burn it uses accelerometer data [19:56:54] mass flow rate might be relevant [19:57:05] but you don't need the total LM mass after the descent anyway [19:57:11] only ascent [19:57:14] true [19:57:51] and the ignition target for P63 will have been generated with a simulation that does have the erosion [19:58:58] what about missions that didnt require an insertion burn [19:59:06] where the P63 was the initial DPS ignition [19:59:14] you mean no DOI? [19:59:17] yeah [20:00:25] I mean, those DPS parameters would still be for P40 mainly [20:00:35] so I'm definitely going to create a backup of my current hacked up NASSP folder for safekeeping, and then get myself all updated [20:00:43] to avoid any further issues like this :P [20:00:47] for any case where the DPS gets used and no descent is done [20:01:42] I feel like we made one other change that affected throttle down time [20:03:22] maybe mass... [20:03:23] masses or Dv changes? [20:03:32] I remember it improving with a mass change [20:03:54] how fat is the Eagle in Mike's scenario... [20:04:15] DSCFUEL 8248.214844 [20:04:15] ASCFUEL 2376.098389 [20:04:16] DSCEMPTYMASS 2127.257568 [20:04:17] ASCEMPTYMASS 2301.572998 [20:04:47] that's the same [20:05:17] thewonderidiot, your lny77.scn was based on the old scenario from me, right? [20:06:05] fuel masses check out as a fully loaded Eagle [20:06:15] I think so yeah [20:06:40] pretty sure you gave me the scenario, and then we stripped everything out of it that wasn't needed for the demonstrations (like the CSM) [20:07:29] propellant levels are about the same [20:11:26] I do remember that the old behavior was quite close to having a throttle down problem [20:11:36] quite close to the switchover point to P64 [20:14:51] so I am quite sure some difference in that scenario pushes it over the edge [20:26:38] could even be trajectory, DOI targeting is slightly different [21:09:09] uhh [21:09:22] Luminary 99 is fun [21:10:35] what kind of weird test program is hidden in V63 [21:11:11] normally you always V34E out of V63 [21:11:20] I just accidentally PROed [21:11:26] and it turned on ALT and VEL lights??? [21:13:01] uhhhhh [21:13:15] when exactly was this? [21:13:40] or does V63 only put up the one display [21:13:41] hmm [21:14:12] V63 has a RR and a LR mode [21:14:28] you first choose that on a 04 12 [21:14:31] then you get 16 72 [21:14:37] then 16 78 [21:14:44] and the you normally V34E [21:14:47] then* [21:14:51] okay so you did PRO on the 16 78 [21:14:53] yep [21:15:38] so that sends you off to a piece of code called "R04Y" [21:16:39] actually that looks the same all the way up to Luminary 210 [21:17:41] yeah, could definitely be [21:18:28] yeah, still V34E enter in Apollo 15 checklists [21:20:04] but what is the point of R04Y? [21:20:49] hmmm [21:20:51] good question [21:21:31] oh [21:21:40] http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/j2-80-MSC-69-FS-4_text.pdf [21:21:54] Norton has this on pdf page 694/695 [21:22:27] but basically, it looks like it stops processing briefly to allow the last RADARUPT to come in, and then switches over to the other radar that you didn't initially select [21:26:14] explains why something LR related like ALT and VEL lights would be on [21:32:24] tested the behavior of the new RCS stuff with 144 Hz instead of the usual 60 [21:32:46] works even a bit better. But any solution will work better with higher framerate [21:33:04] at least there is no high frame rate specific bug [21:34:49] oh and the whole rendezvous was probably the most pciture perfect coelliptic rendezvous I ever did [21:35:12] must have been a mixture of good liftoff time prediction and the right amount of insertion residuals trimming [21:35:39] 45NM apolune, and at no time was the Delta H more than 0.2NM away from the nominal 15 [21:39:33] oh man, nice! [21:50:40] and in terms of creating new scenarios I am 18/22 done [21:51:18] TEI in only a few hours [21:52:12] sweet! [21:52:16] have you settled on a next project? [21:52:50] finishing Apollo 10 scenarios I guess [21:52:56] but that won't take too long either [21:53:23] in terms of new features, giving the ascent stage a better center of gravity will help [21:53:40] and the SPS should finally get startup and cutoff transients [21:54:15] all other major engines already have that [22:19:38] night! [01:39:29] https://xkcd.com/1782/ [01:48:38] hehehe [01:57:22] thought I'd share that on the IRC side of things, lol [01:57:47] on hey, saw your video. that's awesome! [02:05:40] haha thanks [02:05:49] I'm excited to make a much more detailed video explaining it [02:06:07] need to get these scans in first... [02:06:20] oh and I should email Don and see if he can check a couple of folders for a copy of the LNY-77 report itself [15:11:57] hey [15:15:21] hey! [17:07:11] what's up today? [17:15:30] Hey guys [17:26:58] hey Thymo [17:29:19] hey [17:29:39] got one Apollo 11 mission scenario further, so I am before TEI now [17:33:03] nice [17:34:19] had a bad uplink, TEI target load didn't want to go in [17:34:29] but I think it was a fluke and not a bug [17:34:41] CMC was busy, I didn't pay attention and allowed the uplink [17:34:57] and paid so little attention that I didn't even notice when the uplink was "complete" [17:35:01] when I tried it again it worked fine [17:35:27] so that must have been it, even if I didn't see it [17:35:57] yeah. odd [17:37:52] I cant stand those "was it a bug, or was that just me?" situations [17:46:30] especially when it's some fairly new code [17:47:38] yeah. exactly [17:51:58] I'm going to try to make some fuel cell performance graphs this week, and if they match the datebook sufficiently I'll probably be flying some missions this coming weekend [18:08:29] probably makes sense to wait until you merge your update though [18:12:32] my update is for Apollo 11 only [18:13:34] and for my LM RCS update, I think I'll do a bit more testing on that tomorrow, write a lengthy post on the forum and release that already. Doesn't have to be the same update as Apollo 11 MCC [18:20:15] morning! [18:23:41] hey mike [18:29:11] what's up? [18:35:57] hey [18:36:57] about to do Apollo 11 TEI [18:39:42] nice :) [18:39:45] getting close on that [19:08:36] the view of the Moon after TEI is always spectacular [19:09:17] the real pictures of that look nice, but overly bright [19:10:08] here an old picture of mine: https://i.imgur.com/NE9byjy.png [19:11:17] oh man, that is great [19:16:17] just sent an email to Don asking if he could check a few folders for a copy of LNY-77 [19:16:51] great [19:17:18] some of them are promising, like "Folder of anomaly reports from 1969", haha [19:17:19] I guess trajectory and lighting wise it works out to have the full Moon lit up like this [19:18:09] same reason that some mission couldn't see the Moon at all until LOI-1 [19:18:15] missions* [21:51:57] night! [04:53:59] oh boy, about to log a whole bunch of data, lets see how this goes... [04:59:27] weird [04:59:36] it worked on the first try [04:59:42] not used to this [05:05:06] hahaha nice! [05:05:16] but yeah, things working on the first try always makes me uncomfortable [05:05:29] like, something clearly must be wrong, so it must be that the issue is more subtle.... [17:38:09] morning! [17:40:03] Hey Mike. What's up? [17:40:25] not much, just woke up [17:40:54] talked to Don last night and unfortunately it seems he probably doesn't have a copy of LNY-77 [17:41:14] one folder of LNYs goes up to 75, and another one skips from 76 to 78 [17:45:40] hey guys [17:59:38] hey [17:59:45] ah, that's annoying with LNY-77 [18:16:03] yeah, unfortunate [18:16:06] but not toooo surprising [18:16:26] so I think UHCL is the best bet now, with those FSRR materials [18:16:40] if they ever get back to me :P [18:17:42] I found a pair of report titles that look relevant last night [18:19:25] although it seems imgur is broken heh [18:19:35] they are [18:20:04] 6/27/69 Procedure for Environmental Testing of Single Rope Module [18:20:05] 6/28/69 Program Alarm during LMY99 B1 Rope Environmental Test [18:20:31] from Raytheon I think [18:38:03] hmm [18:38:11] program alarm during environmental test [18:38:51] sounds interesting, although I'm not sure if relevant for LNY-77 [18:40:38] no, but the dates for a procedure for single-module environmental test, followed by a result from said test, make me think that that is potentially LMY99 rev 1 that they have just finished manufacturing there [18:40:47] ah yes [18:40:59] sounds about right from those dates [18:43:08] B1 is the right module? [18:44:32] yep [18:46:24] it doesn't say "rev 1" or anything but LMY99 was how they spelled the branch name, and they weren't always perfect about specifying the "rev 1": https://archive.org/stream/apertureCardBox467Part2NARASW_images#page/n34/mode/1up [18:46:51] that's the 99/1 entry on the top-level Luminary drawing but it just says "Program Rev No. Luminary 99" still [18:47:05] and they were still thinking that it would fly on 12 as well haha [18:48:13] I wonder if that would have been for the September launch window [18:48:32] not sure when they decided to launch in November instead [18:50:05] April 18 [18:50:06] ASPO announced changes in launch readiness dates for the Apollo 12 and Apollo 13 missions. Apollo 12 was moved up from September 18 to September 13, 1969; and Apollo 13 was moved up from December 1 to November 10. [18:50:28] not related, but also interesting [18:50:29] August 12 [18:50:30] During lunar module checkout activities at KSC, the LM-6 (for Apollo 12) guidance computer was removed and replaced because of an unexpected restart during panel revalidation. [18:50:55] oh, I think I saw that while I was digging through those report titles haha [18:50:57] I think that was C29 [18:51:02] July 29 [18:51:02] NASA issued a tentative planning schedule for the Apollo program: [18:51:07] Apollo 12 November 1969 Oceanus Procellarum lunar lowlands [18:51:58] I'm sure they had already considered before that, with Apollo 11 successful, to move Apollo 12 to November [18:52:51] ah yeah, I guess they wanted to keep them fast as long as they hadn't hit the decade deadline [18:55:06] Jim Lovell, first man on the Moon with Apollo 13 after two unsuccessful attempts, November 1969 [18:55:16] not a very unlikely scenario [18:55:26] haha yeah [18:55:53] lol Pete Conrad would have been an interesting first :P [18:56:26] some mixture of what he said and Neil's first words [18:56:37] "One small step..., well, not that small" [18:57:08] with that launch schedule LC-39B might have gotten a bit more action [18:57:57] oh yes [18:58:04] the LVOT for September is for LC-39B [18:58:23] and then Apollo 13 in November on 39A again [18:58:44] one pad couldn't support the 2 month turnaround [18:59:20] aha, makes sense [19:00:11] wow, Apollo 9 got to LC-39A on January 3rd [19:00:51] 13 days after Apollo 8 launched [19:00:52] not bad [19:18:56] oh wow, that's not bad at all [19:19:05] that's a hell of a cadence [19:25:51] ok, LM RCS update is done [19:25:55] so is my essay about it lool [19:35:39] hahaha [19:35:41] nice! :D [19:39:40] nice essay haha [19:59:29] thanks [22:07:03] night! [17:13:56] morning! [17:24:45] hey [17:26:46] hey guys [17:27:35] https://i.imgur.com/ENDEeLD.png [17:27:39] finally found a date :D [17:27:54] June 17, LMY99 rev 1 was released to Raytheon for manufacture [17:28:32] is that really the date where MIT send it to Raytheon? [17:28:33] so I'm gonna say there's definitely no way they knew about LNY-77 at the June 5 CCB yet [17:28:36] yep [17:28:57] because other dates in that column line up with Luminary memos calling those the "released to Raytheon" dates [17:29:12] hmm ok [17:29:22] and the documents you found have dates from end of June [17:29:35] so barely more than a week to make the module [17:33:03] yeah, pretty tight schedule [17:49:28] what is the level 4 start/complete thing? [17:54:02] "Level 4 testing was intended to verify mission phases , e.g., ascent, rendezvous. The multi—programmed environment was exercised extensively and therefore uncovered pr iority , timing , and erasable—sharing problems." [17:54:26] ropes were usually released for manufacture right on completion of level 4 testing [17:55:35] ah right [17:56:03] but no need to repeat that for minor module changes [19:27:02] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm0b_ijaYMQ&ab_channel=NASA [19:27:13] Anyone else gonna watch? [19:28:31] of course [19:28:44] I think Percy is beating me to reentry on my Apollo 11 flight... [19:33:12] There is 360° video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIooAx_GkJs&ab_channel=NASAJetPropulsionLaboratory [19:39:43] nice [19:39:50] I want this for Apollo mission control... [19:43:12] And clean feed with just mission control audio: https://youtu.be/kPrbJ63qUc4 [19:45:33] ah, that sounds like the stream for me [20:05:17] https://eyes.nasa.gov/apps/mars2020/#/home [20:05:26] Nice visualization [20:47:17] 60 seconds till entry interface [20:49:55] Blackout [20:53:52] seems like everything is working great, now sky crane has to work for a second time [20:56:54] now let's how it isn't upside down [20:56:57] hope* [20:58:01] TD Nominal and still getting telemetry [20:58:44] gotta love the tiny initial picture [20:59:53] that seems a lot more high res than with Curiosity at that point [21:00:00] Yeah [21:02:38] nice and flat area [21:02:45] good landing spot [21:03:40] Indeed . Glad it didn't land on a rock. [21:23:14] :D [21:54:23] hmmm, indy91, how long did you say it's taken UHCL to get you scans again? [21:54:37] wondering how long I should wait before following up, since they had said end of last week [21:57:31] usually as long as they say it takes [22:01:54] which, for my last document, was longer than usual [22:02:05] but that was caused by staff shortage or so [22:02:18] I got it in the week where they said I would get it [22:10:22] hmmm okay [22:34:47] night! [15:47:37] hey [16:07:18] hey [16:08:08] Columbia is in the water [16:08:14] about to push my Apollo 11 update