[17:11:59] NASSP Logging has been started by indy91 [17:12:01] my LM was sitting there on the lunar surface, RCS configured in such a way that it would use APS propellant [17:12:19] APS propellant tanks aren't created until ascent stage is separated at liftoff [17:12:27] and I was wondering why the RCS can't fire... [19:08:02] oooooh [19:08:13] yeah that'll do it [19:12:55] one of the projects that I'll do in the not so far future, making it so the APS is already there on the full LM [19:13:23] we have the control electronics to prevent APS and DPS firing at the same time [19:13:50] no reason to make our lives more difficult by only creating the APS thruster and propellant at staging [19:16:50] that makes sense. [19:17:37] the displays for the APS all have cheaty values so that it looks like it's already there [19:19:08] how insane would a docked descent stage be to impliment? [19:20:50] difficult, but not that insane [19:21:24] I guess the first step for that would be to enhance the class for the descent stage [19:21:32] give it all the systems it needs [19:31:50] morning! [19:31:55] hey [19:31:55] hey mike [19:32:09] I might have given you an impossible task [20:19:07] uh oh [20:19:15] how so? [20:21:10] because of the missing resistance values [20:22:04] oh hmm [20:22:07] didn't notice that [20:23:11] I mean, I know pretty well how it should behave, that might help [20:52:45] well I have commited my works on the ATCA so far :D [20:52:49] work* [20:53:45] I have two versions for the PRM. actually, while the version with thruster off time begin before it is set to on is good for the gimballing, I don't really like it in AGS pulse mode [20:54:23] because you don't get the first pulse until the first off time has passed, for LM-3 that would be more than half a second [20:54:36] it's a bit tricky actually to only get one pulse and not two [21:36:08] looking at the ascent stage CG again. Wanted to test another APS burn, this time the Apollo 10 insertion maneuver, just after staging. [21:36:17] seems like I also have to replicate the mistakes of the crew [21:36:32] they did a V48 in P42, which switched the deadband from 1° to 0.3° [21:36:58] like that issue with P12, where if you call V48 and choose the wrong deadband the ascent is instable [21:43:57] oh boy [21:46:06] for Apollo 10 that just meant more RCS spent than they wanted [21:46:16] I got attitude rates nearly twice as high as them [21:46:23] must be the deadband [21:57:55] hmmm [21:58:00] yeah I think there are differences here [21:58:05] between LM-3 and LM-8, in the PRM [22:00:29] which one would you prefer me to model? LM-8? [22:01:52] yeah I think 8 [22:02:43] although [22:02:50] I might know the voltages better for LM-3 [22:03:03] and I know the same amount about the output [22:03:30] and the part that I would like to know about, what happens when you step input from 0 to 2V or so, is the same for both pretty sure [22:13:03] if LM-3 looks easier do that one [22:15:50] hahaha okay [22:15:54] I'll probably end up doing both [22:16:54] if we have to we can tweak the unknown resistors by setting an input until the output is right :D [22:17:03] hehehe [22:17:08] so I got the same startup transient with the small deadband as well [22:17:19] but the behavior could be right [22:17:30] they use these weird control aces which are 45° rotated [22:17:33] axes* [22:17:58] a pitch rate would be split up 50/50 between U and V axes [22:18:28] and they didn't seem to have gotten a very high data rate for the rate, not sure why [22:19:20] in U and V they had more than 2°/s [22:19:24] I got nearly 5 in pitch [22:19:33] could be about right [22:25:13] ah thank you Tom [22:25:51] STAFFORD: "We had yawing and pitching rates, I would estimate, up to 5 deg/sec, and the vehicle basically snaked along" [22:28:28] he also called the behavior "Dutch roll" and their little problem at staging "sort of like an Immelmann". I don't know if these are healthy terms for spaceflight... [22:32:56] hahahaha perfect! [22:32:58] lol [22:53:45] night!