[04:08:05] NASSP Logging has been started by alexb_88 [04:08:09] .tell rcflyinghokie, at 1st LM power-up (TLC GET ~62 hours) suit temp: 64 F cabin temp: 74 F glycol temp: 63 F glycol press: 7 PSIA [13:39:00] hey guys [13:39:06] Hi [13:40:26] morning [13:40:35] sweet! [13:40:50] so I came up with a solution for improving nwaypowermerge [13:40:53] that sounds nice [13:41:08] implimentation will be tricky though [13:41:13] https://gist.github.com/n7275/537be959219aebbf806fd44a125e18bc [13:41:32] tell AlexB_88 thats great! Let me know what it is after your TLC [13:42:40] .tell AlexB_88 thats great! Let me know what it is after your TLC [13:48:07] oh that is what the question about inversing matrices was about [13:52:06] sounds a bit scary to invert matrices every timestep, especially with a variable number of power sources like in nwaypowermerge [13:52:42] don't we have some MSC documents about simulating the CSM EPS? How do they solve that issue? [14:03:39] that sounds like something I should look at [14:04:09] I would also rather not add dependencies [14:04:37] or do matrix inversion every timestep [14:09:05] that reminds me, someone who worked on our LVDC code a long time ago didn't understand inverse vs. transpose matrix [14:09:29] or that for a rotation matrix those are the same [14:09:48] the Boeing LVDC document has a []^-1 for a matrix operation [14:09:57] when transposing the matrix is enough [14:10:13] so for a long time our code in NASSP inversed a 3x3 matrix there [14:10:20] when transposing would have been enough [14:10:33] quite the difference in complexity [14:10:48] morning [14:10:54] hey Alex [14:11:07] morning [14:12:33] AlexB_88, did a bit more analysis on the perilune altitude problem for your Apollo 14 mission. [14:13:09] a mission technique document says that the altitude has a sensitivity of 279 NM per ft/s along the velocity vector [14:13:23] so an overburn of 1 ft/s would cause a 279NM higher perilune [14:13:46] we use the cutoff bias of 3.33 m/s for Apollo 14, that's the number from the LVOT [14:14:00] our S-IVB has more like 3.7 m/s [14:14:14] so that would already be a perilune difference of about 380NM [14:14:22] nearly half of the 1000NM your mission was off [14:14:37] and when I flew TLI with an updated state vector it was only off by 500NM anyway [14:15:04] so good state vector plus adjusting the cutoff velocity bias would already account for nearly 90% of the error [14:16:30] ah makes sense [14:16:51] did you try a MCC calculation with that TLI? [14:16:57] ha. indy91, I just realized this isnt that hard to invert [14:17:12] its always diagonalized by definition [14:17:29] MCC-2 should be about ~74 fps I think [14:17:49] hmm, I did try it, but kind of forgot what the result was :D [14:17:54] only that perilune was 2500NM [14:18:39] n7275, yeah that makes it much easier [14:19:11] AlexB_88, what I also think though, with all that error, 40 ft/s more is too much [14:19:28] at first I thought it might shift the DV from LOI to the MCC [14:19:34] but only part of it [14:19:39] it's still 30 ft/s too much [14:20:14] hmm or actually [14:20:40] most of the DV spent is to lower the perilune [14:21:05] mission techniques say at the time of MCC the perilune sensitivity is 26NM per ft/s [14:21:23] (2000-60)/26 = 74.6 ft/s [14:21:35] (3000-60)/26 = 113 ft/s [14:21:48] so I guess that sounds about right then [14:24:19] so probably not an additional MCC targeting issue [14:24:23] just TLI cutoff [14:25:34] the LVDC cutoff bug we used to have caused underburns. I guess in the past overburns due to a wrong cutoff bias and the bug partially cancelled each other out. [14:25:56] That's why with the bug fixed the cutoff didn't get much better, just off in the other direction :D [14:26:02] so ecs/eps question for you all...the list of loads and heat loads on the circuit breaker list (lm 8 handbook in this case) I am wondering if those loads that arent explicitly tied to a cold plate, of they are going into the ECA or something else than the cabin [14:26:43] not the equipment itself warming up a bit? [14:26:51] things like, for example, the FDAI says 11.5 heat watts [14:27:12] it could go either way, of course [14:27:44] but I am wondering for things like the ECA, how do we determine how much heat that generates [14:28:11] the ECAs on the cb chart say like 20 watts [14:28:44] I would think they would produce a lot more heat than that [14:29:44] and the AELD for example has 96.5 heat watts...where does that get dumped [14:31:02] there could be a bit about this in the LM Data Book revisions we have [14:31:09] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730067046 [14:31:22] ill take a look [14:31:23] PDF page 50 etc. [14:31:37] probably has a bunch of useful numbers for heat [14:31:44] but I am interpreting the heat load column as in heat that would have to be handled by the water boiler [14:32:05] AELD 96.5 Watts wow [14:32:13] I thought that was just a bunch of relays :D [14:33:42] master alarm is 7.2 [14:33:49] (not CWEA, just MA) [14:35:07] for the AELD, that energizes relays in control assembly 1 [14:35:30] and the actual APS isolation and actuator valves [14:35:57] that's all those CBs do I think [14:36:22] so some of that heat might go into the APS? [14:38:33] not sure [14:38:57] either way, we have far too little system heat [14:39:40] we have more than enough to keep the system from freezing, of course [14:41:18] we have an Apollo 13 like thermal configuration I guess [14:41:30] not enough powered up to actually have it heating up enough [14:45:52] which makes me wonder about the cabin heat also with crew in it [14:46:55] Once we have a full power/heat load on the glycol I will probably reevaluate that [14:49:18] rcflyinghokie, one thing to note, by the end of the TLC checkout procedure in the LM, with one astronaut in cabin, the temps had risen to about ~82 F [14:49:25] cabin [14:50:00] I dont know if it should stabilize or not and maybe due to the ECS still being powered down [14:50:35] AlexB_88, with the fix for the MPT on the surface, it will store the anchor vector in a different format. So be aware that it's not backwards compatible. So it won't generate an ephemeris upon scenario loading in old scenarios. [14:50:50] just have to do a trajectory update though [14:50:57] ah ok perfect [14:51:13] I can live with that lol [14:53:20] AlexB_88 good to know, and you said no ECS was on? [14:53:33] what about lighting configuration? [14:53:43] well, its as configured in the TLC checkout procedures [14:53:48] mostly off [14:53:50] (I found it stabilized under a full heat load in the mid 80s) [14:53:56] hmm seems high [14:54:33] might need a little tweaking, but I dont think it will run away [14:54:43] I think just the flood lights are on [14:54:46] right [14:57:26] I did make a change right before you pulled my branch, I added isolation values back to some radiators [14:57:43] I wonder if I should set those back to zero for in cabin plates [14:59:52] powered up LM is generating about 800W of heat currently [15:00:12] far lower than expected haha [15:03:38] but also, I have tweaked the cabin and ecs based on the current implementation of crew heat which is far far lower than actual [15:16:25] AlexB_88, MPT fix pushed [15:17:18] another one for ya, uplink data cb has a heat load of 14 watts [15:18:14] that's the DUA [15:18:37] which we probably don't have as a separate system [15:18:52] ah [15:19:02] well the plate for it and heat load are ready [15:21:07] oh you might be able to shed light on this, we have 3 plates for the S band it seems...SBX SBP and just SP [15:21:12] any idea what SP is? [15:23:50] what are SBX and SBP? :D [15:24:24] indy91, thanks [15:24:28] SBX is S-band transponder [15:24:44] SBP... power amplifier? [15:24:51] Yeah thats what I assumed [15:27:47] the SB is S-Band [15:27:50] so SP isn't S-Band [15:28:24] Maybe the VHF B signal processor? [15:29:59] "Signal Processing Assembly" I bet [15:31:56] But how is that separate from the VHF plates I wonder [15:31:58] schematics have [15:32:03] "SP-Signal Processor" [15:32:27] yep thats what I am staring at [15:32:28] "S-BP S-Band Power Amplifiere Diplexer" [15:32:39] "S-BX - S-Band Transceiver" [15:56:07] indy91, if I want to use a separate REFSMMAT slot to calculate the PC+2 angles, which are on the landing site REFSMMAT, but I am still using the PTC REFSMMAT in the CUR slot, which one is the best? [15:56:37] since I am doing the PC+2 and MCC-4 pads at once [15:56:54] MCC-4 being on PTC REFSMMAT [15:57:51] I guess I am asking, which way to quicly check the angles of a burn on a different REFSMMAT and then switch back to PTC (CUR) [15:58:38] I guess I could load the landing REFSMMAT in the TLM slot or something? [16:00:08] I guess in this case it is working against you that the REFSMMAT page always saves in CUR [16:00:24] but yes, you just need to have the LS REFSMMAT stored somewhere else [16:00:38] you can then specify any REFSMMAT for the DMT of course [16:00:48] except for the fact the MCC vessel puts it in LEM CUR :D [16:01:15] yeah then you just need to move it to anywhere in the CSM REFSMMAT locker [16:01:31] so any code I guess [16:01:33] and then the DMT can use it [16:01:39] MED is always a good one [16:01:44] ok [16:01:50] as it has no purpose by default [16:01:56] just to manually load a REFSMMAT [16:02:16] LCV is where they had the CSM LS REFSMMAT stored usually [16:35:40] "46 SV LAUNCH AUTO PILOT ON/OFF" [16:36:14] that's what's written in the verb list markings in the LEB [16:36:39] sounds a little bit like what the old launch autopilot :D [16:38:15] yeah [16:38:19] it's not enitrely wrong [16:38:36] V46 can be used to disable the CMC pitch polynomial when the CMC controls the Saturn [16:40:40] right [16:41:02] I don't think you can cycle it on/off though [16:41:22] once you cancel the polynomial, its done...right? [16:51:04] morning! [16:52:52] hey Mike [16:58:18] hey [16:58:29] indy91, MCC-4 will be burned, 2 fps [16:58:42] using the SFP values from MCC-2 [16:59:31] DOI DVZ of 5 fps and landing within a minute of flight plan, I think option 4 isn't so bad after all :D [17:11:24] hey Mike [17:11:33] AlexB_88, and how much manually tweaking did that require? [17:11:40] aside from the constraints on LOI time [17:11:50] none [17:11:55] perfect [17:12:18] I had already adjusted the REVS1 and stuff previously for the nominal launch [17:12:22] yeah [17:12:25] seems to work well [17:12:33] took the Apollo 13 FIDO a whole night shift. But they didn't have the updated mode 4 yet [17:12:46] right [17:12:49] some intermediate version, closer to the old modes [17:13:18] I guess we can do it the Apollo 13 way too [17:13:33] basically, yeah [17:16:24] "LDPP Error" [17:16:26] haha [17:16:50] thats what happens when you try to put an LOI burned with RCS on the MPT, then calculate a DOI [17:17:58] that's a lengthy RCS burn [17:19:06] the TIG was at like LOI minus 2 hours :D [17:19:21] that should've be nmy 1st clue [17:21:43] module PMMMPT probably also gave an error [17:21:55] or did it actually manage to converge on a iterated solution [17:22:58] message.push_back("ITERATION FAILURE, MVR TRANSFERRED"); [17:22:59] message.push_back("USING BEST PARAMETERS AVAILABLE"); [17:40:04] ah interesting, so the VRMAX constraint needs to be increased not only for fast return PC+2, but TEI-4 in some cases [17:40:25] TEI-4 is almost 4000 fps on Apollo 14 [17:51:00] that doesn't leave much SPS propellant [18:10:10] darn, so it turns out I was wrong about the diagonalization thing [18:10:26] so this isnt easy [18:10:55] will definitely be looking into anything eps simulation related [19:41:16] indy91, would it be possible to save the TLAND in the MCC or is it already the case? [19:41:27] the one on the REFSMMAT page [19:52:15] I'm thinking about moving it. Right now it's only in the MFD [19:52:28] wait, the MCC? [19:52:37] it does save a TLAND for MCC only calculations [19:52:45] in the RTCC, but only used by the MCC [19:53:01] sorry, RTCC [19:53:09] but outside of the MFD [19:53:46] the landing time on the Landing Site REFSMMAT page for example, seems to be updated by the LDPP [19:54:08] but it reverts to default on scenario reload if no MFD is open [19:54:51] yeah, saved in MFD only right now [19:55:02] mainly because I hadn't found a direct equivalent in the actual RTCC [19:55:10] they mostly seem to have input that manually [19:55:20] but I'll probably move it to the RTCC class anyway [19:55:50] ah ok [20:22:35] AlexB_88 I know its still a little ways off but can you send me a scn when you next open up the LM hatch for ingress? I want to take a look at the state of everything [20:24:06] sure [20:24:21] should get there by tomorrow [20:24:47] just finished LOI [20:30:38] Awesome [20:31:09] I made a few changes since your pull, but they should be minor on impact [20:31:26] I also adjusted some heat values of systems which also would be minor [20:41:07] ok [20:41:22] does it change stuff in LEMsystems.cfg? [20:43:02] yeah [20:44:14] if you updated it you would have to change a few things in the scn but theres nothing breaking [20:44:26] right [20:48:34] How are your CSM ECS temps [21:02:03] they look quite normal, but the suit temp keeps pegging unless I keep the sec coolant loop evap and pump on [21:03:41] Hmm mind if I take a look? [21:11:43] Might still be a configuration issue [21:15:42] sure, let me get a scn [21:15:50] just before DOI [21:16:20] sure [21:17:21] https://www.dropbox.com/s/9i4gf8h8pvj57xr/Apollo%2014%20-%20Pre%20DOI.scn?dl=0 [21:17:40] you can peak at the LM if you want too :p [21:19:16] the primary glycol to rad is definitely pushed in [21:24:28] back in a few [00:11:22] AlexB_88 I reset the secondary coolant loop and evaporators, and put the suit circuit hx on for about 20 minutes and turned it off, its not climbing anymore [00:12:44] holding steady at 58 [00:14:13] both auto and manual temp controllers [00:15:55] also you have 2 crew in the CM and 0 in the LM :P [00:16:04] wheres the 3rd ;) [00:57:45] oh lol [00:57:56] I forgot to put him back in after the TLC checkout [00:59:05] rcflyinghokie, but thanks for the tip! [00:59:22] hopefully it stays stable now [01:13:22] yeah as soon as I did a reset of the evaps and glycol systems, put the HX on for a little, it cooled down nicely [01:14:19] it takes a bit longer now to cool down the systems because its using 35% glycol now not water [01:14:57] but if you dont have the rads bypassed, they stay normal all mission ;) [01:15:18] goodnight! [14:26:14] hey [14:26:27] morning [14:27:30] hey guys [14:33:05] AlexB_88, I have taken care of all TLAND issues, I think [14:33:41] I wasn't sure if I should keep the variable used by the MCC separate. But I decided against that, because the MCC only uses that TLAND for REFSMMAT calculations etc [14:34:18] other time variables are used by the MCC for sequencing, when to switch to the next mission state etc. But not TLAND, so for now it uses the same variable [14:40:11] so updating the TLAND in the RTCC MFD will store it in the MCC TLAND if I understand? [14:40:39] yes [14:40:46] saved and loaded in the RTCC class [14:41:12] ok makes sense [14:41:41] but it's already been the case that if you do some nonsense in the RTCC MFD that you can screw up the MCC [14:42:10] right [14:44:56] always in cases where the MFD would also have trouble giving useful results [14:45:04] so I'm not too worried about that [14:45:30] when you use the MCC then at most I would expect that you e.g. uplink a new state vector [14:45:35] with the MFD [14:53:45] AlexB_88 so I think I am going to keep those isolation values I added back prior to your pull/mission removed...I added them because Spider was getting too cold in LEO but I think it heats up too much now [14:54:05] When i ran 12 it stayed in the upper 40s [14:54:09] yours is in the mid 60s [14:54:26] so that makes me feel better about reverting [14:56:25] sure [14:57:56] I can change your scn to reflect current changes if you like [14:59:21] your current scn* [15:00:46] ah its ok Ive already flown quite a bit further [15:01:16] but maybe I can fix my latest one [15:01:37] oh my current scn [15:01:55] lol sorry havn't had my coffee yet, sure I can send it [15:05:12] rcflyinghokie, here you go: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a2ni4ac38ylbbbt/Apollo%2014%20-%202.scn?dl=0 [15:06:24] Haha its ok, let me make the edits and send it back [15:07:11] is your branch up to date? [15:13:48] let me uncomment some debug lines [15:14:03] almost done with your scn [15:17:36] just updated my branch with the latest NASSP state as well [15:17:47] let me launch your scn with the changes to make sure everything is set [15:21:34] AlexB_88 up to date and here you go [15:21:35] https://www.dropbox.com/s/ekux7m0gu3e7qja/Apollo%2014%20-%202.scn?dl=0 [15:22:54] thanks! [15:23:46] I should be powering up the LM today [15:24:57] Awesome [15:26:13] indy91, I was thinking, should we make that uplink delay thing an option in the launchpad settings? [15:26:51] hmm I don't think so. Only if it would apply for everything including MCC and PAMFD [15:27:05] right now it's only useful for using the RTCC MFD in the MCC VC [15:27:16] And that's far from finished [15:27:27] ah right [15:27:42] maybe at some point [15:27:43] Alex, for the record, your LM is pretty much 59F across the board in coolant temps in that scn [15:28:00] which is warmer than I like but still well within the realm of tolerance [15:28:11] I think removing those isol values will help [15:28:20] ok sounds good [15:28:29] and that was one of your edits? [15:29:15] yeah I made 2 edits, removed the isol values for all "inside the cabin" cold plates and increased the cabin fan manifold size a little [15:29:41] ah ok [15:30:00] And in code the cabin fan heat is directed there and also touches the water glycol heat exchanger, while not a direct connection, the fan sits right by that HX in the LM (remnant of apollo 9) [15:30:21] so the cabin fan shouldnt make the cabin skyrocket in temp now its buffered a bit [15:32:56] which also make it possible in code to make the cabin temp controller work in apollo 9 (down the road) [15:42:18] but if your LM is stable enough for you after your mission Alex, I will consider this safe to merge [15:52:06] ok perfect [15:52:49] I'll fly it up to post rendezvous and I guess that should be good enough [15:57:33] LM ejection is fine [15:57:41] give it the full treatment :P [16:09:33] will do ;) [16:09:57] indy91, is only CUR RESFMMAT saved in the .scn, or the other stored ones as well? [16:10:08] all of them [16:10:12] ah ok [16:10:30] as long as something was actually saved in them [16:10:35] right [16:10:43] no need to save 20 lines with all zeros :D [16:11:38] don't want the scenario file to become bigger then CM-VC.msh :D [16:12:04] just add 15 maneuvers to both MPTs and you will already be close [16:12:05] *hides all the LM cold plates* [16:12:16] haha [16:16:19] how much do those add to the scenario? [16:16:30] one line each? [16:20:12] the plates? [16:20:39] each plate and associated heat exchanger gets a line [16:21:20] ah that's still not that much in total [16:22:37] I count 57 heatexchangers in your config [16:22:54] 37 heat loads [16:23:30] 34 radiators [16:23:58] and is that close to complete? [16:28:43] It is complete [16:28:49] thats everything the LM has [16:29:10] heatloads dont get saved in the scn though [16:29:57] so this is under 100 lines for a complete LM heat system [16:30:09] sounds very acceptable [16:30:40] Other than the additional battery and extended stay tanks, there shouldnt be any other items added [16:31:18] potentially adding or removing a HX or plate based on testing but systems wise thats all of them [16:31:42] no more big additions like this [16:32:43] if anything could use a close look when it comes to saved lines then it's the Checklist MFD [16:32:57] it saves so much useless stuff [16:33:07] yeah I am not well versed on the code side of that [16:33:13] me neither [16:33:22] the biggest change I ever did there was DEDA support [16:33:30] and that was mostly copying from the DSKY [16:33:32] haha [16:34:08] speaking of big changes, after this LM update gets merged soon, I will need your help figuring out these other heatloads and implementation [16:34:43] Determining how to heat the LCA and ECAs are my next focus since we have classes for them already [16:35:03] but again, I am ceasing new things :P [16:35:17] At least for now (I have a bad habit of not leaving well enough alone) [16:36:15] should be easy to add that to the ECA [16:38:37] yeah figuring out how it heats is the trick [16:38:55] I imagine it dumps a lot considering they have a lot of cold plates [16:39:49] but yeah the list of unheated systems is: CDU PSA LCA PTA SPA ECA DUA [17:32:29] indy91 did that Apollo 9 targeting get merged? [17:34:53] the RTCC MFD now has an updated deorbit targeting, yes [17:35:02] no changes to block data or nominal deorbit calculations yet [17:35:11] by the MCC [17:36:11] ok [17:36:20] I am flying 9 again in a LEO LM test was curious [17:36:31] Still a ways away from SPS-7 [17:37:06] no update to the SPS-7 targeting yet [17:37:16] but I can work on that very soon [17:37:20] sounds good [18:01:50] morning! [18:03:28] hey mike [18:06:24] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lunar-lander-contract-spacex/ [18:06:52] sounds like SpaceX is getting the sole contract for the Artemis lander [18:20:33] was there anything publically avaliable on the subject of design reviews? [18:47:33] Starship on top of Artemis? Really? [18:47:57] uhh [18:48:02] or is that separate from the SLS [18:48:08] I haven't really followed that :D [18:50:10] " It would launch using the Super Heavy booster and then serve as its own second stage to complete the ascent to low-Earth orbit (LEO). On orbit, it would be refueled before climbing out to lunar orbit to meet Gateway and Orion crew capsule." [18:50:31] I'll believe it when I see it [19:22:36] landings could use a bit of improvement. [20:07:51] rcflyinghokie, just pushed in the ECS DISP breaker in the activation checklist [20:08:19] about ~45 F in the cabin [20:09:44] glycol 28 F and 7 PSIA [20:24:49] cabin temp slowly creeping up to 60 F as I activate stuff, but definitely not sky rocketing like before [20:31:51] all very reasonable [20:32:25] colder than I would like on the glycol [20:32:31] but still [20:32:39] I am just happy the pressure is stable [20:33:22] and yeah cabin temp will go up with systems, crew, and of course, the hatch being open taking 70F air from the CM [20:39:02] right [20:39:27] whats the proper cue to go from crew in cabin -> crew in suit on the PAMFD? [20:39:34] Helmets on? [20:39:43] yeah Don helmets and gloves [20:39:52] ok [20:40:42] I am thinking about revising that though, because if they are in suits at all they typically are hooked up to the ECS [20:40:54] And therefore the LCG would provide cooling [20:41:34] So I'd like to make a function where they can be in suits but not completely suited [20:42:11] Basiclaly allowing the LCG to take heat away, but giving and taking gas from the cabin [20:49:01] how do your sec glycol temps look [20:54:59] My next test after this is merged is to run an ascent with only the secondary loop [21:03:01] let me know when you get to the glycol pump tests I am curious a few things: [21:03:11] 1) how long it takes to auto transfer [21:03:19] 2)do you get a MA when it transfers [21:19:47] Sec is 43 F [21:35:22] good, no more lava [21:35:23] rcflyinghokie, it took about 5 seconds [21:35:31] and I got an MA [21:35:34] ok, longer than I would like [21:35:58] But without changing the sizes again of the glycol tanks I cant get that down [21:36:04] And they are stable pressure wise lol [21:36:28] do you want my last .scn before the glycol check? [21:36:32] I will solve that eventually but for now its good [21:36:44]