[21:27:30] NASSP Logging has been started by alexb_88 [21:27:32] in my experience I almost always have to do MCC-4 with Apollo 14+, to be sure the DOI has the right conditions [21:28:31] I think in reality they could avoid MCC-4 by tweaking the LOI? But I dont know how to do that in the RTCC MFD yet [21:28:40] Well that took longer than expected. Accidentally nuked my bootloader. :p [21:30:29] Steve97, oh an once you get to LOI, be sure to burn the intersection solution in the LOI processor [21:30:59] dont need to change anything there either, everything is set already [21:37:25] night! [21:37:58] same for me, night! [21:44:48] good bye! [04:10:58] Hello [04:11:28] Does the S-IVB make the aps evasive mnvr and slingshot? [04:14:22] automatically I mean [11:06:49] SalvatoreDR I dont think they do yet [14:36:44] hey [14:39:57] good morning [14:50:40] Hey guys [14:53:19] indy91 is there a LM JETT attitude printed in the MCC on Apollo 11? [14:54:29] doesn't look like it [14:55:46] I added it to the checklist MFD [14:55:58] the flight plan attitude? [14:56:00] just curious [14:56:02] yes [14:56:06] don't think there was a PAD [14:56:16] no there wasn't [14:56:25] it was read up verbally and also on the flight plan [14:56:43] right [14:58:02] there was a sep PAD [14:58:11] given to the crew at 130:21:14 [14:58:34] did they jettison the LM early? [15:18:30] hey guys [15:19:17] hey hey [15:21:07] Hi guys. Got that burn done with. Turns out I didn't even need to do it. X) [15:21:30] MCC-2? [15:21:46] Yeah. [15:21:52] Apollo 15 didn't do a burn up until MCC-4 [15:21:54] even with the constraint to get the LOI GET right? [15:22:12] Yeah that was all sorted. [15:22:22] I got my PAD and did the burn. [15:22:40] ah. How large did it end up being? [15:22:45] tiny [15:23:01] Yeah quite a tiny SPS burn. [15:23:18] 6.5DVC [15:23:38] hey quick question on manual RTCC input. was that all done via punched card? specifically the kind of things we enter via dialog box, with a MED format. [15:24:19] hmm, it the MED stuff could be done via punch cards, but I think there was a console to input it like we do "F29,100,100;" etc [15:25:07] Stevey, that's not accurate, Apollo 15 did a 5 ft/s burn at 28:40. I believe it was more of a SPS test than a MCC, but it resulted in a MCC-4 that was also 5 ft/s. [15:25:31] Ahh okay. [15:25:41] Yeah the SPS THRUST light was stuck on I believe. [15:26:14] contamination in the switch I think? [15:26:41] they probably burned it in the same direction of a planned Mode 4 MCC [15:26:51] burn not exactly the planned DV [15:27:41] n7275, trying to find the system that was called Manual Entry Device (MED) [15:27:53] something from IBM of course [15:31:44] ibm 2260 maybe? [15:46:30] probably. Weird that I can't find the definite answer right now, pretty sure I have that information somewhere [15:48:27] I looked through a lot of trying to find the answer. there are a lot of references to "manual entry device" but little info on what it is... [17:58:41] have flown a bit of Apollo 7 with aerodynamic moments now [17:59:34] like the Apollo 7 and 9 mission reports say, the tendency is to get to roughly 0° angle of attack [17:59:58] if you are pitched up 90° or yawed 90° out of plane then there is a strong moment pulling on you [18:00:20] but it actually isn't exactly 10° [18:00:23] 0° [18:00:31] but more like 10° where it is stable [18:00:46] that depends on the center of gravity though, provided my calculation is right [18:01:01] with an average CG of the CSM it is the 10° [18:01:28] the effect is a bit stronger than I was expecting with a 122NM perigee [18:01:37] but I think it's calculated right [18:02:47] Apollo 7 had strong aerodynamic torquing at 90NM altitude. Within it picked up 0.2°/s [18:02:51] Within three minutes* [18:04:23] haven't decided yet if I will include the moment coefficients in my update [18:07:52] also found a clear bug in Orbiter :D [18:09:48] the displayed moment vector in Orbiter (under visual helpers) isn't torque [18:10:02] it's torque divided by mass [18:13:14] no idea why, but it shows something like 0.009 milli Newton meter, which is definitely too small :D [18:40:24] If i'm doing another MCC do I need to edit my contraints again? [18:40:32] Or just keep them at near the LOI Time? [19:01:01] You did MCC-2, right? MCC-3 and 4 are targeted with Mode 1 and those constraints don't apply to that mode [19:01:35] the stuff you save with the F30 button essentially has the same kind of constraints [19:12:27] Yep MCC2 done. [19:15:33] Do I need to uplink a new REFSMMAT to the spacecraft using the PTC Option? [19:17:17] in the flight plan that is done shortly after TLI. Did you not uplink it then or did you change the REFSMMAT along the way? [19:18:42] I already uplinked it right after TLI. [19:18:52] Using the PTC Option. [19:20:16] if you haven't changed it then you don't need a new one [19:21:13] Alrighty [19:21:18] (y) [19:23:11] I think the PTC REFSMMAT you use after TEI is also exactly the same [19:25:22] it is theoretically possible that MCC-2 is in a bad attitude (too close to gimbal lock) for the PTC REFSMMAT [19:25:48] then you would switch to a preferred REFSMMAT (burn angles 0,0,0) and then back to the PTC REFSMMAT after the burn [19:26:17] MCC-2 was incredibly close to Gimbal Lock. [19:26:32] hahaha [19:27:01] then you now know what to do if that happens again :D [19:28:11] Thank you! [19:28:33] It got to around the explosion on 13 but then had to make a new orbiter install. [19:28:45] So LOI and the future burns are all new to me. [19:31:03] still lots of coasting to do until then haha [19:32:04] I'm on LOI Day now. [19:32:06] For 15. [19:32:16] I just need to see whats up for MCC4 [19:32:25] And if i'll need it. [19:33:27] Did you check what MCC-3 would have as the DV? [19:34:58] I glossed over that pretty quickly. [19:35:09] The number was pretty low if I recall. [19:35:14] Mode 1? [19:36:30] yeah [19:37:00] yeah mode 1 targets a specific time and point in space, the same that the mode 4 came up with [19:37:14] So if MCC-2 was executed well MCC-3 will always be very small [19:37:59] I think I've done an MCC-3 exactly once [19:38:10] it was Apollo 10 where I did MCC-1 and didn't wait for MCC-2 [19:38:23] and something didn't work or I had a temporary bug in the targeting [19:38:43] MCC-2 was necessary then, but MCC-3 was [19:38:55] I'm still wrapping my head around all of the menus in the RTCC. I'm still really new to doing the calculations and understand the terms. [19:39:03] it's a lot of menus haha [19:39:35] MCC-2 wasn't* [19:41:14] So last time I went to the PAD Menu and went to the Maneveur PAD Menu and once I calculated it gave me all of the nececcary Data for a burn. I'm currently getting Null Values. I think i've missed a step. [19:42:05] PAD for which maneuver? [19:43:10] it can work differently for different types of maneuvers, but what is always the same is that the Maneuver PAD already has TIG and DV before you press calculate. If it doesn't then the PAD doesn't have a maneuver to use yet. [19:43:42] maybe you need to select a thruster for the maneuver [19:43:44] MCC-3 [19:43:48] MCC4* [19:44:06] even in non-MPT mode you have to go to the next page from the midcourse tradeoff [19:44:13] ENG button [19:44:42] and select which of the columns of the midcourse tradeoff to use [19:44:44] and which engine [19:45:04] I got it! [19:45:08] after that is calculated the Maneuver PAD should have TIG and DV and it should be able to calculate the rest of the PAD [19:45:17] I had to press CLC on that menu. [19:45:23] I knew I missed something. [19:46:48] 3.4DVC [19:47:26] small, but probably large enough to be worth doing [19:48:12] Absolutely. [19:48:28] it's close to the edge, but that's probably still an SPS burn [19:48:44] Apollo 15 G&C Checklist has a chart [19:49:28] I have the G&C and Flight Plan up at the moment. [19:49:36] page G5-11 [19:49:41] + the systems handbook specfically for 15. [19:49:43] thanks! [19:50:03] for a fully loaded CSM+LM it's about 3 ft/s. Any less and it would be done with the RCS [19:50:25] the crossover point is whe the burn is longer than 0.5 seconds with the SPS [19:50:29] one of the mission rules [19:51:57] I had no idea about that :D [19:52:32] When I was coming home on 11 i'm pretty sure the burn i did was an RCS one. [19:52:37] Tiny correction. [19:52:59] yeah, but your spacecraft weight is less than 1/3 then [19:53:46] Yeah. [20:15:47] 2.0DVX 2.8DVY [20:54:31] night! [16:33:57] good afternoon [16:34:35] hey [16:35:50] I have been trying to learn by teaching (always dangerous) and I was walking Steven through LOI for 15 [16:36:08] Looks like he has a higher perilune coming in (around 75) [16:36:26] For LOI-1 its the intersection solution on 15? [16:37:20] yes [16:37:25] one of the two [16:37:39] right, he had 2 solutions one of which 25 HPC [16:37:45] so the 60 HPC was used :) [16:38:19] 75NM is what? Pericynthion altitude before LOI? [16:38:23] yes [16:39:48] a bit high, although the operational trajectory also looks fairly high there [16:39:52] 68NM [16:40:25] had a DVZ of -212.7 [16:40:39] vs -44.1 actual [16:41:11] DVX and Y were close to actual [16:41:23] operational trajectory has DVZ = -213.6 [16:41:30] oh really [16:41:40] I was looking at the pad [16:42:07] that actual Apollo 15 LOI also lead to a DVY component being necessary for DOI. So it wasn't the best haha [16:42:54] but it being close to the SCOT tells me that LOI does the right amount of orbit rotating, just like planned [16:43:02] Excellent [16:43:22] Yeah we computed -2891.1 -736.5 -212.7 [16:43:38] SCOT has -2894.0 -752.7 -213.6 [16:43:45] close enough [16:44:00] wow [16:44:26] our lunar gravity isn't quite right, so there will always be a difference anyway [16:45:26] I like the 60NM on the LOI display. And if DOI also has a small DVZ component then everything is great [16:45:42] ok so for the LOI-2 (DOI) burn its the LM Maneuver Sequence and DOI? [16:45:47] yes [16:45:58] That's incredible. [16:46:12] LOI-2 DVZ was 17.1 [16:46:23] for Stevey? [16:46:26] yep [16:46:32] a bit large, but still ok I think [16:47:00] it yielded a HPC of 8.23 in the DESCENT PLANNING page [16:47:16] that seemed a little low [16:47:47] that's exactly 50k feet [16:47:53] oh ok [16:48:09] I was again comparing to the flight plan haha [16:48:48] hmm [16:48:57] that could be lunar gravity again [16:49:07] yeah [16:49:12] 58.4x9.6 [16:49:23] depends on the orbit, but it tends to make apolune higher and perilune lower over time [16:49:29] and we don't get that [16:51:39] right [16:51:49] well good to know I remembered how to use the MPT :P [16:52:10] was that required for anything or just to check? [16:52:46] just to check [16:52:49] ah ok [16:56:04] for apollo 12, which LOI option was it? plane? [16:57:02] yeah [16:57:14] Apollo 13 was the first mission where they planned to do DOI instead of LOI-2 [16:57:43] making Apollo 12 the only mission that flew that profile. Non free return MCC-2, but then LOI-1 and 2 [16:58:09] memory serves :) [17:01:34] plane because the main intent is to insert the spacecraft into the right orbital plane [17:02:02] while intersection means the intersection of the post LOI and DOI orbits which gets targeted [17:02:21] ahh [17:02:30] that makes sense [17:02:31] took me a while of reading the RTCC Requirements document until I got those different modes [17:02:54] coplanar is coplanar with the pre LOI orbit [17:03:10] so no DVY at all, just "a" lunar orbit with the right HA and HP [17:03:30] and "min theta" is the weirdest of all [17:03:50] it's somewhere between plane and coplanar [17:04:00] if you have infinite DV then it will achieve the plane solution [17:04:08] haha [17:04:16] and zero is coplanar? [17:04:17] if you give it 0 DV then it shows the coplanar solution [17:04:33] coplanar of course needs less DV than the other modes [17:04:36] interesting, so what is theta in that case? [17:04:44] did 10 and 11 use coplanar? [17:05:12] theta is the angle between the desired orbit (plane solution) and coplanar orbit [17:05:54] min theta then means that it minimizes the angle between desired and actual orbit [17:06:26] only relevant if you give it a max DV that is somewhere between coplanar and plane solutions [17:06:40] then it can do a bit of plane change, but not all of it with LOI [17:06:59] so it tries to get as close as possible to the desired orbit with the input DV [17:07:38] coplanar doesn't get you to fly over a desired landing site [17:07:58] so 8, 10-12 used the plane solution [17:08:09] but the LOI processor was still a bit different then [17:08:15] we used the Apollo 14+ version [17:08:28] they deleted a lot of modes which were very unlikely to be used [17:08:33] not that "min theta" is likely... [17:08:48] we use* [17:11:17] ahh gotcha [17:12:57] morning! [17:13:20] I was also helping Salvatore with his RTCC on 12, Not sure how his MCC2 went but I computed the MCC3 and 4 and LOI1/2 with MPT [17:13:29] https://www.dropbox.com/s/8z835yz10r89gyz/12MPT.png?dl=0 [17:13:33] that was the result [17:14:10] burning MCC3 didnt need an MCC4, MCC4 without MCC3 was like 90fps [17:15:33] hey Mike [17:16:41] hmm, I wonder if he saved the data for the TLMCC mode 1 [17:16:51] that could be the preflight nodal targets [17:17:03] which would make MCC-3 and 4 fairly large [17:17:48] Not sure, I got the scn at that time and computed them [17:17:56] Not sure how MCC2 went lol [17:18:35] right. it might have gone very well, but if the nodal target from that MCC-2 weren't saved then MCC-3 and 4 will be targeting the wrong thing anyway [17:18:48] I can check the scenario to see if that is the case [17:20:34] or you can check the line "RTCC_SFP_GMT_ND" in the scenario [17:21:39] hmm [17:22:09] https://www.dropbox.com/s/6nvx9z24hnsyypl/Apollo_12_-_Launch_0005_0010_0003_0005_0003_0001.scn?dl=0 [17:23:20] no data in table 2 [17:23:40] so the calcs are wrong? [17:23:59] well it's all zero. You probably used SFP table 1 for that calculation then? [17:25:25] the SFP button, if you use 1 there it used preflight data [17:25:38] ... which I should add to the display, so that it says "preflight" [17:26:15] when you press the F30 button it stores the MCC-2 nodal target in table 2, which should then be used for MCC-3 and 4 [17:29:23] already have a few user friendliness update ideas haha [17:31:20] hmm, but I don't think the trajectory is quite right, your high DVs seem about right [17:37:30] yeah I cannot vouch for what was done before I received it haha [17:39:18] it's in the manual, but I'll have to make a bit clearer in the MFD, too [17:40:59] previously the nodal target was shown on the page together with mode 1, so it was clear what was targeted [17:47:19] so what would I need to do to properly calculate going forward? Any way to reacquire the nodal target? [17:48:15] I tried to calculate a mode 4 at the current time [17:48:41] 1.9 ft/s. But it doesn't achieve the right LOI TIG [17:49:39] And I don't think MCC-2 really work correctly [17:49:51] the DVs are too large for that [17:50:58] probably better to revert to MCC-2 [17:51:56] alternatively, burn MCC-3 using mode 4 [17:52:01] I get 18.8 ft/s [17:52:10] so very similar to your solution [17:52:26] and then save the nodal target and do MCC-4 with mode 1 [17:52:37] uhhh [17:52:39] I am dumb [17:52:47] all this talk about mode 4 for Apollo 15 [17:53:43] but it's mode 5 for Apollo 12 [17:53:58] let me calculate that again... I hope I didn't explain it wrong [18:00:05] haha well I dont have any earlier saves so hopefully he does [18:29:48] I made it to Lunar Orbit :D [18:29:58] Thanks for the help guys. [18:30:30] Now you need that DOI :) [18:32:04] indy91 is the DOI trim burn computed the same as the DOI? [18:33:23] uhh [18:34:38] good afternoon [18:35:03] yeah but you need to change the number of revs on the init page for the descent planning [18:35:10] Alex probably knows best :D [18:35:15] Apollo 15 DOI Trim [18:35:20] ever did that one? [18:37:52] ah yes [18:38:23] samething as the normal DOI, but with the N value changed I think [18:39:44] from the TIGs of DOI and DOI trim I would say, make that value smaller by 7 [18:39:57] whatever it has normally. 10 or 11 or so [18:41:32] Stevey ^ [18:42:48] (y) =D [18:43:03] it's probably not necessary though. Again the weird lunar gravity we don't have making the orbit a bit unpredictable [19:21:48] whatever happened to your R-2 gravity model mod? [19:28:04] getting covered in dust [19:28:12] I'll come back to it eventually :D [19:30:09] I mean, it's not super complex. But it needs a bit more testing. [19:30:25] And actually requiring it for NASSP will be as much work as this damn drag update [19:30:38] lots of things will have to be changed [19:39:18] hahaha gotcha [12:59:44] hey guys [18:11:30] hey [18:22:36] morning! [18:23:51] Hello! [18:24:09] hey, how's it going? [18:25:26] hey guys [18:26:37] working on Apollo 7 rendezvous stuff. We have the mission techniques document about it and it has a flowchart that is perfect for decisions done by our MCC [18:28:04] Still doing Apollo 15, got to get my Trim burn done. [18:28:09] And then time for Undocking and PDI. [18:28:21] Excited to be among the mountains. [18:29:34] flying over them is a lot of fun. Would have been great if we had video of it from the real mission, but the LM has no windows pointing down :D [18:33:29] You'd think they would get some decent shots for hadley? haha [18:34:46] they needed the worlds longest selfie stick [18:35:30] The Stand Up EVA makes up for it, and the mission in general. [18:38:23] if you want to go for a crazy ride use Verb 68 during the descent [18:42:07] that disables the terrain model in the computer :D [18:42:36] Oh lord. [18:42:39] you don't even crash, but the LGC is quite confused about the altitude [18:42:46] Crashing straight into Hadley Appenine. [18:43:17] by Apollo 15 they trusted the LR more than they did before. So LR altitude measurements converge very quickly [18:43:24] So it won't account for going over Mons Hadley? [18:43:36] And then down to the Rille. [18:44:02] disabling the terrain model basically makes it thinks that LR altitude = altitude above the landing site [18:44:04] think* [18:44:45] so it will actually fly too high [18:45:00] once over the mountain it goes into a steep descent [18:46:46] e.g. 5 miles from the landing site the desired altitude on the descent profile is 10,000 feet. If you are right over the mountains it knows, with the terrain model, to convert that to altitude above the terrain [18:47:07] so it's not going to be 10k feet above the mountains but 10k feet above the landing site [18:47:27] but with the terrain model disabled it will try to be 10k feet above the landing radar altitude [18:50:54] oh and you are not going over the rille anyway. The landing site is between the mountains and the rille [18:52:05] I know haha, I just meant close to the Rille. [18:52:26] yeah, it's quite close to the rille [18:52:27] It's defo my favourite mission in terms of landing site. [18:52:29] same [18:52:36] Apollo 17 a close second [18:52:57] 17 with the huge massif's is some crazy stuff. [18:53:45] we used to have a LGC clock bug, something in NASSP that was wrong with the timing. When I first flew Apollo 15 that clock error caused me too land long, behind the rille [18:54:49] to* [18:55:13] I think I then checked the maps to see which side of the rille is correct :D [19:32:33] thewonderidiot, it's been a while since we had a project to work on together. [19:34:04] I guess especially with Covid there hasn't been a wealth of new documents... and currently no viable reconstructions. [20:02:07] indy91: yeah it has een a bit [20:02:26] well LM131 rev 1 is still possibly viable [20:02:50] and we do have more info for that than last time (mainly the existence of reconstructed Luminary 163) [20:03:11] before I was trying to bridge between 99 and 210 which was too far, but only going back from 163 might not be so bad [20:03:21] er, 131 and 210 [20:04:04] at home I've been working on building an accurate DSKY replica [20:04:25] and with Marc and crew, we're currently working on powering up the Block II CSM S-Band Transponder and Power Amplifier [20:04:53] ah right, Ken was tweeting about it [20:04:54] we actually just flipped some relays in the transponder about half an hour ago :) [20:05:12] fun :D [20:05:29] that CSM Functional Integrated System Schematics document is.... interesting [20:05:42] the S-Band pages at least are somewhat close, but completely filled with errors [20:05:55] the pin assignments are all jumbled from what we're actually seeing in the box [20:06:17] so I'm not sure if it's just that the 1966 document was too early... or if whoever made these pages did a bad job [20:10:12] early sounds more likely to me [20:57:48] night!