[20:34:17] NASSP Logging has been started by thymo [20:34:21] Guenter! [20:34:29] Guenter! [20:34:55] what I did was use the SSV mission editor to calculate the insertion velocity and flight path angle, from the ascent target box [20:35:26] that part of the mission editor doesn't take non-spherical gravity into account yet [20:35:58] using MECO HA of 310 NM and then transferring the velocity and flight path angle to the LWP [20:36:00] right [20:36:35] I find that final orbit a bit strange [20:36:44] seems the HST is a bit low? [20:37:23] yeah it does seem like it [20:37:33] but its from the TLE on the day of launch [20:38:05] HST [20:38:09] 1 20580U 90037B 93336.63333334 .00000494 00000+0 24184-4 0 31 [20:38:13] 2 20580 28.4723 58.6565 0044279 50.3211 247.0520 15.08732259 08 [20:38:36] seems more elliptical in the MFD than it should [20:40:36] Yeah that TLE should be good. Maybe the TLE Scenario Editor is bad at propagation backwards? [20:40:57] I think this TLE is slightly in the future from the scenario start [20:41:09] uhh [20:41:15] yes [20:41:59] eccentricty is one of the numbers there [20:42:03] 0044279 [20:42:05] meaning 0.0044279 [20:45:21] Ill try one from the day before [20:45:59] did a few calculations, that TLE wants the orbit you got [20:47:40] ah much better [20:47:56] MC-4 is 325x313 [20:48:25] oh wow [20:48:32] now I wonder if there is a typo in that TLE [20:48:54] all the previous eccentricities have something like [20:48:57] 0004458 [20:48:59] and not [20:49:05] 0044279 [20:49:29] Might just be a bad TLE, I guess that could happen with tracking, too [20:50:02] so that previous TLE you are using now should be good [20:51:00] ok [20:53:47] I'd put NC1 at M = 3.0 [20:53:51] and not a fixed time yet [20:54:30] and there is definitely one NC burn too many in the plan [20:54:53] NC-2 might align the line of apsides [20:54:59] but I am not sure how to place that properly [20:55:08] hmm no [20:55:11] NSR is already that :D [20:55:17] doing that* [20:56:45] I'd put NC-2 at a fixed DT from NSR and as a EXDV burn with 12 ft/s [20:56:54] and then later NC-2 gets changed to a NC type burn [20:57:51] that press kit profile looks very similar to STS-82 now [20:59:16] I think NC-2 TIG will drive TI lighting [20:59:25] and NH show be X revs after it [20:59:30] NC-3 0.5 revs after NH [20:59:59] right [21:02:14] oh and NC-3 to TI is 2 orbits in this profile [21:03:05] hmm [21:03:29] for some reason my NC-1 now wants to drop my HP down to 247 NM [21:04:06] December 2 OMS-2 has a lower DV [21:04:12] maybe that makes the difference [21:04:36] mission report has 324.3 ft/s [21:05:08] try HD = 200 or something [21:06:01] ah that's the one HA/HP that the mission report gives :D [21:06:10] orbit after OMS-2 was 308.4 x 214.9 [21:06:17] but this is DEC 1st? [21:06:39] I thought you are launching on the actual launch day [21:07:07] I actually decided to simulate the press kit launch day [21:07:33] well then something in your profile doesn't work out yet [21:08:02] to see if I can build a plan that is close to the timeline on page 12 [21:08:04] there could be some phasing issue where one maneuver raises your orbit a lot but another lowers it [21:08:06] right [21:08:37] just have to check all the resulting TIGs and DVs [21:10:48] https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b96ux1seqjusj9j58e7mi/Screenshot-2023-10-16-17.10.03.png?rlkey=5y782kuuvj517gfo57z0ynetf&dl=0 [21:12:35] put NH at a specific number of orbits after NC-2 [21:12:39] maybe 8 [21:12:48] and then control TI lighting with the NC-2 TIG [21:14:36] this is also an earlier mission, so I think TI lighting was different [21:14:46] I had looked that up, was it SS-28 min... [21:15:44] anyway, it's getting late. I can look more at it if it still doesn't work out for you. [21:16:55] night! [15:42:00] hey [16:07:51] hey [16:12:34] hey Alex [16:13:22] I think I finally got a good plan for my STS-61 mission [16:13:31] nice! [16:13:48] I had to lower the OMS-2 height to 270 NM [16:14:08] and then NC-1 was about 4 ft/s [16:14:20] and NSR brought it up to 300 NM or so [16:14:51] before I was targeting OMS-2 of 297 NM (as per the press kit) [16:15:03] but NC-1 was bringing that back down to 270 NM [16:15:13] and then NSR back up to 300 NM lol [16:15:33] so I think just targeting OMS-2 to 270 NM in the 1st place makes more sense [16:16:24] one thing I was going to ask is how your launch time lines up with the planned time [16:16:38] there could be a bit of a phasing difference that is the cause for this OMS-2 difference [16:18:00] Press kit: Dec 1st 4:57 AM EST [16:18:45] my mission: Dec 1st 11:03:17 GMT [16:20:29] hmm, I am missing an hour difference there [16:20:38] oh wait [16:20:40] Hubble [16:20:44] totally forgot [16:20:53] launch windows to 28.5° inclination work quite different [16:21:20] the 4:57 is likely the beginning of a 2 hour, continuous launch window [16:21:28] 11:03 is in the middle [16:21:39] that gives a huge difference in phasing [16:21:47] no wonder the DVs don't align [16:21:51] ah [16:22:33] LWP will give you the time when the target is in-plane [16:22:34] I guess I still have no choice to launch in the middle or else I will have a huge PC burn? [16:22:59] without the better ascent guidance [16:23:27] yeah I don't really think you have a choice [16:23:56] I'm not 100% sure what kind of plane change you would get [16:24:07] it's not as bad as with a higher inclination [16:24:14] but probably still bad [16:25:25] yeah [16:25:39] alright time to fly this mission [16:26:04] also get some practice with the RMS [16:26:41] and ill do the reboost to circularize the Hubble at 321 NM [16:28:13] yeah, no docking, you will have to catch yourself a HST [16:30:22] yeah, going to be a nice challenge [16:49:39] morning! [16:59:48] hey Mike [16:59:54] indy91, PC burn 675 FT/s [17:00:13] note to self, never do a manual ascent when doing a rendezvous mission :D [17:02:16] at least not until the ascent guidance gets an overhaul [17:06:53] why a manual ascent :D [17:07:28] did you try to get the plane error to zero at insertion or so? [17:07:50] I just followed the yaw error needle [17:08:24] I don't think SSV does any plane control during ascent [17:08:31] it just tries to get the inclination right [17:08:39] not the longitude of the ascending node [17:09:04] that's why the roll to heads up makes a big difference in the orbital plane that is achieved [17:10:16] right [17:17:07] hmm [17:17:18] why is my NPC now over 1000 ft/s [17:17:47] after redoing the launch with auto ascent [17:18:59] do you have a WEDGE = 0.0 constraint at TI? [17:19:35] yeah [17:19:44] what does align plane MFD say? [17:20:06] I know with Hubble there are some issues because the inclination is actually smaller than the launchpad latitude [17:20:12] due to geodetic vs geocentric latitude [17:20:20] didn't think that gives 1000 ft/s though :D [17:20:43] 2.6 degree difference per align plane [17:20:46] ouch [17:21:08] that's definitely more than the differential nodal regression thing [17:21:17] so must be ascent guidance issue really [17:21:32] I don't remember really having that issue in STS-82 [17:24:55] launch time is definitely key [17:25:40] did you set your mission to do the roll to heads up? [17:26:46] no [17:27:15] I am just rechecking the LWP solution and looks like launch time was correct [17:28:17] oh and I keep getting a Error: ITERV terminated in the LWP [17:28:46] yeah I think that is ok, it's because the inclination of Hubble is kind of too low to reach [17:29:00] although now I am a bit questioning if that could theoretically cause this [17:29:37] it was a problem in the real LWP, too [17:29:58] they had a special "closest approach" option if any errors like this happened [17:30:12] and I love the second workaround [17:30:21] change the launch latitude to a lower number :D [17:30:27] until it converges [17:31:45] I just noticed my scenario was programmed with an INC of 28.484 [17:32:11] but when I re-checked with the LWP it gave IMECO 28.462 [17:32:33] but I am almost certain it had given 28.484 before [17:39:43] ohhh [17:40:07] 28.484 might of been the INC for the bad TLE [17:48:28] yeah I forgot to update the mission editor with the INC for the new TLE [17:48:29] not enough of a significant difference really [17:48:41] has to be some additional issue with launch time or ascent guidance [18:10:28] yeah only 0.02 difference [18:20:09] I did the latitude trick and got rid of the error [18:20:18] but still the same launch time and INC [18:20:33] so my money is on the ascent guidance [18:21:34] hmm yeah, it's weird [18:23:17] I think im too spoiled with the ascent guidance(s) we're used to in NASSP :D [18:23:38] yeah, even works on the more comparable Skylab launches [18:24:01] usually 2 ft/s plane change, which doesn't even have to be its own maneuver but is just part of NCC and NSR [18:24:14] 2.6° is significant [18:24:29] I wonder how that happens [18:25:10] SSV just does no yaw steering, so launching close to in-plane time should be good [18:25:30] with SSV ascent guidance [18:25:47] oh one thing I noticed [18:26:15] about a minute or two before MECO, there is a bit of a "jump" in the yaw steering [18:26:30] it shifts left a few degrees [18:26:55] maybe ill fly another launch and look at the align planes MFD [18:27:27] interesting [18:27:32] ah I found a quote by myself [18:27:36] from the FDO MFD thread [18:27:40] "I've tried launching STS-82 to the HST. The first attempt was at the actual launch time, which happened at the beginning of the launch window, so without yaw steering that gave me a very high relative inclination, 4° or so. Then I tried the middle of the launch window which resulted in about 1°. Then I got tired of it, because I always had to adjust the HST state vector in the launch scenario etc. So I simply moved the Shuttle in the righ [18:27:41] t orbit. I'm sure by manually tweaking the launch time I could have gotten better results, at least good enough so that the HST can be reached without cheating. Just as an example." [18:29:15] should I just abandon all my current projects, that are going too slowly anyway, and go for SSV ascent guidance? :D [18:29:34] ugh [18:29:36] yes [18:29:38] haha [18:30:06] S-IVB propulsive venting is nearing completion at least [18:31:09] nice [18:31:18] I would love to see proper ascent guidance in SSV [18:31:48] I know how to do it and we have the documentation for it. The devil is in the details of course. [18:32:01] I definitely am not a fan of manually correcting the HST SV etc takes away the immersion [18:32:12] or using any other MFD's [18:32:41] in NASSP our LVDC was always actively steering into a specific orbital plane [18:32:58] even on missions to the Moon where during launch there is almost no yaw steering [18:33:17] so the LVDC part of Skylab Saturn IB launches was as simple as giving it the right targeting parameters [18:33:25] all I had to do there [18:34:11] because of the geodetic vs geocentric latitude thing in Orbiter there is more yaw steering our Saturns have to do when the IGM kicks in than in reality [18:35:48] that's the first thing I would do if we could use the actual LVDC software, change the launch latitude to work better for NASSP @thewonderidiot :D [18:36:39] hahaha [18:36:48] I guess that alone prevents the dubious ITAR avoidance solution of running the software in a black box [18:36:58] we need to make a few, small adjustments to it [18:37:31] that's hardcoded and not some sort of presetting? [18:37:36] presettings [18:38:30] but even for Apollo 17 we couldn't really run it as-is [18:38:42] presettings have both geocentric and geodetic latitude [18:38:56] the change for Orbiter is as simple as loading identical numbers [18:40:01] that takes care of the initial state vector at least [18:40:25] I'm not really sure how involved the LVDC software is in aligning the IMU [18:40:57] We launch without modified AGC software of course [18:41:11] but the alignment is a bit off and the insertion state vector is quite bad, always [18:41:21] P52 and uplink take care of it [18:41:27] can't do that in the LVDC [18:41:38] state vector uplink can of course be done, but shouldn't always have to be done [18:44:18] hmmm [18:44:25] interesting [15:17:09] hey [15:22:53] hey Alex [15:23:21] given up on STS-61 yet? :D [15:24:41] yeah, well it sort of bugs me to have to scenario editing to make it work [15:25:07] so ill wait until we have better ascent guidance and do the ISS rendezvous's in the mean time [15:25:20] they seem to have less of an issue with the current guidance [15:25:34] maybe the higher inclination? [15:26:18] for sure [15:26:44] I know the SSV ascent guidance has some special code to handle low inclination orbits [15:26:49] as it is only targeting inclination [15:26:53] probably something bad with that [16:03:03] morning! [16:06:59] hey Mike [16:07:20] temporarily broke support for Luminary 210 in the padload generator, oops [16:07:46] I need to add a status output that shows any error during padload generation [16:19:38] hahaha nice [16:19:41] what broke? [16:25:35] I implemented some code to better handle custom ropes [16:26:14] and I had Luminary 210 as a default rope, so I omitted to add that as a supported rope at all [16:26:48] in a function that converts rope names to an enum [16:27:10] so basically, the code completely rejected Luminary 210 as a supported rope and didn't do anything for it anymore :D [16:27:57] hahaha whoops [16:29:11] at least totally broken is better than subtly broken :D [16:32:07] yeah, the padload text file would have been empty I think [18:38:20] indy91, I think you mentioned something about maybe starting an SSV ascent guidance project...would that be feasible anytime soon? [18:45:22] AlexB_88, hmm, I'm not sure really [18:46:51] probably not [18:47:16] unless I manage to finish some projects, which I lately didn't have that much luck with :D [18:48:22] haha fair enough [20:49:02] night! [14:28:04] good morning [14:33:13] hey Matt! [16:30:00] your venting effect looks great [16:31:14] good to hear [16:31:29] I made the CVS effect very subtle :D [16:31:47] the NPV not so subtle [16:34:03] everything could probably still use a bit of tweaking, but I am getting tired of this branch [16:34:27] I do still need to check some mission scenarios for the switch selector table issue I had [16:34:39] otherwise the branch is getting pretty close to mergable [16:36:11] nice [16:48:31] the important thing is that the generated thrust is under control and predictable [16:48:58] at least important for me haha [16:50:17] not everything that goes on visually on the pressure meter or outside with the effects are 100% realistic yet [16:50:32] but it should never cause bad orbits [17:28:44] morning! [18:22:31] hey Mike [18:28:51] what's up? [18:29:54] oh I am alternating at the moment between the S-IVB venting stuff and the launch and TLI targeting tool. Today it is the latter. [18:30:25] I think I am at a point where I can already start thinking about exporting data for the RTCC [18:30:42] nothing for the LVDC is done yet, but, it's getting there [18:31:03] and you? [18:43:24] not a whole lot. might start in on the new scanning backlog tonight [18:48:16] ah fun. You seem to have a system that (for certain documents) works really fast, so, hopefully the documents cooperate :D [18:50:17] hahaha it's more or less directly driven by the number of foldouts [18:50:44] even though I have the best possible system for handling those, they still have to be individually fed [18:51:54] I guess I should say "nonstandard pages" rather than foldouts, because the page dividers in the S-IVB-512 flight evaluation report took the same amount of extra effort [18:53:01] ah yeah I noticed those [18:54:13] that document is so much better than the other S-IVB reports, in that it's done very systematically and structured. You can tell it's not the first document of this type they had to write. [18:55:06] and of course the scan quality is a bit better than your average NTRS document... [18:56:07] just a little bit :D [20:48:09] night! [13:07:36] good morning [13:09:44] hey [13:16:37] seems like the wiki is working again [13:16:41] and the IRC logs [13:26:01] Yeah that was my bad. I had to restart the network interface because some broken config caused it to get the wrong ip. Restarting the network interface apparantly caused the DNS server to release that interface so the domain stopped resolving [13:32:02] hey at least it wasn't the server issue you had a few years ago. I forgot the details. You weren't home and you weren't sure if there had been some flooding? Or something potentially serious could have happened with the server. What was it again? [13:33:21] Hmm not sure. Definitely not flooding, it's on the first floor. Probably happened when I was away on vacation and it just stopped responding. [13:35:00] maybe it was just the server being completely dead potentially [13:36:12] on its own [13:40:50] oh that was me. I saw flooding in the Netherlands in the news, and then a few hours later everything went offline. and I jumped to conclusions [13:41:04] lol [13:42:49] I'm in the part of the Netherlands that's above sea level, so if flooding reaches my house there won't be much left of the netherlands [13:43:31] Then next to Germany are a few small West Frisian Islands [13:43:43] We did have flooding in Limburg a few years ago. A lot of molten ice in the mountains and heavy rain in Germany caused the rivers to leap their banks [13:46:58] yeah happens occasionally [13:47:49] no reason for the server to be afraid and turn itself off [13:53:16] I live in building that used to be a textile mill in the 19th century. our parking lot is the old canal that fed water to the turbines (long ago filled in). occasionally the water decides the parking lot is a better place to go than over the dam spillway [14:00:29] when that happens in my home town it's going to flood the local swimming pool. Has happened 2-3 in my lifetime. You don't want to swim when that happens. Or in the week afterwards before it's all cleaned up. [16:16:51] morning! [17:04:04] hey Mike [17:06:39] n7275, my new SFP table format is fixed width, 80 characters. Just implemented the function in my trajectory design tool to write a file in that format [17:07:44] more relevant will be the format of the launch vehicle targeting objectives that gets sent from MSC to MSFC for LVDC targeting. I have the data in the right format for Apollo 16 May Launch month [17:08:10] so I want my tool to both write and read this format [17:08:58] then it can come up with the data itself or I can read in a file with some actual NASA numbers [17:10:00] I don't have much hope to find real SFP data sets [17:10:14] they were likely only on punch cards or on tape [18:01:56] yay! fixed width [18:03:45] :D [18:55:10] good afternoon [18:56:11] hey Alex [19:02:33] hey [19:22:23] hello [16:40:56] hey [16:48:02] hey Niklas [16:51:08] hey guys [16:51:23] hi Alex [16:59:59] morning! [17:04:36] hello hello [17:11:32] so I ended up launching STS-61, with a hacked HST orbit [17:11:44] to make the plane error smaller [17:12:13] by increasing its inclination to 32 degrees or so, I was able to make it work [17:12:58] that should be a bit more reachable [17:13:11] of course it changed the launch time a bit [17:13:19] but the NPC is only 7 ft/s [17:13:29] oh nice [17:13:37] so I want to try to integrate it into another burn [17:13:41] maybe NSR [17:13:42] more luck than good ascent guidance I fear, but, still nice :D [17:16:56] I calculated the NPC at the time of NSR and its even less, 5 ft/s [17:17:29] and that still gives you zero plane error at TI? [17:36:44] a very small one, -0.24 ft/s DVY at TI [17:37:07] ah good [17:48:56] ah [17:49:13] NULL=0.0 [17:49:20] thats what I added to NSR [18:00:45] yeah that nulls the out of plane velocity at the time of NSR [18:00:51] not necessarily making you in-plane at TI [18:00:56] but it usually helps [18:13:28] right [20:40:46] https://www.dropbox.com/s/5q4hu0s647negor/Screenshot%202023-10-21%2016.40.06.png?dl=0 [20:40:53] caught myself a Hubble! [20:42:25] very nice! [21:04:54] night! [12:29:38] good morning [12:31:59] hey Matt [12:32:07] I discovered something potentially very exciting [12:32:25] The University of Alabama in Huntsville has collections of people who worked at MSFC at the time of Apollo [12:32:48] A gentleman named Gerald Wittenstein must have worked on Saturn V targeting, there are at least Apollo 8 and 10 LVOTs in his papers [12:33:28] And how I actually found his collection, five volumes about the Quick Response Targeting Program, the tool they used to generate LVDC presettings [12:33:42] nothing digital of course [12:33:56] But there is a digitization request form, free of charge [12:35:07] The form asks if you are a US citizen, so the pessimist in me already thinks I am going to be rejected based on that :D [12:35:33] so what/how do I request first and not screw it up... [12:36:51] LVOTs are 600 pages, the form says they might deny scanning requests based on size. So maybe I should ask for one QRTP volume first, assuming one volume is not 600 pages [12:40:34] I don't mind requesting some things for you, ITAR permitting of course [12:41:49] oh that would be really awesome. Yeah, ITAR might be annoying as usual haha. If you get something that you aren't allowed to share then I won't ask you to give it to me. [12:42:26] considering the Apollo 14 LVOT is on the public NTRS, I feel like at the very least we could get the Apollo 10 presettings out of this [12:42:39] if they don't want to scan the whole document we can ask for the section with the numbers [12:42:59] the QRTP is what is most exciting to me right now [12:43:05] I had emailed with two UAH archivists recently about Skylab stuff [12:43:31] ah interesting. Anything that came of it? [12:43:38] or was it more of a generic request [12:43:46] I know they have a small Skylab collection [12:45:16] so what do we have here... [12:45:18] The Boeing Company, Space Division, "Saturn V/Apollo Quick-Response Targeting Program Volume I of V", 1968-01-02 [12:45:26] The Boeing Company, Aerospace Group, Southeast Division, "Saturn V/Apollo Quick-Response Targeting Program Volume II of V", 1969-07-29 [12:45:31] the dates are confusing [12:45:39] the other volumes are also 1969-07-29 [12:46:08] a tiny bit early, but probably still makes sense to ask for Volume I first [12:46:29] maybe some introductary section [12:46:34] that didn't change afterwards [12:46:47] I think/hope that this is documents with flowcharts and stuff [12:47:15] here the link to Volume I: http://libarchstor.uah.edu:8081/repositories/2/archival_objects/54363 [12:47:26] and here [12:47:30] https://libguides.uah.edu/archives [12:47:40] has a "Submit a Digitization Request" button [12:48:20] there are a few other QRTP bits and pieces in a collection, but it would be more for a (much) later request [12:48:34] in the* [12:52:11] the archivist from Wichita State University pointed me to them when she told me about the library being under construction until 2024 [12:52:33] they didn't have the ATMDC document sadly [12:53:27] apparently they do have a bunch of (possibly unscanned?) photographs though [12:55:28] we know so little about the ATMDC still, anything we can get haha [13:46:11] I'll be back in a couple of hours [16:04:55] morning! [16:09:24] hey Mike [16:15:03] hey [17:09:44] n7275, so what do you think should be requested first. Probably something that is unlikely to be rejected due to ITAR or something? [17:11:31] thewonderidiot, UAH archives has a five volume document about the Saturn V targeting program [17:11:46] and there seems to be a way to request digitization, without fee [17:11:55] also Apollo 8 and 10 LVOTs... [17:12:23] and another "operational trajectory" from August 1969, but I can't identify that as either LVOT or SCOT from that date, so I don't know what it is [17:13:19] yeah, probably something we're likely to actually get first [17:31:02] nice :D [17:35:00] I don't know, I give LVOT and QRTP documentation about a similar chance :D [17:35:15] LVOT is probably a bunch longer than one volume of the QRTP documentation [20:56:42] night! [14:58:27] hey [14:58:44] good morning [15:06:23] n7275, so about the UAH request. Maybe it was nonsensical to think that you sending the request is really much improving our odds. Either they are sending scans to everyone for this stuff or it is US citizens only and you can't share it with me anyway. Maybe? [15:06:45] What do you think. I didn't just ask you because I am lazy, but maybe my reason didn't make much sense :D [15:08:41] in all likelihood, if I need to prove to them that I'm a US citizen before they would scan it, they're not going to--even though I am [15:09:18] kind of a "if you have to ask, the answered is no" situation [15:09:33] so it probably doesn't matter who requests it [15:09:48] right [15:12:16] I guess I'll request it then. Even if just to avoid the awkward situation where you actually do get a scan but I am not allowed to look at it. I'd hate that :D [15:12:39]