[13:18:56] NASSP Logging has been started by n7275 [13:18:58] good morning [13:25:59] hey Matt [13:26:25] the last time I had this happen it was Windows doing funny things in the background :D [13:28:57] but I will check if I also notice something like it [13:29:08] I tested this out on my end and couldn't observe anything [13:31:02] had a good few days? [13:47:16] can't say I see an unusual framerate either [14:05:20] yeah, I had some grand plans on getting a bunch of stuff done (NASSP and otherwise) and I mostly just hung out with family [14:06:37] I had grand plans of not doing anything with NASSP for a few days and 100% succeeded :D [14:06:49] lots of family, food and drink [14:09:17] nice [14:13:30] the S-IVB systems timestep and the function to create the new particle effects aren't actually called until S-II/S-IVB sep [14:13:52] so it couldn't be that specifically causing any timestep issues [14:14:31] performance issues [14:54:35] the only time I ever see performance issues is when I forget to restart for like 3 weeks [15:53:54] hey [15:54:31] yeah I think it might be an issue with my system then [16:01:21] hey Alex [16:01:28] yeah I couldn't replicate it either [16:01:41] the new venting effects are created at S-II/S-IVB sep [16:20:40] right [16:21:28] hows your holidays going? [16:26:08] pretty good so far. But now I have a sore throat, I guess from spending too much time with a bunch of people :D [16:28:21] spreading sicknesses like it's 2019 [16:28:25] oh no, and didn't you have COVID just recently? :D [16:28:57] yeah, sadly there are enough other illnesses still going around haha [16:29:10] true [16:33:57] and how was is it for you? [16:34:12] got a break from visiting so many lunar landing sites? [16:35:59] haha yeah, had to work actually from the 23rd to the 26th but had an early Christmas with family beforehand [16:44:16] I hope you didn't have trouble with Santa [16:44:18] https://avherald.com/h?article=512c88be&opt=0 [16:50:12] hehe yeah I think my colleague showed me that one! [18:14:59] indy91, do you think I should squash my systems update into a single giant commit? [18:17:40] it would probably make reverting easier, and it's so interrelated I can't see only doing that to part of it if we had to [18:20:35] aha [18:21:04] just updated my graphic drivers and the problem seems to be gone [18:24:28] n7275, yeah that probably makes sense [18:24:48] AlexB_88, haha, a few people recently had the opposite issue. A graphics client update causing bad performance. [18:25:04] oh, if you had already recently done an update of it, maybe that was the cause [18:26:23] you mean the D3D9 client? Still using the same from a few years ago I think [18:26:48] Beta R30.7 Jul 22 2021 [18:31:48] Nvidia drivers [18:32:26] yeah sorry, I said the wrong thing haha [18:32:36] Ryan and at least one other person had performance issues after they did an update of the drivers [18:32:59] maybe it was a temporary bug in the drivers [18:37:14] ah yes [18:37:25] I think I had done a recent update, before todays [18:37:41] so that must be it [18:39:09] luckily it was that because I was about to blame it on the ATDP Trojan :D [18:42:24] haha, yeah, the ATDP is calling very dangerous external software [18:42:37] some call it gnuplot [18:49:09] Lunar-stay temperatures are looking pretty good [19:21:44] ah that's promising [19:24:47] I have a ~1400 word (with about a dizen figures) forum post ready for when we merge it too :) [19:25:06] *dozen [20:28:10] indy91, just looking at the RTCC mission file structure [20:32:07] I wonder if there would be a way to have multiple mission files for a given mission number, like for example a scenario where Apollo 13 had no failure and landed normally at Fra Mauro, then you could simulate a fictional Apollo 14 based on the original plan for it which I believe was the Littrow crater. I guess you would need "Apollo 14 SFP.txt' etc but you could also have "Apollo 14B SFP" etc [20:35:10] Or for Apollo 18,19,20 you could have different versions of each mission reflecting all their potential landing sites [20:46:52] in my latest RTCC files update I made it so you can name the files anything you want [20:47:07] doesn't have to include the word Apollo or a number [20:47:19] just has to selected once in the config menu [20:47:21] but [20:47:28] this doesn't apply to the Init file [20:47:37] I have no good concept to achieve the same for that file [20:47:42] ah [20:48:06] for the init file, I guess you just have to not have over-lapping dates [20:48:31] yeah. But for the other files, I have a "short hand" for launch scenarios so that you only have to put one line in it [20:48:53] RTCC_MISSIONFILES Apollo 11 [20:48:56] for example [20:49:10] makes it so it automatically loads "Apollo 11 Constants", "Apollo 11 TLI" and "Apollo 11 SFP" [20:49:19] but the names are saved/loaded separately [20:49:27] so in the config menu you can change them to anything you want [20:50:10] that's how I have tested it for Tycho [20:50:14] loaded a stock Apollo 17 scenario [20:50:21] and made all the changes in-sim [20:50:40] best order is: file selection, launch day selection, launch time [20:51:07] similar to how they actually loaded mission constants and the other stuff from tape into the computer memory [20:51:12] before running P80 [20:53:03] right [20:53:48] afternoon! [20:54:09] hey Mike [20:54:35] how's it going? [20:54:40] So if I have files Apollo 14B Constants, Apollo 14B SFP, Apollo 14B TLI and I can put RTCC_MISSIONFILES Apollo 14B in the launch scenario? [20:54:44] hey Mike [20:55:31] AlexB_88, I think that would work, it's based on the "Apollo 14B" string and not a number [20:57:04] thewonderidiot, getting sick again it seems like. Turns out if you put 8 people from 4 different cities in a house for a few days, 2 of them already arriving a bit sick, bad things happen haha [20:57:27] but not Covid [20:57:32] just something annoying [20:58:06] hah yeah, that does cause bad things to happen haha [20:58:19] but glad it's just something annoying and not something miserable :D [20:58:24] I didn't read everything on Discord, made some good progress with Sunspot? Or at least as good as one could hope for [20:58:49] yeah! I tentatively have module B21 fully repaired, and fully disassembled [20:59:11] B22 was already fully repaired and I should finish disassembling it in a few days [20:59:31] and then, back to B28, which I think two banks will be fully repairable and two banks we might only get the first 75% [21:00:37] it turns out it's a little bit like Skylark [21:01:08] in orbital integration, they removed whatever lunar capabilities Corona had in order to make room for more advanced earth orbit stuff [21:01:22] ah interesting [21:01:30] maybe like the deorbit TIG search [21:01:43] places that used to select the right mu in Corona and Solarium now only have earth mu hardcoded :) [21:02:03] some form of mu at least [21:02:26] lol yeah, probably still some crazy multiple of mu divided by time or something like that [21:03:04] and speaking of Skylark, I'm planning on making another call about that tomorrow [21:04:19] no further comparisons to Sunspot please, reading the Skylark modules will surely work 100% and on the first try :D [21:04:42] hahaha surely [21:05:11] the track record is good, I have never had a module with 1006399 diodes read incorrectly yet :D [21:05:49] yeah, that should be no problem [21:18:30] my biggest worry is that the Block II rope reader has gotten too bored and broken somehow. but that's why I'm bringing up the backup board, just in case. if any trip is worth bringing a backup board along for it's this one [21:19:24] hmm right. You could use a permanent Block II modules for reading tests. [21:19:29] module* [21:26:46] can't you build a stand-in rope simulator or so? [21:35:52] ehhh not easily [21:41:19] just have to build an actual rope module then :) [21:43:57] I'll enlist my grandma for it [22:22:50] night! [13:06:30] good morning [13:07:45] hello hello [13:09:48] I figured out how they generated a vector pointing from the CSM to the center of the Earth in the RTCC [13:10:07] 0645213|Reference body is the Earth. [13:10:10] 0645215|Latitude, zero. [13:10:12] 0645217|Longitude, zero. [13:10:15] 0645219|Altitude, minus 20,850,000 feet. [13:10:17] 0645227|Uh, could you repeat that height again, guys? [13:12:38] https://i.imgur.com/oSsVrsh.png [13:12:39] it works :D [13:12:45] with the GOST display [13:16:41] oh cool [13:16:56] bit of a dumb workaround haha [13:19:41] Dynamics was also surprised I guess. "20,850,000 feet, wait what?" :D [13:23:03] it's a long way down to the middle [13:31:39] double mintFactor = __max(simdt / 50.0, 0.02); [13:31:47] I hadn't seen yet that you changed this [13:40:01] I guess this forces smaller system timesteps [13:41:26] but only really for small framerates and high time accelerations, it seems [13:45:00] can't see anything wrong with the code of your PR [16:41:15] I stepped away for a bit. I'm back [16:42:57] that change was ment to keep the same systems timestep length, as long as the orbiter timestep is below 1 second [16:44:35] previously the systems timestep started increasing in length at when the Orbiter timestep was 0.5 seconds [16:45:18] which was causing instability in the LM ECS [17:10:52] indy91 https://imgur.com/UW1l0lA [17:18:16] right [17:18:31] yeah that's no problem. No difference at small time accell [17:18:50] and an incentive to buy a new CPU at really high time accel :D [17:23:46] we'll need to do something similar in the CSM when we impliment proper ECS there [17:43:31] morning! [17:44:09] hey Mike [17:46:51] hey [18:03:56] cya! [16:24:25] hello [16:31:10] hey [16:32:54] hey guys [16:43:17] morning! [16:47:13] hey Mike [16:55:32] I'm working on P53 in Sunspot [16:59:55] ah fun. And I stil learned something new about Sunspot again. It has a separate SIVB/IMU align vs. CSM/IMU align. [17:00:47] indeed! [17:01:30] P52: fine alignment when SIVB attached; auto star selection and acquisition with manual overrid [17:02:06] P53: fine alignment when CSM free; automatic star selection and acquisition with manual override; automatic attitude maneuvers with manual override; program terminates with CSM and IMU in attitude required by governing major program [17:10:03] with auto maneuvers, interesting [17:10:51] so many interesting ideas in Sunspot [17:12:11] not necessarily good ones in terms of using the AGC fixed memory wisely, but very interesting :D [17:12:27] hehehe [17:19:49] did certain phone calls happen yet? [17:20:17] no, I ended up being swamped yesterday. going to happen in a couple of hours [17:20:36] ah ok, just wondering haha [17:32:52] indy91, would it be hard to add a pericynthion GMT input box on the mission planning tab of the ATDP? [17:33:18] like the TLC time would be adjusted automatically to arrive at the desired GMT I guess? [17:33:34] or maybe that is a bit ambitious :D [17:34:24] you had asked for that already. It definitely needs some changes deeper down in the logic, not as simple as an input box. But it could be done. [17:34:55] not super difficult [17:36:11] ah ok...I thought it would be something quite simple like just adding an input box. I think that the current solution is still good enough and not worth a huge effort to change [17:37:14] I'm collecting a few ideas for additional features for the ATDP. Right now I want to keep it a bit stable, fix bugs etc. [17:37:43] Most ideas we have will make a bit of a mess with special code for special cases [17:37:45] yeah makes sense [17:38:08] so to keep the code in any way readable these things have to be implemented with some thought put into it haha [17:47:12] I had though, at some point, if writing some plugin for GMAT wasn't easier for the mission planning step :D [17:47:38] if that is at all feasible, it would probably allow us to be more flexible [18:07:23] yeah [18:10:22] I think the interface is quite good already for finding launch windows, needs tweaking of parameters but it will get you to a solution [18:12:04] you just need to learn which parameters to play with to fix whatever issue you have (high LOI/PC+2 DV etc) [18:14:09] I am currently creating a big "bank" of launch windows that I can come back to later to assign to a custom mission [18:23:47] ah fun [19:44:40] one weird issue with the ATDP is sometimes I will get an "Error: TEI trajectory failed to converge on splashdown site" and the solution seems to be changing the Max Inclination by a few degrees or so [19:45:30] the weird thing is the solution is nowhere near hitting the max inclination [19:46:18] like I had it happen with Max Inc: 75, so I set it to 80 and it converged [19:46:46] but the converged solution shows an Inclination of EI of 5.94 deg [19:48:36] hmm, weird [13:47:06] good morning [13:49:45] hey Matt [13:50:19] I approved the systems update. I see nothing that needs to be changed or fixed at this point. [13:52:25] thanks! [13:53:51] let me know when I should merge it [14:01:30] I'm currently getting my post ready [14:07:19] Okay, I'm ready. [14:11:59] oh actually, let me just switch to the branch one last time to find if there is any build warning. I hate those :D [14:16:41] none [14:16:45] I guess there is no going back [14:17:06] merged [14:18:11] congrats! [14:19:26] yay! [14:19:45] my goal was "before 2024" [14:20:09] I'll ping Ryan on Discord, to let him know [14:20:25] and you didn't even have to be shot for your timeline to work out [14:20:40] "Last September after some discussions with @indy91 I attempted to add a large H2 tank to our SIVb" so uhhh [14:20:44] when is that happening :D [14:21:20] the amount of mass going from liquid to gas is still not really correctly simulated I would imagine [14:22:15] I guess that's my next project t haha [14:23:07] how is that handled for the O2 that is going into the cabin from the cryo tanks [14:23:13] probably some cheaty heating up [14:23:38] I wouldn't be opposed to implement that in a cheaty way if we could have everything else as a systems SDK tank simulation [14:23:47] makes it easier to control the amount that boils [14:25:47] BoilAllAndSetTemp() [14:25:54] in the csm ecs [14:26:05] yeah [14:34:36] oh whoops, found a spelling mistake in my post [14:34:52] "propulsive vending" [14:35:30] ah Freudian slip, you capitalist! [14:38:42] lol [16:34:22] hey [16:59:52] hey Alex [17:11:46] morning! [17:21:02] hello hello [17:32:42] n7275, I think some of the launch scenarios are missing the NASSPVER 80002 [17:32:53] all the ones in the WIP folder [17:36:15] and Fictional Missions folder [18:28:39] cya! [18:42:55] AlexB_88, I can update those tonight. [18:43:06] awesome [18:44:18] I am about to launch on a flight to Marius Hills...can't wait to test the new update! [18:52:34] oh nice. that should be a good test of things. [19:17:06] n7275, is it normal to have more caution lights during the prelaunch phase, I have a CRYO PRESS and FC BUS DISCONNECT at T-20min [19:17:20] after using auto-checklist up to that point [19:40:14] one thing, I am using the J-Mission conversion so I used the commented blocks in the systems config files [19:41:12] just noticed in the CSM, H2TANK1 and H2TANK2 have VALVE OUT 1 0.0001 [19:41:31] but the commented J-mission version has VALVE OUT 1 0.000001 [19:41:38] wonder if that explains it [19:51:48] oh yeah, that would do it [19:51:51] damn [19:52:13] I know I fixed that in the past [19:52:37] must've got lost in a previous branch somewhere [19:57:33] I'm pretty sure that smaller out valve starved the FCs [19:59:46] right [20:00:36] also my O2 tank 2 pressure gauge is full scale low [20:01:03] I guess that causes the CRYO PRESS caution [20:01:19] O2 tank 1 showing 500 PSIA [20:02:56] actually that was the surge tank [20:03:13] O2 tank 1 is also full scale low 100 PSIA [20:28:18] ah [20:28:22] https://github.com/orbiternassp/NASSP/pull/1023/files#diff-10a0bdfee4eaad85aef1c5531189724085104e637f10cd227cee658f32dd459aR33 [20:28:39] I think they were fixed there [20:30:23] n7275, the CHM values were also adjusted for the normal config O2/H2 tanks, should they be also changed for the J-mission config? [21:35:48] yes, I think I need to run those through my calculator though [21:36:02] sorry about that [21:41:52] no worries haha...Ill run the mission with the standard systems config for now [21:42:12] Ill just ask one of my guys to hold their breath :D [14:07:27] hey [14:13:13] hey [14:14:37] any major issues found yet with the systems update? [14:14:58] old scenarios have a bit of a hiccup, but, nothing major [14:17:26] other than me forgetting part of the J mission stuff, not so far [14:18:34] checks Discord again [14:22:56] I'm implementing some parts of the AGOP, Apollo Generalized Optics Program. Maybe not the most urgent thing to work on, but, it's fun geometry stuff :D [14:23:59] it's a RTACF program, so, no real RTCC documentation gets in my way of implementing it in a user friendly way [14:25:37] so far I have implemented a calculation for the best P23 attitude (option 1), showing unit vectors for e.g. P52 to the Earth, Sun, Moon (option 3) and just displaying a unit vector from the star catalog for P52 (option 3) [14:26:18] option 4 will be antenna pointing. HGA, Steerable and even the RR. [14:27:26] awesome. that'll be very useful to have [14:27:36] I have a RTACF input guide for Apollo 9 [14:28:25] I also have the RTACF requirements for most missions. By Apollo 11 they had a few more features in the AGOP [14:28:34] and I'll definitely add e.g. the crescent align there, too [17:00:00] I'll be logging off for the rest of the year [17:00:16] I think 2024 will be a good year! [17:02:16] see you all then! [18:07:58] hi Alex [18:09:28] hey [18:09:47] thanks for the J-mission fix [18:10:13] coming up on LOI soon, everything went pretty well so far [18:23:49] nice [18:24:52] what landing site are you headed for? [18:36:21] Marius Hills [18:36:59] Built the mission with Nik's tool [18:51:04] nice [18:52:26] alternate Apollo 15? [19:03:12] yeah I guess it could be that but I called it Apollo 18 as its in May of '73 [19:58:07] I have a branch up with a bunch of fictional missions that I created, based on various plans NASA had for Apollo 18-20 [19:59:09] https://github.com/jalexb88/NASSP/tree/MCCApolloXX/Scenarios/Project%20Apollo%20-%20NASSP/Fictional%20Missions [20:02:14] I also made a generic MCC for custom missions in this branch [20:03:02] it is based on the Apollo 15 profile but is made to be useable by missions created with the ATDP [20:05:24] it is a slimmed down MCC though, CSM abort PADs or abort handling, but you get all the nominal PADs/uplinks [20:05:41] no CSM abort PADs or abort handling* [20:49:43] oh cool. I like that [15:58:43] hello [16:00:19] hey Matt [16:00:26] happy new year! [16:04:17] morning! [16:04:21] happy new year! [16:05:24] hello hello [16:14:21] lots of good things to look forward to this year :D [16:15:46] you still have a NARA trip planned, right? I haven't heard back yet from the alternative source of one of the documents. [16:16:27] could be that the email will just be ignored. Or the person is on a 2 week ski trip, you never know about this time of year :D [16:16:46] I have it pencilled in as a "want to do", but at the moment I'm not sure where it falls in the trip priority queue [16:17:14] certainly below the ropes. and I need to follow up with Debbie about a LM Data Book scanning trip [16:17:50] I'll let you know when the NARA trip is in danger of becoming real haha [16:18:10] ah yeah sure, there is nothing I really need in any hurry [16:18:15] the fact that we have a newly updated index from 2023 does make it more interesting [16:19:15] ah yeah I saw that [16:19:34] they combined some sections of it, it seems [16:19:51] doesn't really make it more or less likely that they have these massive IBM RTCC volumes... [16:19:58] hahah yeah [16:20:24] the volumes aren't all "massive", it's very predictable how large they are [16:20:33] they had a cutoff of 1000 pages [16:20:38] then it went into a new volume [16:20:50] lol nice [16:21:01] I guess that's a good a metric as any [16:21:13] I have Volumes 1 and two of "Mission Systems - General" [16:21:23] both 1000 pages [16:21:28] but not 3, nowhere to find [16:21:53] weird [16:21:58] I can pretty much promise it is less than 1000 pages :D [16:22:15] Volume 1 from UHCL, Volume 2 from the archived NTRS [16:22:26] and neither of these two sources had the other volume [16:22:33] slightly suspicious [16:22:56] might have come from the same JSC library and somehow went different directions [16:23:10] oh yeah that's very suspicious, I bet you're right [16:23:23] so we just need to find some secret third repository [16:23:34] but that's just one of many IBM RTCC documents we don't have, despite me getting 1000s of pages from UHCL [16:23:51] UHCL mostly had Mission Planning, all of the MPT stuff [16:24:37] the numbering is all confused anyway. NTRS had something it called Volumes 1, 2 and 3 [16:25:04] but it's from three different books [16:25:16] that's maybe also how it got divided [16:25:29] maybe someone thought there was a complete set, but it's from different books [16:25:31] oh, weird [16:25:46] AS-200 Mission Planning Volume 1 [16:26:02] General Volume 2 [16:26:18] AS-200 Systems Integration Volume 3 [16:26:22] is what NTRS has [16:26:40] the last one is MED formats starting with the letter Q [16:26:45] if they're all RTCC stuff, I could see somebody thinking that the volumes are divided by subject instead of page count [16:26:53] so there definitely would be AS-200 Systems Integration Volume 1-2 as well :D [16:27:19] actually that's the last RTCC document UHCL has that I haven't asked them to scan [16:27:27] another AS-200 Systems Integration [16:27:43] it's just going to be MED formats from 1967, so... [16:28:10] yeah all of these documents start with this in the title [16:28:21] IBM RTCC Apollo Programming Systems - Mission Systems [16:28:23] so would be cool to have, but not super useful [16:28:39] I think I have the equivalent for AS-500 already [16:28:43] yeah, I could see myself making the same mistake haha [16:28:50] so unless it's quite mislabeled, probably not super useful [16:49:56] indy91, I think when I was messing with the SetSize() values (like what MaxQ is doing in his PR), I was increasing it to 10^3ish in size. I don't think there will be any problems if we merge that. [16:50:19] yeah probably [16:50:35] I want to check on this drag thing though [17:11:57] hey [17:12:00] happy new year! [18:04:37] AlexB_88, happy new year! [18:18:54] hi Alex! [19:16:10] just running through LM activation using the Apollo 15 procedures [19:16:43] LM cabin temps are comfy at ~70 F [19:18:16] one discrepancy I notice is the initial closing of the LGC/DSKY circuit breaker [19:19:25] in the activation power up page (2-8) it notes "M.A, LGC ON THEN OFF, RESTART NO DAP" [19:20:00] we do not get the LGC warning and associated MA in NASSP at that moment [19:45:34] interesting [19:46:28] having the Guid Cont switch in AGS inhibits that light [19:46:38] otherwise that signal comes directly from the Virtual AGC [19:47:12] via fake DSKY channel 163 [19:49:28] hmm [19:50:31] thewonderidiot, can the WarningFilter variable in the Virtual AGC even properly work if the agc_engine isn't even called [19:58:41] hmm yeah, I'd like to know better how that works [21:32:42] night! [21:38:38] happy new year Alex! [21:39:04] indy91, agc_engine is written in such a way that it assumes it's being called at the usual rate regardless of standby state [21:40:04] for power state... there might need to be additional logic to simulate the STRT1/STRT2 signals that happen specifically power is applied [21:40:11] *specifically when [21:44:41] thewonderidiot, thanks! Celebrating with a landing attempt at Marius Hills [21:45:01] nice :D [23:00:44] AlexB_88, temps still looking good? [23:43:11] n7275, just before CSM circ burn...suit: 72 F, cabin: 68 F [23:43:22] sorry [23:43:27] cabin: 58 F [23:43:49] both astronauts in suit [23:48:55] nice [15:28:55] hey [16:10:38] hey Nik [16:26:13] I think my next project is going to be finishing off my CreateAirfoil4 PR for OO [16:26:41] so if Orbiter 2024 happens, that's included. [16:30:49] ah great [16:36:16] Someone, (GLS, I think) had asked me about adding some conversion functions so that it was easier to convert between body and stability coeffients in-sim [16:36:23] that shouldn't be too hard [16:38:46] personally, if I were implimenting an aerodynamic force model, and only had stability coeffieints, I would probably just pre-compute them, and save a few function calls/cpu cycles, but I'm sure not everyone wants to do that [16:40:36] yeah I am not sure. It's kind of difficult to have a model that works really well for both aircraft and spacecraft [16:46:08] I think I'll add one more parameter to my new CreateAirfoilEx2 function, a VECTOR3 velocity unit-vector [16:46:42] that way it can truely be a singularity-free vector function if someone wants it to be. [16:47:12] I like that [16:50:25] hi Alex [16:50:58] aaaand I run into the typical problem again with my new optics calculations, the 1:1 MFD aspect ratio... [16:51:18] it just about works on the 2D panel [16:51:27] but with the External MFD the scaling is always worse [16:51:37] so parts of the display get cut off [16:54:59] it would be nice if they had smooth scaling [17:02:16] the stock MFDs solve it by having just enough spare space at the sides [17:03:17] I'm usually pushing it to the limit with the width. Originally all RTCC MFD displays were only optimized for 2D panels [17:03:32] as you will have noticed, that rarely works well with the External MFD... [17:04:33]