[19:18:21] NASSP Logging has been started by n7275
[19:18:23] <n7275> hey alex
[16:18:35] <thewonderidiot> morning!
[16:50:26] <indy91> happy new year!
[17:41:28] <n7275> indy91, thewonderidiot, happy new year!
[18:01:53] <thewonderidiot> indy91, n7275 happy new year!!
[18:03:56] <indy91> thewonderidiot, I see several new scans of documents from the last few months, but I am still catching up, haven't looked much at them yet
[18:04:46] <indy91> already had a difficult time today trying to build things with Orbiter 2024 haha
[18:21:35] <n7275> linking issues?
[18:23:22] <thewonderidiot> indy91, the two I'd most recommend are the SL-1/2 SCOT and the Apollo 12 GUIDO postflight report (although the other postflight reports are also interesting reads :) )
[18:23:46] <thewonderidiot> also, I'm making it a goal for this year to get my ass to Boston to scan the entire LM data book
[18:24:21] <indy91> n7275, that too. Initially it was that my MFDs are typically using the project property files that came with Orbiter (under Orbitersdk\resources), got me a weird VS error where it didn't even try to build anything.
[18:27:00] <indy91> maybe I should create a CMake file for e.g. the FDO MFD, then I don't need to tinker with the VS settings for so long
[18:28:06] <indy91> debug mode doesn't build due to linking issues, but I think that is a know thing
[18:30:25] <indy91> thewonderidiot, anything specifc in the Apollo 12 document?
[18:30:26] <n7275> yeah, static linking between debug and release is aparently now allowed now
[18:31:41] <thewonderidiot> it has some detail on the lightning strike I hadn't seen anywhere else, and is written in a pretty humorous way. also there's an attached memo at the end called "How to Break the Optics" that describes one of the optics issues we've seen in NASSP
[18:35:48] <indy91> hmm, I see
[18:37:15] <indy91> so it would be unfortunate timing of a V37E00E
[18:37:21] <indy91> during optics zeroing
[18:38:57] <thewonderidiot> yep
[18:40:40] <n7275> oh interesting
[18:42:25] <indy91> astronaut didn't do anything wrong, checklists say to wait for 15 seconds, not 16 seconds :D
[19:11:11] <indy91> thewonderidiot, LM Data Book would be great to have. Saturn V EDD as well, but please don't spend 80 cents per page for 500+ pages
[19:12:52] <indy91> With the Saturn V EDD it's really this one big change I'd like to implement, the IGM stage timing for mixture ratio change and more importantly for S-II cutoff that doesn't have to be super precisely calibrated with presettings or otherwise there is a large pitch change the S-IVB has to do at ignition.
[19:13:59] <indy91> everything else from the EDD is just nice to have, we probably have good guestimates for everything that got changed since 1967 (the Boeing document)
[19:15:05] <thewonderidiot> indy91, too late, request for those EDDs is already in
[19:15:11] <indy91> haha ok
[19:16:14] <thewonderidiot> Ron and I agreed to go for it ASAP while it's available, in case it becomes not available haha
[19:16:23] <indy91> ouch yeah
[19:16:35] <indy91> well it will be nice to know what for example Eq. 4.4.9 is, from the flowcharts we already have :D
[19:17:05] <thewonderidiot> in the mean time we should request the AS-501 one from UAH. probably not as helpful but still would be good to have
[19:17:10] <thewonderidiot> did you have a contact for that?
[19:17:11] <indy91> The equations part of the EDD together with the flowcharts is an amazing combination to get really close to the actual code
[19:17:39] <indy91> huge update for the Saturn IB has only not happened yet because it's a giant project
[19:19:02] <indy91> just archives@uah.edu is the address is got/sent emails
[19:19:16] <indy91> https://libguides.uah.edu/archives
[19:19:28] <thewonderidiot> cool, so you just emailed them there and asked if you could request scans?
[19:19:38] <indy91> Charlie Gibbons from that page is the one I interacted with
[19:20:09] <indy91> oh actually
[19:20:17] <indy91> initially I used the form from that website
[19:20:28] <indy91> "Submit a Digitization Request"
[19:20:38] <thewonderidiot> ahh okay
[19:21:22] <thewonderidiot> awesome, thanks! I'll get that kicked off in a week or so when everybody's back to school/work :)
[19:23:41] <indy91> fun
[19:23:51] <indy91> I didn't want to bother them after my large initial request
[19:24:09] <indy91> I think they also have an Apollo 10 LVOT, which I wanted to request at some point
[19:24:40] <thewonderidiot> oh nice
[20:49:05] <indy91> cya!
[17:51:43] <indy91> good evening
[17:53:26] <thewonderidiot> morning!
[18:00:05] <indy91> what's up?
[18:20:16] <thewonderidiot> back to work unfortunately
[18:20:33] <thewonderidiot> and you?
[18:26:15] <indy91_> getting some Apollo 10 MCC changes done, one of the projects that I nearly got finished a few months ago.
[18:27:36] <indy91_> not very complex, so a good project to get started again :D
[18:33:20] <thewonderidiot> haha nice yeah that sounds like a good way to ease back in
[18:36:19] <indy91_> mostly changing timing or the order of updates
[18:36:37] <indy91_> But I had an idea on how to improve MCC code
[18:37:05] <indy91_> I often need utility functions that replace things like "FIDO looks at a display and writes down a number"
[18:37:14] <indy91_> I don't want to clutter the RTCC class with it though
[18:37:30] <indy91_> I think I am adding a "MCC Calculations" class, owned by the MCC class, but with access to RTCC calculations
[18:38:17] <indy91_> only to be used for MCC calculations, as it's not real RTCC code
[19:01:13] <thewonderidiot> sounds reasonable to me haha
[19:13:51] <indy91_> seems like the right place to put ugly wrapper functions for RTCC calls, without cluttering the MCC or RTCC classes themselves
[19:37:16] <AlexB_88> hello
[19:46:19] <thewonderidiot> hey hey
[20:08:02] <n7275> Hey guys
[20:08:10] <n7275> what's up?
[20:09:22] <AlexB_88> not much not much just fighting off the last bit of my new years hangover and you?
[20:17:23] <indy91_> hey Alex and Matt
[20:24:26] <AlexB_88> hey hey
[20:36:22] <indy91_> AlexB_88, hopped on the Orbiter 2024 train yet?
[20:41:04] <AlexB_88> I'd say yes, at least partially. I think the talk is to have a NASSP "release" for 2016 beta then move development to 2024
[20:42:44] <indy91_> pretty much
[20:42:51] <thewonderidiot> it's going to be weird to have an actual NASSP release after all these years :D
[20:43:27] <AlexB_88> was it February of 2017 I think?
[20:43:32] <AlexB_88> NASSP 7 release
[20:44:07] <thewonderidiot> maybe the rule for NASSP version numbers is that we have to wait that many years before the next release
[20:44:39] <AlexB_88> haha
[20:44:48] <AlexB_88> also, is it weird to have a release target a beta version of Orbiter?
[20:45:24] <indy91_> the last patch for NASSP 6 got released in 2006
[20:45:33] <thewonderidiot> oh boy
[20:45:36] <indy91_> so we are still faster than NASSP 7 development :D
[20:46:11] <indy91_> AlexB_88, we don't really have a choice, Apollo 9 doesn't work in Orbiter 2016 release
[20:47:03] <indy91_> we don't have to put too much stock in the Orbiter Beta release of NASSP, targeting the 2024 release is better, we can put more effort in making that a good, stable release
[20:47:28] <indy91_> skipping the Orbiter 2016 "era" entirely would be strange though haha
[20:48:53] <AlexB_88> Oh I definitely didn't think to release for Orbiter 2016, but between 2016 beta or just going for 2024 right now
[20:49:23] <AlexB_88> I sill want to do my docked DPS burns :D
[20:52:11] <thewonderidiot> yeah, I had thought the reason we weren't making an NASSP 8.0 for all these years was so we could make it for OO haha
[20:52:49] <indy91_> well before Orbiter went open source I thought there was going to be just another Orbiter release
[20:53:10] <indy91_> that is really the version we were targeting, but it never happened
[21:03:38] <AlexB_88> Im thinking of flying Apollo 12...not sure yet if I do it on 2016 beta or 2024
[21:14:38] <indy91_> night!
[21:19:48] <n7275> AlexB_88 in 2024 you get to have fun with my gravity model code :)
[21:37:58] <AlexB_88> yeah I had played with it a while back when I was working on my Apollo 17 MCC branch
[23:24:45] <n7275> I'm hopeful that I'll have more time for projects this year