Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 24, 2020, 04:24:30 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the new Meadville Space Center forums!
25068 Posts in 2094 Topics by 2267 Members
Latest Member: Apollo Next
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
31  Project Apollo - NASSP / Project Apollo - NASSP Development / Re: V8 Release Work Thread on: March 15, 2017, 02:29:32 PM
What I really want to say is that all these issues require some deep knowledge about the Orbiter API. And it's been very frustrating so far to try and fix these issues. I don't think I am the right person to work on this. I can and will improve the RTCC MFD, work on MCC stuff, work on everything Virtual AGC related and certain subsystems that are interesting and don't require too much complicated coding, but all the issues I talked about above are beyond my knowledge and abilities. So I am not going to work on that anymore, if I am just wasting my time with them without progress. I hope dseagrav or anyone else can work on these issues, but if not, then NASSP 8.0 will not see meaningful progress for a while.

With the progress NASSP's been seeing you knew the roadblock would have to come up somewhere. Does NASSP 8 alpha work on Orbiter2010? Is there anything stopping us from staying on 2010, getting the rest of the MCC support and LEM working then worry about moving to version 2016?

I've been thinking about digging into the Orbiter SDK. Minimal programming experience here but when I'm done learning how it works I'll check back in. Hopefully I could at least reduce your workload with subsystems or something.
32  Project Apollo - NASSP / Project Apollo - NASSP Development / Re: Virtual AGC on: March 11, 2017, 02:07:20 PM
I had the same issue landing long on both 11 and 15. Maybe it had something to do with the Moon's gravity in Orbiter vs reality? Or maybe the Moon's rotation is modeled slightly differently in Orbiter vs the AGC? On both 11 and 15 in both Orbiter 2010 and 2016 if I run a P21 it will miscalculate by about 3-hundredths of a degree to the east and land long.
33  Project Apollo - NASSP / Support & Bugs / Re: Apollo 8 Beta Testing Bugs on: February 02, 2017, 10:07:57 PM
Try setting your PCM bit rate to low and then uplink - fixed it in your scenario for me. Never saw that on 8 but had it happen alot in the alpha-LEM on 11. As for the cause I have no idea as to whether or not it is a bug.
34  Project Apollo - NASSP / Project Apollo - NASSP Development / Re: What needs done? on: February 02, 2017, 09:26:13 AM
I've done a few modifications myself, which I have now commited. Is the Entry Checklist incomplete in the Earth Orbit Reenty part? Because it ends with P30 and doesn't have the deorbit burn. Do you want to take care of that, abr35, or should I fix the checklist? Use the document in the repository for that though, I have done a few smaller changes to the Entry Checklist already.

I noticed the Lunar Reentry procedure was identical and includes a step for going to the G&C checklist for the deorbit burn. So I only included only the vehicle prep. If you want to paste it in I probably won't have the time for a week or so.
35  Project Apollo - NASSP / Project Apollo - NASSP Development / Re: What needs done? on: February 01, 2017, 06:11:19 PM
Going to be busy for awhile and haven't had time to learn about Git. Rather than rush learning it and screw something up or have these sit around on my HD for 2 weeks I'll stick the revised docs here. The only thing left undone is the P37 planning for the 7 Flight Plan. What exactly is needed for that: just a splashdown target and ReA?
36  Project Apollo - NASSP / Project Apollo - NASSP Development / Re: What needs done? on: January 31, 2017, 11:32:37 AM
Well that would do it wouldn't it?  ROTFL Alright should have the Flight Plan all cleaned up soon.
37  Project Apollo - NASSP / Project Apollo - NASSP Development / Re: What needs done? on: January 30, 2017, 11:16:56 PM
@abr35: I have found two problems in the Apollo 7 documents:

-The procedure to update the W-Matrix at the top of page F1-9 in the Flight Plan should say "V25N01E" and not "V24N01E".
-In the Update Forms document the coordinates for a landmark are wrong. The line for 145:46 GET should say:

145:46   Punta Yoyameko (10)   +29.039   -56.292   +000.10

Let me know if you haven't started working on the Apollo 7 documentation, then I can fix these myself.

I've got it. Entry checklist done. Already got to work on the update forms so I'll take care of this too. I tried using VECPOINT in the RTCC MFD for the Thermal Degredation REFSMAT, PTC Attitude, and the SPS Thermal Control Test, but it does not point the S/C away from/abeam to the sun. Is that a common issue? Just started using VECPOINT today.
38  Project Apollo - NASSP / Project Apollo - NASSP Development / Re: What needs done? on: January 26, 2017, 11:24:58 AM
The Apollo 7 scenarios are done. The Checklist MFD file should also be release ready now.

What is not release ready yet are the Word checklists and the mission specific documents. The Apollo 7 flight plan and update forms both need a bunch of minor fixes. The yellow marked areas in the flight plan still need to be finalized and there are a bunch of references to other documents, e.g. the update forms that are not correct. The flight plan says "Record LVPD (Launch Veh. Press. Display)   F/4-6", but F/4-6 is not the correct page in the update forms document. In fact, the update forms document currently uses the same numbers (starting with F/1-1) as the flight plan. So these things still need to be worked out. Any volunteer?

Also, there are currently four separate Word checklists for different reentry procedures. Only the Lunar Entry document is really up to date. The actual Apollo 8 Entry Checklist has all these information in one document. So, someone has to use the "CSM Reentry.doc" document and then, based on the actual Apollo 8 Entry Checklist, incorporate the documents "Deorbit Maneuver.doc", "Earth Orb Entry Veh Prep.doc" and "SPS_SM RCS Deorbit.doc" in it. Again, does someone wants to take over that job?

When the Apollo 8 scenarios are done we can finalize all this documentation and then we are good for the release.

I could take care of the Word checklists. I could probably get the Apollo 8 Entry checklist merged in a few days. Update forms might take a little longer.
39  Project Apollo - NASSP / Programming / Re: LM status... on: December 30, 2016, 03:46:29 PM
If you have them in PDFs or something I'd love a copy to compare to what I have so far.  I've pretty much been using the Apollo 9 flight plan and Apollo 12 checklists to create mine.

Sure! It assumes the LEM is powered and the IMU is coarse aligned to a known orientation. I've had an issue with the IMU causing a CTD if there is no known orientation. So starting the IMU for the first time, gimbal lock, and changing orientation, all cause Orbiter to crash. I started work with a scenario that has the IMU on. The procedure for EPS, LR, and RR are from the LM11 AOH and the rest is from the descent document Indy91 posted, with some adjustments made for Orbiter. If you need any help with Apollo 9 I'd be happy to dig around, or test things out, or anything else you need.
40  Project Apollo - NASSP / Programming / Re: LM status... on: December 28, 2016, 04:21:42 PM
In the long run we will probably want two types of checklists. For those who want to have all the procedures printed out, we provide Word Checklists or historical documents, whenever we have them and apply to NASSP spacecraft. For Apollo 7 and 8 we have also created very extensive files for the Checklist MFD. These are the best way for new users and testing. I'm not sure, if we really want a third way to show checklists. There still exist very outdated chm files with checklist. I'm not sure if we really have a purpose for them between the Checklist MFD and Word checklists. In any case you should coordinate your efforts with rcflyinghokie, who has already started with the Checklist MFD file for Apollo 9.

Sounds good! I'll just hang onto it for when/if it becomes useful to what rcflyinghokie is up to. If nothing else I learned my way around the LEM for when we get there ROTFL
41  Project Apollo - NASSP / Project Apollo - NASSP Development / Re: Cue Cards with clickspot on: December 28, 2016, 02:45:43 PM
Really like this idea! Part of what makes NASSP so deep is that all of the different instruments act as they are supposed to. The cue cards would help us monitor and understand those instruments during a maneuver. We would need those cue cards 'hollowed out' with a specific color I assume? Or would we want custom ones that look a little crisper?

Nice find with the onboard recording of an MCC. Flying NASSP gives a new level of understanding to the old transcripts and debriefings.
42  Project Apollo - NASSP / Programming / Re: LM status... on: December 28, 2016, 02:41:21 PM
I have the procedure put together. A user on the forum who I believe has passed on (jc121018), put together some basic flight plans when the CSM was in early development. I aimed to do the same sort of thing for the LEM so that people can fly it and bug test it without having to dig through all of the historical documents. A temporary guide that will be replaced when the time comes. Right now it's a chm to be opened as a help file in Orbiter. Is that good enough, or would a checklist xml be more suitable?
43  Project Apollo - NASSP / Programming / Re: LM status... on: December 26, 2016, 08:30:58 PM
The document you posted was extremely helpful! All I could find were up to then was the LM timeline books which were very sparse when it came to powered descent. I used what you posted for everything but the LR test. The radar test contained in the LM descent summary did not remove the alarm. The one from the LM11 AOH did and I'll include it here. Shouldn't work, it's from Apollo 16 and uses different software, but it worked for me. And worked every time. Scenario is attached. It's the one I originally tried to send with the old pad load but it still takes the alarm away. Maybe you could tell me what I'm doing right because I don't have the foggiest idea! Both the 11 and 16 procedures include the same steps, but in a different order. LM-11 only omits the V60.

LDG RDR cb close

ALT 7700 to 8100 ft
ALT RATE 478 to -482 ft
XPNTR off scale upper right

F 04 12 V22E 2E
F 16 66
R1 = 08276 to 08296 +/- 2 ft

R2 = 00001
R2 = 00001
LDG RDR ANT HOVER (wait 10s, poss alarm)
R2 =00002
LDG RDR ANT DES (wait 10s, poss alarm)
R2 = 00001
R2 = 00001

F 16 67
R1 = -0493 to -0497
R2 = +01860 to +01864
R3 = +01329 to +01333


LDG RDR cb open

Edit: Pressing PRO at Noun 67 to complete the routine seems to make the difference. Didn't even put the test switch to landing and still got away with it. As long as I did a V63 Option 2 and hit PRO when I got to N67, I had no alarm.
44  Project Apollo - NASSP / Programming / Re: LM status... on: December 26, 2016, 06:37:27 PM
Second time through while proofreading the procedure I did a RR test after my LR test. Ran into the 522 alarm at PDI. Backed out and tried again with a LR test before PDI. Got an ALT lt as opposed to a 522. Everything went smoothly after that. I wonder if V63 Option 2 sets some flag involving the antenna position?

I can only acquire Columbia and get RR data to the LGC by using the docking HUD to boresight the CSM.  P20 goes through an endless search pattern even with the CSM right on the +Z axis. So I'm going to omit those parts for now. Unless the RR should be more functional then that?
45  Project Apollo - NASSP / Programming / Re: LM status... on: December 24, 2016, 09:19:53 PM
I managed to land with the updated post undocking scenario. There is no 522 alarm and the LR passed the self-test successfully. I typed up a very rough landing procedure from undocking to touchdown based on the Apollo 11 flight plan and LM11 AOH (with not yet functional procedures bracketed) and I will try to get it up on the wiki after doing some clean up and proofreading after the holiday. The only issue I noticed was that occasionally an auto maneuver would be targeted the wrong way (+/- 180 deg yaw), so my RR test and sun check failed the first time, but I did get successful results more often than not.

Took a few tries to even post that message so still can't get the scenario up yet  ROTFL.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!