Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 25, 2020, 11:20:13 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Project Apollo Beta 7.0 released!
http://nassp.sf.net/wiki/Installation
25068 Posts in 2094 Topics by 2266 Members
Latest Member: twa517
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Meadville Space Center
|-+  Project Apollo - NASSP
| |-+  Project Apollo - NASSP Development
| | |-+  Planning (Moderators: movieman, Swatch, lassombra)
| | | |-+  Steps before Apollo 7
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Print
Author Topic: Steps before Apollo 7  (Read 40420 times)
lassombra
Moderator
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 410


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2008, 11:36:44 AM »

Yeah, like the heap errors I keep getting? Tongue  I think I might have tracked them down, and they are in my code...

Even so, we really should be looking at why it is that orbiter is spitting out so many objects left over at close.  At last count we have 520 heap nodes still allocated when we close.  Not a problem since the heap gets destroyed there, but that number increases dramatically with rerun simulations...

I'll put this on the sourceforge bug tracker all the same.
Logged

My current Project Apollo work:

Quickstart to the Moon initiative (Quickstart_to_the_Moon): Done through earth orbit.  Working on new method of calculating TLI.

Checklist Controller: 
  • MFD Interface 99%(Minor cleanup and future features remain)
  • Panel Interface 99%
  • Excel interface and logic 99%
  • LEM Event code.0%
  • DSKY Interface code. Framework complete, creating "buttons"
  Approximately 80% done. (Checklist Controller
movieman
Moderator
Hero Member
****
Posts: 1710



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2008, 12:57:40 PM »

Right now there are a lot of bugs in unusual situations which we ought to fix but which there's no record of -- for example, if you separate the SM while the CSM is docked with a LEM, then the CM ends up some distance away from the LEM, with no docking probe. If they're added to the sourceforge bug list then that's an easy way to find which bugs need fixing and to ensure they're not forgotten about.

A lot of those bugs are probably easy to fix (in that case I suspect the docking port is in the wrong place, or non-existent)... but unless we know about them no-one is likely to fix them.
Logged
Swatch
Moderator
Hero Member
****
Posts: 1003


jasonims
View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2008, 01:53:33 AM »

How do we stand?

I know the panels are done.

What systems are currently under development?

Will the automated checklists be ready for a summer freeze on ProjectApollo 7 development and transition to testing?

Are there any showstopping flaws?




The following is up for debate, but needs to be finalized soon.

ProjectApollo 7 Key Point Scenarios:

Backup Crew Pre-Launch (T-3:00:00)?
Prime Crew Pre-Launch (T-1:30:00)?
Launch (T-20 seconds)

First Period Of Activities
SIVB Sep, Transposition and Station Keeping @ 2:55:00 (T+2:50:00)
Phasing Maneuver @ 3:20:00 (T+3:10:00)

Second Period Of Activities
1st SPS Burn @ 26:24:00 (T+26:15:00)
2nd SPS Burn @ 28:00:00 (T+27:50:00)
Terminal Phase Initiation @ ~29:22:00  (T+29:00:00)
Breaking Approach and SIVB Rendezvous @ ~29:36:00  (T+29:25:00)

Third Period Of Activities
3rd SPS Burn @ 3 days, 19:43:00  - Orbital Conditioning
4th SPS BUrn @ 5 days, 00:53:00  - minimum impulse burn...
5th SPS Burn @ 6 days, 21:08:00  - switch to manual TVC
6th SPS Burn @ 8 days, 19:42:00  - minimum impulse burn...
7th SPS Burn @ 9 days, 21:24:00  - Orbital "tune-up"

Deorbit and Landing
8th SPS Burn @ 10days, 21:08:00  - De-orbit
CSM Sep - (Deorbit+00:00:90)
Entry Interface - (Deorbit + 00:14:90)
Chutes Out
Splashdown

Other Possible Scenarios
Lunar Module Rendezvous Radar testing over White Sands
Backup Alignment of Stabilization and Control System
Optics Alignment
Passive Thermal Control Tests
Sextant Landmark Tracking


Those are my suggestions...  and as soon as we're ready let's split a release candidate from the BETA and remove unnecessary items from that branch so that we can bugfix, document, and prepare those scenarios.

Anything else?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 01:56:03 AM by Swatch » Logged

My Project Apollo Work:
CM Visual
 -VC (~75% complete: texture work beginning again; mesh-78%; texture-70%)
Propulsion Particle Improvements (Focused on S1B right now, BETA 1.0 has been commited)
New Docking Method (~50% complete: research complete; coding partially completed, testing not underway)

Future Work:  (if it's here, it's deemed unnecessary to upcoming release)

Older Work:  (if it's here, it's fair game to whoever wants to improve)
EMS Implementation (committed: minor flaws, but groundwork is there, needs extensive testing)
EMS scrolls (committed: not refined, but usable)
SM Visual (committed: mesh-finished, texture-60%; possibly revisited in future)
J2 Texture (commited: room for improvement)
LRV (committed: mesh-finished, texture-90%; in future a ground up rebuild may be in order, but not on my plans)
Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3700


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2008, 05:10:44 AM »

I know the panels are done. What systems are currently under development?

Not completely, there are a few EPS/ECS switches I'm working on (like IMU power for example), but it's getting "cosmetic" sooner or later.

Backup Crew Pre-Launch (T-3:00:00)?
Prime Crew Pre-Launch (T-1:30:00)?

Good point, currently Backup Crew ingress is T-3:00:00, Prime Crew ingress (and cabin closeout) is at T-1:40:00, the latter one about an hour too late, I don't know how many hours the Backup Crew ingress is too late. Some people complained about that, but moving to the historically correct timeline would make the prelaunch even longer. Any opinions/thoughts about that.

Also, it looks like we have a rather major bug in our meshes, the SLA panels seem to be "45 twisted" on both Saturns. I'm not completely sure about that, I'll post in the modeling forum, but if I'm right I know what I'll do next...

Cheers
Tschachim
Logged

Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3700


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2008, 10:51:01 AM »

As mentioned somewhere else I moved the prime crew ingress to the historically correct T-2h40min. Now I wonder if people want to have the Virtual AGC launch scenario start an hour or so earlier to have more time for the backup crew prelaunch checklist, currently you have 20min only?

Cheers
Tschachim
Logged

Swatch
Moderator
Hero Member
****
Posts: 1003


jasonims
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2008, 12:08:55 PM »

First off, as long as we can time accelerate at 100x, I have no problem with more lead time.

Additionally, I would like to know at what point the crews actually started their checklists.  I believe Ingress is purely the time that they entered the capsule... I'm sure it took some time to get them all buttoned in and close the cabin before the checklist work began.
Logged

My Project Apollo Work:
CM Visual
 -VC (~75% complete: texture work beginning again; mesh-78%; texture-70%)
Propulsion Particle Improvements (Focused on S1B right now, BETA 1.0 has been commited)
New Docking Method (~50% complete: research complete; coding partially completed, testing not underway)

Future Work:  (if it's here, it's deemed unnecessary to upcoming release)

Older Work:  (if it's here, it's fair game to whoever wants to improve)
EMS Implementation (committed: minor flaws, but groundwork is there, needs extensive testing)
EMS scrolls (committed: not refined, but usable)
SM Visual (committed: mesh-finished, texture-60%; possibly revisited in future)
J2 Texture (commited: room for improvement)
LRV (committed: mesh-finished, texture-90%; in future a ground up rebuild may be in order, but not on my plans)
Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3700


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2008, 01:34:15 PM »

First off, as long as we can time accelerate at 100x, I have no problem with more lead time.

We can't, the Virtual AGC is running pretty much from the beginning. (I should clarify that all this applies in Virtual AGC Mode only, Quickstart Mode scenarios still start at T-2h00min, now with the prime crew already in the spacecraft.)

Additionally, I would like to know at what point the crews actually started their checklists.  I believe Ingress is purely the time that they entered the capsule... I'm sure it took some time to get them all buttoned in and close the cabin before the checklist work began.

No, prime crew ingress is already part of the checklist. If you take a look at http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/op_procs/aohv2p4-37_4-54.pdf, you'll see that the prime crew prelaunch checklist starts with the CDR entering the CSM, getting connected to the suit circuit, strapped in the seat etc. The ingress process takes about an hour and ends with the backup CMP leaving the spacecraft (the backup crew plays the role of the Astronaut Support Personnel we know from shuttle launches) and hatch closure.

Our checklists start earlier on with the Backup Crew Prelaunch checklist.  I don't know when this checklist began actually, but various press kits state that the backup crew entered the spacecraft at about T-8h30min.

Cheers
Tschachim
Logged

pattersoncr
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 212


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2008, 04:02:12 PM »

First off, as long as we can time accelerate at 100x, I have no problem with more lead time.
We can't, the Virtual AGC is running pretty much from the beginning. (I should clarify that all this applies in Virtual AGC Mode only, Quickstart Mode scenarios still start at T-2h00min, now with the prime crew already in the spacecraft.)
The first step in the backup crew prelaunch procedure is CMC startup.  However, I see no reason that couldn't wait until later (Prime crew prelaunch for example).

Chuck
Logged
Swatch
Moderator
Hero Member
****
Posts: 1003


jasonims
View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2008, 06:41:43 PM »

First off, as long as we can time accelerate at 100x, I have no problem with more lead time.

We can't, the Virtual AGC is running pretty much from the beginning. (I should clarify that all this applies in Virtual AGC Mode only, Quickstart Mode scenarios still start at T-2h00min, now with the prime crew already in the spacecraft.)

Additionally, I would like to know at what point the crews actually started their checklists.  I believe Ingress is purely the time that they entered the capsule... I'm sure it took some time to get them all buttoned in and close the cabin before the checklist work began.

No, prime crew ingress is already part of the checklist. If you take a look at http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/op_procs/aohv2p4-37_4-54.pdf, you'll see that the prime crew prelaunch checklist starts with the CDR entering the CSM, getting connected to the suit circuit, strapped in the seat etc. The ingress process takes about an hour and ends with the backup CMP leaving the spacecraft (the backup crew plays the role of the Astronaut Support Personnel we know from shuttle launches) and hatch closure.

Our checklists start earlier on with the Backup Crew Prelaunch checklist.  I don't know when this checklist began actually, but various press kits state that the backup crew entered the spacecraft at about T-8h30min.

Cheers
Tschachim

Knowing that... I vote keep the shortened time until we have something that takes up that time.
Logged

My Project Apollo Work:
CM Visual
 -VC (~75% complete: texture work beginning again; mesh-78%; texture-70%)
Propulsion Particle Improvements (Focused on S1B right now, BETA 1.0 has been commited)
New Docking Method (~50% complete: research complete; coding partially completed, testing not underway)

Future Work:  (if it's here, it's deemed unnecessary to upcoming release)

Older Work:  (if it's here, it's fair game to whoever wants to improve)
EMS Implementation (committed: minor flaws, but groundwork is there, needs extensive testing)
EMS scrolls (committed: not refined, but usable)
SM Visual (committed: mesh-finished, texture-60%; possibly revisited in future)
J2 Texture (commited: room for improvement)
LRV (committed: mesh-finished, texture-90%; in future a ground up rebuild may be in order, but not on my plans)
Zachstar
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 317

Is it Star Trek?


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 24, 2008, 10:19:43 PM »

I second that vote.. There is a difference between realistic and just plain annoying. And if Time accell is going to be an issue then people are just going to be sitting there. Besides most if not almost all will let the MFD due most of the work anyway. And just watch the show.

Lets keep it less annoying at the very tiny cost to realism that only the die hards of die hard realists would notice.
Logged


-------------------------------------------
Swatch
Moderator
Hero Member
****
Posts: 1003


jasonims
View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2008, 10:27:20 PM »

Lets keep it less annoying at the very tiny cost to realism that only the die hards of die hard realists would notice.

And mind you, those die hard realists will likely be able to make the change themselves.
Logged

My Project Apollo Work:
CM Visual
 -VC (~75% complete: texture work beginning again; mesh-78%; texture-70%)
Propulsion Particle Improvements (Focused on S1B right now, BETA 1.0 has been commited)
New Docking Method (~50% complete: research complete; coding partially completed, testing not underway)

Future Work:  (if it's here, it's deemed unnecessary to upcoming release)

Older Work:  (if it's here, it's fair game to whoever wants to improve)
EMS Implementation (committed: minor flaws, but groundwork is there, needs extensive testing)
EMS scrolls (committed: not refined, but usable)
SM Visual (committed: mesh-finished, texture-60%; possibly revisited in future)
J2 Texture (commited: room for improvement)
LRV (committed: mesh-finished, texture-90%; in future a ground up rebuild may be in order, but not on my plans)
Zachstar
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 317

Is it Star Trek?


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2008, 10:30:56 PM »

Lets keep it less annoying at the very tiny cost to realism that only the die hards of die hard realists would notice.

And mind you, those die hard realists will likely be able to make the change themselves.

Very good point!

That is if the phone book of checklists does not drive them up the wall first Tongue
Logged


-------------------------------------------
Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3700


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2008, 12:52:58 PM »

The first step in the backup crew prelaunch procedure is CMC startup.  However, I see no reason that couldn't wait until later (Prime crew prelaunch for example).

Well, it won't be historically correct. The current CMC startup procedure is done by us and is not part of any original checklist. The AGC/DSKY is mentioned the first time at the end of the backup crew prelaunch checklist ("Verify P02"), so P02 was already running before the backup crew entered the spacecraft. I have no reference when it took place exactly, but I suppose the AGC was turned on together with the IMU a couple of hours before backup crew ingress by the GSE guys (the shuttle IMU is turned on about 12 hours before launch for example).

But this discussion reminded me that we can run P03 meanwhile and I did that quite successfully:
http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/mscforum/index.php?topic=1751.0  Happy

Cheers
Tschachim
Logged

pattersoncr
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 212


View Profile Email
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2008, 04:07:32 PM »

that reminds me, is the dual line of sight in the SXT working?
If so, how do you use it?


Chuck
Logged
Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3700


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2008, 04:45:48 PM »

No, I don't even know it works exactly or how we want to do that in Orbiter.  Confused 
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!