Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 12, 2020, 10:59:23 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the new Meadville Space Center forums!
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)
| | | |-+  First Official Release
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: First Official Release  (Read 3517 times)
NoName
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 795


View Profile
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:25:54 PM »

While I'm in the process of reworking the instrument panel graphics one more time, for screen resolutions of 1920x1080 minimum, I'm also thinking about a first release of the project.

It has been 9 years since we started working on this project, which is actually incredible. But I think we finally should push this thing onto the launch pad before I'm older than Neil was when he set his feet on lunar soil...

What I'm thinking about is Apollo 7 and 8 for a first release. We got a working CSM, a working Saturn 1B and a working Saturn 5. Once I have finished the rework on the CM panels, I would like to update the virtual cockpit of the CM, take a look at the meshes of the VAB, the MLP and the launch tower (textures & animations), and create our own high-res KSC for project Apollo NASSP. I think that's all we need for an Apollo 7 and 8 release. What do you guys think?

Currently I don't know how much people are actively working on the project. I have seen that Tschachim was last online in May. But I'm optimistic, and currently I think we should aim for a, let's say, Christmas 2014 release?

For the following releases (Apollo 9 and 10 for example) we need a working Lunar Module (and a nice EVA simulation for leaving the CSM). So working on a second release could take some more time. Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 will take some more time too. I want to create landing sites and a lunar EVA simulation (+ rover...) comparable to AMSO. But that's something for 2015/2016...
Logged
eddievhfan1984
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 737



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2014, 09:55:50 PM »

Well, I'm not sure about everybody else, but I think the major limitation to a release is in procedures and some guidance simulations. We still haven't worked out some really solid guidance instructions for the AP7 SIVB rendezvous. The LVDC++ is coming along alright, but I wouldn't say it's in release condition yet—scenario save/load, lunar injection guidance, and so on. Some of the team members themselves have also been hit with some real-world long-term issues that makes their presence on the project low in the near future.

It is looking rather optimistic, but I suppose we'll see.
Logged
meik84
Project Team Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 454



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2014, 03:58:06 AM »

Quote
We still haven't worked out some really solid guidance instructions for the AP7 SIVB rendezvous.
I got some basic ideas behind that, but implementing that -uh-hu!
Quote
The LVDC++ is coming along alright, but I wouldn't say it's in release condition yet—scenario save/load, lunar injection guidance, and so on.
I guess the save/load thing would work if somebody with more experience with the code could look over it. I guess something in the whole process is killing me there.
TLI guidance is no problem; that's well documented and easy to implement. The problem is the targeting. I don't understand the basic theory behind it -seems that there are hypersurfaces involved... Shocked
Quote
Some of the team members themselves have also been hit with some real-world long-term issues that makes their presence on the project low in the near future.
I wouldn't consider Miriam an issue; I'd rather tend to challenge or the ultimate adventure a man can face...  Wink Very Happy
Logged
NoName
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 795


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2014, 06:34:50 AM »

Honestly, I don't think we can just simulate every aspect of the Apollo program in high detail by 100% accuracy. Otherwise the project probably would never come to a release I fear. Because it requires some more experienced coders, and/or a lot more spare time for implementing all the stuff.
Logged
eddievhfan1984
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 737



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2014, 12:54:00 PM »

Regarding save/load states of the LVDC, I'd have to learn more about the scenario save process, but I could take a look. As for lunar targeting—if the ephemeris from IRL to Orbiter isn't too big, then historical targeting should work, and only require minor adjustments with TLCC burns.
 
What would be really nice is if we could get a non-osculating orbit track we could use to take care of external delta-V calculations for the rendezvous procedures, since IMFD works off the osculating elements and doesn't really provide sufficient stability to dV calculations, IMO.

And meik84, I didn't mean to imply that your new baby is an issue. LOL I was actually referring to others on the forum. Tongue

An AP7 and 8-only release might do the trick, but I also want to be sure we don't get flooded with tons of questions regarding features that are still in beta, is all.
Logged
meik84
Project Team Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 454



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2014, 04:55:09 PM »

Quote
What would be really nice is if we could get a non-osculating orbit track we could use to take care of external delta-V calculations for the rendezvous procedures, since IMFD works off the osculating elements and doesn't really provide sufficient stability to dV calculations, IMO.
I guess we should get rid of this osculating stuff and solve the problem numerically, i.e. propagating the SVs and calculating the dV by solving lambert's problem; CMC does have the routines for that and they are well documented. My idea is to implement CMC's routines in C++ and use them then. That might be more CPU-intensive, but when CMC was able to chew through P37 in considerate time, it should be a piece of cake for any modern CPU.
My calc scheme for any maneuver regarding rendezvous would look like that:
1. Propagate SV of active vehicle forward to tig, using CMC's coastflight routine; obtain ra_1 and va_1 (i.e. the vehicles position and velocity vector at tig)
2. Propagate SV of passive vehicle forward to t1 (time of desired dH/dR to be reached), obtaining rp_1 and vp_1
3. Modify rp_1 so that desired conditions are met (easy for vertical displacement; for horizontal displacement I got an idea, but I don't know if my thoughts are right), obtaining rp_2
4. Using CMC's lambert routine, obtain va_2 (that's the overal velocity vector of the active vehicle at cutoff); inputs: ra_1, rp_2, (t1-tig)
5. dV = va_1 - va_2
6. rotate dV to LVLH
The only thing I don't like with all this stuff are CMC's routines; unfortunately, I don't know any other implementations of lambert's problem and/or SV propagation. If anybody here has an idea how to implement that in a more 'modern' way, let me know. Maybe the creator of IMFD could assist here; IMFD has to do the same stuff, but for other purposes.
Logged
eddievhfan1984
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 737



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2014, 06:31:38 PM »

That would be cool, although we still have to deal with the complex gravity model. Too bad we can't do patched conics like LTMFD did to create stability in the calculations. It would also be nice to do some of the other targeting schemes you can eyeball in Orbit Sync MFD but not IMFD.

For example, in Orbit Sync, you can get data on crossing the line of apsides and such, which could be valuable, if only we could duplicate that in IMFD.

BTW, have you found anything in the LVDC code that'll let me program in the Saturn takeover demonstration in the procedures? Also, I noticed some disturbing behavior in the abort modes when I use LVDC++; upon initializing an abort, I just get an awfully messy rotation from the CM when doing Mode I aborts. Is that something also being worked on?
Logged
NoName
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 795


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2014, 07:11:58 PM »

An AP7 and 8-only release might do the trick, but I also want to be sure we don't get flooded with tons of questions regarding features that are still in beta, is all.

I think some people complain more about NASSP not (yet...) being "like AMSO" (animations, sounds & EVAs) or not being merged with AMSO. There might even be users which think NASSP is "too complex" Very Happy

But let's see what we might finish within the next months. My focus will be on 3D modeling and textures once the new 2D panels are done (this time it will be the final 2D update). I'm also learning C++ (actually it's on hold due to the rework of the 2D panels). But it will take some time until I can do something useful for NASSP in terms of coding...

Thanks for your efforts regarding all that LVDC++ stuff and coding on the whole.

And meik84, nice to read that you got a baby Thumbs Up
Logged
meik84
Project Team Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 454



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2014, 09:42:49 AM »

Quote
BTW, have you found anything in the LVDC code that'll let me program in the Saturn takeover demonstration in the procedures?
What do you mean? SIVB takeover is already implemented; the AP7 maneuver timeline is also implemented.
Quote
Also, I noticed some disturbing behavior in the abort modes when I use LVDC++; upon initializing an abort, I just get an awfully messy rotation from the CM when doing Mode I aborts. Is that something also being worked on?
Possible. I didn't take care of aborts those days. I'm currently working on the SECS, so I'll sooner or later run into it.
Quote
And meik84, nice to read that you got a baby
Well, baby...she already did her 'PU-shift' and is now full on 'normal' nutrition. (To all future parents out there: even though your ped says it's good for your kid: mashed carrots are the greatest mess I've ever seen.  Shocked Do yourself a favor and feed something else.)
Logged
almostfm
Full Member
***
Posts: 48


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2014, 01:44:45 PM »


Have you considered covering your entire kitchen and your daughter in plastic drop cloths?  ROTFL
Logged
meik84
Project Team Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 454



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2014, 03:38:37 PM »

Nah. I don't want my daughter to develop a latex fetish as an adult. You know, the stuff with infant imprinting... Wink
Logged
eddievhfan1984
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 737



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2014, 05:52:12 PM »

OK on the takeover; I just got confused by some of the stuff I was reading in the prelim. flight plan for the mission (too bad the final one hasn't surfaced yet...).

The SECS work would be good, because when doing the EDS ground test procedures, if I click the ABORT light like the procedures tell me to, it sends the liftoff discrete to the AGC and does nothing else.
Logged
meik84
Project Team Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 454



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2014, 08:18:49 AM »

Quote
when doing the EDS ground test procedures, if I click the ABORT light like the procedures tell me to, it sends the liftoff discrete to the AGC and does nothing else.
In reality it did nothing. The abort light was a light and nothing more. Apart from EDS, the CDR was the only one to initiate an abort, by turning his THC. On the ground, RSO was the only one to initiate an abort by sending the MFCO command to the booster, which would shut down the engines, arm the self-destruct circuits and send an abort discrete to the EDS, which would initiate the abort, but only when the EDS AUTO switch was in ON.
The other ones (namely: LOM, FLIGHT, BOOSTER, FIDO) had no possibility to initiate an abort directly; they could only send a discrete to the CSM to light up the abort light (plus a very distinctive 'Apollo X, ABORT, ABORT, ABORT!!' from CAPCOM) and hope the CDR would do his job. By the way: BOOSTER and FIDO had the authority to do so without asking FLIGHT; they could 'go over the boss' head', so to say...
Logged
eddievhfan1984
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 737



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2014, 10:01:38 AM »

Well, in the non-LVDC++ configuration, one was supposed to click the ABORT light to verify it worked. But... I suppose IRL that EDS checkout was conducted in concert with the LCC and not solely in the cockpit...
Logged
NoName
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 795


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2014, 09:38:58 PM »

Nah. I don't want my daughter to develop a latex fetish as an adult. You know, the stuff with infant imprinting... Wink

Why not cover your kitchen with an epoxy resin, plugged into a brazed honey comb structure? Also protects your kitchen from heat. I think some of that stuff still is lying around in the assembly building of NASSP... and it only collects dust for now anyway.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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!