Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2020, 09:50:38 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Project Apollo - NASSP 6.4.3 released!
http://nassp.sf.net
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 (Moderators: movieman, Tschachim, Swatch, lassombra)
| | |-+  What needs done?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 56 Print
Author Topic: What needs done?  (Read 74711 times)
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #735 on: October 02, 2016, 09:47:08 AM »

I want to work more with Github, it can be very useful for various reasons. @rcflyinghokie and @jalexb88, I want to encourage you to work with git and do any updates to the Checklist MFD files with git. If you want, to make it easier for you guys, I can create a new repository for the Checklist MFD files. Then you should be able to mostly work with the Github GUI and not have to worry about local NASSP changes. But you can also do pull requests for the NASSP repository, of course. I just want to be able to keep track of changes and also avoid having to manually merge changes too often. This is a pretty good tutorial: http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/mscforum/index.php?topic=2864.0 You will probably want to fork the NASSP (or Checklist, if I create one) repository and once you have pushed your own changes to github you can do a pull request with the Github GUI. I can write a little bit of a tutorial for that, if it is required. I only have just gotten the hang of this myself, while working on scenarios for standalone Virtual AGC and once you know how it all works, it is a pretty great workflow.

The Apollo 8 checklist is almost finished, but I'm sure there are now a bunch of differences to Apollo 7 in checklists that should be identical. My plan is to use the CSM Default Checklist to collect all the checklists for specific tasks, like "P52 IMU Realignment (Preferred)". That way we can make sure they are identical in the Apollo 7 and 8 checklists. That will also be useful in the creation of future checklist files.
Logged
kneecaps
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 217


36711000 kneecaps@shockpulse.co.uk
View Profile
« Reply #736 on: October 02, 2016, 04:27:54 PM »

I have commited my big RTCC reorganization. Mostly the MFD, but also the RTCC calculations itself. So I expect new bugs to be mostly in the MFD, but of course it's possible that now something is broken with the MCC, too. Hopefully not. I have to do such a reorganization from time to time, because it has happened a few times before that too many new features were added and the code became a big mess. There is notihng really interesting for the end user in this commit, just stuff in the background.

Thanks for the work as always! I'll try the new builds.
Logged

"Okay. As soon as we find the Earth, we will do it."
- Frank Borman, Apollo 8

Current Work: ?? What next??

Future Work:
I know the AGC pretty well so anything need doing there?

On Hold/Completed:
SPS TVC in P40 issues.
P11 FDAI Error Needles (98%) complete. Comitted. Working A7 scenario.
P06 AGC Standby. Concluded. It's done by the AGC PSU.
Got us a complete AOH Volume II
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #737 on: October 03, 2016, 07:18:19 AM »

I want to work more with Github, it can be very useful for various reasons. @rcflyinghokie and @jalexb88, I want to encourage you to work with git and do any updates to the Checklist MFD files with git. If you want, to make it easier for you guys, I can create a new repository for the Checklist MFD files. Then you should be able to mostly work with the Github GUI and not have to worry about local NASSP changes. But you can also do pull requests for the NASSP repository, of course. I just want to be able to keep track of changes and also avoid having to manually merge changes too often. This is a pretty good tutorial: http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/mscforum/index.php?topic=2864.0 You will probably want to fork the NASSP (or Checklist, if I create one) repository and once you have pushed your own changes to github you can do a pull request with the Github GUI. I can write a little bit of a tutorial for that, if it is required. I only have just gotten the hang of this myself, while working on scenarios for standalone Virtual AGC and once you know how it all works, it is a pretty great workflow.

The Apollo 8 checklist is almost finished, but I'm sure there are now a bunch of differences to Apollo 7 in checklists that should be identical. My plan is to use the CSM Default Checklist to collect all the checklists for specific tasks, like "P52 IMU Realignment (Preferred)". That way we can make sure they are identical in the Apollo 7 and 8 checklists. That will also be useful in the creation of future checklist files.

I'd love to start learning how to do all of that, I guess I never dove into it because I am afraid of messing anything up!  I will start with that tutorial and see if I have any questions.  I know I have had the LM on my mind like crazy (as evident from my posting) and I would like to start the LM powerup/activation checklists in the near future starting with Apollo 9.

Which reminds me, I remember a while ago docked SPS burns would not work well with PGNS, had to enable SCS or MTVC to keep the spacecraft on course.  Has this been looked into or fixed yet?
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #738 on: October 03, 2016, 08:21:05 AM »

Quote
Which reminds me, I remember a while ago docked SPS burns would not work well with PGNS, had to enable SCS or MTVC to keep the spacecraft on course.  Has this been looked into or fixed yet?

CMC controlled docked burns are working now. The padloaded values for the Colossus249 TVC DAP were difficult to work out. It was more configurable than for later missions, it was the first mission with the docked CSM/LM after all. And there are one or two parameters that I had to guess and I never found a source confirming them. Comanche055 and Artemis072 have a 100% verified TVC pad load.

I'd love to start learning how to do all of that, I guess I never dove into it because I am afraid of messing anything up!  I will start with that tutorial and see if I have any questions.  I know I have had the LM on my mind like crazy (as evident from my posting) and I would like to start the LM powerup/activation checklists in the near future starting with Apollo 9.

Yeah, I guess you have already done your part for Apollo 8. I'll be working on the Apollo 7 checklist, but you can of course begin with Apollo 9, if you want. I'll work on getting all the functions in the default checklist then, so you can use that as the beginning of the Apollo 9 checklist.

I have just finished the Apollo 7 rendezvous again. Colossus237 does it just as well as Colossus249. The first attempt was pretty bad, I think I messed up the W-Matrix somehow. Second attempt had very high DVs for the MCCs, but it got me to the S-IVB at least. Rendezvous in Earth orbit is somehow never 100% reliable. The AGC engine changes that fixed the 1201 and 1202 alarms during PDI have also made the rendezvous calculations a little bit faster. So problem with the timing in P35 shouldn't lead to a slipped TIG anymore. Enough time to start P41 and all.

EDIT: I have updated the Checklist MFD files.

-Apollo 7: Just a few corrections.
-Apollo 8: I have reformatted every tab so that it all looks nice now. So please use the updated file for any further modifications.
-Default: I have basically replaced this with the Apollo 8 checklist, minus any mission specific stuff. So this can be used as the template for any new mission.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2016, 12:38:16 PM by indy91 » Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #739 on: October 06, 2016, 03:17:24 PM »

The Apollo 7 Checklist MFD now has a complete flight plan. A lot of the sub-checklists don't exist yet and the whole Earth orbit entry stuff is far from finished, but it is getting there. I have also added three state vector updates late in the mission to the MCC sequence, which I had forgotten until now.
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #740 on: October 16, 2016, 07:22:05 AM »

There are bunch of things that still need to be worked out for the Apollo 7 flight plan, which have been marked in the Word flight plan document. I'll go through them step by step.

-There is no update form for the Block Data yet.
-The Maneuver PAD form is missing a few items. It should be modeled after the Apollo 7 and 9 Maneuver PAD from the flight plans. The two Earth orbit mission had very similar PADs.
-The attitude hold test at 48h GET as prescribed by the actual preliminary flight plan is a little bit more extensive, than it is in the word flight plan so far. We'll have to check how much of this DTO they actually performed.
-At 91h a REFSMMAT for the radiator test is calculated with the P30+P40+P52 option 1 method in the word flight plan. We'll have to check if they did it this way during the mission, or if a REFSMMAT was uplinked here.
-The beginning of the radiator degradation test is also marked, maybe the procedure needs to be refined. I have implemented it in the Checklist MFD file as it appears in the word checklist.
-At 121:30h GET, which P52 option was chosen?
-At 163:20h GET Fuel Cell 2 was open circuited. I have already checked the transcript, they did this not as a test, but because FC2 developed high temperatures. This is an off-nominal procedure and won't happen with our Fuel Cell in NASSP, so I think both "Open circuit FC2" and "FC2 online" should be deleted from the flight plan.
-Attitude for the PTC test. The word flight plan says all zeros, maybe they uplinked a REFSMMAT there? Have to read the transcript again, I guess...
-The attitude for the SPS Propellant Thermal Control Test is pointing the engine away from the Sun. Should I add such a calculation of the attitude relative to the Sun to the RTCC/MCC?
Logged
eddievhfan1984
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 737



View Profile
« Reply #741 on: October 16, 2016, 01:15:14 PM »

Sun-relative angle is definitely a must, especially if it enables PTC references to be calculated on the fly...
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #742 on: October 16, 2016, 01:37:52 PM »

Well, from Apollo 10 on they used a PTC REFSMMAT, which can already be calculated with the RTCC MFD. And for Apollo 8 the angles from the flight plan are usually good enough. So the spacecraft-to-sun alignment is not really something that has to be calculated for the lunar missions. However, the RPY angles to the sun are something that was calculated continously by the Real-Time Auxiliary Computing Facility (RTACF), which I presume was part of the RTCC. While the computers in the RTCC calculated all the major maneuvers, full mission optimization etc., the RTACF calculated a bunch of smaller things, from Block Data to sunrise/sunset times and also the angles for an alignment to the sun. That's why the CAPCOM was often able to come up with some useful numbers very quickly. A while ago I found the RTACF requirements documents for a few missions. Here for Apollo 7, "Operational Support Plan for the Real-Time Auxiliary Computing Facility - Apollo 7 Annex" (http://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20100523190945/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740072595_1974072595.pdf). If the RTCC MFD is ever able to fullfill all the requirements from these documents, then it will be quite the impressive tool.

So in short, yes I will add a calculation method for the angles to the sun to the RTCC MFD.  Happy
« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 02:36:24 PM by indy91 » Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #743 on: October 23, 2016, 08:33:16 AM »

The Apollo 7 Checklist MFD file is done. Entry was nominal and without surprises, so I declare Colossus 237 operational for NASSP and it will be used for Apollo 7 and 8 soon.

EDIT: More changes for the release:

-Colossus 237 is now used by default for Apollo 7 and 8. With that I have just broken all your old Apollo 7 and 8 Virtual AGC scenarios. Sorry.
-The LVDC now doesn't display any debug messages in the Orbiter debug string anymore. It was a good indicator for debugging to see if something has catastrophically failed, but now that the LVDC is working pretty good, the LVDC log should be enough for debugging.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2016, 06:50:53 AM by indy91 » Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #744 on: October 29, 2016, 05:11:11 AM »

I've removed the EMDOT parameter from the Colossus237 scenarios, because the parameter is hardcoded in this AGC version. I have also added a parameter for the launch scenarios. If you add the line

Code:
MISSIONTRACKING 1

in the scenario, then the ground and mission tracking will be enabled from the beginning of the mission.

Any ideas how to organize the launch scenarios? The main scenarios should probably have all the "new" features enabled: Virtual AGC, LVDC++ and MCC. But I guess Apollo 7+8 launch scenarios without MCC should be available, too. Right now in the main folder there are scenarios for Apollo 7 and 8 with or without LVDC. We don't really need the scenarios without LVDC anymore. So should I replace the 2 non-LVDC scenarios with LVDC scenarios that also have the MCC enabled?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 05:17:40 AM by indy91 » Logged
Thymo
Full Member
***
Posts: 113


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #745 on: October 29, 2016, 11:36:56 AM »

I'd say that if there is nothing the old LV code can do that the LVDC++ can do there is no reason to bother with the old stuff anymore.
Virtual AGC should always be enabled IMO. I'm not sure the old AGC even works properly (It didn't work when I tried it once). Plus the C++ AGC undoubtedly has some real life inaccuracies.

Seperate MCC on and off scenarios would definitely be handy for the people that simply want to calculate maneuvers themselves.
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #746 on: October 29, 2016, 11:51:58 AM »

I'd say that if there is nothing the old LV code can do that the LVDC++ can do there is no reason to bother with the old stuff anymore.

The LVDC is fully capable for all maneuvers while the CSM is still attached. Right now the old IU is still running in the background and taking over (at least in the case of Apollo 7) once the CSM is separated. The LVDC instance should be given to the S-IVB stage after separation, but that can wait for the Orbiter 2016.

Quote
Virtual AGC should always be enabled IMO. I'm not sure the old AGC even works properly (It didn't work when I tried it once). Plus the C++ AGC undoubtedly has some real life inaccuracies.

There might have been some changes in the last 2 years that have broken the old AGC, no idea. And it really isn't necessary anymore, even for the unmanned flights like Apollo 5 we now have the AGC versions, which are already working in the Virtual AGC. And they are even working on a Block I Emulator. So I would rather focus on making these new Virtual AGC features work and somehow automate the unmanned flights in a realistic way than support non-vAGC scenarios.

Quote
Seperate MCC on and off scenarios would definitely be handy for the people that simply want to calculate maneuvers themselves.

I guess I will do it as mentioned above, replace the non-LVDC scenarios with LVDC+MCC scenarios. Using the MCC feature forces you to follow the flight plan, so there are definitely good reasons to not use it. Calculating maneuvers with RTCC MFD, LTMFD or whatever can be fun, too.
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #747 on: October 30, 2016, 07:44:47 AM »

I have changed the standard launch scenarios. There are still four of them, two scenarios for each Apollo 7 and Apollo 8. All scenarios use the LVDC now and there is the option to have the MCC enabled from the beginning, if you choose that scenario. I think these four scenarios are what we want to have for the release.
Logged
abr35
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #748 on: November 09, 2016, 12:37:26 PM »

How can I go about adding a page to the wiki? Have a page on the LVDC++ written up but can't find anywhere to submit it.

Thanks
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #749 on: November 09, 2016, 02:37:47 PM »

I think you can just go to a non existing page like this: http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Launch_Vehicle_Digital_Computer and then create the page.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 56 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!