Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 30, 2020, 09:17:10 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 ... 54 55 [56] Print
Author Topic: What needs done?  (Read 74963 times)
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #825 on: February 19, 2017, 03:36:21 PM »

Well, if you are at it Wink, here what I corrected those days:
- the dV/ EMS SET sw moves the scroll in the wrong direction when EMS FUNC is in V0 SET: inc means scrolling to the right, dec means scrolling to the left

Sure, that can be done. I'll read the AOH some more to find the description of this.

Quote
- implemented a real range integrator

I have essentially done that for the entry mode, with the correct resolution factors and everything. If it is supposed to be used by the DV Test and EMS Test Mode 4, too, then it needs to be moved in its own function though.

Quote
- consequently, when moving the scroll in V0 SET, the range changes, too, as the impulses from the SET sw are also fed to the range integrator

Not the range, the inertial velocity. And I have implemented the stored velocity in the range integrator, too. EMS Test Modes 3 and 5 set that number to 37k ft/s, so you first have to go through Test Mode 5 before reentry, if scroll and range integrator are supposed to be synchronized.

Quote
- decimal point and last digit blanked when EMS FUNC - ENTRY

Yep, that needs to be done.

Quote
Regarding the test pattern: the real ones also had this 'doorstep' at the end, however this will only work when the scroll moves a little to the left when switching to TEST 5. I can't see from the schematics how that was done. Confused

No idea either.

Sounds good, well unless you guys need more debugging of 7 or 8 in specific places or find checklist errors, I am going to switch back to getting the LM checklists functional.  I know we have issues with the docked DPS burns and such as well as some LM systems but I am going to get a few checklists down as a precursor to customization later for Apollo 9.  Speaking of, is there a copy of the Apollo 9 LM systems checklists floating around?  I know they has some specific non landing things based on the flightplan that they did, I just wanted to get some systems checklists written and tested.

We don't have that checklist. We don't have much from Apollo 9 anyway.
Logged
meik84
Project Team Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 454



View Profile
« Reply #826 on: February 20, 2017, 07:57:21 AM »

Quote
Not the range, the inertial velocity.
Right. The range integrator operates only when in ENTRY and .05g or when in TEST 4 and the 10s timer runs.  One should read the block diagramm correctly. Bangs Head
Quote
so you first have to go through Test Mode 5 before reentry, if scroll and range integrator are supposed to be synchronized.
Yep, that's one of the nice gotchas of the EMS. Happy
You are not going to change the fps/pixel scaling of the scroll, right? I'd try to grab the 3500 NM pattern from the AOH, then.
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #827 on: February 20, 2017, 08:14:09 AM »

Right. The range integrator operates only when in ENTRY and .05g or when in TEST 4 and the 10s timer runs.  One should read the block diagramm correctly. Bangs Head

Yeah, I've printed the EMS page from the Systems Handbook and spent a few days trying to figure it all out. Took me a while to understand some of the finer details. And the 10 second timer that is not exactly 10 seconds took even longer to find.

Quote
Yep, that's one of the nice gotchas of the EMS. Happy
You are not going to change the fps/pixel scaling of the scroll, right? I'd try to grab the 3500 NM pattern from the AOH, then.

I am not changing that right now, no. Maybe if we have to, to make the EMS Test Mode 4 work with the range integrator. In NASSP 8.0. But I think what we have to do is stretch the test patterns a little bit!? But also, during the test the G value is not instantly at 9G. Probably a limitation of the scribe though. The acceleration used in the range integrator will be 9G as soon as the test starts I think. I'll implement this at some point and then someone has to tell me what I did wrong, or if that is not the case, then the scroll needs to be modified.

But if you want to modify the scroll right now to include the 3500NM entry patterns, then go ahead. Any later modification would just be for the test patterns.

EDIT: Wait a moment, are there differences between a LEO pattern and a non-exit lunar entry pattern, too?

EDIT2: Yeah, looks like we exclusively use the LEO pattern right now. The non-exit lunar return pattern has a few more range potential lines for ranges up to 1200NM and not only 800NM.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 08:18:43 AM by indy91 » Logged
meik84
Project Team Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 454



View Profile
« Reply #828 on: February 20, 2017, 08:50:04 AM »

I have no idea from where our entry pattern derives. On the other side, I haven't found one LEO pattern in any doc I came along. They always talked about the non-exit and 3500 NM pattern. I for myself doubt that an earth entry pattern ever existed. Any lunar mission could've ended up in a LEO mission, and then the 'lunar' entry patterns had to be used for a LEO entry. And why develop separate patterns for not even a handfull of missions? Apollo was about going to the moon, not LEO.
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #829 on: February 20, 2017, 09:01:29 AM »

I have no idea from where our entry pattern derives. On the other side, I haven't found one LEO pattern in any doc I came along. They always talked about the non-exit and 3500 NM pattern. I for myself doubt that an earth entry pattern ever existed. Any lunar mission could've ended up in a LEO mission, and then the 'lunar' entry patterns had to be used for a LEO entry. And why develop separate patterns for not even a handfull of missions? Apollo was about going to the moon, not LEO.

The bitmap of our EMS scroll is even called "EMSscroll_LEO.bmp". Look at the Entry Summary Document for Apollo 7 (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19700025002) on page A-22 (page 69). It only has range potential lines up to 800NM, while the lunar entry patterns (like the ones in the AOH) have range potential lines up to 1200NM. So downgrading a lunar mission to a LEO mission would definitely work, the pattern would just have a few lines that are not needed in LEO. Not sure if there are any other differences.

So in conclusion, I would say let's postpone any EMS changes. I'd rather get the 7.0 release done now. We would have to create a seperate EMS scroll, which requires some code changes to the EMS, so that the lunar entry scrolls are used for lunar missions etc. Let's do this in NASSP 8.0.
Logged
eddievhfan1984
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 737



View Profile
« Reply #830 on: February 20, 2017, 11:58:28 AM »

Agreed. Especially because I think most users are gonna use the EMS for eye-candy, relying on a working PGNCS to get them through the atmosphere safely. Wink
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #831 on: February 21, 2017, 08:33:50 AM »

So with a few features being saved for V8, where are we for the V 7.0 release?  What still needs completed?
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #832 on: February 21, 2017, 08:39:02 AM »

So with a few features being saved for V8, where are we for the V 7.0 release?  What still needs completed?

We are done with the 7.0 release version. We are just waiting for @dseagrav to show up and make the relevant changes to call it the release version. I really want that to get done today, I'll look into preparing the release myself. I'm not sure if something has to be changed on @desgrav's server for the auto builds though.
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #833 on: February 22, 2017, 09:45:56 AM »

I have created the 7.0 release version and informed the Orbiter Forum and the Virtual AGC mailing list so far. If nobody has any open items for a 7.0.1 fix, then we can permanently move to the NASSP 8.0 development thread: http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/mscforum/index.php?topic=2925.0

I hope it is ok that I have created the release version now, it seemed to me that everybody here agrees that NASSP 7.0 is ready.
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #834 on: February 22, 2017, 11:25:53 AM »

I hope it is ok that I have created the release version now, it seemed to me that everybody here agrees that NASSP 7.0 is ready.

I think it was a wise decision, it seems any other changes we would have waiting in the wings would be major, not minor fixes, especially with all the subsequent missions requiring the LM.
Logged
dseagrav
Project Admin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1118


View Profile
« Reply #835 on: February 22, 2017, 01:22:45 PM »

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was being waited on. I saw commits going on so I thought everyone was still busy. Did the auto build configuration get updated or did you rename manually?
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #836 on: February 22, 2017, 01:26:07 PM »

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was being waited on. I saw commits going on so I thought everyone was still busy. Did the auto build configuration get updated or did you rename manually?

No problem, I was just impatient. I updated the auto build configuration from pre-release to release and also named it "Release" instead of "Release Candidate", but I still renamed the Github release so that the whole "master build 372" isn't in the release file name. So the Sourceforge release probably doesn't have the same name right now. I didn't quite know how to configure it so that the releases are called "7.0.X" instead. I also put "Project Apollo" in the release file name.
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #837 on: March 02, 2017, 11:43:32 AM »

So I have been resuming the Apollo 9 work, checklists and procedures recreated as best I can from the flight plan and also subsequent LM mission checklists.  I have the checklists completed launch through LM ejection as well as LM powerup all the way to docked DPS burn 1, but I have been doing them solely in Orbiter 2010.  I assume the checklist MFD files can easily be used in those but should I be trying this mission in Orbiter 2016?  Or is it not ready to test missions yet?
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #838 on: March 02, 2017, 02:11:18 PM »

The two things that won't work in Orbiter 2016 is Earth launch and all kinds of staging, maybe not even the optics cover jettison. So if you want to try Apollo 9 in Orbiter 2016 then you have to start after LM ejection. Also note that the Apollo 9 scenario in Orbiter 2016 is totally reworked, because Luminary 69 is now used for that mission. But it should be possible to use the Orbiter 2016 Apollo 9 scenario in Orbiter 2010 all the way until LM ejection and then use Orbiter 2016 for the rest of the mission.

And by the way, this is the wrong thread. We should be using this one now: http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/mscforum/index.php?topic=2925.0
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #839 on: March 02, 2017, 02:25:44 PM »

And by the way, this is the wrong thread. We should be using this one now: http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/mscforum/index.php?topic=2925.0

Ah my mistake!  Thanks for reminding me Happy
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [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!