Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 25, 2020, 10:52:20 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
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 News & Discussion
| | |-+  Support & Bugs (Moderators: movieman, Tschachim, Swatch, lassombra)
| | | |-+  Apollo 7 Beta Testing Bugs
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 Print
Author Topic: Apollo 7 Beta Testing Bugs  (Read 11371 times)
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: December 14, 2016, 04:31:05 PM »

I will always try to help with experiments, if I can.

I was merging scenarios so i could launch NASSP to space station i created using various modules found over the net. I was experimeting with UMMU EVA from NASSP CM using UMMUFA addon.

Creating a fully function scenario with Virtual AGC and LVDC++ is no simple task. For the Virtual AGC you will have to use one of the padload worksheets under Doc/Project Apollo - NASSP/GNC Tools. You will always have to generate an ephemeris with LTMFD. I should probably write a wiki article about my padload creation process. One day there hopefully will be a scenario creator for NASSP that does all these things for you.

The LVDC++ without any parameters in the launch scenario will get you into a circular Earth orbit. For anything fancy like a TLI you need to configure the launch scenario more extensive. For Apollo 11 and 14 I have the complete Launch Vehicle Operational Trajectory documents with the guidance presettings. So these launch scenarios (under Broken Scenarios/Virtual AGC) are fully configured for the complete daily launch window and the two TLI opportunities. The LVDC has a good wiki article already (http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Launch_Vehicle_Digital_Computer) and I will add a description of all the parameters for the launch scenario.

Quote
I was also messing around a little with ground station software.

It's a really nice piece of software, that currently can only display GNC related parameters, and can cause a Crew Alarm and such things. It could be expanded for a bunch of other telemetry. I have looked at the code, seems pretty complicated to me.

Quote
Knowing how LVDC++ works could be usefull for some "further mess" ;-) Also i am looking for a way to haul some custom loads in place of LM.

Custom payloads is really, really difficult right now. You would have to change some code loading the meshes etc. The three big new features for NASSP 8 are already pretty clear: Orbiter 2016 compatibility, fully functional Lunar Module and completely reworked staging. Each stage will be simulated separately and attached to the upper stages and payloads. So once the actual payloads (LM, Docking Module for ASTP etc.) are a separate entity on the pad already, then custom payloads will be much easier. And we will be able to run a mission like Apollo 5 with just a LM. Because right now the Saturn rockets and the CSM are completely integrated and not separate at all, in terms of programming.

Quote
And are the docking/rendezvous lights working? I see that Orbiter 2010 supports lights, UMMU has working lights that illuminates nearby things. This could be usefull for docking at night.

There are no lights defined, only partially in the meshes. It would indeed be very useful to have all the lights, It's probably not going to happen in NASSP 7.0 though.
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #61 on: December 21, 2016, 10:22:55 AM »

Running Apollo 7 again for good measure, just a question about the SV updates, I like the way jalex did the uplinks in Apollo 8 and I was wondering if I could mimic that in the 7 checklist so instead of asking the user to open PAMFD, it does a P27 uplink using MCC.  Thoughts?
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: December 21, 2016, 10:54:15 AM »

Yeah, I think that is a good idea. People who do not want to use the MCC, probably also wouldn't use the Checklist MFD for the whole flight. So the combination MCC+Checklist MFD is probably the most logical case.
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #63 on: December 21, 2016, 10:55:41 AM »

Yeah, I think that is a good idea. People who do not want to use the MCC, probably also wouldn't use the Checklist MFD for the whole flight. So the combination MCC+Checklist MFD is probably the most logical case.

Ok cool, now should I keep the PAMFD SV update group in there just in case?  Or change it to reflect the MCC entirely?
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: December 21, 2016, 11:03:18 AM »

You can leave the group in there. Maybe we still want to use it somehow, giving the user an option, creating a separate checklist file for using MFDs etc. All that doesn't have to be done now though.
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #65 on: December 21, 2016, 11:10:40 AM »

You can leave the group in there. Maybe we still want to use it somehow, giving the user an option, creating a separate checklist file for using MFDs etc. All that doesn't have to be done now though.

My thoughts exactly, I left that group as is and changed the SV updates in the flight plan to call the P27 Update group instead.
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #66 on: December 22, 2016, 11:23:44 AM »

So I have been running 7 again as I mentioned, and I have followed both phasing maneuvers to the letter however when the NCC1 maneuver PAD comes around, the dVC is 7909.0.  I have posted my scn and have no idea what happened.

EDIT:  So I reloaded from about 10 hours earlier and time warped at 30x until the NCC again and got a good result.  I think somehow the SIVB went haywire in a load and thus MCC could not calculate NCC1 properly.  Still do not know what happened to make the SIVB do that though!

« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 12:01:31 PM by rcflyinghokie » Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #67 on: January 06, 2017, 09:52:03 AM »

So I am back working on this and on my 7 checklist I started what jalex did with Apollo 8, adding the name of the update to the flight plan instead of just Copy Maneuver PAD.  I think it looks better and allows the user to make sure the correct MCC update is there.  I have the names of the uplinks up to 22h but @indy91 if you have a list of the uplinks for 7 and the approximate times that would help tremendously, for now I am literally just flying the mission and changing the text when they come up.
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: January 06, 2017, 10:03:00 AM »

Abort, Abort, Abort.  ROTFL

I am already doing these changes to the Apollo 7 Checklist. I have started creating the Apollo 7 scenarios, so I might as well fix any of these checklist issues when I find them. If you want you can of course fly the mission up the point where there are scenarios (right now 26h GET) and look if you find any more checklist issues. That would then be our last check before we call Apollo 7 ready for the release.
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #69 on: January 06, 2017, 10:10:36 AM »

Abort, Abort, Abort.  ROTFL

I am already doing these changes to the Apollo 7 Checklist. I have started creating the Apollo 7 scenarios, so I might as well fix any of these checklist issues when I find them. If you want you can of course fly the mission up the point where there are scenarios (right now 26h GET) and look if you find any more checklist issues. That would then be our last check before we call Apollo 7 ready for the release.

Haha excellent!  I will keep going with checking out 7 then Happy  Did we ever find out if Apollo 7 switched the dV LM/CSM switch to CSM for P40 burns?  I remember you discovered they left it in LM/CSM for a CSM that was not fully loaded during launch but did the subsequent P40's switch it back like on the Apollo 8 checklists?
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: January 06, 2017, 10:17:42 AM »

Did we ever find out if Apollo 7 switched the dV LM/CSM switch to CSM for P40 burns?  I remember you discovered they left it in LM/CSM for a CSM that was not fully loaded during launch but did the subsequent P40's switch it back like on the Apollo 8 checklists?

You must have misunderstood (or I said it wrong). They left it in the CSM/LM position for launch for a fully loaded CSM, not the other way around. Did you ever change that in the Apollo 7 checklist? Because it is in that position for the launch, but I wasn't sure if that was the case before. The reason for having it in the CSM/LM position for a heavy CSM is that the switch changes a few SCS TVC gains and the CSM reacts more stable (but sluggish) during a Mode III or Mode IV abort. This was the desired behavior anyway.

It's not so important right now, the switch doesn't do anything yet, because I had problems when I tested the new CSM/LM gains. The SCS Auto TVC was pretty bad then, so I didn't implement the new gains yet. Normally for a CSM alone the switch was of course in the CSM position.
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #71 on: January 06, 2017, 10:25:31 AM »


You must have misunderstood (or I said it wrong). They left it in the CSM/LM position for launch for a fully loaded CSM, not the other way around. Did you ever change that in the Apollo 7 checklist? Because it is in that position for the launch, but I wasn't sure if that was the case before. The reason for having it in the CSM/LM position for a heavy CSM is that the switch changes a few SCS TVC gains and the CSM reacts more stable (but sluggish) during a Mode III or Mode IV abort. This was the desired behavior anyway.

It's not so important right now, the switch doesn't do anything yet, because I had problems when I tested the new CSM/LM gains. The SCS Auto TVC was pretty bad then, so I didn't implement the new gains yet. Normally for a CSM alone the switch was of course in the CSM position.

That's what I meant yes.  I ask because the checklist for 7 and 8 both have LM/CSM for launch and I know the P40 checklist in Apollo 8 includes a switch verification to use CSM only.  Do you think 7 launched with it in the CSM position?
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: January 06, 2017, 10:43:44 AM »

Do you think 7 launched with it in the CSM position?

I thought it did, but now I don't think so anymore. We don't have the Apollo 7 AOH, but we do have the ASTP Operational Procedures document (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19750004933). The switch is relabeled there, it is called "ATVC Gain" and has a high and low position. I very much doubt the SCS was actually reworked too much for Skylab and the ASTP, so the switch function is probably similar or identical. And the switch position for "Backup Crew Cabin Ingress" and "At Liftoff" is Low, for "Docked to Soyuz" and "Entry Preparations" it is in High. So it looks like they wanted the low gains for a Saturn IB launched CSM as well. And that means we leave the checklists like they are right now.
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #73 on: January 09, 2017, 08:05:52 AM »

So I wanted to ask and refine the RDV a bit more but I thought it was inappropriate to keep going in "what needs done" so I am going to ask here.

When I first call P34, the Checklist MFD says there is a F 06 37, which comes up for about 3 seconds before a F 50 18 comes up.  The checklists I have mention nothing about this.  I have hit both PRO and ENTER and usually it comes back up before finally clearing to a F 06 37.  Is this normal behavior?  Or am I missing a step/procedure.
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: January 09, 2017, 08:41:04 AM »

No idea why another F 50 18 comes up when P34 was started, but it's the same behavior for me. That never happened in Colossus249. Usually when you start P20 you get the F 50 18 and then you maneuver to the preferred tracking attitude. Once you are there you press ENTR and because a few minutes have passed the tracking attitude has moved by about 15. So you do this smaller maneuver and once you are there press ENTR again. And because the attitude is now close enough to the tracking attitude it automatically goes into the auto tracking mode and no further F 50 18 should be displayed. From now on it should track the target, with correct attitude rates and everything.

So why another V50 N18 comes up in P34 is very strange. I have even waited a long time in P20 to see if another 50 18 comes up, but it only happens once you start P34. This is something I would expect from Artemis, there you don't have to separately start P20 at all and F 50 18 is the first display in P34.  ROTFL

Also, while I said I had some better results with my rendezvous in P35 it still falls apart and I get very high numbers as the DV in Noun 49. So the problem is far from solved. It has to be something with the W-Matrix, but I thought I have tried everything...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 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!