Search results

I think you are on an outdated version of NASSP. In September I flew Apollo 7 and did a bunch of updates for the MCC and checklist. As part of that I added the landmark tracking PADs and I also fixed the MTVC checks in the checklists. That is all in the most recent NASSP 8 Beta releases...

You should have gotten a landmark tracking PAD with the coordinates to put into P22 at 121:06h GET. You had to write it down or something, because half an hour later it gets overwritten with P27 PAD for a manual state vector update. And there are more of these landmark tracking PADs later in the...

It's the same clickspot on the hatch as opening it. Just randomly click around a bit if you don't know exactly where.

We don't know exactly either. What is likely is that they changed the landing site coordinates in the RTCC to one of the photo sites and then calculated the plane change just like they did with LOPC-1. Descartes is probably a good option. Use the coordinates from flight plan page 1-22, plug them...

Also lack of documentation of RTCC strikes again! I definitely need to add sections about the LLWP and the descent planning to the RTCC manual. At least feature wise they have reached their final form, so there is no excuse to not have it properly documented. Definitely easier and shorter...

Then that was an error. TH stand for threshold time. The descent planning processor finds a TIG (and also a time to fly over the landing site) at any point after the times you specify. So it should at least be a few minutes before the time you actually want. There is one thing I wanted to...

You don't really need the CSI processor, it doesn't give you any more data than the launch window processor really. I kind of purposefully haven't documented the MPT much because I don't feel it is user friendly and stable enough yet to be advertised as a usable part of the MFD. And I've tried...

Looks like you did accidentally PRO on 16 45 instead of doing V32E. That starts the final pass through P34 (or any other rendezvous programs) and doesn't allow any marks being processed anymore. After all you have done the final calculation, changing the state vector now would change the burn...

You are doing the calculation in the LM and have selected the CSM as the target vessel, right?

With drag force model you mean using SetCW? If it was only drag then this would be sufficient, even if SetCW has some issues. But I also wanted to simulate correct aerodynamic moments. That's the bigger issue with the airfoils. Like, imagine the Apollo CSM. It had a tendency to get torqued by...

That's not the problem. Total drag for example would be a function of both angle of attack and side slip angle, but not independent of each other as the standard airfoil calculations assume. If you are at 90° aoa then the side slip angle becomes random, not very well defined. So any coefficients...

With the current system of two airfoils there is the problem of singularities. At 90° angle of attack the slip angle becomes undefined and vice versa. This isn't much of a problem for aircraft, but spacecraft quite often can be at attitudes 90° from the airspeed vector. So what I have done with...

Ah I think I know what was going on with MCC-5. It didn't even calculate the maneuver. The calculation happened in the lunar SOI (30 minutes before crossing over) while MCC-5 will be already in the Earth SOI. And the logic was checking what SOI the state vector was in. It saw the Moon and...

It's not hardcoded, the mission files (Missions\ProjectApollo) have the flight program for each mission. If no line with FP6 or FP8 is present it defaults to FP8. I think a lot of the padload in the launch scenario would need to be changed for this, too. The main disadvantage of using FP6 for...

I just landed your T-60s scenario. It worked so accurately that it auto landed directly in the Surveyor crater. Somehow I couldn't get any LPD commands in though, not sure why. Maybe you never allowed LR data to go in? On Apollo 12 this procedure is a bit different. You do V57, which puts up 06...

Here is the link to the document: https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/Launch%20Vehicle%20Operations%20AS-511%20Vol%20II%20of%20IV.pdf

I think I remember now, it has to do with address 411. In FP6 and FP7 this is the engine selection, RCS/DPS vs. APS to account for the APS cant angle. In FP8 this is the command for the AGS to look for RR data in the PGNS downlink. The Apollo 13 and 14 procedures probably set 411 to 1 for...

We have one volume of this from Apollo 16. We are going to ask it to be hosted on the Virtual AGC website, stay tuned.

Probably the Apollo 7 CSM being heavier than the AS-202 one or something like that. Yeah the AGC software on AS-202, Apollo 4 and 6 had some special burn guidance to achieve desired semi-major axis and eccentricity for the orbit. See this document...

Yeah this is what happened, although it is timebase 3 for the Saturn IB. The AS-202 file in my Block I branch is a bit dated, it's missing a critical command to allow the S-IVB engine to start. What you need is 3.2,3,11 under TB3 in the AS-202 flight sequence program. I can also update the...