Problem Problem with Automatic Launch Sistem

[ale131296]

Whoah I didn't know that UCD would cause a bug into the automatic launch with Shuttle Fleet. It used to work good and make good launches and well... Mmm the first time I did an automatic launch with Shuttle Fleet it works good and all was going right but then I had this problem... It's very very strange. Why is UCD + Shuttle Fleet nothing good?

 

[Cras]

Why is UCD + Shuttle Fleet nothing good?

Because the Shuttle doesn't know what is inside it so it makes decisions that throw it off balance.

Shuttle Fleet has a very good attachment system that lets you put three deployable payloads in the bay, and several more static ones, set those payloads weight, and their offset. Use this and the Shuttle launch autopilot will work fine, unless you make it too heavy, in which case, you will not reach your target apogee

 

[ale131296]

Ahh but I don't know why it doesn't works because I did what you said and nothing goes right. Well I have to say that after ten new launches one of them went well but one to ten... That's a small probability.

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------

Did you try to copy my scenario file and do the launch in your computer? Try it if you didn't tried it

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I've used UCD with multiple payloads in the shuttle with success, but there is a trick to it. The UCD uses the payload as a core vehicle, and the next piece of cargo is attached to that particular payload.

Node-Abbott:Well-Artemis
  STATUS Landed Earth
  POS 0.0000000 0.0000000
  HEADING 0.00
  ATTACHED 0:0,Enterprise
  AFCMODE 7
  NAVFREQ 0 0
END
Temp_Fix:UCargoDeck
  STATUS Landed Earth
  POS 92.7019582 1.6803122
  HEADING 238.15
  ATTACHED 0:0,Node-Abbott
  AFCMODE 7
  NAVFREQ 0 0
  XPDR 0
  CORE_NAME Abbott
  JETTISONSPEED 1.00
  JETTISONINT 5.00
  ALLOW_SEND_FOCUS 1
  DEF_ATT_PARAMS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000
  PL_DESCRIPTION PMA-3 0.000 0.250 -4.220 0.0000 -0.0000 -1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 -0.0000 0
  IN_JETTISON 0 0
  J_MARKER 0.00
END
PMA-3:Well-pma
  STATUS Landed Earth
  POS 17.0243524 23.4391541
  HEADING 180.08
  ATTACHED 2:0,Temp_Fix
  AFCMODE 7
  NAVFREQ 0 0
END

This method has worked pretty well for me.

 

[ale131296]

Ahh ok but I don't know what are you putting in the shuttle payload. I only put the Unity module from the new version of ISS missions. See my scenario file and then copy it and create a new scenario on your orbiter and then run the scenario. Try to do the launch with STS and then confirm if the payload is the error. If you don't try it you won't know what's the error.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

And I've no idea what you are using the Universal Cargo Deck on... Your scenario doesn't list the UCD anywhere that I can see. But it plainly shows Unity loaded aboard STS-136 properly.

Unity:ISSR\Unity
  STATUS Landed Earth
  BASE Cape Canaveral:3
  POS -80.6208900 28.6271740
  HEADING 2.00
  [COLOR="Red"]ATTACHED 0:0,STS-136[/COLOR]  
  AFCMODE 7
  NAVFREQ 0 0
  NODE 1
  TC1 0 0.0000 1
  TC2 0 0.0000 1
  TC3 0 0.0000 1
  TC4 0 0.0000 1
END

STS-136 being shuttle fleet (OV-105, is that Endeavour?).

Are you going to use all those vessels listed in the scenario (Shuttle-A's and PB, MIR and ISS)? If not, consider dumping them to keep the scenario as clean as possible.

I'll take a look at running the scenario when I get home. But I would consider (if I can get it running) launching the shuttle first, then using the DGIV to incercept it, rather than the other way around. The DGIV has much more power and DV than the shuttle has and is better suited (I think) for chasing things down. Just my $0.02.

 

[Cras]

there is oddness in this scenario, that is to be sure. You have the attached payload attached to a pad, which....you best not do.

STATUS Landed Earth
ATTACHED 0:0,STS-136

that is all you need to attach something, everything else....just gonna cause trouble.

You also seem to have forgotten to set the ET umbilical doors open....

PETD 1 1.0000
SETD 1 1.0000

that will fix that

After fixing your heinous FoV setting, sitting in the Shuttle, I open GPC MFD in the VC, I open OPS 1, I enter ITEM 777, and the Shuttle takes off, rolls onto its back for its ride into orbit, and all goes smoothly.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Good catch on "BASE Cape Canaveral:3" I totally missed that.

Yes, pretty much the same way I do it. If I'm flying to my station I'll have LaunchMFD open with the station targeted, at 350 seconds I'll enter item 777 and enjoy the ride.

Once she (shuttle) flips over, use AlignPlanesMFD and nudge the nose a bit to minimize RinC (can generally hit 0.02 on a regular basis).

 

[ale131296]

So you say that the problem was the attachment of the Unity module and yes I HAVE UCD but I DON'T USE UCD in this scenario. I think that some people were wrong asking me. And I have to say that I attached the Unity module like you are saying to me but the problem is that when I run the scenario and then I saved the scenario and I saw the scenario file It changed and that appeared...Is it the orbiter ghost? Well if the ALS has an error I have to launch STS manually... There's no problem because I launch a lot of type of rockets and look at real STS launches to perform a perfect launch manually and the most of the manually launches are going well.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Can you try to record a video of how the shuttle stack went off course and post it here? I think I had a similar problem that only seems to happen when launching at a certain azimuth and target altitude. (and yes I never used UCD)

 

[ale131296]

Ok but I have a stupid brain and I don't know how to post a video here, but If I don't know it I could post here the Playback scenario

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------

Oh I forgot that I don't know how to post a file... Not with the numbers and words nono, the file that you install into your Orbiter and see the video. I don't know how to do it. I'll investigate

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Just ran your scenario, HOLY CRAP!!!
Yes, I can duplicate your gripe. Switching over to troubleshooting mode...

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Just ran your scenario, HOLY CRAP!!!
Yes, I can duplicate your gripe. Switching over to troubleshooting mode...

I tried the scenario too; here's the result: :facepalm:

And yes I have seen similar problems with the launch autopilot before (specifically with Shuttle Fleet v4.8), although the Shuttle crashes back on the ground even faster than in this case (!). I wonder if there's something to do with this line:

TGT_HEADING  [B][COLOR="Red"]82.50[/COLOR][/B] 320.00

Since the target orbit is at such high inclination (at 82.5 deg. the mission should have been launched out of VAFB), I suggest using a lower inclination for the time being (e.g. 51.6 - the inclination of ISS's orbit) until we can find David and see what he can do.

Meanwhile I want to mention another "bug" in v4.8 - the main engines now starts at T-3 seconds, which is of course incorrect. This bug did not exist in v4.6.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Found it!

OK, you currently have your shuttle positioned as such;

STS-136:Shuttle
  STATUS Landed Earth
  POS -80.6207770 28.6271840
  HEADING 359.91
  AFCMODE 7
  PRPLEVEL 0:1.000000 1:1.000000 2:1.000000
  the rest of the stuff...

Change the heading to read;
HEADING 2

This is the heading that is in the 'default' scenarios with every shuttle in shuttle fleet launching from KSC (Vandenberg is different for obvious reasons). Just to be sure I changed the heading back to 359.91 and the launch went crazy every time.

Using a heading of 2 gave in a nice climb to orbit with a ApA of 319 and change.

I did maybe 4 or 5 launches each, I gotta say, flying through my own contrail was a neat visual. I only did one full launch (all the way to MECO), but was flawless.

 

[ale131296]

Yes I changed the heading BECAUSE I have some textures that I need to make a more realistic launch with STS I thought that it was the cause of that error so I tried to change the target heading and there's the same

 

[PhantomCruiser]

In that case it may be a problem with the angles or something. Sometimes the math can make Orbiter go crazy, but it's usually a rare thing.

What textures? I'm curious as to what you added to make "more realistic launch"?

Why not just nudge the rudder to make final corrections after rollover?

 

[ale131296]

Well, I said that it's a "more realistic launch" because the launchpad is not the default launchpad. It's a launchpad that I found on orbit hangar which makes a more realistic launch. So you can launch your STS with this launchpad and this launchpad it's in the same position as the deafault launchpad but when STS appears on the new launchpad it's bad headed and you have to change the heading of the STS to put it right. Maybe the thing that cause the bug is the heading I'll try to change the target heading. Oh what do you think about this challenge? I think that it's a good challenge for practice launching and docking. Launch STS and the day after its launch, it's the time for DG. Dock on orbit using Unity module and stay there for 10 days. Then undock and do a reentry maneuvre and land at the Kennedy Space Center both ships on the same day

 

[PhantomCruiser]

This one from Kev33?



Or slat's?

As far as the challenge, I could do it. Manually landing the shuttle is a bit of trouble for me, but I can do it. I'd probably cheat and use autofcs on the shuttle and land the DGIV manually.

 

[ale131296]

Yes! It seems like my launchpad but... I also have some texture for all the KSC and the Runways hehe I want realistic scenarios. Now I'm changing the target heading for a good automatic launch and now it's going right. Thanks for your help and your time

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Groovy! Glad to have helped.

But uh... "Realistic" and DGIV don't need to go together. Don't get me wrong, I love the DGIV, it's an excellent craft and has some fantastic autopilots. But it's fueled by magic and made from unobtainium. I think if a craft made today had the capabilities of the DGIV, it would look nothing like it...

You can tweak it to make the numbers more realistic, but then it's not as fun to fly (to me anyway).