Can't that be calculated from the angle between the attachments?
That assumes that the attachment points in the OV are leveled, which they aren't.
And the orbiter axis doesn't change, it's still level with everything, it's just that the orbiter has a slight positive AoA when mated to the ET.
These 2 sentences contradict each other. If the axis are leveled, there is no angle. :shrug:
Obviously Enterprise never had any issues with the 6° AoA used for the ALTs.
And the shuttle GNC could easily sense the slight AoA as the reference plane never changed.
The Enterprise wasn't controlling the mated flight...
I conceed that there may well be an angle in there for aero reasons, but I want to confirm it really exists before I change tons of code. "3D models don't fit" isn't enough evidence for this, especially when there isn't a single bit of info pointing to some angle existing in there, plus there is info saying the axis match, plus it would make GNC harder.
---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------
I just committed a scenario to run TAEM at Edwards. It should allow all TAEM and A/L trajectory options to be "exercised". FCS is (still) "wonky", so although most guidance references are correct*, they might not be followed perfectly.
Tons of things are still missing from the displays, others need fine-tuning. I'll work them after Entry guidance.
*) Some parameters are "stock" so the whole thing might not fit perfectly, but it gets to the runway. Also, TAEM has several requirements, so you might see e.g. altitude diverge for a while, but that is to correct Qbar or E/W. PRFNL roll has a small issue... I'll track that down later.