My Thoughts on AMSO 1.17.

[pete.dakota]

About a week ago I downloaded AMSO. It's Brilliant! It's all I've been doing in Orbiter since. It's not within my nature to poke fault at something which, really, doesn't have any. So this a list of things which I believe are either: inaccurate and fixable OR possible improvements relating to greater accuracy. Most of these points relate to the launch/staging, I'll try to go in order chronologically.

1] Tower jettison is done manually. I know this isn't a big issue, but the tower jet is performed by the commander flipping a switch in the cockpit. I know "J" initiates an abort. But, how about K? It would be nice to actually have something to do during the launch. Skirt sep, wait 5 seconds, then "K" and wwooossh, tower's gone.

2] VC vibrations. They sure are cool! But, I think they should scale during the launch. Essentially from very high frequency at ingition and lift off, and then beginning to become less violent after passing through max-Q, scaling down as the atmosphere thins, and then being practically non-existent throughout the latter parts of the second and third stages. VC vibrations would not have occurred during the SIVB's burns, or firings of the SPS. It would have been a straight even G force in one direction. Much like the "riding on glass" that I've heard Shuttle astronauts describe after SRB jettison.

3] The ullage motors at the bottom of the SIVB stage are jettisoned after third stage ignition to save weight. Again it's not important, but it did happen, and would be quite cool to see.

4] All ignitions of all stages during launch do not immediately jump from 0-100% rated thrust. For instance the SIVB's J-2 Engine takes around 3 seconds to reach full thrust.

5] The SIVB's engine is essentially one of the second stages J-2 engines, and so, the exhaust texture would be the same. They are very different in AMSO.

6] The 'glow' seen around the engine exhausts would not be seen in a vacuum. This glow would only be seen if atmosphere was between the exhaust and the viewer. So, really, the second stage's glow would hardly be noticeable, even early during it's burn, and after that no engine should have a glow around it's exhaust. Again, not a big issue, though. Also, is it possible to make changes to the exhaust textures so that there is no blue box around them whilst viewing from a distance?

7] In AMSO, after LM extraction from the SIVB after the LOI burn, the SIVB stage waits about 10 minutes and then performs it's burn to either escape the Earth or impact the Moon. Realistically, well, at least during Apollo 11, about 20 minutes after LM extraction, the CSM/LM stack performs a separation manoeuvre, and some time after that the SIVB performs it's burn. I would say to increase the wait time on the SIVB burn from 10 minutes to around 40.

8] In my opinion, RCS rotation of the CSM is too sensitive. Especially in roll.

9] I love the idea of LM 'activation'. However, this extends the LM's landing gear, which was actually done by the LM pilot after undocking from the CSM.

There! Sorry if you think I'm being a bit too particular But, at least to my knowledge, most of the points above can be achieved, and would only add to the realism of an already great addon! I look forward to hearing what you guys think.

 

[Urwumpe]

6. Most rocket engines have a visible aura around them, even in vacuum, as the nozzles are not perfect. It is just not as bright and opaque as it is in orbiter.

 

[BlueDragon8144]

1) Actually, it is performed automatically. The crew may wish to do it manually, and there are switches to do so on the real thing, but contrary to what is seen in Apollo 13, it is normally done automatically by the computer.

 

[pete.dakota]

1) Actually, it is performed automatically. The crew may wish to do it manually, and there are switches to do so on the real thing, but contrary to what is seen in Apollo 13, it is normally done automatically by the computer.

Taken from the Apollo 8 flight journal.

Exactly 30 seconds after the first separation command, another is sent from the IU to detonate the cutting explosive at the top of the interstage. The S-II's acceleration cleanly pulls it away from the interstage. Four seconds later, Frank throws a switch and jettisons the unused Launch Escape Tower which takes the Boost Protect Cover with it. For the first time in the flight, all the windows in the spacecraft are uncovered.

Was it just 8, then? I'm sure I've read a journal for another mission that had the CDR doing this manually, too. I'm trying to find it now.

 

[BlueDragon8144]

did it? I remembered it being automatic. And I did say that the crew could choose to do it manually if they wish so.

 

[BlueDragon8144]

Ok, here it is. If you look at the diagram of the panel itself, on panel 2, just right below the dsky, the twr jett switches have three positions. Up for tower jett, middle for off, and down for auto.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/ad019c.gif

 

[Urwumpe]

All flights have the TWR JETT task in the ascent checklist. But the task is for monkeys. You only don't do this task, when a problem emerged earlier.

 

[pete.dakota]

All flights have the TWR JETT task in the ascent checklist. But the task is for monkeys. You only don't do this task, when a problem emerged earlier.

Is this why the tower jettison is, really, the only stack configuration change during launch that has to be done manually by the crew? Because it's dependant on whether or not any abort had been initialised prior?

 

[Urwumpe]

Because it's dependant on whether or not any abort had been initialised prior?

At least because the crew and mission control should know better about the state of the rocket, as the rocket itself.

 

[gimp1992]

From the Apollo 16 Flight Journal T+ 3:27 A single, small, solid-propellant motor near the top of the tower fires for one second, jettisoning the entire LES (Launch Escape System) and the checklist moves to abort Mode II. As with most Apollo systems, the crew could manually command the LES jettison if the automatic system failed]

 

[Saturn V]

I understand the desire for realism, but the obsession with accuracy isn't even feasible within the context of Orbiter.

Yes, Orbiter is an excellent sim (and absolutely the best for spaceflight), but it is after all a simulation.

Most burns can be made within a few minutes of their historic counterparts, but there are limitations and accepting the concessions that have to be made to that end might cut down on the "You should do this," or "That isn't right" commentary.

Pehaps Alain could implement the things suggested here. Considering what he's done with AMSO, it wouldn't surprise me.

But even if Alain never did anything else with AMSO, isn't it already the best Apollo sim you've ever seen?

A little gratitude for what he's already given to temper the requests for more might be in order...

 

[ryan]

Well said Saturn V, thats true, who could complain about it anyways, i'm still getting over all the stuff in 1.16.

 

[tblaxland]

I agree AMSO is an excellent addon. Bravo Alain and crew.

I also enjoy NASSP as it does offer some things AMSO doesn't (vAGC for example). Between the two, I find enough to keep me happy (Apollo-wise, not to mention all the other addons I enjoy).

So, @pete.dakota:

1] In NASSP, you can do a manual tower jettison using the actual switch on the 2D panel.

8] I find RCS sensitivity more realistic in NASSP, especially when you have a LM hanging off your nose. It is a real dog (in a good way, but you need patience for manoeuvres ).

 

[NukeET]

I understand the desire for realism, but the obsession with accuracy isn't even feasible within the context of Orbiter.

Yes, Orbiter is an excellent sim (and absolutely the best for spaceflight), but it is after all a simulation.

Saturn V, didn't we have this discussion about PTC?

 

[computerex]

8] I find RCS sensitivity more realistic in NASSP, especially when you have a LM hanging off your nose. It is a real dog (in a good way, but you need patience for manoeuvres ).

Well NASSP is overall much more realistic then AMSO, they both attempt to reach slightly different goals. I do agree however that LasyD, Luis, and Alain have created something very entertaining, and quite useful for even educational purposes. I might be using AMSO or NASSP for a school presentation.

 

[ryan]

Where to actually show kids in detail what there fore fathers did and went to.

 

[Saturn V]

Where to actually show kids in detail what there fore fathers did and went to.

Not to change the subject, but on that note, you might want to show them this too...

 

[ryan]

Good point Saturn, hey maybe i should make a thread Apollo program discussion, so everyone can talk about everything that happened in the Apollo Program.

 

[pete.dakota]

I understand the desire for realism, but the obsession with accuracy isn't even feasible within the context of Orbiter.

Yes, Orbiter is an excellent sim (and absolutely the best for spaceflight), but it is after all a simulation.

Most burns can be made within a few minutes of their historic counterparts, but there are limitations and accepting the concessions that have to be made to that end might cut down on the "You should do this," or "That isn't right" commentary.

Pehaps Alain could implement the things suggested here. Considering what he's done with AMSO, it wouldn't surprise me.

But even if Alain never did anything else with AMSO, isn't it already the best Apollo sim you've ever seen?

A little gratitude for what he's already given to temper the requests for more might be in order...

And that gratitude I did give in my first post.

I haven't suggested anything that I didn't think was actually possible within Orbiter. They are not 'requests'. Merely feasible suggestions that would only better an, as you say, already great addon.

 

[Usonian]

Having done and addon or two myself I can attest that it is easier giving critiques for other's work than it is receiving them for your own. Compliments and download numbers are the only "pay" we get for our efforts. Feedback is good and critism is ok, if given in the correct spirit. I think Pete.Dakota expresses himself politely and is striking the right note. But I suppose that is for the AMSO folks to decide - everyone takes these things differently.

I can not agree with a blanket statement that NASSP is more "accurate" that AMSO. That may be true in some respects (i.e. AGC), but the LM landing phase in AMSO is much closer to the real thing: The view out AMSO's LM window, the method for changing landing point, the manual control of descent rate during final approach, and the available sound packs... Outstanding!

I confess I haven't tried NASSP 7 (because it's advertised as less than completely stable). Has the LM landing sequence changed much from v6 to v7?