SSU Development Thread (2.0 to 3.0)

[Urwumpe]

How much is left to come to SVN before I can do another release candidate?

 

[GLS]

How much is left to come to SVN before I can do another release candidate?

I'm writing my findings on the panel A8 ticket. Then I'll try to add 2 more runways to the AerojetDAP list, but this doesn't needs much testing, so IMO the only thing on the way of another RC are the issues I listed above.

 

[DaveS]

After checking, I have noticed that there's a few issues with the new airlock and the TAA.

Here's the two most noticeable ones:

• The airlock sits too low in the PLB causing a misalignment with the bulkhead hatch
• The ODS C/L camera is blocked (probably due to the issue above)

I don't know about anyone else's opinion on this but, I consider the ODS C/L cam issue a NO-GO for release.

ODS C/L cam:

Hatch/tunnel misalignment:

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 PM ----------

This photo shows the vertical position of the airlock in the PLB pretty well. It's when the External Airlock was re-installed into Endeavour's PLB following her 2003-2006 OMM, this explains the bare PLB.

 

[GLS]

I've already mentioned the bulkhead hatch and the TAA/ExAL don't match (don't know what is wrong).
The ODS camera I remember checking and it was well... I'll check again in a bit.

Serious question: could we move SSU to some Pacific Ocean timezone, so it's Tuesday until about 1200 GMT on Wednesday?

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

DaveS what scenario were you using on that ODS camera image? Just tested both airlock positions and it's all normal here.

 

[DaveS]

I've already mentioned the bulkhead hatch and the TAA/ExAL don't match (don't know what is wrong).
The ODS camera I remember checking and it was well... I'll check again in a bit.

Serious question: could we move SSU to some Pacific Ocean timezone, so it's Tuesday until about 1200 GMT on Wednesday?

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

DaveS what scenario were you using on that ODS camera image? Just tested both airlock positions and it's all normal here.

I used the STS-76 launch scenario.

 

[Donamy]

After checking, I have noticed that there's a few issues with the new airlock and the TAA.

Here's the two most noticeable ones:

• The airlock sits too low in the PLB causing a misalignment with the bulkhead hatch
• The ODS C/L camera is blocked (probably due to the issue above)

I don't know about anyone else's opinion on this but, I consider the ODS C/L cam issue a NO-GO for release.

ODS C/L cam:

Hatch/tunnel misalignment:

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 PM ----------

This photo shows the vertical position of the airlock in the PLB pretty well. It's when the External Airlock was re-installed into Endeavour's PLB following her 2003-2006 OMM, this explains the bare PLB.

That's a picture of the ExtAirlock cover, when the ODS iss not used.

It's up to the coders to hide it. :thumbup:

 

[DaveS]

That's a picture of the ExtAirlock cover, when the ODS iss not used.

It's up to the coders to hide it. :thumbup:

Maybe so, that fixes the ODS C/L cam issue. That leaves the misalignment. According to this sheet from an EVA tools document dated 1994, the height of the External Airlock is 2.8194 m (111"). Ours is 3.0610 m, 0.2416 m longer than the real thing. Check measurement "G" in the table.

 

[GLS]

I can take the cover off, but there's no hatch behind... just the airlock "cavity".

---------- Post added at 11:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 PM ----------

DaveS, please try the ODS camera now.

 

[DaveS]

I can take the cover off, but there's no hatch behind... just the airlock "cavity".

---------- Post added at 11:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 PM ----------

DaveS, please try the ODS camera now.

Well, it's closer to the top of the airlock now but still blocked by the hatch cover.

---------- Post added at 01:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 AM ----------

Our whole problem is that we don't have the hole in the hatch cover for the window through the C/L camera looks.

---------- Post added at 01:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------

Here's a photo of External Airlock/ODS taken during the pad flow of STS-120. The hole in the thermal cover is visible just below the #2 petal.

 

[GLS]

Well, it's closer to the top of the airlock now but still blocked by the hatch cover.

Even before this change, in 2 or 3 different scenarios, either on the pad or in orbit, it always looked as it did before today... don't know what is going on for this to work here and not there :idk:.
Anyway, the cover is coming off, so that should fix the issue for good.

---------- Post added at 12:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------

Well, it's closer to the top of the airlock now but still blocked by the hatch cover.

---------- Post added at 01:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 AM ----------

Our whole problem is that we don't have the hole in the hatch cover for the window through the C/L camera looks.

---------- Post added at 01:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------

Here's a photo of External Airlock/ODS taken during the pad flow of STS-120. The hole in the thermal cover is visible just below the #2 petal.

That is the hatch, which we currently don't have. What we have is the hatch cover (like on the aft ExAL hatch) for use without the ODS.

 

[DaveS]

Even before this change, in 2 or 3 different scenarios, either on the pad or in orbit, it always looked as it did before today... don't know what is going on for this to work here and not there :idk:.
Anyway, the cover is coming off, so that should fix the issue for good.

---------- Post added at 12:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------



That is the hatch, which we currently don't have. What we have is the hatch cover (like on the aft ExAL hatch) for use without the ODS.

Even without the ODS the thermal cover still has the window hole:

---------- Post added at 01:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 AM ----------

This is what I get when I add the required hole (simple transparent cylinder) to the thermal cover:

---------- Post added at 01:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ----------

The only problem I see is that the ODS C/L camera is possibly not perfectly centered in the view. Could someone add something like a cross-hair right at the center of the view to verify the alignment? In fact, this is the procedure to check the C/L cam alignment:

 

[GLS]

Try now, the cover should not be there, if the ODS is.

 

[DaveS]

Try now, the cover should not be there, if the ODS is.

That works.

 

[Donamy]

Even without the ODS the thermal cover still has the window hole:

---------- Post added at 01:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 AM ----------

This is what I get when I add the required hole (simple transparent cylinder) to the thermal cover:

---------- Post added at 01:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ----------

The only problem I see is that the ODS C/L camera is possibly not perfectly centered in the view. Could someone add something like a cross-hair right at the center of the view to verify the alignment? In fact, this is the procedure to check the C/L cam alignment:

Docking with a PMA would see if it's lined up.

 

[SiameseCat]

I know. :lol: Luckily there is time warp, otherwise, my pizza bill would have grown a lot.

About the SSU Workbench ... I am getting into some WPF specific issues right now, which mean more study and less coding there. Breaking the main window up into smaller elements is much harder in WPF than in JavaFX it seems. I have a TabControl with multiple pages, but it seems like the only way to have my own XAML + .cs file for one of the tabs is to use an UserControl, instead of deriving a new class from a Panel.

Would it make sense to commit this early state or would it be better to wait?

I can try to take a look if you check the code in. In C#, I think creating a UserControl is the standard way for grouping controls together into a custom object.

 

[DaveS]

Docking with a PMA would see if it's lined up.

Well, that is not really the way to go as it introduces the possible errors of the offset of the PMA's docking port specification into the mix. That's adding a variable, not eliminating one.

 

[Urwumpe]

The only problem I see is that the ODS C/L camera is possibly not perfectly centered in the view. Could someone add something like a cross-hair right at the center of the view to verify the alignment? In fact, this is the procedure to check the C/L cam alignment:

For doing the cross hair in VC view, we would need to add an element with a transparent cross hair texture to SSU in the view of the camera, visible only for this VC position.

We can not simply draw on the screen, as in generic cockpit or Panel2D view.

 

[dseagrav]

If you haven't already, you should steal the joystick driver from NASSP so nerds like me that have two of them can have simultaneous translate/rotate capability.

 

[DaveS]

For doing the cross hair in VC view, we would need to add an element with a transparent cross hair texture to SSU in the view of the camera, visible only for this VC position.

We can not simply draw on the screen, as in generic cockpit or Panel2D view.

I resorted to simply using screenshots to find the the center point of the screen and edited the center-line camera offsets until the ODS cross-hairs aligned with it. I have now checked in the updated offsets and they should be very good.

 

[Urwumpe]

If you haven't already, you should steal the joystick driver from NASSP so nerds like me that have two of them can have simultaneous translate/rotate capability.

Sure a nice idea.

I would prefer an Orbiter-wide improvement for the input management though, because it would solve a lot of trouble in relation to using other add-ons with SSU.