I am a Hillbilly from The United States of Kentucky, and The Moon Landing and the 9 11 in NY NY USA are all to impress other governments. We fooled the U.S.S.R. and showed that we are willing to sacrifice our own people. The cold war and the foothold in the middle east, all this is to maintain, peace through strength. Who will mess with America, you will get Bloody. We give a shit less, as our fine young troops get killed. It is all a BIG BLUFF, so we don't have to come down on them really hard.
Armstrong is not the only pilot who had to eject himself.
Two other pilots also had to eject themselves to save their lives.
On the moon, it would have meant death for them.
The problem with this kind of vehicle, it is that, in case of the least problem, it degenerates very quickly, with no possibility of regaining control.
@Chev4206 search LLRV landing on YouTube. There are a lot of video with different prototypes. And what about the photos of the LEM, left on the moon after multiple missions, recently taken by LLROC satellite orbiting the moon? You have the Internet to check by yourself.. don't take for true everything you read.
These photos are full of incoherences: duplicate landers, landers with more than improbable shadows, landers too close to holes, incompatible shadows...
They are like the photos of the missions, full of incoherences!
@trodas You really ought to learn at least a little about something before you make a video criticizing it. The LLRV/LLTV had BOTH a lift turbine AND lift rockets. It was MORE difficult to fly than the LM because it had additional engines, systems, and flight complications associated with wind and air traffic. The crash you show here was the result of (cont'd)
(2of2) a systems failure - loss of Helium pressure in the attitude control system, and had nothing to do with deficiencies in the craft's concept or design. Virtually every aircraft ever flown has had similar crashes. Anyone interested in gaining some ACCURATE knowledge about the LLRV/LLTV, a 3-part begins here: watch?v=eUdz1bDeSvc&feature=channel_video_title
Doesn't anyone have any concept of doublethink? We DID land on the moon yes, and it was a HOAX yes. Armstrong was the FIRST man to walk on the moon yes, Armstrong DID NOT walk on the moon at all yes. We WENT to the moon yes, WE DIDN'T go to the moon yes. There is your doublethink. USE IT!
I have downloaded the LEM manual. It's hilarious. It had a 70KB memory (ferrite core). You can't even store an image of britney spear's ass in that much memory. And they used that kind of super machine to land on the moon. Wow! You really need to stretch your imagination to believe these NASA guys. ROFL . I will keep posting.
@forestinfullbloom Well, guess what. They DID figure out a way to land on the moon with less memory than it takes to store an image of britney spear's ass.
I guess that means they were a lot smarter than you, huh?
@forestinfullbloom If all this was a hoax, how likely do you think it would be for NASA to make the LM computer manual (along with tons of other Apollo technical documents) openly available for super-smart guys like you to come along and see through their ruse?
@forestinfullbloom I see. But not all of us are morons. You yourself are a super genius who could see right through the scam. It took over 40 years for someone as brilliant as you to come along, but you did. You're the very first one. And now you've blown the whole deal. Do you really think NASA would have taken that risk? I don't think so.
@forestinfullbloom No. Nor do I "believe" that Apollo went to the moon because that implies an element of blind faith. I KNOW Apollo went to the moon because, unlike you, I have seen and actually understood the evidence that they did. I'm an engineer. I've studied many Apollo technical documents. I've read the manuals and mission reports. I've never seen a single system that couldn't have worked as advertised. That includes the LM computer.
@forestinfullbloom Sorry to chime in forest, but did you see the TV show that aired on FOX, Feb.2001, called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon"?
When you saw it, did you believe the TV show's assertions without any research of your own and assimilate it into your belief system?
I notice most hoaxers' weren't alive at the time of Apollo, they didn't see the SaturnV launch or hear the sonic boom before the capsule came down from the sky w/ parachutes waving. I saw it on TV, I believe.
@forestinfullbloom If you believe in physics, that's good. You'll be discovering what allot of skeptics have found, the real facts. If you like physics, try lukequixotesanjose 's videos, he happens to teach physics.
I think it would be intriguing if the landings were faked, but I haven't seen one shred of evidence that would make an argument for a forgery. Good luck, you'll find out the truth if that's what you desire.
Well, that's why we have test pilots and why we develop these things quite a bit before putting something like this to the real test. Maybe you and the self-important, unqualifierd, conspiracist crackpot Percy were unaware that there were many more tests and revisions.
Let me see if I can find a film of a test fighter jet crashing and then I can say that all fighter jets are fake because of it.
Furthermore, Turbofans are not easier to control. Turbofans rely on the acceleration of the blades, which takes time to rev up. VTOL in this manner relies heavily on reaction speed, where you need massive amounts of acceleration. Rockets accelerate instantly because its a pure chemical reaction, and therefore are more suited to VTOL. Its also much harder to control because the center of gravity is much lower on the LLRV than it is on the LEM, reducing maneuverability.
@NelielTuOderswank "Its also much harder to control because the center of gravity is much lower on the LLRV than it is on the LEM, reducing maneuverability." That's why it could fly, but the lunar module with high CG was like flying a ball balanced on top of another ball.
@forestinfullbloom Why should anyone believe you? All I have seen from your posts is your abysmal lack of knowledge about anything related to space travel.
@forestinfullbloom The LEM had a much higher center of gravity. Anything on an aircraft or spacecraft that makes it unstable, like a high center of gravity, also makes it more maneuverable. The LEM's guidance computer kept it upright, while reaping the rewards of a more agile spacecraft.
@NelielTuOderswank So you agree it was unstable. Computer with a memory less than that of a floppy. I am aware that instability is used for increasing manoeuvrability but the distance between CG & CP are kept as near as possible, unlike the LM which had a huge gap between the CG & CP and it was travelling in the reverse direction. It's foolishness to attempt such a thing, no wonder such rockets are almost non-existent, bcoz the concept is stupid.
@forestinfullbloom Memory isn't a problem, because it is only a calculator. Simple addition and subtraction, even for the "complex" delta-v equations. Calculations are not memory demanding, they are CPU demanding, because it is not a product of parallel processing.. Aircraft have used guidance computers similar to this as early as WWII, most notably on the V-1 and its rocket counterpart, the V-2, So were those fake too?
@forestinfullbloom Furthermore, the LEM's guidance computer, like the CM's, used a mechanical aid in the calculations, called a gyro, a type of mechanical computer. The computer merely has to measure the movement of the gyro relative to itself and punch in equations to find the orientation of the spacecraft and correct it. The guidance technique is so simple it was used centuries ago by seafarer's, although they called it a "sextant" A gyro just has the liberty to move in three dimensions.
@NelielTuOderswank A sextant my friend is used to fix the position of a ship on a chart. Do you punch anything that comes to your mind? If it was so simple to land men on the moon, the vatican would have done it by now. A tail sitter is difficult to control and flying one is very risky because it is unstable like anything and consumes fuel like anything.
@forestinfullbloom The Vatican? Where are you even getting this from? Where would the Vatican even get the resources to do this? Furthermore, I never said it was easy, I said it was simple technology, tried and proven.
@forestinfullbloom Furthermore, tail sitter? This term does not apply to the LEM. The LEM is by definition most closely related to a helicopter, as it uses the same mass force and reaction speed to keep it level, the same way a helicopter does. Most of the instability of a tail sitting aircraft is derived by its low center of gravity and poor visual reference, unlike the LEM, where the astronaut's are either free floating or standing up, with windows facing the horizon and the ground below.
@forestinfullbloom No matter how stable you make a VTOL by lowering its center of gravity, it will always be less stable, because once it tips over, it cannot recover, much like 0:14 on this video. VTOL with a high center of gravity can, because its natural instability permits increased maneuverability and with it, more pitch and roll authority. The LEM also has RCS's to augment its already nimble frame, allowing re-orientation even if the spacecraft is completely sideways.
@forestinfullbloom The LM had a CP? Really? How does something that flies in a vacuum without wings or fins have a "center of pressure"?
The fact is that the LM was very straightforward to control even with the primitive computers of the day. There was no drag and no wind. The RCS engines could be turned on and off in milliseconds. The inertial platforms knew its orientation, the crew knew where they wanted it to go and the computers figured out which engines to fire to get it there.
@forestinfullbloom Sure the LM was unstable. And had it lacked a reaction control system (those 16 small rocket engines on outriggers) it would have veered off course and crashed. Just as Neil Armstrong's LLRV crashed when it lost pressure in its reaction control system. But the LM did have a computer controlled reaction control system, and it did not fail. Even the computers of the day were plenty fast enough to read the LM's attitude, figure out which RCS engines to fire, and to fire them.
@NelielTuOderswank If you think the LM had a high center of gravity, have you taken a look at a typical rocket lately? You know, the ones they launch all the time from Kennedy Space Center? Those long, skinny things with a rocket down at the bottom and all that weight up above? And somehow it flies stably all the way into earth orbit? How could such a thing be possible?
Just because YOU don't know how it was done doesn't mean no one else could do it.
@ApolloWasReal Huh? Did you even read what I said? Lowering center of gravity reduces maneuverability, which was unacceptable for the LEM. A high center of gravity is superior for maneuverability, as anything that makes an aircraft or spacecraft more unstable will also make it more agile (Canards, thrust vectoring, leeward CG). All rockets, including the LEM, have a high center of gravity, the instability is compensated for by computers.
@NelielTuOderswank Relax dude, I'm on your side. I accidentally addressed this one to you instead of forestinfullbloom. YT's commenting facility sucks. I'm so focused on trimming words to stay under 500 chars that sometimes I miss the name at the start of the box.
@NelielTuOderswank I don't think it matters much where the cg was on the LM as long as the RCS thrusters have sufficient moment arm to turn it around that cg. Especially for the ascent stage, where the engine isn't gimbaled. Compared to regular rockets, the LM had a very low cg. One problem they did have was that the inertial platform wasn't at the cg so it moved linearly during pure rotational movement. This confused the computer until an allowance was made in software.
@ApolloWasReal The CG matters on any flying machine, air or space. The CG is the pivot point, for pitch and roll. It doesn't matter where you lift from (Top like a helicopter, bottom like a rocket) it does not matter how many engines you use or how far apart they are, all that matters is the distance from the point of lift to the
CG. Try it yourself, you can balance a broomstick on your finger, but not a pencil, even though it is lighter.
@NelielTuOderswank Sure the cg matters, but the LM has something most rockets don't have: four sets of RCS thrusters on outriggers. The farther they are from the cg, the more moment arm they have. A low cg would actually have been an advantage as it's farther away from the RCS thrusters up on the sides of the ascent stage.
The main thing about the LM was ensuring that the cg wasn't too far from the X (vertical) axis to not exceed the RCS's authority. It still "wallowed" during ascent.
@NelielTuOderswank The broomstick or pencil is more analogous to a conventional rocket where all attitude control is provided by gimbaling the engines at the bottom. Then a high cg is advantageous to provide a longer moment arm for the engines.
I don't understand how the hoaxheads get so hung up on LM stability. An ordinary rocket should seem harder to control.
@NelielTuOderswank The more I think about it, the more I think the cg position in a rocket matters only when a gimbaled engine at the bottom provides all attitude control. The LM's descent engine was gimbaled (the ascent engine wasn't) but it wasn't used much for attitude control; it was usually adjusted to direct thrust through the cg, i.e. to null any torque. The CSM SPS was similar. The RCS thrusters provided attitude control, and most rockets don't have anything like them.
@ApolloWasReal It does not matter where you lift from or how many engines you use, all that matters is the distance from the CG, having RCS does not impart any kind of extra stability, it behaves exactly the same as thrust vectoring. Because you are not lifting from the RCS, you are lifting with the main engine, it will behave exactly the same as a vectored nozzle during descent and ascent.
@NelielTuOderswank Consider the LM ascent stage with its ungimbaled engine. By design the cg was very low and close to the engine center of thrust. (Otherwise the ascent propellant tanks would have been higher, to raise the cg.) This minimized attitude disturbances caused by the cg being off the center line. All attitude control was by the RCS, which were as far from the cg as practical to maximize their moment arm.
@NelielTuOderswank During descent you are correct that a high cg gave the descent engine greater authority to change attitude by gimbaling. My understanding is that this was rarely done except when very rapid turns were needed (pitchover?) The computer usually aligned the engine with the cg and used the RCS for attitude control. The effectiveness of the RCS depended directly on how far those small engines were from the cg. Since they were high on the ascent stage a lower cg helped them.
@NelielTuOderswank I think we're in violent agreement. In any rocket, attitude instability increases with the distance between cg and the engine providing thrust. But if that engine is gimbaled that same distance increases the moment arm and thus the maneuverability provided by gimbaling. The LM and CSM were unique in having RCS quads do most of the attitude control during burns (or all, for the LM ascent stage).
Trodas you fail to understand the concept of vertical takeoff. Machines like these rely on reaction speed, unlike a helicopter, which relies on reaction force. Any little thing like wind can knock it off the ball its balancing on and tip over, where you then lose your control relative to the horizon and crash. The LEM never had this problem because it operated in a vacuum, and it never made a crater in solid concrete, please direct me to where you learned this. Id love to know.
trodas, I'd like to see your evidence that 500 lbs. of thrust can make a crater in concrete. It's a false claim.
If NASA was creating a hoax, why put a man into an LLRV in the first place? In some ways, the LLRV was harder to manage because it needed considerably more thrust to operate because of earth's gravity. Wind was also an issue not found on the moon. Nonetheless, it was operated successfully HUNDREDS of times.
I do not think this is the Armstrong crash but one of the others. You have got to hand it to these guys, they had guts. Armstrong ejected just one and a half seconds from the point where his bang seat would not have saved him and this one was not far behind.
@tpsossff ur right this isn't the armstrong crash. but his ejection was even less time then what u said. he ejected .5 seconds, not 1.5s from reaching the fail altitude for his chute to fully deploy. Crazy when u think about how close he came from becoming a casualty whose name few people would know instead of the most famous astronaut ever. Though i guess thats true of every astronaut when u strap urself into a seat ontop of an ICBM lol.
Why do you hoaxers keep posting this junk? It is known to anybody(certainly Percy) who has done any research that the crash was due to ancillary systems failure, namely loss of pressure in the attitude control system. The other two crashes resulted from (Joe Algranti)high winds and (Stu Present) an electrical failure; the sort of things that can and do cause the the best designed aircraft( as the LLTV assuredly was, w/ many hundreds of successful flights, despite its novelty) to crash.
A later version was called the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle or LLTV, three were built.
Two of these were lost in crashes - December 8, 1968 (piloted by Joe Algranti) and January 29, 1971 (piloted by Stuart Present). They both ejected safely from the crashing LLTV's.
I'm not sure this is actually Neil Armstrong; so far as I know that video doesn't exist- I'm pretty sure this is one of the other 2 crashes; the voice over is AFAIK wrong.
And add that on a jet reaction engine there is a rev up and rev down time. If you want thrust you have to apply throttle before you wanted it and vice-versa. Not that easy. That's why, if pilots come in for a difficult landing they sometimes have the speed brakes deployed. You then can land with the engines at a higher RPM. It takes less time to retract the speed brakes and get rid of drag than to spool up the engines and increase thrust in case of an aborted landing.
The LLRVs and LLTVs had more than a hundred successful flights between them. This crash was far and away the exception rather than the rule.
And rockets are much easier to throttle than jet engines. The latter depend on the air that is blowing through them, while the former depend solely on the fuel and oxidizer, both of which can be completely controlled by the pilot.
I am a Hillbilly from The United States of Kentucky, and The Moon Landing and the 9 11 in NY NY USA are all to impress other governments. We fooled the U.S.S.R. and showed that we are willing to sacrifice our own people. The cold war and the foothold in the middle east, all this is to maintain, peace through strength. Who will mess with America, you will get Bloody. We give a shit less, as our fine young troops get killed. It is all a BIG BLUFF, so we don't have to come down on them really hard.
MrRiprip56 4 weeks ago
Armstrong is not the only pilot who had to eject himself.
Two other pilots also had to eject themselves to save their lives.
On the moon, it would have meant death for them.
The problem with this kind of vehicle, it is that, in case of the least problem, it degenerates very quickly, with no possibility of regaining control.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
Armstrong is badass!
FantasticBob7000 2 months ago
@Chev4206 search LLRV landing on YouTube. There are a lot of video with different prototypes. And what about the photos of the LEM, left on the moon after multiple missions, recently taken by LLROC satellite orbiting the moon? You have the Internet to check by yourself.. don't take for true everything you read.
Madarame79 4 months ago
@Madarame79
These photos are full of incoherences: duplicate landers, landers with more than improbable shadows, landers too close to holes, incompatible shadows...
They are like the photos of the missions, full of incoherences!
hunchbacked 1 month ago
Ejects 1 second before impact!
bjeah 4 months ago
watch?v=lRBVJofGQyE&feature=related
Rob260259 7 months ago
and by the way that specific LLRV performed 281 successfully flights and landings before that accident.
Madarame79 7 months ago
@Madarame79 But never on the moon, nor did any of it's derivatives.
So on the 282nd flight it crashed and no film of those 281 successful flights.
Hmm.....
Sorry. When they did land on the moon the llrv was held up by wires.
How stupid of me to miss that
Chev4206 4 months ago
@trodas You really ought to learn at least a little about something before you make a video criticizing it. The LLRV/LLTV had BOTH a lift turbine AND lift rockets. It was MORE difficult to fly than the LM because it had additional engines, systems, and flight complications associated with wind and air traffic. The crash you show here was the result of (cont'd)
occhamite 8 months ago
(2of2) a systems failure - loss of Helium pressure in the attitude control system, and had nothing to do with deficiencies in the craft's concept or design. Virtually every aircraft ever flown has had similar crashes. Anyone interested in gaining some ACCURATE knowledge about the LLRV/LLTV, a 3-part begins here: watch?v=eUdz1bDeSvc&feature=channel_video_title
occhamite 8 months ago
Hoaxtards are only allowed to watch this video of the LLTV....Do NOT watch any other 699 successful flights of the LLTV.
I command you hoaxtard minions ...tho shall not watch this:
watch?v=yMfNkbEz8ZA
Do not watch.....Or you'll be kicked outta' the Jarrah Mouse Club.
Tweekerhead 8 months ago
Armstrong never flew an LLRV . Supposedly he drove an LLTV from which he ejected after losing control.
elvisinpersonator 8 months ago
It was a kind to him!!! He was so fast to think!!! But was so very special Moment!!!
adauto3000 9 months ago
Doesn't anyone have any concept of doublethink? We DID land on the moon yes, and it was a HOAX yes. Armstrong was the FIRST man to walk on the moon yes, Armstrong DID NOT walk on the moon at all yes. We WENT to the moon yes, WE DIDN'T go to the moon yes. There is your doublethink. USE IT!
Doctor699 10 months ago
Why must people argue over the internet like this? Can't we just enjoy the video and NOT dissect it?
WWIflyingace62 1 year ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the LLRV have over 700 successful flights?
Here's one of em': watch?v=yMfNkbEz8ZA
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
but the landing on the moon was sooooo perfect? LOL i'm glad people are seeing thru the fake moon landings. it only takes a brain.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
I have downloaded the LEM manual. It's hilarious. It had a 70KB memory (ferrite core). You can't even store an image of britney spear's ass in that much memory. And they used that kind of super machine to land on the moon. Wow! You really need to stretch your imagination to believe these NASA guys. ROFL . I will keep posting.
forestinfullbloom 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom Well, guess what. They DID figure out a way to land on the moon with less memory than it takes to store an image of britney spear's ass.
I guess that means they were a lot smarter than you, huh?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom If all this was a hoax, how likely do you think it would be for NASA to make the LM computer manual (along with tons of other Apollo technical documents) openly available for super-smart guys like you to come along and see through their ruse?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal They know morons like you will believe anything. so no diff.
forestinfullbloom 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom I see. But not all of us are morons. You yourself are a super genius who could see right through the scam. It took over 40 years for someone as brilliant as you to come along, but you did. You're the very first one. And now you've blown the whole deal. Do you really think NASA would have taken that risk? I don't think so.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal You don't need to be a super genius to see through the scam, all you need is a functional brain.
Do you really believe everything you see on TV?
LOL.
forestinfullbloom 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom No. Nor do I "believe" that Apollo went to the moon because that implies an element of blind faith. I KNOW Apollo went to the moon because, unlike you, I have seen and actually understood the evidence that they did. I'm an engineer. I've studied many Apollo technical documents. I've read the manuals and mission reports. I've never seen a single system that couldn't have worked as advertised. That includes the LM computer.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom Sorry to chime in forest, but did you see the TV show that aired on FOX, Feb.2001, called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon"?
When you saw it, did you believe the TV show's assertions without any research of your own and assimilate it into your belief system?
I notice most hoaxers' weren't alive at the time of Apollo, they didn't see the SaturnV launch or hear the sonic boom before the capsule came down from the sky w/ parachutes waving. I saw it on TV, I believe.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead I believe in physics not in TV.
And
I am not a hoaxer, I am a skeptic.
google the lunar lander challenger and you may understand what physics i am talking about.
forestinfullbloom 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom If you believe in physics, that's good. You'll be discovering what allot of skeptics have found, the real facts. If you like physics, try lukequixotesanjose 's videos, he happens to teach physics.
I think it would be intriguing if the landings were faked, but I haven't seen one shred of evidence that would make an argument for a forgery. Good luck, you'll find out the truth if that's what you desire.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
Well, that's why we have test pilots and why we develop these things quite a bit before putting something like this to the real test. Maybe you and the self-important, unqualifierd, conspiracist crackpot Percy were unaware that there were many more tests and revisions.
Let me see if I can find a film of a test fighter jet crashing and then I can say that all fighter jets are fake because of it.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
Furthermore, Turbofans are not easier to control. Turbofans rely on the acceleration of the blades, which takes time to rev up. VTOL in this manner relies heavily on reaction speed, where you need massive amounts of acceleration. Rockets accelerate instantly because its a pure chemical reaction, and therefore are more suited to VTOL. Its also much harder to control because the center of gravity is much lower on the LLRV than it is on the LEM, reducing maneuverability.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank "Its also much harder to control because the center of gravity is much lower on the LLRV than it is on the LEM, reducing maneuverability." That's why it could fly, but the lunar module with high CG was like flying a ball balanced on top of another ball.
forestinfullbloom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@forestinfullbloom Why should anyone believe you? All I have seen from your posts is your abysmal lack of knowledge about anything related to space travel.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom The LEM had a much higher center of gravity. Anything on an aircraft or spacecraft that makes it unstable, like a high center of gravity, also makes it more maneuverable. The LEM's guidance computer kept it upright, while reaping the rewards of a more agile spacecraft.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank So you agree it was unstable. Computer with a memory less than that of a floppy. I am aware that instability is used for increasing manoeuvrability but the distance between CG & CP are kept as near as possible, unlike the LM which had a huge gap between the CG & CP and it was travelling in the reverse direction. It's foolishness to attempt such a thing, no wonder such rockets are almost non-existent, bcoz the concept is stupid.
forestinfullbloom 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom Memory isn't a problem, because it is only a calculator. Simple addition and subtraction, even for the "complex" delta-v equations. Calculations are not memory demanding, they are CPU demanding, because it is not a product of parallel processing.. Aircraft have used guidance computers similar to this as early as WWII, most notably on the V-1 and its rocket counterpart, the V-2, So were those fake too?
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom Furthermore, the LEM's guidance computer, like the CM's, used a mechanical aid in the calculations, called a gyro, a type of mechanical computer. The computer merely has to measure the movement of the gyro relative to itself and punch in equations to find the orientation of the spacecraft and correct it. The guidance technique is so simple it was used centuries ago by seafarer's, although they called it a "sextant" A gyro just has the liberty to move in three dimensions.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank A sextant my friend is used to fix the position of a ship on a chart. Do you punch anything that comes to your mind? If it was so simple to land men on the moon, the vatican would have done it by now. A tail sitter is difficult to control and flying one is very risky because it is unstable like anything and consumes fuel like anything.
forestinfullbloom 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom The Vatican? Where are you even getting this from? Where would the Vatican even get the resources to do this? Furthermore, I never said it was easy, I said it was simple technology, tried and proven.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom Furthermore, tail sitter? This term does not apply to the LEM. The LEM is by definition most closely related to a helicopter, as it uses the same mass force and reaction speed to keep it level, the same way a helicopter does. Most of the instability of a tail sitting aircraft is derived by its low center of gravity and poor visual reference, unlike the LEM, where the astronaut's are either free floating or standing up, with windows facing the horizon and the ground below.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom No matter how stable you make a VTOL by lowering its center of gravity, it will always be less stable, because once it tips over, it cannot recover, much like 0:14 on this video. VTOL with a high center of gravity can, because its natural instability permits increased maneuverability and with it, more pitch and roll authority. The LEM also has RCS's to augment its already nimble frame, allowing re-orientation even if the spacecraft is completely sideways.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank everything u said is true. i just wanted to remind the readers that in moon gravity, its less likely to tip over
yesssigotmail 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom The LM had a CP? Really? How does something that flies in a vacuum without wings or fins have a "center of pressure"?
The fact is that the LM was very straightforward to control even with the primitive computers of the day. There was no drag and no wind. The RCS engines could be turned on and off in milliseconds. The inertial platforms knew its orientation, the crew knew where they wanted it to go and the computers figured out which engines to fire to get it there.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom Sure the LM was unstable. And had it lacked a reaction control system (those 16 small rocket engines on outriggers) it would have veered off course and crashed. Just as Neil Armstrong's LLRV crashed when it lost pressure in its reaction control system. But the LM did have a computer controlled reaction control system, and it did not fail. Even the computers of the day were plenty fast enough to read the LM's attitude, figure out which RCS engines to fire, and to fire them.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank If you think the LM had a high center of gravity, have you taken a look at a typical rocket lately? You know, the ones they launch all the time from Kennedy Space Center? Those long, skinny things with a rocket down at the bottom and all that weight up above? And somehow it flies stably all the way into earth orbit? How could such a thing be possible?
Just because YOU don't know how it was done doesn't mean no one else could do it.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal Huh? Did you even read what I said? Lowering center of gravity reduces maneuverability, which was unacceptable for the LEM. A high center of gravity is superior for maneuverability, as anything that makes an aircraft or spacecraft more unstable will also make it more agile (Canards, thrust vectoring, leeward CG). All rockets, including the LEM, have a high center of gravity, the instability is compensated for by computers.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank Relax dude, I'm on your side. I accidentally addressed this one to you instead of forestinfullbloom. YT's commenting facility sucks. I'm so focused on trimming words to stay under 500 chars that sometimes I miss the name at the start of the box.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank I don't think it matters much where the cg was on the LM as long as the RCS thrusters have sufficient moment arm to turn it around that cg. Especially for the ascent stage, where the engine isn't gimbaled. Compared to regular rockets, the LM had a very low cg. One problem they did have was that the inertial platform wasn't at the cg so it moved linearly during pure rotational movement. This confused the computer until an allowance was made in software.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal The CG matters on any flying machine, air or space. The CG is the pivot point, for pitch and roll. It doesn't matter where you lift from (Top like a helicopter, bottom like a rocket) it does not matter how many engines you use or how far apart they are, all that matters is the distance from the point of lift to the
CG. Try it yourself, you can balance a broomstick on your finger, but not a pencil, even though it is lighter.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank Sure the cg matters, but the LM has something most rockets don't have: four sets of RCS thrusters on outriggers. The farther they are from the cg, the more moment arm they have. A low cg would actually have been an advantage as it's farther away from the RCS thrusters up on the sides of the ascent stage.
The main thing about the LM was ensuring that the cg wasn't too far from the X (vertical) axis to not exceed the RCS's authority. It still "wallowed" during ascent.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank The broomstick or pencil is more analogous to a conventional rocket where all attitude control is provided by gimbaling the engines at the bottom. Then a high cg is advantageous to provide a longer moment arm for the engines.
I don't understand how the hoaxheads get so hung up on LM stability. An ordinary rocket should seem harder to control.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank The more I think about it, the more I think the cg position in a rocket matters only when a gimbaled engine at the bottom provides all attitude control. The LM's descent engine was gimbaled (the ascent engine wasn't) but it wasn't used much for attitude control; it was usually adjusted to direct thrust through the cg, i.e. to null any torque. The CSM SPS was similar. The RCS thrusters provided attitude control, and most rockets don't have anything like them.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal It does not matter where you lift from or how many engines you use, all that matters is the distance from the CG, having RCS does not impart any kind of extra stability, it behaves exactly the same as thrust vectoring. Because you are not lifting from the RCS, you are lifting with the main engine, it will behave exactly the same as a vectored nozzle during descent and ascent.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank Consider the LM ascent stage with its ungimbaled engine. By design the cg was very low and close to the engine center of thrust. (Otherwise the ascent propellant tanks would have been higher, to raise the cg.) This minimized attitude disturbances caused by the cg being off the center line. All attitude control was by the RCS, which were as far from the cg as practical to maximize their moment arm.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank During descent you are correct that a high cg gave the descent engine greater authority to change attitude by gimbaling. My understanding is that this was rarely done except when very rapid turns were needed (pitchover?) The computer usually aligned the engine with the cg and used the RCS for attitude control. The effectiveness of the RCS depended directly on how far those small engines were from the cg. Since they were high on the ascent stage a lower cg helped them.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@NelielTuOderswank I think we're in violent agreement. In any rocket, attitude instability increases with the distance between cg and the engine providing thrust. But if that engine is gimbaled that same distance increases the moment arm and thus the maneuverability provided by gimbaling. The LM and CSM were unique in having RCS quads do most of the attitude control during burns (or all, for the LM ascent stage).
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Trodas you fail to understand the concept of vertical takeoff. Machines like these rely on reaction speed, unlike a helicopter, which relies on reaction force. Any little thing like wind can knock it off the ball its balancing on and tip over, where you then lose your control relative to the horizon and crash. The LEM never had this problem because it operated in a vacuum, and it never made a crater in solid concrete, please direct me to where you learned this. Id love to know.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
trodas, I'd like to see your evidence that 500 lbs. of thrust can make a crater in concrete. It's a false claim.
If NASA was creating a hoax, why put a man into an LLRV in the first place? In some ways, the LLRV was harder to manage because it needed considerably more thrust to operate because of earth's gravity. Wind was also an issue not found on the moon. Nonetheless, it was operated successfully HUNDREDS of times.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
cool video
stupid skeptical analysis
liesrbentruth 1 year ago 2
that went rather well, so lets go to the moon.
datzfast 1 year ago 2
I do not think this is the Armstrong crash but one of the others. You have got to hand it to these guys, they had guts. Armstrong ejected just one and a half seconds from the point where his bang seat would not have saved him and this one was not far behind.
tpsossff 1 year ago
Comment removed
nythreefer 1 year ago
@tpsossff ur right this isn't the armstrong crash. but his ejection was even less time then what u said. he ejected .5 seconds, not 1.5s from reaching the fail altitude for his chute to fully deploy. Crazy when u think about how close he came from becoming a casualty whose name few people would know instead of the most famous astronaut ever. Though i guess thats true of every astronaut when u strap urself into a seat ontop of an ICBM lol.
nythreefer 1 year ago
@nythreefer im prietty sure there is footage of more then 1 lunar lander crash with armstrong piloting it
101andrewj 1 year ago
He may neved had landed on the moon but he did on earth !
Alexvideoclip 1 year ago
Why do you hoaxers keep posting this junk? It is known to anybody(certainly Percy) who has done any research that the crash was due to ancillary systems failure, namely loss of pressure in the attitude control system. The other two crashes resulted from (Joe Algranti)high winds and (Stu Present) an electrical failure; the sort of things that can and do cause the the best designed aircraft( as the LLTV assuredly was, w/ many hundreds of successful flights, despite its novelty) to crash.
occhamite 2 years ago
This is probably not Armstrongs LLRV crash.
A later version was called the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle or LLTV, three were built.
Two of these were lost in crashes - December 8, 1968 (piloted by Joe Algranti) and January 29, 1971 (piloted by Stuart Present). They both ejected safely from the crashing LLTV's.
Slickgoodlin 2 years ago
I'm not sure this is actually Neil Armstrong; so far as I know that video doesn't exist- I'm pretty sure this is one of the other 2 crashes; the voice over is AFAIK wrong.
wolfekeeper 2 years ago
I have been searching for this video for quite a while. I'm glad someone uploaded the actual footage.
Familyguy098 2 years ago
And add that on a jet reaction engine there is a rev up and rev down time. If you want thrust you have to apply throttle before you wanted it and vice-versa. Not that easy. That's why, if pilots come in for a difficult landing they sometimes have the speed brakes deployed. You then can land with the engines at a higher RPM. It takes less time to retract the speed brakes and get rid of drag than to spool up the engines and increase thrust in case of an aborted landing.
kinkypervo 2 years ago
The LLRVs and LLTVs had more than a hundred successful flights between them. This crash was far and away the exception rather than the rule.
And rockets are much easier to throttle than jet engines. The latter depend on the air that is blowing through them, while the former depend solely on the fuel and oxidizer, both of which can be completely controlled by the pilot.
kevinwparker 2 years ago