Early Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) Flight Test

[Vacantti]

where is the end of the clip? At least its seen on documentary"we never landed on the moon".

you are lying to people.

[Edu1Albuquerque]

Que caralho de pau torto é isso? que loco meu...

[vertec96]

Looks like a grasshopper

[cacasarq]

Landing?

[oliver18754]

They should of just realized that the future of a flying car will be through this invention that they have.

[MyMerlin1]

@oliver18754 Vertical Take-Off is a British invention. The first vertical take-off which took place in October 1960 at Dunsfold Aerodrome England - Harrier Jump Jet.

[YDDES]

@MyMerlin1 Vertical take offsby experimental aircradt had been accomplished many times before the Harrier. By USA, Britain and Germany, for example.

[bobafetthotmail]

I hope the guys that made this see the work at Armadillo Aeorospace... Doin' it without a pilot.

[1939PlymouthRatRod]

Yep I saw it on Bewitched.

[YDDES]

@h1wayman The starsystem is no different from the Moon than from a satellite, and the amount of equipment brought to the Moon was very limited because of weight restrictions.

The astronauts white suit reflected the light from the very brightly lit surface.

It's You, hwo are the ignorant, who thought there were three men in the lander. I know just about everything about the early space programmes...

[YDDES]

@h1wayman The landers engine could be throttled back to 1,050 pound and was completely turned off a few feet over the ground. 2 astronauts were in the landers. Why bring a telescope to the Moon? It weighs a lot and the mission was to study the Moon, not the stars. The "shadows pointing in different directions" is just a total misunderstanding of basic photography, and also the ground was uneven. How could there be several lightsourses without multiple shadows from every object?

[nbrado]

@h1wayman come on answer the question how many men in the lunar module on the surface in suits?

three was it? come now it was you mr know it all that the moon landing was faked who told us this important information and based your conspiracy on it.

You can't even fucking COUNT let alone lecture moon flight..

Hows your wife btw? almost as sore a-hole as you right now :D

Only thing is she didn't cry when she got butt fucked the truth but you on the other hand have been whining like bitch since!.

[nbrado]

@h1wayman remind us again how many men were in the lunar module? three was it :D

And you claim to be adult and understand space travel yet you subscribe to DAVID ICKE bwaaaahahahah what else do you believe eh? the earth is hollow and full of moon men? I east conspiracy twats like you for breakfast and I have no need to fuck my mother when I already have my dick up the arse of your wife and sister :D

[nbrado]

@h1wayman still think three men in the lunar lander? can you count you moron! oh that was sooooo peach that he even started his argument to the lrons guy with 3 astronauts in suits inside the lunar module despite there never being 3 inside for landing as only two went down and one stayed in the CM (command module).

[nbrado]

@h1wayman awwww are you butt hurt because we have proved you talk nothing but 2nd hand moon hoaxer bullshit and proven also that you have a zero watt bulb intellegence when it comes to space flight!.

hate to break it to you spazmoid but the evidence is there including images of the lander base and experiements still in use today that you have little to no understanding of.

now take yourself back to the basement before I beat you to death for lowering the intelligence of mankind singlehanded!

[cullenstagg]

@h1wayman Don't marginalize people over the internet you never know who is on the other end, but a humble sincere person would not have assumed I am either under experienced, sheltered if you will or uneducated.

[cullenstagg]

@h1wayman you refuse to discuss facts and write me off as disillusioned? I'm a 6 yr army vet and an engineer, so YOU get up off your ass and go get some facts yourself. The "spin" machine hasn't gotten to me, but since you refuse facts and any logical discussion, immediately getting your feelings hurt, I am assuming that you don't have actual grounds for your accusations about Apollo program being faked. You have conducted or done no actual research but quoted what was on the conspiracy site

[nbrado]

@h1wayman typical moon hoaxer nonsence that you picked up from some garb 90's looking website and spouting it off like you think its your own I bet you even believe people like phil schiender that he had a fire fight with grey aliens :D. every single moon hoax theory has been disproven and nothing you can say or spout from those crappy websites you read will change the fact that we DID go to the moon and you are a tin foil hat wearing tosser of low to zero intellegence.

[cullenstagg]

@h1wayman fortunately YOU are right, three men could not have fit in the lander, because it was not designed for that, in fact only two men manned the lander while the orbiter with the third astronaut, remained in orbit. So yes you are CORRECT that three men in full suits could not have fit in the lander. On appolo 13 all three crew members stayed in the lander with NO suits on because they would not fit. You got that right, so how does it disprove that we went to the moon now? Please inform

[cullenstagg]

@h1wayman nothing of the sort was mentioned about space flight, you can go ahead and look up the math on how to determine the expansion of the space suit to figure out how much room they displace. The issue encountered with one space suit expanding in space happened after the atmosphere was vacated, so if pressure is equal on both sides of the suit no inflation takes place, unless there are movements within the suit that can cause local swelling (elbow for example)

[cullenstagg]

@h1wayman

yes i did

1) laser refractors give off readings...otherwise they wouldn't if they were NOT there on the moon, you can check out these experiments or even conduct them yourself if you are so inclined.

2) the base for the landers are still ON the moon (go to an observatory and you can SEE them), so I don't know what you are talking about with dust not sticking to them, they have ever returned to the EARTH

i mentioned both of those points, no how are they not evidence? please refute

[cullenstagg]

@h1wayman but i'll kill all speculation, why don't you bounce a laser off of the moon? there are refractors places on the moon so that meteorologist can study the effects of our atmosphere, but they were probably ou already up there right? it's ok to be skeptical but i think in this case you are just lacking a few facts

[cullenstagg]

@h1wayman I'm glad you are not in the space program or science at all for that matter, because you don't understand the displacement or the pressurization of the type of suit they were wearing, the fact that base for the landers is still on the moon (you can SEE them), that if there is no pressure applied and there is no atmosphere, then with very minute vander whals forces that the particles can't stick to the legs in the first place, which you wouldn't know because they are still on the moon

[RaggyFTWW]

So does this cost 250 points to use too? :p

[anonymous243124]

Why is our military not riding into combat on armed versions of these things!?

[Lronsjetpack]

@anonymous243124 yeah that would win the war in afganistan and iraq hahahahahahhah NOT!

actually I hope they do will make some excellent footage of some yank slapping a mountain in it or a RPG up its stupid ass!

[PJAYLUZ]

That guy who is flying the llrv is my teachers dad.

[joshig1983]

looks like a flying shopping cart. A quarter might not stop people from steeling that thing.

[IntegralDischarge]

dear santa...

[addvanced]

computer?... they didn't have any back then, they are as big as rigs and still not able run that setup yet

cause the SENSORS had not been invented yet...

"No ground effect"... dam lying NWO shill

folks use your head... no stars, no crater=hoax

[handsfan]

@addvanced You are the opposite of advanced. You, sir, are very much retarded.

[Lronsjetpack]

@addvanced no actually use your FUCKING head dickhead. you obviously know NOTHING about cameras or camera settings and if you did you would know exactly why there is no stars in the pictures but as you are 1. too stupid and 2. a moon hoaxer I won't even bother to educate you and leave it up to you to learn something about the cameras used and why you can't see the stars in the pictures. until then keep spoon feeding that shit in your mouth on the hoax theory. spastic!

[UndeadPizzaGuy]

@addvanced Ah, the old no computers argument. Well, if that were the case, every rocket launch prior to Apollo, by every nation, even the early V-2 rockets of Nazi Germany, would have to be frauds. All rockets use computers, more or less. Early rockets, like the V-2 and even the LEM, used mechanical computers like gyroscopes in tandem with their digital computers. Additionally, its simple mathematics, even the worst calculator today would have sufficient computing power.

[steveBB30]

@UndeadPizzaGuy Read somewhere that the V2 used analogue computers, including magnetic amplifiers (as part of an integrating circuits in primitive Inertial Navigation Systems?)

[UndeadPizzaGuy]

@addvanced Furthermore, there would be no crater. By the time the LEM was near the ground, it was throttled down near zero. Even the tiny amount of engine exhaust that was contacting the moon was spread over a large surface area, which would stir little dust at all. Also, the moon is not a dust ball, the regolith is only about two inches deep. If you were to create a "crater" in the regolith, it would be too shallow to notice.

[Miyatafixie]

Isn't this the "flying bed" that Neil Armstrong crashed? When it went out of control while he was flying it, he stayed with it till the very last second before he ejected. His fellow astronauts were very impressed with how cool Armstrong stayed under pressure.

[TheJomogogo]

@Miyatafixie

Not only very cool but Armstrong went straight to work and was back at the office that afternoon, acting like nothing had happened. People who claim Apollo was fake, the astronauts are liars, etc, should be whipped like dogs for being so goddamn stupid.

[510DAZY]

@LauraBeachnut I'm assuming your reply was intended for BB1951 who stated he was "an old fart", not me, cause I ain't old.

[LauraBeachnut]

@LauraBeachnut

Oh sorry... I did have you mistaken.

Yer a young fart......mmmmmmmm so fresh.

sorry again!

[BB1951]

This is real. Not faked footage. I remember it. (yes I'm an old fart) :D

[Deathkillazz]

@nasafakedit YOU faked it!!!

[u2ube4mi]

cool

[unclesara]

@nasafakedit Your girlfriend faked it.

[nasafakedit]

@unclesara your mommy faked it

[nasafakedit]

Nasa crashed the LLTVs on earth, what a bunch of stupid Nazis

Fake it Nasa Nazi scum

[nasafakedit]

NASA NAZI PROPAGANDA

6 Faked Moonlandings

US NWO Govt = Nasa

[nasafakedit]

NASA NAZI monkeys crashed the LM training vehicles

Nasa is a sick joke

HOAX OF THE CENTURY

[madnesscombat5]

@nasafakedit go fuck yourself you mentally deranged prick.

[nasafakedit]

@madnesscombat5 go fuck your boyfriend you retarded brainwashed faggot

[madnesscombat5]

@nasafakedit you're the brainwashed one allowing false conspiracy theories to sway you from TRUTH, physics is real, get used to it, its not impossible to land on the moon, you're just some nutter who lives in his basement and researches false theories that people make up and blog about.

[nasafakedit]

@madnesscombat5 nasa fake moonlandings are not physics retard

[jakoranda111]

im serious u are all nerds say what u want but atleased im getting layed hahaha lolololololol

[madnesscombat5]

@jakoranda111 your probably fucking an ugly donkey of a woman.

[nasafakedit]

@madnesscombat5 your probably an ugly cocksucking faggot

[madnesscombat5]

@nasafakedit are you kidding me? the only fucks who waste their time obsessing over false moon landing theories have no fucking life, no job, no friends, you're probably balding and have bad eyesight. your cock is probably 2 inches long while erect, you probably still play video games in your moms house. go find something else to do other then search lunar videos and spam about nasa nazis who fake moon landings.

[nasafakedit]

@madnesscombat5 stop projecting faggot

Nasa Nazi FairyTales

6 faked moonlandings

Nasa is a sick joke

[madnesscombat5]

@nasafakedit alright, im starting to think the things you say you dont even believe, you probably just go on these videos and spam that shit just for people like me to get pissed off at it.

[nasafakedit]

@madnesscombat5  take your medication

you are a propaganda low life scum pimp

[madnesscombat5]

@nasafakedit hahahahahahaha

[NelielTuOderswank]

@nasafakedit You sir, are a retard.

[tilib100]

nice

[jakoranda111]

NERDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!

[MultiIPwnage]

You must have no life

[818doodooroo]

@jakoranda111 go read your bible Alliterated fuck

[rucorvette]

this should be in scary movie

[wen790]

diamonds are forever

[theaggravator]

Where there film/video or even photos of the actual (Grumman) prototypes AND LM vehicles in testing? All I've ever seen was an alleged photo of Armstrong "ejecting" from one - it's just a shadowy figure dangling from a parachute with some big ball of fire burning on the ground.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"Where there film/video or even photos of the actual (Grumman) prototypes AND LM vehicles in testing?"

Try watch?v=oV6A6iHTgKA and watch?v=7buE8sJfkTs.

And Armstrong didn't eject from an LM prototype, he ejected from an LLTV like the one in this video when a thruster stuck open. The LM has no ejection seats for obvious reasons. :)

[Gromitdog1]

Makes you wonder how difficult those things were to fly without the benefit of a resistive atmosphere. Look how difficult it is with an atmosphere, without, it would just spin out of control.

[ytmoog]

Why exactly would an atmosphere aid its flight?

It has no aerodynamic surfaces.

[goyherder]

Resistive atmosphere would slow down the whole action/reaction sequence, dampen inertia etc. ie a spin would eventually stop, if there was no atmosphere there would be absolutely no resistance and would require an offsetting action to neutralize any motion. One of the ridiculous notions nasa uses to explain no crater is the throttle down nonsense as the lander landed, on earth that is true, on the moon its all thrust, no aerodynamic ground effect thus increase in thrust to stop & land.

[TheJomogogo]

"Aerodynamic ground effect" LOL you're just talking a lot of shit.

[goyherder]

fucktard, ground effect is a real phenomenon.

v=yFincX0bjVk

do your research before you embarrass yourself further and shoot off at the mouth like a fool

[ImTheSecretSquare]

goy: It did require offsetting actions - that's why the astronauts did not have manual control of each thruster, but instead controlled the ship through a computer. They moved a joystick and the computer translated the motions into rocket thrusts.

And no, you don't need an "increase in thrust" to land. They don't start out motionless above the Moon, they're orbiting it at thousands of miles an hour. They have to STOP first, THEN land. And no, "ground effect" has nothing to do with anything.

[MrTadeo01]

@ImTheSecretSquare Precise and correct.

[lionfury88]

just imagine, that was a long time ago. by now they must have really advanced flying things like that, wich they dont want to show us!!!

[colindominy]

These early experimental moon-lander vehicles were extremely dangerous when airborne in an Earth-gravity environment. These were very brave test pilots. Neil Armstrong came with in an inch of distaster one time, flying one of these flying bricks.

[WolYou]

And they weren't even close to the LMs. Entirely different technology, atmospheric and gravitational differences. This wasn't a simulation, it was a training for the pilot, not a prototype for an LM.

[TheApolloChannel]

Of the 5 LLRV vehicles used for training there were 3 crashes out of 795 flights!

[harooni22]

crashed all the time

[blablubb12345]

It crashed 2 times in about 200 flights, you stupid moron.

[CT2507]

ALL DE TIME !... hehehe.

[harooni22]

what they don't show you ed all the time. its was a real pos and yet worked flawlessly on the moon 6 times. yeah right

[loperspest]

That isn't the LM. Or even a prototype there of. It was merely a craft to help familiarize the astronauts with the kind of flight characteristics the LM had. In fact, in many ways it was a more difficult beast to fly then the LM. Simply put, it was for training. That is all.

[CT2507]

oh, good. why the fuk train with something u are never going to fly. why get used to the controls and behaviour or a diferent machine than the one your life is going to depend upon!? what was wrong with the original LEM?

are we to understand that the original LEM was to "easy" to fly so they needed to practice on something more difficult!? :))

like Kennedy used to say, we dont go there cause its easy, we go there cause its hard!! :))

[loperspest]

Well, the Lunar Module didn't have an engine with enough thrust to even lift off from Earth. So they couldn't train with that on Earth. This beast had a jet engine with much more thrust, so it could fly on earth, but it was much more unstable. However, it operated on the same principles, a cone of thrust with reaction jets for controls and a throttle. But it turned out to be too different, like you said, so they went back to training in simulators of the Lunar module.

watch?v=aKK3NfvrnAU

[CT2507]

thats all very good. i just dont buy any of the original lunar films i have seen.

[loperspest]

Why not?Have you seen the kind of special effects they had back then?They sucked.The photos from Apollo are very detailed. apolloarchive [.] com/apollo_gallery [.]html The videos look crummy because the image quality of the video cameras they sent were crummy.What evidence do you have they were faked?

watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc.

For this to have been shot in Earth gravity, the footage would have to be sped up 2.5 times. If you do that however, the astronauts arms and movements become unnaturally fast.

[CT2507]

ofcorse they had lousy special effects back then and the lunar films show every evidence of that fact! thats why so many non-belivers are popoing out today. cause u can see the friggin astro-nots dangling from wires!

or u have the lunar rover in photos but with no tire tracks. or u have the same mountain and hill backdrops resized and reused in diferent shots... and so on and so on.

[loperspest]

The moon has no air, so distances are hard to judge, due to a lack of atmospheric blurring.

This guy covers that in more ground then I can cover in 500 characters on the issue of parallax. badastronomy [.] com/bad/tv/foxapollo [.] html#backgrounds 'No tire tracks'?

There are plenty of photos of tire tracks. Google this, "AS15-86-11598" and you'll find a nice detailed photo of tracks.Clavious also has a good explanation clavius [.] org/rover2 [.] html

And your not seen wires, your seen antennae.

[CT2507]

im not talking about their antenas fool. and i didnt say u can actualy see the wires. im sayint their movements show that they are suspended by wires.

and im not talking of the photos WITH tire tracks but of those WITHOUT!

what has nor air and distances that are hard to judge have to do with any of the things i mention?

[loperspest]

The lack of air means that things are farther away then they seem, making it look like the same 'backrounds' are used, when they aren't. It means instead of a set, they are on the moon. Did you read the articles? Or are you just ignoring them? And what about their movement shows 'wires'? Mythbusters showed what wire footage looks like. Of course you probably think they faked their footage. So I give you this. watch?v=oBZ9J_9ubzE&feature=re­lated How does someone on wires do THAT?

[CT2507]

ofcorse im ignoring your articles. u are wasting your time here.

[loperspest]

How about the video then? Or are you just going to stick your fingers in your ears and yell at the top of your lungs, 'La,la la, can't hear you, la,la,la!' To call your actions childish is an insult to the juvenile forms of creatures everywhere. You could have at least used the remaining 436 characters available in that reply to explain how the astronauts look like they are on wires, and how another explanation, like say, them being in one sixth gravity, doesn't work.

[CT2507]

nah.. im tired of discussing this with people who rely so much on authority. if u cant see that their movemnts reveal that something artificial is upholding their body weight, then there is no point in me spending time telling u.

[loperspest]

If someone else can make the same point as me, better, then I will use that resource. If you can't explain part of your point, or at least point to resources that show and prove the point you are trying to make, then why should I believe you? Do you even have any evidence? So governments can lie, governments try to fake things, true. But that no more proves they faked Apollo then me saying since humans can and do lie, that means you are lying, no matter what you say. Is that fair, is that wise?

[loperspest]

If someone else can make the same point as me, better, then I will use that resource. If you can't explain part of your point, or at least point to resources that show and prove the point you are trying to make, then why should I believe you? Do you even have any evidence? So governments can lie, governments try to fake things, true. But that no more proves they faked Apollo then me saying since humans can and do lie, that means you are lying, no matter what you say. Is that fair, is that wise?

[CT2507]

the evidence i talk of is out there on the net and not hard to find if u are realy interested.

[loperspest]

I am not doing your work for you. You claim that the wires are so obvious, yet don't take the time to explain why, and why being on the moon, which has one sixth of earths gravity, can't also explain it. Doing so is called the scientific method. When you find an explanation for something, you must show how your explanation works better then others. What you've done is as if I claimed the astronauts have angels lifting them, and claiming it was so obvious, there is no point in me explaining it.

[CT2507]

sory kid. im not interested in these talks anymore. been doing them for several years. realy!

do your own reserach if u are not certain. if u are certain why discuss it?

cheers.

[loperspest]

So your not going to prove your case? Not produce even the smallest piece of evidence? The merest crumb of proof? You don't actually have anything do you? Unless you show otherwise, I am forced by your silence to consider it so. Your evasion isn't helping your case. I too have been doing this for years 'old man', and you fit completely within the patterns I have already seen. If you wish no more to speak on the matter, fine, it is your choice.

But I am forced then to count this as a 'win'.

[CT2507]

hehehe... yea u win! :)

[loperspest]

If you would actually provide some proof of your claims of wire support been a better expanation of the observed phenomena then lunar gravity, I would change my mind.

But so far, you haven't.

[CT2507]

ok, ill send u a message with some links.

[loperspest]

You can send links in a comment, if you format it right. Do you want me to show you how?

[CT2507]

nah its ok.

[loperspest]

I find it more then a little contradictory that you expect me to look at your links and articles, but you won't return the favor. I will get back to you after I am done perusing them.

[CT2507]

there is no contradiction here. u asked for signs of proof...hence the links. i didnt ask for anything from u.

[loperspest]

If you truly are a seeker of truth, you will look at the links I provided. Or are you afraid you may find soemthing that disproves your entire belief system? I have gone through that already, on the creationism verses evolution debates. And while it hurts, it is survivable. Can you change your mind? Do you dare?

[CT2507]

i dont know how to use those links... can u send them again in a message?

[CT2507]

so, seeker of truth... whats your verdict. u had plenty time to check the photos and comments on AULISdotCOM. what do u think now?

[loperspest]

I can't answer everything personily, but the idea that LM should produce a big cloud of dust and blast crater is absolute BS. The moon is a vacuum, in a vacuum, everything falls at the same acceleration, from dust to anvils. The thrust l at touch down would have been a bit less then the weight of the LM in lunar gravity. In a vacuum a rocket exhaust spreads out radially, further decreasing PSI. If this is the average level of science this website offers, it is crock.

[CT2507]

yea, i knew u would chose one item u think u can expalin and disregard the rest of the poto evidence on that site! what else is new. and u want me to seriously have a discussion with people like u about this.

the photos where they re-use the backdrops and same mountains on diferent photos speak louder than a 1000 words. and the trackless rover photos too.

[garniak]

Wow this shit flies! I want one.

[2thirdsHuman]

Actually, oxidizer is contained, so "rocket" better describes engine. And the VTOL aircraft programs before and after this project have nothing to do with landing on the moon.

[eenersha]

This vehicle used a jet turbine for primary lift, cancelling out all but 1/6th of earth's gravity. The pilot then throttled a seperate rocket engine to control his descent in this simulated lunar gravity.

[messierhunter]

weerprobeer, ever heard of an F-35? A harrier? The LLTV/LLRV project helped inspire those projects.

[RobHellmann]

Simple, it works with a jet engine ,vertical attached in a gimball.

That together with 4 retropacks for attitude.

[weerprobeer]

Yea, HOW does it work??????? Surely this invention would have replace any helicopter by now. It's Crap!!!!

[eenersha]

Why would it have surely replaced the helicopter? It was a noisy, dangerous, fuel gulping deathtrap.  NASA wanted to scrap it. Just because they managed to fly this thing without killing someone (they had at least two close calls, including Armstrong's ejection), doesn't mean it's just a matter of time before you have one in your garage to fly to work. So far it's never proven practical outside of military applications such as the Harrier and the JSF.

[weerprobeer]

Yea - how does it work? Why don't we see machines like this today?

[rocketcane]

how does that work????????