When reporters asked Neil what it was like flying on the moon he said it was like flying at Langley, referring to this simulator! Hats off to the engineers.
Same here! I always thought the jet engine was used to simulate the LM descent engine, and had no idea that it’s actual purpose was to simulate the moon’s 1/6 gravity, with the peroxide engines doing the descent engine simulation. The sophistication of the fly by wire control system is hugely impressive considering the state of computer technology in the late 60’s!
5:33 I don't think I understood how the LLTV simulated Lunar gravity until this moment. When the engine started gimballing so it's always pointed downwards it suddenly clicked.
My father and I used to do the Space Shuttle landing scenario in X-plane 9 as a bit of friendly competition with my dad holding the trophy between us with something like 7.5 minutes from the edge of space to successful touchdown (Xplane really isn't designed for understanding that something that aggressive would have destroyed the shuttle many times over - the normal reentry procedure is 12 minutes!) with a touchdown speed of about Mach 1.5.
The LLTV had the first pure electrical fly by wire system with no mechanical backup. Interestingly, Neil had a lot of experience working with experimental control augmentation systems from his x-15 flights. In “at the edge of space,” Milton Thomson explains how almost all pilots who flew in the programs earlier phases complained about the aircrafts poor handling. This lead to an improved control augmentation system that allowed the plane to automatically keep its attitude without input from pilot. Since the x-15 also operates at such a large range of velocities, the new system made it so a given displacement of the flight stick would result in a given turn rate of the aircraft rather than a angle change of the control surfaces. The systems may not have been entirely electronically but were quite innovative at the time. I’m pretty sure Neil Armstrong’s record long flight was the result of him paying too much attention to the new control augmentation system leading him to pull out of his dive too early and overshooting the designated landing lake bed. He had to turn around and aim for a lakebed further south and just barely managed to miss the trees.
that sounds like what would eventually come to cars and how the power steering adapts how much assist you get based on speed. So at the Walmart you have 100% but on the freeway its basically zero asset.
@@deth3021 Cheers from the new Tesla Cybertruck. No linkage between steering and wheels anymore. 170 degrees until you reach steering-lock. Software decides which wheels will point where (it has rear-axis steering) depending on speed.
After Armstrong ejected from the crashing simulator, he went back to his room, where his roommate found him later, calmly sitting at his desk. Knowing nothing about what had happened, his roommate asked Armstrong how his day had been, and he replied, noncommittally, that he'd had some problems with the simulator. It was only later that his roommate discovered exactly what had happened! You can see why they chose Armstrong for the first landing - the coolest test pilot in history!
Apparently NA had to be told to go back the room after he tried to return today to work at his desk after the ejection. He didn't see the problem and just wanted to continue to do his job. Ice cool dude.
When I visited Edwards AFB in 1994, they had one of the versions of the LLTV in an aircraft storage lot near the base museum that was marked “No Trespassing” but clearly visible from the driveway; it was not part of the actual exhibit and was just a place to park assorted aircraft that weren’t on exhibit. I went as closely as I could and snapped a photo. It was the “find” of a lifetime!
That's what happens when you get nearly free reign to recruit who ever you want and you have a budget that is 4% of the federal budget. NASA's budget today is 0.48%. NASA is trying to do the same thing as in 1964, land people on the moon, but with 1/10th of the budget.
@@matthewerwin4677 the epa and osha were both started in 1970, but there was a significant amount of legislation passed at the federal and state level throughout the 1960’s as well as very strong labor unions, workers rights groups, and worker’s compensation laws which had essentially the same effect during the development and construction of Apollo and even before. The idea that they were only able to be as fast and successful as they were because there was no federal restrictions on endanger workers or dumping waste into rivers is just not at all accurate. The fact that they were given all the funding necessary and tasked to work single-mindedly on a single clearly defined goal, with a clearly defined purpose, on a clearly determined timeline, with tangible stakes for failure, coupled with the fact that they didn’t have to deal with constantly changing political whims and start working on a project and wait for the next administration to come in and completely change the goalposts, we’re the reasons it was such a rapid success
*Scott,* thanks for mentioning both the LLRV and the LLTV, the former being the initial attempt (R for Research) and the latter (T for Training) more of the daily driver, so to speak. 🙂 Both were amazing machines, cutting-edge thinking and engineering.
What Destin (and Neil for that matter) got wrong in that video is that humans will never manually land on the moon again. We won't build a new simulator like this because there's no need for it.
I also thought it was kinda weird that he made the comparison between why Apollo only needed 1 rocket to go to the moon whereas starship need 12+ launches. Like starship is bringing a lot more payload and is going for an entirely different objective than apollo, thats why it needs all that extra refueling. @@NotMyActualName_
@@NotMyActualName_ And you are wrong cause as Destin mentioned problems that have to fall back to human control MUST be handled without any stress by the crew
@@NotMyActualName_what destin got right was the fact that they should be able too just in case, as a back up to a back up to a back up. Destin preached redundancy and having every little option covered.
That's a gorgeous model! Someone put a LOT of time and effort in creating that! Wow! Can you set it to infinite fuel so you can go on longer trips? It looks like a blast to fly.
I work with drones and it's always mesmerizing seeing a camera gimbal come to life and lock the camera's attitude. I never expected to get the same feeling from a simulated jet engine.
Hi Scott, can you talk a bit about how intelligent Armstrong’s ejector seat was? Because it doesn’t just shoot out at the attitude of the vehicle, it vectors and adds a lot of height.
My Late father worked on this craft. In 1966 our family relocated to Houston, TX from Buffalo, NY for 18 months, my father was a Technical Draftsman at Bell Aerospace in Niagara Falls NY and was sent to Houston by Bell . I actually met Neil Armstrong when we were in Texas.
There's a great book called "Unconventional, Contrary, and Ugly: The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle" which goes into exceptional detail on the LLRV. Very much worth a read!
Fun thing with this or the LEM is that while you have only 1/6th f a G pulling you down, you still 1/1 inertia in all other axis to deal with which makes things a lot trickier than you think.
I was always fascinated by the LLTV. The number of variables they would have to compensate for to simulate lunar conditions is amazing. Not just gravity, but drag, wind, backwash from the jet...
yup, "we do realistic flight dynamics, not trees" which is still kind of true, but these days even a modest effort on landscaping looks quite nice anyway
Great episode! Love your meta aspect of simulating a simulator. What do you think of others, like Gulfstream II, The NASA LM Simulator, or 'The Great Train Wreck'?
First of all, the 2010 Documentary movie “In the Shadow of the Moon" is absolutely outstanding. Alan Bean’s commentary about Neal’s ejection is hilarious!
I didnt expect the LLTV to be that advanced of a vehicle with that jet engine with the gimbal and the way how it works its amazing for 1960s technology simulators today cannot simulate the actual things unlike LLTV could
Scott, maybe you could look into the other training simulator, the "LEMS" or Lunar Excursion Module Simulator, which they have at the Virginia Air and Space Center in Langley, VA. I can't find much info on it but I think it was tethered to a big crane so that the pilot can't roll it over. I've seen it up close. The pilot stands up inside the tiny booth of a cockpit and it's not as big as the LLTV.
Is that the facility that NASA used to use to simulate small aircraft crashes? I have seen a ration geographic article that shows a piper Navajo airframe being crash tested at a NASA facility. Apparently the airframe was one that was scrapped after a hurricane hit the Vero Beach facility
@@RCAvhstape this one was set up with two gantry’s that lifted the test object up and then they let it drop onto a concrete pad while the slo motion cameras were rolling
@@RCAvhstape ok I just found a test report (58 page PDF) online describing the Impact Dynamics Research Facility and it does state it was converted from the Lunar Landing Research Facility And it was doing crash tests on the mid-1970’s. I’m pretty sure that’s about when my grandparents Nat Geo was from I saw the picture in.
The control systems in the LLRV/LLTV were all transistorized analog circuitry. Computers with sufficient power to do such calculations in real-time were still housed in large glass-walled rooms at the time these were designed. Modeling the dynamics of the flight physics of the LLRV/LLTV in real time could only be done with analog systems at that time. I do understand that there were some digital systems on-board the LLRV/LLTV, but they were more related to gathering and recording flight telemetry than being involved in managing the fly-by-wire aspects of the craft. When it came to the actual Apollo missions, technology had advanced enough that sufficiently-powerful digital computers could be packaged to fit within the space and power constraints of the LM to provide real-time control of the throttleable main engine and the reaction control system jets. The Apollo moon landing program would not have been possible without rapid developments in electronic computer technology, mainly involving integrated circuits. It simply would not have been possible to build transistorized computers that would have the necessary computing power, and could fit in the limited space, and operate on the limited power available in the Apollo Command Module and Lunar Module. Needless to say, the programming for the Apollo flight computers was absolutely amazing work. See Curious Marc's series on the restoration of an original Apollo Guidance Computer -- Here's a link to the first part the series: ua-cam.com/video/2KSahAoOLdU/v-deo.html It'll take a long time to go through, but it's truly amazing!
i built one in KSP and it actually is pretty accurate. I only did mun missions from IVA with a couple of mods to make it interactive and actually tell you relative information but it’s been forever.
Never knew that's how the LLTV worked, seeing it in the two modes side by side makes it make such intuitive sense... although the people who came up with the idea in the first place were perhaps a step past genius and into madmen territory.
Presumably easily done within XP12. MSFS already does a similar thing when you fly a military drone from a simulated control room. Don’t think about it too hard, but it is almost a simulation…running inside a simulation…to give you synthetic camera views.
I see they used the particle system to simulate the peroxide thrusters. I've made recent progress myself using it to simulate RCS in earth orbit in X-Plane.
On the moon, the inertial mass is just as large as on the earth when accelerating sideways. This also applies to the inertial mass during vertical acceleration. Only the heavy vertical gravitational acceleration is only 1/7 as great as on Earth.
I was unaware that the jet engine was gimballed, but of course it had to be to avoid the lateral accel problem. The total thrust needed to hover above the lunar surface is 6 times what it would be to hover over the surface of the Earth and that would mean that if the thrust was vectored sideways the lateral acceleration would be 6 times greater on Earth owing to the 6 times greater thrust.
I saw somewhere that ejecting from this aircraft (or one like it) during a malfunction, and not getting killed, was what got NA his place on the Lunar mission - so Scott could reproduce the incident to see if he too is worthy of a lunar command.
What about a video on the mcCandless space walk. Did he handle the orbital mechanics manually or was there a very complex nav system operating in the background like an autopilot ? Must have been hairy as not used anymore.
Scott, Dustin from “Smarter Every Day” gave a talk at a recent conference of the movers & shakers involved with the moon landing and he basically said that they really need to look at what the NASA engineers did in the past, that they wrote it out in a post mission report. He basically said that how they want to do it is the wrong approach (I’m paraphrasing) the main point was that there is to much politics involved in the process as apposed to coming from a straight engineering perspective. I suggest that people watch that talk he made.
RWes -- I agree that Dustin's talk is astounding and well worth watching. He, like our man Scott, is one smart cookie I'd love to see the two of them discussing the pro's and con's of Space-X's "Crash and Burn" data collection method.
It was an ejection seat on it who was used. I assume an obvious first chicken out option would be to spin up the jet engine get you up to an safer attitude and cancel horizontal velocity. Obviously if the computer fails you eject / get ejected.
I wonder how much fuel (both for rockets, and esp the jet engine) it had… like how long could it fly? (I’m sure it didn’t need to fly for a long time being a simulator)
A simulation within a simulation is an emulation? Dude, I knew of the vehicle, but I had no idea how it achieved its Lunar landing Simulation task. It is absolutely fascinating, the gimbal is brilliant.
Currently watching your videos in private navigation mode. For some reason, adblocker like me (yeah... sorry, not sorry) currently have to do that. The funniest part being: we just have to do that. Apparently, it's more punishable according to UA-cam to be identified and blocking ads than to be anonymous (sort of) and blocking ads. Thus now we know where the problem actually lies? Alphabet didn't want us to log in all along? J/k... This "war" is just putting on the weirdest show. Anyway, despite me not paying you a cent (and UA-cam its dollars), still love your content and wanting to let you know. It WAS an interesting little intricated trip.
I think the X-15 and F-111 beat it to computer-assisted Fly By Wire. For just Fly By Wire - there's the Formation Stick system installed in B-17s and B-24s during WW 2. For programmable Fly By Wire - CALSPAN had a Douglas B-26 Invader in the early 1950s that used FBW to simulate the behavior of other aircraft, which led to their Variable Stability T-33 (The one with an early F-94 nose) and NC-131H in the late '50s through the 1990s. That being said - that model is very, very impressive. A lot of work went into that.
When panning around in X-Plane... Is the drop in visual quality due to YT compression, or the game engine trying to maintain framerates? _edit: Nevermind, definitely the game! Evident by his city flyover, where terrain textures got hobbled. I think it might be streaming textures and so it's "texture pop-in" instead of a degrading texture quality for framerates, but, maybe not..._ 🤷♂️ _[in this context, streaming doesn't mean online, but that the assets are come in continually instead of being cached in VRAM; the pop-in being the Level of Detail shift from initial low quality, to get the asset displayed immediately, over to high quality.]_
I might be slow, but could you (maybe in a video) go a little bit more into detail about how the LLTV simulated the dynamics of lunar-gravity. I watched this video 3-4 times, but I couldnæt quite work it out😬 To me it seems to simulate low lunar-orbit-"free fall", where changing the orientation of the Lunar Module wouldnt give you any push in any direction (unless the engine was fired, during or after the changing of orientation)
I noticed on the Org store too and thought it was niche lol, didn't get it yet thanks for the review and show, I may get it in the future, but I am saving some $ for the Sr-71 releasing Friday. I wonder how well it would scoot in British weather...lol. Did you see the Starfighter? I have only tried the base model, you can fit the rocket to it.
When reporters asked Neil what it was like flying on the moon he said it was like flying at Langley, referring to this simulator! Hats off to the engineers.
And Big Hat off to Neil !! For returning to work the same day !! They definitely had real Heroes involved in the Apollo program !! Lol
A simulator that was so tricky to fly that the actual thing seemed easy.
Comically, it further matches in a meta way: very deadly 😅
I did not know that, thanks for sharing! I always suspected that this simulator is kind of pointless, but apparently I was wrong.
and artemis engineers are only doing simulators!... watch smarter every days video on telling Nasa some hard truthes
Never realized the whole jet engine was gimballed on this thing! Incredibly advanced for the time.
Same here! I always thought the jet engine was used to simulate the LM descent engine, and had no idea that it’s actual purpose was to simulate the moon’s 1/6 gravity, with the peroxide engines doing the descent engine simulation. The sophistication of the fly by wire control system is hugely impressive considering the state of computer technology in the late 60’s!
The most unrealistic part of the model was the fact that the traffic near LAX was actually moving :)
5:33 I don't think I understood how the LLTV simulated Lunar gravity until this moment. When the engine started gimballing so it's always pointed downwards it suddenly clicked.
X-plane niche vehicles should be a regular spot on your channel, Scott. This was excellent.
December 24th: Santa's Sleigh in X-Plane!
December 24th: Vulcan is schedule to make its first flight, sending a lander to the moon.
My father and I used to do the Space Shuttle landing scenario in X-plane 9 as a bit of friendly competition with my dad holding the trophy between us with something like 7.5 minutes from the edge of space to successful touchdown (Xplane really isn't designed for understanding that something that aggressive would have destroyed the shuttle many times over - the normal reentry procedure is 12 minutes!) with a touchdown speed of about Mach 1.5.
Wow whoever made that model is very diligent and talented! Kudos! Looks like fun!
The LLTV had the first pure electrical fly by wire system with no mechanical backup. Interestingly, Neil had a lot of experience working with experimental control augmentation systems from his x-15 flights.
In “at the edge of space,” Milton Thomson explains how almost all pilots who flew in the programs earlier phases complained about the aircrafts poor handling. This lead to an improved control augmentation system that allowed the plane to automatically keep its attitude without input from pilot. Since the x-15 also operates at such a large range of velocities, the new system made it so a given displacement of the flight stick would result in a given turn rate of the aircraft rather than a angle change of the control surfaces. The systems may not have been entirely electronically but were quite innovative at the time.
I’m pretty sure Neil Armstrong’s record long flight was the result of him paying too much attention to the new control augmentation system leading him to pull out of his dive too early and overshooting the designated landing lake bed. He had to turn around and aim for a lakebed further south and just barely managed to miss the trees.
I made a video about this a few years ago: Why Neil Armstrong's X-15 Test Flight 'Bounced' Off The Atmosphere
ua-cam.com/video/0gE_A_pYjKo/v-deo.html
that sounds like what would eventually come to cars and how the power steering adapts how much assist you get based on speed. So at the Walmart you have 100% but on the freeway its basically zero asset.
@filanfyretracker it already exists. It's called steer-by-wire.
@@deth3021 The GM Variable Rate Power Steering system from the 1960s - which everybody else licensed.
@@deth3021 Cheers from the new Tesla Cybertruck. No linkage between steering and wheels anymore. 170 degrees until you reach steering-lock. Software decides which wheels will point where (it has rear-axis steering) depending on speed.
After Armstrong ejected from the crashing simulator, he went back to his room, where his roommate found him later, calmly sitting at his desk. Knowing nothing about what had happened, his roommate asked Armstrong how his day had been, and he replied, noncommittally, that he'd had some problems with the simulator. It was only later that his roommate discovered exactly what had happened!
You can see why they chose Armstrong for the first landing - the coolest test pilot in history!
Apparently NA had to be told to go back the room after he tried to return today to work at his desk after the ejection. He didn't see the problem and just wanted to continue to do his job. Ice cool dude.
That’s the first story that came to my mind about that simulator.
Crazy that they made them have roommates.
@@oisiaa Solitary confinement is a fairly recent housing solution. Humans have always preferred living in a company of others.
Roommate? All Apollo movies and series depicted the astronauts as guys with huge mansions and a family.
When I visited Edwards AFB in 1994, they had one of the versions of the LLTV in an aircraft storage lot near the base museum that was marked “No Trespassing” but clearly visible from the driveway; it was not part of the actual exhibit and was just a place to park assorted aircraft that weren’t on exhibit. I went as closely as I could and snapped a photo. It was the “find” of a lifetime!
I've seen the footage 1,000 times and it still blows my mind! Those Apollo engineers and scientists were *really* thinking outside the box!
That's what happens when you get nearly free reign to recruit who ever you want and you have a budget that is 4% of the federal budget. NASA's budget today is 0.48%. NASA is trying to do the same thing as in 1964, land people on the moon, but with 1/10th of the budget.
@@nasonguy I know... 😥 They can really pull off miracles when you let them off the chain and give them the public support & resources required.
Looking at the flying bed-stead I'd even wager, they got rid of the box altogether!
There weren't many regulations to slow thing down back then. No EPA or OSHA.
@@matthewerwin4677 the epa and osha were both started in 1970, but there was a significant amount of legislation passed at the federal and state level throughout the 1960’s as well as very strong labor unions, workers rights groups, and worker’s compensation laws which had essentially the same effect during the development and construction of Apollo and even before.
The idea that they were only able to be as fast and successful as they were because there was no federal restrictions on endanger workers or dumping waste into rivers is just not at all accurate. The fact that they were given all the funding necessary and tasked to work single-mindedly on a single clearly defined goal, with a clearly defined purpose, on a clearly determined timeline, with tangible stakes for failure, coupled with the fact that they didn’t have to deal with constantly changing political whims and start working on a project and wait for the next administration to come in and completely change the goalposts, we’re the reasons it was such a rapid success
This was so fun! Back to the old school Scott Manley KSP style!
Also, the guys who designed this must be loving this review!
This vehicle is more sophisticated than I ever thought possible, especially for the time it was produced. Thank you, Scott!
wow, that somebody made such a detailed perfectly functional model of the LLTV is just amazing, and what a great video about it :)
*Scott,* thanks for mentioning both the LLRV and the LLTV, the former being the initial attempt (R for Research) and the latter (T for Training) more of the daily driver, so to speak. 🙂
Both were amazing machines, cutting-edge thinking and engineering.
Hats off to the engineers who thought this thing up and built it then to Neil who actually flew this contraption.
It’s almost like Destin from smarter every day just made a video about how important the astronauts felt about this training.
What Destin (and Neil for that matter) got wrong in that video is that humans will never manually land on the moon again.
We won't build a new simulator like this because there's no need for it.
I also thought it was kinda weird that he made the comparison between why Apollo only needed 1 rocket to go to the moon whereas starship need 12+ launches. Like starship is bringing a lot more payload and is going for an entirely different objective than apollo, thats why it needs all that extra refueling. @@NotMyActualName_
@@NotMyActualName_ And you are wrong cause as Destin mentioned problems that have to fall back to human control MUST be handled without any stress by the crew
@@NotMyActualName_what destin got right was the fact that they should be able too just in case, as a back up to a back up to a back up. Destin preached redundancy and having every little option covered.
It was about more than that. Most impotantly...the need for engineers on all rungs of the ladder to speak out
SmarterEveryDay channel has cool episode dedicated to this vehicle and it's designer. Lots of geeky detail!
I love the random video like this, still relevant to the theme of the channel but you're just sharing some personal fun time with us
that is awesome - had no idea the original's engine gimballed like that, amazing.
What an incredibly detailed simulation of the LLTV! Great parking job too ;-)
That's a gorgeous model! Someone put a LOT of time and effort in creating that! Wow!
Can you set it to infinite fuel so you can go on longer trips? It looks like a blast to fly.
Xplane? This is amazing. When i saw the twitter screenshot, i thought you're in KSP.
I work with drones and it's always mesmerizing seeing a camera gimbal come to life and lock the camera's attitude. I never expected to get the same feeling from a simulated jet engine.
20 dollars for this beautiful model is an absolute steal. I'm trying this tonight when i get off work!
The addon producer team at Thing-to-come produced an LLTV for FS9. It was a blast to fly. Still available on other sites.
The Apollo engineers were next level.
Hi Scott, can you talk a bit about how intelligent Armstrong’s ejector seat was? Because it doesn’t just shoot out at the attitude of the vehicle, it vectors and adds a lot of height.
That gimbal is glorious
My Late father worked on this craft. In 1966 our family relocated to Houston, TX from Buffalo, NY for 18 months, my father was a Technical Draftsman at Bell Aerospace in Niagara Falls NY and was sent to Houston by Bell . I actually met Neil Armstrong when we were in Texas.
There's a great book called "Unconventional, Contrary, and Ugly: The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle" which goes into exceptional detail on the LLRV. Very much worth a read!
Fun thing with this or the LEM is that while you have only 1/6th f a G pulling you down, you still 1/1 inertia in all other axis to deal with which makes things a lot trickier than you think.
You have that on the Mün, too.
10/10 Video nice work Scott, Fly safe
Really interesting indeed! 😃
Thanks, Scott!!!
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
And happy holidays!
That's a heck of a good SIM job, I'd say that's $20 very well spent.
I was always fascinated by the LLTV. The number of variables they would have to compensate for to simulate lunar conditions is amazing. Not just gravity, but drag, wind, backwash from the jet...
What a piece of engineering for the time. Also, x plane is looking way better than I remembered.
yup, "we do realistic flight dynamics, not trees" which is still kind of true, but these days even a modest effort on landscaping looks quite nice anyway
What would a LLTV look like if we build it today? Which as Destin pointed out, they need one if we are going back to the moon.
Great episode! Love your meta aspect of simulating a simulator. What do you think of others, like Gulfstream II, The NASA LM Simulator, or 'The Great Train Wreck'?
This aircraft alone makes me rethink my year-ago-abandonment of Xplane. I miss those physics !
x-plane rocks.
meh... DCS 😇
@@GillesVolluzGasdia I use them all too, incl. DCS. 👍
I hear you like simulators, so we're gonna simulate a simulator in your simulator.
Was waiting to see if you would give this a good go before I purchased it.... I'm now convinced!
How were you at Atari''s Lunar lander? Never could get the hang of it.
You're dating yourself.
would you have him pretend to be 20 until his dying days?
@@mikearmstrong8483
First of all, the 2010 Documentary movie “In the Shadow of the Moon" is absolutely outstanding. Alan Bean’s commentary about Neal’s ejection is hilarious!
Big Ups to Scott for contributing to the community.
Very well detailed model and physics.
I didnt expect the LLTV to be that advanced of a vehicle with that jet engine with the gimbal and the way how it works its amazing for 1960s technology simulators today cannot simulate the actual things unlike LLTV could
Scott, maybe you could look into the other training simulator, the "LEMS" or Lunar Excursion Module Simulator, which they have at the Virginia Air and Space Center in Langley, VA. I can't find much info on it but I think it was tethered to a big crane so that the pilot can't roll it over. I've seen it up close. The pilot stands up inside the tiny booth of a cockpit and it's not as big as the LLTV.
Is that the facility that NASA used to use to simulate small aircraft crashes?
I have seen a ration geographic article that shows a piper Navajo airframe being crash tested at a NASA facility.
Apparently the airframe was one that was scrapped after a hurricane hit the Vero Beach facility
@@shawnmiller4781 Not sure, maybe. The museum is on a street near the water.
@@RCAvhstape this one was set up with two gantry’s that lifted the test object up and then they let it drop onto a concrete pad while the slo motion cameras were rolling
@@shawnmiller4781 Well sure, I know what that is, but it's not in the museum.
@@RCAvhstape ok I just found a test report (58 page PDF) online describing the Impact Dynamics Research Facility and it does state it was converted from the Lunar Landing Research Facility
And it was doing crash tests on the mid-1970’s.
I’m pretty sure that’s about when my grandparents Nat Geo was from I saw the picture in.
7:24 Scott scoping the area for mattress shops to troll.
Hi Scott!
Now I'm curious how the computer worked! That must have been some pretty serious hardware for 1960s technology!
The control systems in the LLRV/LLTV were all transistorized analog circuitry. Computers with sufficient power to do such calculations in real-time were still housed in large glass-walled rooms at the time these were designed. Modeling the dynamics of the flight physics of the LLRV/LLTV in real time could only be done with analog systems at that time. I do understand that there were some digital systems on-board the LLRV/LLTV, but they were more related to gathering and recording flight telemetry than being involved in managing the fly-by-wire aspects of the craft. When it came to the actual Apollo missions, technology had advanced enough that sufficiently-powerful digital computers could be packaged to fit within the space and power constraints of the LM to provide real-time control of the throttleable main engine and the reaction control system jets. The Apollo moon landing program would not have been possible without rapid developments in electronic computer technology, mainly involving integrated circuits. It simply would not have been possible to build transistorized computers that would have the necessary computing power, and could fit in the limited space, and operate on the limited power available in the Apollo Command Module and Lunar Module. Needless to say, the programming for the Apollo flight computers was absolutely amazing work. See Curious Marc's series on the restoration of an original Apollo Guidance Computer -- Here's a link to the first part the series: ua-cam.com/video/2KSahAoOLdU/v-deo.html It'll take a long time to go through, but it's truly amazing!
i built one in KSP and it actually is pretty accurate. I only did mun missions from IVA with a couple of mods to make it interactive and actually tell you relative information but it’s been forever.
Never knew that's how the LLTV worked, seeing it in the two modes side by side makes it make such intuitive sense... although the people who came up with the idea in the first place were perhaps a step past genius and into madmen territory.
It might be banging because you caused a wet start, the sequence is ignitors, starter then fuel, owned a couple of gas turbines
Never thought the sim they made was so elaborate
Pretty cool. In Lunar Gravity mode, does it have an option to display the Lunar landscape, for added realism?
Presumably easily done within XP12.
MSFS already does a similar thing when you fly a military drone from a simulated control room. Don’t think about it too hard, but it is almost a simulation…running inside a simulation…to give you synthetic camera views.
That is VERY cool! Definitely buying and trying that!
This is a truly fantastic simulation of a truly incredible piece of Apollo history ❤
Props, so to speak, to whoever modeled this.
I see they used the particle system to simulate the peroxide thrusters. I've made recent progress myself using it to simulate RCS in earth orbit in X-Plane.
Only thanks to this video and model I finally understood how the jet engine pointing down worked. Never been sure what parts exactly move.
On the moon, the inertial mass is just as large as on the earth when accelerating sideways. This also applies to the inertial mass during vertical acceleration. Only the heavy vertical gravitational acceleration is only 1/7 as great as on Earth.
All my life I have had 1/6 in my head...
I was really surprised to see this for 20 whole bucks! So I was really interested in how it performed for that price. Thanks as always
I was unaware that the jet engine was gimballed, but of course it had to be to avoid the lateral accel problem. The total thrust needed to hover above the lunar surface is 6 times what it would be to hover over the surface of the Earth and that would mean that if the thrust was vectored sideways the lateral acceleration would be 6 times greater on Earth owing to the 6 times greater thrust.
Wasn't the Rolls-Royce VTOL testbed from the 50s, which ultimately gave us the Harrier, also known as the "Flying Bedstead"?
I saw somewhere that ejecting from this aircraft (or one like it) during a malfunction, and not getting killed, was what got NA his place on the Lunar mission - so Scott could reproduce the incident to see if he too is worthy of a lunar command.
Wasn't the flying bedstead the Harrier jump jet test machine?
Simply fantastic! It is almost mind-bogling to have designed this vehicle in a flight simulator, including all the real details.
What about a video on the mcCandless space walk. Did he handle the orbital mechanics manually or was there a very complex nav system operating in the background like an autopilot ? Must have been hairy as not used anymore.
You could be playing the simulation in a simulation - in a simulation. 😎
Nice, a really cool and interesting video thanks.
Scott,
Dustin from “Smarter Every Day” gave a talk at a recent conference of the movers & shakers involved with the moon landing and he basically said that they really need to look at what the NASA engineers did in the past, that they wrote it out in a post mission report. He basically said that how they want to do it is the wrong approach (I’m paraphrasing) the main point was that there is to much politics involved in the process as apposed to coming from a straight engineering perspective. I suggest that people watch that talk he made.
RWes -- I agree that Dustin's talk is astounding and well worth watching. He, like our man Scott, is one smart cookie I'd love to see the two of them discussing the pro's and con's of Space-X's "Crash and Burn" data collection method.
Funny this time "smarter every day" had this as part of his youtube video yesterday.
Real good one to watch too.
It was an ejection seat on it who was used. I assume an obvious first chicken out option would be to spin up the jet engine get you up to an safer attitude and cancel horizontal velocity.
Obviously if the computer fails you eject / get ejected.
did you see the shadow of the anemometer on top?
Do a maze bank landing in downtown LA, you know you want to!
No I don't want to. You're forgetting how much it costs to park in downtown LA. ; )
I wonder how much fuel (both for rockets, and esp the jet engine) it had… like how long could it fly? (I’m sure it didn’t need to fly for a long time being a simulator)
What a beautiful model! As you said, Scott: "Well worth the twenty dollars."
I love Scott’s videos, but the best ones are where he gets to say “thruster clusters”!
A simulation within a simulation is an emulation? Dude, I knew of the vehicle, but I had no idea how it achieved its Lunar landing Simulation task. It is absolutely fascinating, the gimbal is brilliant.
Currently watching your videos in private navigation mode. For some reason, adblocker like me (yeah... sorry, not sorry) currently have to do that.
The funniest part being: we just have to do that. Apparently, it's more punishable according to UA-cam to be identified and blocking ads than to be anonymous (sort of) and blocking ads.
Thus now we know where the problem actually lies? Alphabet didn't want us to log in all along? J/k... This "war" is just putting on the weirdest show.
Anyway, despite me not paying you a cent (and UA-cam its dollars), still love your content and wanting to let you know. It WAS an interesting little intricated trip.
Whether you fly here or you fly there, you fly now or you fly later, you fly high or you fly low, if you're gonna fly, Fly Safe™
$20 for probably 6+++ weeks work for someone to model and texture that thing. I hope they get some sales from this 👍
that's cool the gimbal view
thank you for sharing this with us
Commander Manley nails it.
I think the X-15 and F-111 beat it to computer-assisted Fly By Wire. For just Fly By Wire - there's the Formation Stick system installed in B-17s and B-24s during WW 2.
For programmable Fly By Wire - CALSPAN had a Douglas B-26 Invader in the early 1950s that used FBW to simulate the behavior of other aircraft, which led to their Variable Stability T-33 (The one with an early F-94 nose) and NC-131H in the late '50s through the 1990s.
That being said - that model is very, very impressive. A lot of work went into that.
The funny thing is that I would definitely risk my life to pilot something like this if ever given the opportunity😮
Why is that funny? It's just a thing
Hey Scott, no doubt youve already seen Destins video/talk...be really curious to hear your thoughts on both his talk and the new vs old process.
I bet the next version of this is going to be some kind of multi rotor with a RCS system for training.
Wonder if that’s been done before… 🤔😉
I played hours and hours of Atari Lunar Lander when it was on the xbox 360 arcade. Am i qualified?
contact musk, he needs guinea pigs for landing starship on the moon.
The Avro Arrow had fly by wire in the 1950's, before the LLTV.
But yeah, probably some ex-Avro engineers worked on it ;)
Why isn't the pilot position near the center of the vehicle as it would be in the lander?
Because there's a giant jet engine there?
Please do a video interviewing the developer of the LLTV Sim
I remember seeing this thing on From the Earth To the Moon on HBO and my 10 y/o brain was wondering what Mr. White was doing flying it.
When panning around in X-Plane... Is the drop in visual quality due to YT compression, or the game engine trying to maintain framerates?
_edit: Nevermind, definitely the game! Evident by his city flyover, where terrain textures got hobbled. I think it might be streaming textures and so it's "texture pop-in" instead of a degrading texture quality for framerates, but, maybe not..._ 🤷♂️
_[in this context, streaming doesn't mean online, but that the assets are come in continually instead of being cached in VRAM; the pop-in being the Level of Detail shift from initial low quality, to get the asset displayed immediately, over to high quality.]_
I might be slow, but could you (maybe in a video) go a little bit more into detail about how the LLTV simulated the dynamics of lunar-gravity. I watched this video 3-4 times, but I couldnæt quite work it out😬 To me it seems to simulate low lunar-orbit-"free fall", where changing the orientation of the Lunar Module wouldnt give you any push in any direction (unless the engine was fired, during or after the changing of orientation)
Wasn't the X-15 equipped with the Side-arm Controller (fly by wire) from the first drop test trough the end of the program?
I noticed on the Org store too and thought it was niche lol, didn't get it yet thanks for the review and show, I may get it in the future, but I am saving some $ for the Sr-71 releasing Friday. I wonder how well it would scoot in British weather...lol. Did you see the Starfighter? I have only tried the base model, you can fit the rocket to it.
nice landing Scott
The first example of fly by wire? I thought that fly by wire had been developed and tested prior in the X15 program?
This is pretty amazing honestly 🖤🖤🖤