nasa月球登录器LLRV -Unconventional, Contrary, and Ugly：The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle.ppt

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationUnconventional,Contrary,and Ugly:The Lunar Landing Research VehicleGene J.MatrangaC.Wayne OttingerCalvin R.JarvisMonographs In Aerospace History#35NASA SP-2004-4535with D.Christian GelzerNASA SP-2004-4535Unconventional,Contrary,and Ugly:The Lunar Landing Research VehicleGene J.MatrangaC.Wayne OttingerCalvin R.JarvisWith D.Christian GelzerNASA History DivisionOffice of External AffairsWashington,D.C.20546Monographs inAerospace HistoryNumber 352005Cover and book design by Steve Lighthill,NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.Front cover:Composite imageRear cover:Detail image_Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataMatranga,Gene J.Unconventional,contrary,and ugly:the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle/by Gene J.Matranga,C.WayneOttinger,Calvin R.Jarvis;with D.Christian Gelzer.p.cm.(Monographs in aerospace history;no.35)Includes bibliographical references and index.SP-2004-4535.1.Lunar excursion module.2.Project Apollo(U.S.)History.I.Ottinger,Wayne.II.Jarvis,Calvin R.III.Title.I V.Series.TL789.8.U6A55534 2004629.44-dc222004022958iiTable of ContentsForeword by Neil A.Armstrong.vDedication.viiAcknowledgements.viiiIntroduction.ixI.Development.1Chapter 1:Conception.3Chapter 2:A Proposal.16Chapter 3:The NASA-Bell Collaboration.24Chapter 4:A Vehicle Takes Shape.40II.Flight Research.57Chapter 5:Preparing for Flight.59Chapter 6:Flying“Off the Books”.82Chapter 7:Flight Research.106III.Training for the Moon.123Chapter 8:From LLRV to LLTV.125Chapter 9:Houston.138Epilogue.153Appendices.157Appendix A.159Appendix B.165Appendix C.167Appendix D.172Appendix E.179Appendix F.183Appendix G.194Appendix H.197Appendix I.202Sources.209Glossary.216Index.219NASA History Publications.221iiiForewordWhen the United States began considering a pilotedvoyage to the moon,an enormous number of un-knowns about strategies,techniques,and equipmentexisted.Some people began wondering how a landingmaneuver might be performed on the lunar surface.From the beginning of the age of flight,landinghas been among the most challenging of flightmaneuvers.Touching down smoothly has beenthe aim of pilots throughout the first centuryof flight.Designers have sought the optimumaircraft configuration for landing.Engineershave sought the optimum sensors andinstruments for best providing thepilot with the informationneeded to perform the maneu-ver efficiently and safely.Pilots also have sought theoptimum trajectory andcontrol techniques tocomplete the approach andtouchdown reliably andrepeatably.Landing a craft on the moon was,in a number of ways,quite different from landingon Earth.The lunar gravitational field is much weaker than Earths.There were norunways,lights,radio beacons,or navigational aids of any kind.The moon had noatmosphere.Airplane wings or helicopter rotors would not support the craft.The typeof controls used conventionally on Earth-based aircraft could not be used.The lack ofan atmosphere also meant that conventional flying instrumentation reflecting airspeedand altitude,and rate of climb and descent,would be useless because it relied on staticand dynamic air pressure to measure changes,something lacking on the moonssurface.Lift could be provided by a rocket engine,and small rocket engines could bearranged to control the attitude of the craft.But what trajectories should be selected?What type of steering,speed,and rate-of-descent controls should be provided?Whatkind of sensors could be used?What kind of instruments would provide helpful infor-mation to the pilot?Should the landing be performed horizontally on wheels or skids,or vertically?How accurately would the craft need to be positioned for landing?Whatvisibility would the pilot need,and how could it be provided?Some flight-test engineers at NASAs Flight Research Center were convinced thatthe best way to gain insight regarding these unknowns would be the use of a free-flyingtest vehicle.Aircraft designers at the Bell Aircraft(Aerosystems)Company believedthey could build a craft that would duplicate lunar flying conditions.The two groups collaborated to build the machine.It was unlike any flying ma-chine ever built before or since.The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle(LLRV)wasunconventional,sometimes contrary,and always ugly.Many who have seen video clips of the LLRV in flight believe it was designed andbuilt to permit astronauts to practice landing the Apollo Lunar Module(LM).Actually,the LLRV project was begun before NASA had selected the strategy that would use theLunar Module!Fortunately,when the Lunar Module was designed somewhat later,its characteris-vtics were sufficiently similar to the LLRV that the LLRV could be used for LM simula-tion.A later version of the LLRV,the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle(LLTV),pro-vided an even more accurate simulation following considerable modification to betterrepresent the final descent stage.Unconventional,Contrary,&Ugly:The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle tells thecomplete story of this remarkable machine,the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle,including its difficulties,its successes,and its substantial contribution to the Apolloprogram.The authors are engineers who were at the heart of the effort.They tell thetale that they alone know and can describe.Six crews landed their Lunar Modules on the moon.They landed on the dustysands of the Sea of Tranquility and the Ocean of Storms.They landed in the lunarhighlands at Fra Mauro and on the Cayley Plains.They landed near the Apennine andTaurus Mountains.Each landing,in widely different topography,was performed safelyunder the manual piloting of the flight commander.During no flight did pilots comeclose to sticking a landing pad in a crater or tipping the craft over.That success is due,in no small measure,to the experience and confidence gained in the defining researchstudies and in the pilot experience and training provided by the LLRV and LLTV.Someday men will return to the moon.When they do,they are quite likely to needthe knowledge,the techniques,and the machine described in this volume.NEIL A.ARMSTRONGLebanon,OhioviDedicationThe authors wish to pay tribute to key people whose contributions to the LLRV pro-gram were invaluable but who did not survive to contribute or participate in this publica-tion.They include:Don Bellman,the NASA FRC LLRV Project Manager,whowith his insight,technical skills,and leadership put together an out-standing flight research team.Paul Bikle,the NASA FRC Director whose leadership,vi-sion,and management style fostered the environment for successfulprograms including the X-15,LLRV,lifting bodies,and fly-by-wire.Leroy Frost,the NASA FRC inspector in flight operationswhose dedication,knowledge,and ability to inspire teamwork helpedensure safe operations.Ken Levin,LLRV Technical Director for Bell Aerosystems,the key inventor,motivator,and technical manager at BellAerosystems,who conceived and implemented the free-flight,Earth-bound simula-tion of lunar landings.Joe Walker,chief research pilot for NASAFRC and the LLRVproject pilot who made the first eight flights,and a total of 35 flights,for the program before he left to fly the XB-70.Joe had flown the X-15with reaction controls but had never flown a helicopter before his as-signment to the LLRV,yet he mastered the challenge.Leon Zwink,a BellAerosystems avionics engineer.Althoughable to participate in the early development of this publication,he didnot survive for the completion of it.Leon was instrumental in helpingthe project overcome the numerous difficulties in the early flight testsof the LLRV,and later in the LLTV program.The authors also thank Dill Hunley for his patience,expertise,and counsel in thisproject.The extraordinary time and effort needed to create and produce this work by thethree authors really tested his dedication to professional collaboration.He passed this testwith flying colors.Other contributors to this work who deserve a big thanks include Joe Algranti,BillBascom,Bill Clark,Norm DeMar,Art Gorbaty,Dean Grimm,Ray Kellog,Alan King,Jack Kluever,Don Mallick,Warren North,Bruce Peterson,Don Reisert,Walt Rusnak,John Ryken,Glen Swanson,Rich Va n Riper,Ray White,Bill Wilson,and Ray Young.viiAcknowledgementsThe authors began the story of the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle under thetutelage of Dill Hunley when he was Chief Historian at NASAs Dryden Flight Re-search Center.It continued under the guidance of Michael H.Gorn,Dills successor asChief Historian.Without Mikes support of this project,and his belief in its impor-tance,it would not have seen the light of day.A number of people read the text along the way,offering comments that improvedthe story.The list includes Dill Hunley,Mike Gorn,Darlene Lister,Dean Grimm,BethHagenaur,Gray Creech,Peter Merlin,Curtis Peebles,and the Dryden X-Press SarahMerlin.The book enjoys its readability in large measure because Sarah labored overrepeated versions of the manuscript,and she always found ways to improve it.Carla Thomas had the arduous task of scanning and correcting the unusually largeselection of images,and her long effort did a great deal to bring the story to life.SteveLighthill laid out the text and imagery,and created the front and back covers,all tostriking effect.Bell Helicopter Textron and Weber Aircraft LP kindly granted permis-sion to use images dating from each companys involvement with the LLRV.My pleasure in editing this book has been to work with all these people,as well asthe three authors.Christian GelzerDeputy Chief HistorianNASA Dryden Flight Research CenterEdwards,CaliforniaviiiIntroductionAlthough the development of horizontal flight may be the dominant theme in thehistory of American aeronautics,the vertical dimension constitutes an importantsubplot in the narrative.From Igor Sikorskys early helicopter designs and productionvehicles to the U.S.Marine Corps V-22 Osprey,from the British Harrier jet to theNational Aeronautics and Space Administrations(NASA)XV-15 tilt-rotor vehicle,there have been many reasons to pursue vertical flight.Carrying firepower and troopsto inaccessible areas in times of war,conducting search and rescue missions in unfor-giving terrain,assisting large-scale construction projects,and serving as a commutervehicle in dense urban areas all are contexts in which these machines either have given,or may one day give,service.But in the annals of vertical flight one machine standsalone in both design and purpose.NASAs Lunar Landing Research Vehicle(LLRV)arose from one of the greatest engineering challenges of the twentieth century:to land,as Neil Armstrong wrote in the foreword to this book,“reliably and repeatably”in aplace with no atmosphere and one-sixth the gravity of Earth.Conceiving and producingthis unprecedented vertical flyer reflects a singular achievement in the history ofaeronautical engineering.Flying a vehicle capable of simulating the lunar gravity andatmosphereand accomplishing this feat on Earthrepresents an equally significantchapter in the history of flight research.The dual achievement of building and flighttesting these remarkable machines is the story told in this book.1The path to Apollo and the LLRV could not have been traversed without two of thegreat technological breakthroughs nurtured during World War II,computer technologyand rocketry.2 Ye t the American space program remained in the planning stages untilthe world heard the“beep,beep”of Sputnik 1 on 4 October 1957followed less than amonth later by Sputnik 2.By orbiting both of the worlds first two man-made satel-litesand doing so in less than a monththe Soviets took the lead in the race into space.The U.S.answered early the following year with the launch of the Explorer 1satellite into orbit on 31 January 1958,followed by the launch of Vanguard 1 on 17March 1958.The first successful U.S.satellite weighed a mere 34 pounds,whileSputnik 1 weighed 183 pounds and Sputnik 2 a whopping 1,100 pounds.Nevertheless,the tiny Explorer 1 satellitedeveloped in a joint program by the Army Ballistic MissileAgency(ABMA)and NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory(JPL)led to the discovery ofa radiation belt surrounding the Earth(later named for astrophysicist James Van Allen).The Soviets stretched their lead on 12 April 1961,when Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarinlaunched into orbit on Vostok 1 and completed the first full orbit of the Earth.Less thana month later,on 5 May,astronaut Alan B.Shepard,Jr.,in the Mercury Freedom 7space capsule,became the first American to be launched into space,albeit in suborbitalflight.With its successful launches over the next nine months,Project Mercury showedthat the U.S.was a serious contender in the space race.Indeed,the U.S.closed the gapon 20 February 1962,when astronaut John H.Glenn,Jr.,became the first American toorbit Earth in space,circling it three times in the Mercury Friendship 7 capsule.As aresult of a problem with the autopilot,Glenn flew portions of the final two rotationsmanually.Circumlunar piloted flight had been under study in the U.S.since 1958.By 1960,NASA had undertaken a series of detailed studies on the requirements for landing ahuman on the moon.These reports concluded that sending individuals to the moonssurface and bringing them safely home to Earth did not await any major technologicalor scientific discoveries,but rather required careful planning to solve some operationalunknowns.3The U.S.Congress appeared ready to support this endeavor.In 1960,the HouseCommittee on Science and Astronautics recommended that“a high priority programixshould be undertaken to place a manned expedition on the moon”by the end of thedecade.4 NASAs first 10-year plan(presented to Congress in February 1960)called forbroadly based research of piloted and unpiloted space flight,including scientificsatellites to study the near-space environment,lunar probes to study and photograph themoons environment,weather satellites to improve understanding of Earths broadweather patterns,and the development of larger launch vehicles for lifting heavierpayloads.Speaking before a joint session of Congress on 25 May 1961,newly electedPresident John F.Kennedy forged these various strands into a single national policywhen he committed the United States to pursuing the lunar mission.“Now it is time.for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement,which in many waysmay hold the key to our future on Earth,”he said.“I believe that this nation shouldcommit itself to achieving the goal,before this decade is out,of landing a man on themoon and returning him safely to the Earth.No single space project in this period willbe more impressive to mankind,or more important to long-range exploration of space;and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.”5Project Gemini represented a technological bridge between Mercury and Apollo.Geminis twelve flights(made between April 1964 and November 1966)providedmany of the answers needed to advance from orbiting Earth to landing on the moon.Among other things,the Gemini program demonstrated that astr