LLRV and LLTV

[benparry]

Morning All

a chat with an old friend re the landings and the viewing of first man has posed a question which I am not sure of.

it regards the LLRV and LLTV. He acserts that not enough time was spent training in them especially the Apollo 11 backup commander who had no LLRV training.

firstly is this true and was it an issue and secondly is there a resource anywhere showing all test flights of the LLRV and LLTV with name of pilot , date etc

does this also exist for the testing of the LM components. I understand the actual LM couldn't be tested in full until the actual landings

cheers

Ben

[Zakalwe]

He acserts that not enough time was spent training in them especially the Apollo 11 backup commander who had no LLRV training.

And how exactly does he work that one out??

Armstrong, for example, flew the LLTV over 30 times and completed 50+ landings. He last flew it 3 weeks before the Moon landing. In his opinion it was the best training for flying the LM.

In total there were 286 flights of the LLRV in the mid 1960s..

[Zakalwe]

This doc will give you loads of info on the vehicles, including the number of flights and summary logs (but no detail of the pilots)

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/187516main_LLRV_Monograph2.pdf

This page lists a lot of the flights by year and purpose (at the bottom of the page)
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/apoollrv.htm

At the end of the day his argument is one of personal incredulity. He doesn't believe that the astronauts spent enough time training in the LLRV/LLTV therefore the landings were faked (I assume). The opposite is the case.....the landings happened as described therefore the training that the astronauts had was sufficient.

[Zakalwe]

especially the Apollo 11 backup commander who had no LLRV training.

That's a false claim. For a start, here's a picture of Lovell landing the LLTV during his training for A13:


https://images.nasa.gov/details-S70-30534.html

[benparry]

Zakalwe many thanks for all of that.

I could spend the rest of my life repeating what you just said and did quite a few times. it doesn't cut any ice. I pointed out some of what you said including the number of times Neil tested it before crashing and he insisted he crashed it the first time he piloted it.

I also pointed out he didn't actually crash it but again fell on deaf ears.

i'm going to go through everything there and increase my knowledge on this subject. it was one of my favourite parts of the film this weekend. i'm not sure I could have survived In that thing if it started spinning lol

[benparry]

one thing has just struck me from your answer also.

not that it matters but he claimed lovell had no training for a11 as backup commander incinuating there would be an issue if Armstrong fell ill prior to the flight.

I pointed out ( I assume this is correct) that if Armstrong did fall ill the flight may have been postponed ??

[Zakalwe]

Zakalwe many thanks for all of that.

I could spend the rest of my life repeating what you just said and did quite a few times. it doesn't cut any ice. I pointed out some of what you said including the number of times Neil tested it before crashing and he insisted he crashed it the first time he piloted it.

I also pointed out he didn't actually crash it but again fell on deaf ears.

Not point in arguing with the wilfully ignorant.  Just leave him to wallow in his own stink and ignorance.

[Zakalwe]

not that it matters but he claimed lovell had no training for a11 as backup commander incinuating there would be an issue if Armstrong fell ill prior to the flight.

I pointed out ( I assume this is correct) that if Armstrong did fall ill the flight may have been postponed ??

Just because he say's that Lovell had no experience before A11 that doesn't make it true.
What point is he trying to make (assuming he has a point and not just trying to be a clever dick?). Armstrong didn't fall ill so his argument is little more than a strawman at best, or a loaded question.

Another thing that your acquaintance should factor into his thinking is the very real possibility that he's an idiot. 

[benparry]

well he may well be.

he did provide a table showing that lovel didn't have any training on either vehicles while Armstrong had 21 and 6 on the LLRV and LLTV respectively however i'm not sure when this was compiled.

I assume it must have been roughly when the crash happened because am I correct in saying the crash occurred on his 22nd flight.

maybe lovel trained after the training ban had been lifted but as you say Armstrong didn't fall ill and the mission didn't have to be postponed

[Zakalwe]

All prime and backup commanders spent time on the LTTV (page 328, First Man- James Hansen). The book lists those that flew the vehicle as :

• Armstrong
• Borman
• Anders
• Conrad
• Scott
• Lovell
• Young
• Shepard
• Cernan
• Gordan
• Haise

The craft was in demand, so time allocated to backups was limited. All Commanders usually flew 22 flights (Armstrong had the most) with back-ups flying about 12 times.

[benparry]

No I get that bit his point was that before A11 lovel the backup commander hadn't flown on the LLRV and LLTV so if Armstrong had gotten ill and Lovel had needed to command he wouldn't have had any experience flying. did lovel train on the vehicles before A11 launched

[Zakalwe]

No I get that bit his point was that before A11 lovel the backup commander hadn't flown on the LLRV and LLTV so if Armstrong had gotten ill and Lovel had needed to command he wouldn't have had any experience flying. did lovel train on the vehicles before A11 launched

He definitely trained with Armstrong in the helicopter training that was a precursor to LTTV training. I don't know about his training in the LTTV.

Again though, your acquaintance is trying to build a strawman argument. Lets rewrite history and assume that Armstrong got sick and the backup crew had to fly. No LTTV training would not have precluded Lovell from commanding. That may or may not have hindered the landing. If he failed, then A12 would have attempted it, just as they would if Armstrong had failed. So what is his point, assuming that he has one?

Hoaxies tend to forget that each and every flight was a test flight. If the landing on 11 failed then the challenge would pass onto the next and so on. The only thing that might have stopped it would have been the astronauts dying in the attempt and even then I'm not so sure.

[benparry]

No I get that bit his point was that before A11 lovel the backup commander hadn't flown on the LLRV and LLTV so if Armstrong had gotten ill and Lovel had needed to command he wouldn't have had any experience flying. did lovel train on the vehicles before A11 launched

He definitely trained with Armstrong in the helicopter training that was a precursor to LTTV training. I don't know about his training in the LTTV.

Again though, your acquaintance is trying to build a strawman argument. Lets rewrite history and assume that Armstrong got sick and the backup crew had to fly. No LTTV training would not have precluded Lovell from commanding. That may or may not have hindered the landing. If he failed, then A12 would have attempted it, just as they would if Armstrong had failed. So what is his point, assuming that he has one?

Hoaxies tend to forget that each and every flight was a test flight. If the landing on 11 failed then the challenge would pass onto the next and so on. The only thing that might have stopped it would have been the astronauts dying in the attempt and even then I'm not so sure.

true true

tbh I don't think he quite gets how brave these guys were and how much they wanted to succeed. he seems to think that just because something is done a certain way now or didn't quite happen the way he wanted it it didn't.

[Zakalwe]

he seems to think that just because something is done a certain way now or didn't quite happen the way he wanted it it didn't.

Which is the dictionary definition of an argument from personal incredulity.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

<edit> or even the "If I ran The Zoo" fallacy. Just because he thinks that it should have been done in a certain way does not mean that the people doing it would have agreed. You could ask him what's his experience in setting the training schedule in programs like Apollo, or ask why he's qualified to think that the training schedule employed was not correct. Perhaps his assumed lack of knowledge in this field* is leading him to erroneous conclusions (the Dunning-Kruger effect)?

As usual, most of these arguments are based on the hoaxies' belief that their knowledge/assumptions represent the only way a task can be accomplished, even when their knowledge is paper-thin or totally absent.




*and it's not a massive assumption because if he was involved n the field then he wouldn't be raising such dumb-ass points!

[benparry]

he seems to think that just because something is done a certain way now or didn't quite happen the way he wanted it it didn't.

Which is the dictionary definition of an argument from personal incredulity.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

<edit> or even the "If I ran The Zoo" fallacy. Just because he thinks that it should have been done in a certain way does not mean that the people doing it would have agreed. You could ask him what's his experience in setting the training schedule in programs like Apollo, or ask why he's qualified to think that the training schedule employed was not correct. Perhaps his assumed lack of knowledge in this field* is leading him to erroneous conclusions (the Dunning-Kruger effect)?

As usual, most of these arguments are based on the hoaxies' belief that their knowledge/assumptions represent the only way a task can be accomplished, even when their knowledge is paper-thin or totally absent.




*and it's not a massive assumption because if he was involved n the field then he wouldn't be raising such dumb-ass points!

exactly

anyway thanks again Zakalwe