Talk:Lunar Landing Research Vehicle

message: There seems to be much confusion between the LLTV and LLRV.
The LLTV was quite disimilar from the LLRV in that it had large oleo legs on each corner instead of the Aluminium alloy trusses with pogo shock absorbers, and the cabin was sat on top of the machine instead of cantilevered out at of the side. Piccies illustrating the point can be found at:
*
*]
* 
which show LLTVs suspended by a special rig to allow control, note the single large legs.
A picture of LLRVs can be found at 
*
*
*
As can be seen they are two similar in concept, but distinctly different animals in the flesh.--Petebutt (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no expert on these vehicles, but this NASA fact sheet explains how the two LLRVs led to the development of three new LLTVs and were themselves later converted to become two more LLTVs. It doesn't say whether the design with the helicopter-style bubble cabin and different legs is one of the three new LLTVs or yet another design. The fact sheet discusses the vehicles at Dryden, while the bubble-style vehicle was seen at Langley. So maybe these two sites had different LLTV designs. Anyway, the situation is complicated and the article clearly needs to explain it better. HTH. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Further googling suggests that the bubble-topped lander is in fact the Lunar Excursion Module Simulator (LEMS) mentioned in the article on the Lunar Landing Research Facility at Langley, and is not a designated LLTV as such. See for example the NASA CRGIS page on the Lunar Excursion Module Simulator. Checking through the pictures of the bubble-top craft posted in the first list, only the first is actually captioned as an LLTV. That could be a mistake. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LLRV or LLTV 

message: This is inaccurate.  He bit his tongue upon touchdown.  
Source:  Youtube: Neil Armstrong. A rare interview (2011) @10m30s
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.23.2 (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armstrong was "unhurt" 

message: Where is LLTV#2? I didn't find any information about this.
Thanks.
Regards, DryominG (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  LLTV #2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141002014045/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17-lltv.html to https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17-lltv.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709224624/http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001901.html to http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001901.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Was it ever (as Apollo Lunar Module claims) referred to as the "Flying Bedstead"? That's a name which was applied to the Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig, an early VTOL test vehicle, but I don't believe it was ever applied to the LLRV, except as a confused and later back-formation. In which case, Apollo Lunar Module shouldn't be repeating it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the cited reference (a PDF document) at the end of the paragraph in Apollo Lunar Module and do an Adobe search on the word "bedstead", you will see evidence that the term was borrowed because of its similarity to the Rolls Royce vehicle, and citation of another source. That link should probably be made a bit more precise, and the text expanded to mention the Rolls vehicle, both in the Lunar Module article and here. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That source (https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LLRV.html) uses the term, and credits its origin as R-R. However it's still very weak (and it's a 242 page document that covers damn near everything else) at saying that the term was applied here. The closest it gets is p182 and,  "The term “flying bedstead” was also used for a British VTOL."  Is a passing "also" enough?  The "citation of another source" is a 1962 source, so that's clearly just applying to the TMR, not the LLRV. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Flying Bedstead"? 

message: The statement:
:the board finally gave approval on June 30, 1969 for Armstrong to resume LLTV flights. In the 16 days remaining before the Apollo 11 launch Armstrong was able to complete his LLTV flight training.
is false, unless approval by the board was post hoc. Here's a video of him flying the LLTV on June 16 1969. So I've removed that detail from the article. Where did that statement come from? No reference. Armstrong apparently resumed flights of LLTV on June 14  and finished the required flights on June 16 , but I don't have references for that -- you could ask the Apollo 50th researchers. 
TeeEmCee (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: When was Armstrong approved to resume LLTV flights?