Mixing
Has a spacecraft ever used a four gimbal gyroscope? Did Michael Collins get his Christmas wish?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The question Did Michael Collins ask for a fourth gimbal for Christmas? Is there a recording or transcript? mentions that Apollo 11 Command Module Pilot Michael Collins is said to have asked for a fourth gimbal for Christmas, while looking for the lunar ascent module. The video [2] linked there suggests that adding a fourth gimbal would prevent gimbal lock, and the video below says at about 02:10:
Now I’ve only made this gyroscope with two sets of gimbals, But a real system would need three; pitch, roll and yaw. But none-the-less gimbal lock still remains a problem, although it can be eliminated by some clever electronics, and a fourth gimbal set.
Question: Has a spacecraft ever used a four gimbal gyroscope?
Video cued at 02:10
adcs gimbal-lock
asked 6 hours ago
uhoh
28.4k1392352
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The question Did Michael Collins ask for a fourth gimbal for Christmas? Is there a recording or transcript? mentions that Apollo 11 Command Module Pilot Michael Collins is said to have asked for a fourth gimbal for Christmas, while looking for the lunar ascent module. The video [2] linked there suggests that adding a fourth gimbal would prevent gimbal lock, and the video below says at about 02:10:
Now I’ve only made this gyroscope with two sets of gimbals, But a real system would need three; pitch, roll and yaw. But none-the-less gimbal lock still remains a problem, although it can be eliminated by some clever electronics, and a fourth gimbal set.
Question: Has a spacecraft ever used a four gimbal gyroscope?
Video cued at 02:10
adcs gimbal-lock
asked 6 hours ago
uhoh
28.4k1392352
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The question Did Michael Collins ask for a fourth gimbal for Christmas? Is there a recording or transcript? mentions that Apollo 11 Command Module Pilot Michael Collins is said to have asked for a fourth gimbal for Christmas, while looking for the lunar ascent module. The video [2] linked there suggests that adding a fourth gimbal would prevent gimbal lock, and the video below says at about 02:10:
Now I’ve only made this gyroscope with two sets of gimbals, But a real system would need three; pitch, roll and yaw. But none-the-less gimbal lock still remains a problem, although it can be eliminated by some clever electronics, and a fourth gimbal set.
Question: Has a spacecraft ever used a four gimbal gyroscope?
Video cued at 02:10
adcs gimbal-lock
asked 6 hours ago
uhoh
28.4k1392352
The question Did Michael Collins ask for a fourth gimbal for Christmas? Is there a recording or transcript? mentions that Apollo 11 Command Module Pilot Michael Collins is said to have asked for a fourth gimbal for Christmas, while looking for the lunar ascent module. The video [2] linked there suggests that adding a fourth gimbal would prevent gimbal lock, and the video below says at about 02:10:
Now I’ve only made this gyroscope with two sets of gimbals, But a real system would need three; pitch, roll and yaw. But none-the-less gimbal lock still remains a problem, although it can be eliminated by some clever electronics, and a fourth gimbal set.
Question: Has a spacecraft ever used a four gimbal gyroscope?
Video cued at 02:10
adcs gimbal-lock
adcs gimbal-lock
asked 6 hours ago
uhoh
28.4k1392352
asked 6 hours ago
uhoh
28.4k1392352
asked 6 hours ago
uhoh
28.4k1392352
asked 6 hours ago
uhoh
28.4k1392352
asked 6 hours ago
uhoh
28.4k1392352
28.4k1392352
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
The Shuttle Orbiter's Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) had four gimbals.
The IMU consists of a platform isolated from vehicle rotations by four
gimbals. Since the platform does not rotate with the vehicle, its
orientation remains fixed, or inertial, in space. The gimbal order
from outermost to innermost is outer roll, pitch, inner roll, and
azimuth. The platform is attached to the azimuth gimbal. The inner
roll gimbal is a redundant gimbal used to provide an all-attitude IMU,
while preventing the possibility of gimbal-lock (a condition that can
occur with a three-gimbal system and can cause the inertial platform
to lose its reference). The outer roll gimbal is driven from error
signals generated by disturbances to the inner roll gimbal. Thus, the
inner roll gimbal will remain at its null position, orthogonal to the
pitch gimbal.
(emphasis mine)
Source: Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2-13.7
answered 5 hours ago
Organic Marble
47.9k2122202
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Gemini had a four-gimbal system as well:
The IMU is the usual gimballed stable platform with accelerometers and angular resolvers as in Apollo, except for a key difference that the Gemini IMU had four gimbals rather than the three gimbals of Apollo. This means that it was not subject to the phenomenon of "gimbal lock", and hence the software used to adjust spacecraft alignment could be simpler than with three gimbals. The value of the 4th gimbal can be appreciated when considering incidents like the mishap in Gemini VIII in which an uncontrolled roll occurred. (If the IMU had had only three gimbals, my understanding is that gimbal lock would have occured when the roll angle was too great.) On the other hand, at that point the spacecraft was under manual control anyway, and I'm sure that the notion that the IMU would have to be realigned later would have been the least of Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott's worries.
Surprisingly, because of the long lead time required for Apollo development, and the position of Gemini as a second-generation improvement over Mercury, there are a handful of features in Gemini that are more sophisticated than their Apollo equivalents. I don't know if this is one of them, or if a 4-gimbal system was considered and rejected for Apollo due to weight considerations.
How Apollo Flew To The Moon suggests it was mainly a weight-driven decision, but also notes that the three-gimbal solution is more accurate:
[Susceptibility to gimbal lock] was inherent in the system as designed by the MIT team who had settled on a three-gimbal mounting for the platform, similar to the system they had designed for the Polaris missile, and unlike the four gimbals found in the Saturn V instrument unit and the Gemini spacecraft. Collins was a veteran of Gemini, and knew the advantage given by the fourth gimbal. But there were good, solid reasons for implementing only three gimbals.
As well as saving the weight of a heavy outer gimbal, trade-offs included a reduced tendency for the platform to drift in its orientation, and greater accuracy.
answered 56 mins ago
Russell Borogove
71.4k2222305
There's a note about a comment by by Neil Armstrong in the block quote of this answer alluding to this as well. I wonder if they were grumbling about not having it in Apollo?
– uhoh
50 mins ago
1
I'm sure they were to some extent; it's natural to find something to grumble about, and on the whole Apollo seems to have been a very satisfactory ship. With all three of the Apollo 11 crew having been veterans of Gemini, the 3-gimbal system might have been one of the most obvious deficiencies they could identify.
– Russell Borogove
33 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
The Shuttle Orbiter's Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) had four gimbals.
The IMU consists of a platform isolated from vehicle rotations by four
gimbals. Since the platform does not rotate with the vehicle, its
orientation remains fixed, or inertial, in space. The gimbal order
from outermost to innermost is outer roll, pitch, inner roll, and
azimuth. The platform is attached to the azimuth gimbal. The inner
roll gimbal is a redundant gimbal used to provide an all-attitude IMU,
while preventing the possibility of gimbal-lock (a condition that can
occur with a three-gimbal system and can cause the inertial platform
to lose its reference). The outer roll gimbal is driven from error
signals generated by disturbances to the inner roll gimbal. Thus, the
inner roll gimbal will remain at its null position, orthogonal to the
pitch gimbal.
(emphasis mine)
Source: Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2-13.7
answered 5 hours ago
Organic Marble
47.9k2122202
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
The Shuttle Orbiter's Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) had four gimbals.
The IMU consists of a platform isolated from vehicle rotations by four
gimbals. Since the platform does not rotate with the vehicle, its
orientation remains fixed, or inertial, in space. The gimbal order
from outermost to innermost is outer roll, pitch, inner roll, and
azimuth. The platform is attached to the azimuth gimbal. The inner
roll gimbal is a redundant gimbal used to provide an all-attitude IMU,
while preventing the possibility of gimbal-lock (a condition that can
occur with a three-gimbal system and can cause the inertial platform
to lose its reference). The outer roll gimbal is driven from error
signals generated by disturbances to the inner roll gimbal. Thus, the
inner roll gimbal will remain at its null position, orthogonal to the
pitch gimbal.
(emphasis mine)
Source: Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2-13.7
answered 5 hours ago
Organic Marble
47.9k2122202
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
The Shuttle Orbiter's Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) had four gimbals.
The IMU consists of a platform isolated from vehicle rotations by four
gimbals. Since the platform does not rotate with the vehicle, its
orientation remains fixed, or inertial, in space. The gimbal order
from outermost to innermost is outer roll, pitch, inner roll, and
azimuth. The platform is attached to the azimuth gimbal. The inner
roll gimbal is a redundant gimbal used to provide an all-attitude IMU,
while preventing the possibility of gimbal-lock (a condition that can
occur with a three-gimbal system and can cause the inertial platform
to lose its reference). The outer roll gimbal is driven from error
signals generated by disturbances to the inner roll gimbal. Thus, the
inner roll gimbal will remain at its null position, orthogonal to the
pitch gimbal.
(emphasis mine)
Source: Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2-13.7
answered 5 hours ago
Organic Marble
47.9k2122202
The Shuttle Orbiter's Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) had four gimbals.
The IMU consists of a platform isolated from vehicle rotations by four
gimbals. Since the platform does not rotate with the vehicle, its
orientation remains fixed, or inertial, in space. The gimbal order
from outermost to innermost is outer roll, pitch, inner roll, and
azimuth. The platform is attached to the azimuth gimbal. The inner
roll gimbal is a redundant gimbal used to provide an all-attitude IMU,
while preventing the possibility of gimbal-lock (a condition that can
occur with a three-gimbal system and can cause the inertial platform
to lose its reference). The outer roll gimbal is driven from error
signals generated by disturbances to the inner roll gimbal. Thus, the
inner roll gimbal will remain at its null position, orthogonal to the
pitch gimbal.
(emphasis mine)
Source: Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2-13.7
answered 5 hours ago
Organic Marble
47.9k2122202
answered 5 hours ago
Organic Marble
47.9k2122202
answered 5 hours ago
Organic Marble
47.9k2122202
answered 5 hours ago
Organic Marble
47.9k2122202
47.9k2122202
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Gemini had a four-gimbal system as well:
The IMU is the usual gimballed stable platform with accelerometers and angular resolvers as in Apollo, except for a key difference that the Gemini IMU had four gimbals rather than the three gimbals of Apollo. This means that it was not subject to the phenomenon of "gimbal lock", and hence the software used to adjust spacecraft alignment could be simpler than with three gimbals. The value of the 4th gimbal can be appreciated when considering incidents like the mishap in Gemini VIII in which an uncontrolled roll occurred. (If the IMU had had only three gimbals, my understanding is that gimbal lock would have occured when the roll angle was too great.) On the other hand, at that point the spacecraft was under manual control anyway, and I'm sure that the notion that the IMU would have to be realigned later would have been the least of Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott's worries.
Surprisingly, because of the long lead time required for Apollo development, and the position of Gemini as a second-generation improvement over Mercury, there are a handful of features in Gemini that are more sophisticated than their Apollo equivalents. I don't know if this is one of them, or if a 4-gimbal system was considered and rejected for Apollo due to weight considerations.
How Apollo Flew To The Moon suggests it was mainly a weight-driven decision, but also notes that the three-gimbal solution is more accurate:
[Susceptibility to gimbal lock] was inherent in the system as designed by the MIT team who had settled on a three-gimbal mounting for the platform, similar to the system they had designed for the Polaris missile, and unlike the four gimbals found in the Saturn V instrument unit and the Gemini spacecraft. Collins was a veteran of Gemini, and knew the advantage given by the fourth gimbal. But there were good, solid reasons for implementing only three gimbals.
As well as saving the weight of a heavy outer gimbal, trade-offs included a reduced tendency for the platform to drift in its orientation, and greater accuracy.
answered 56 mins ago
Russell Borogove
71.4k2222305
There's a note about a comment by by Neil Armstrong in the block quote of this answer alluding to this as well. I wonder if they were grumbling about not having it in Apollo?
– uhoh
50 mins ago
1
I'm sure they were to some extent; it's natural to find something to grumble about, and on the whole Apollo seems to have been a very satisfactory ship. With all three of the Apollo 11 crew having been veterans of Gemini, the 3-gimbal system might have been one of the most obvious deficiencies they could identify.
– Russell Borogove
33 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Gemini had a four-gimbal system as well:
The IMU is the usual gimballed stable platform with accelerometers and angular resolvers as in Apollo, except for a key difference that the Gemini IMU had four gimbals rather than the three gimbals of Apollo. This means that it was not subject to the phenomenon of "gimbal lock", and hence the software used to adjust spacecraft alignment could be simpler than with three gimbals. The value of the 4th gimbal can be appreciated when considering incidents like the mishap in Gemini VIII in which an uncontrolled roll occurred. (If the IMU had had only three gimbals, my understanding is that gimbal lock would have occured when the roll angle was too great.) On the other hand, at that point the spacecraft was under manual control anyway, and I'm sure that the notion that the IMU would have to be realigned later would have been the least of Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott's worries.
Surprisingly, because of the long lead time required for Apollo development, and the position of Gemini as a second-generation improvement over Mercury, there are a handful of features in Gemini that are more sophisticated than their Apollo equivalents. I don't know if this is one of them, or if a 4-gimbal system was considered and rejected for Apollo due to weight considerations.
How Apollo Flew To The Moon suggests it was mainly a weight-driven decision, but also notes that the three-gimbal solution is more accurate:
[Susceptibility to gimbal lock] was inherent in the system as designed by the MIT team who had settled on a three-gimbal mounting for the platform, similar to the system they had designed for the Polaris missile, and unlike the four gimbals found in the Saturn V instrument unit and the Gemini spacecraft. Collins was a veteran of Gemini, and knew the advantage given by the fourth gimbal. But there were good, solid reasons for implementing only three gimbals.
As well as saving the weight of a heavy outer gimbal, trade-offs included a reduced tendency for the platform to drift in its orientation, and greater accuracy.
answered 56 mins ago
Russell Borogove
71.4k2222305
There's a note about a comment by by Neil Armstrong in the block quote of this answer alluding to this as well. I wonder if they were grumbling about not having it in Apollo?
– uhoh
50 mins ago
1
I'm sure they were to some extent; it's natural to find something to grumble about, and on the whole Apollo seems to have been a very satisfactory ship. With all three of the Apollo 11 crew having been veterans of Gemini, the 3-gimbal system might have been one of the most obvious deficiencies they could identify.
– Russell Borogove
33 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Gemini had a four-gimbal system as well:
The IMU is the usual gimballed stable platform with accelerometers and angular resolvers as in Apollo, except for a key difference that the Gemini IMU had four gimbals rather than the three gimbals of Apollo. This means that it was not subject to the phenomenon of "gimbal lock", and hence the software used to adjust spacecraft alignment could be simpler than with three gimbals. The value of the 4th gimbal can be appreciated when considering incidents like the mishap in Gemini VIII in which an uncontrolled roll occurred. (If the IMU had had only three gimbals, my understanding is that gimbal lock would have occured when the roll angle was too great.) On the other hand, at that point the spacecraft was under manual control anyway, and I'm sure that the notion that the IMU would have to be realigned later would have been the least of Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott's worries.
Surprisingly, because of the long lead time required for Apollo development, and the position of Gemini as a second-generation improvement over Mercury, there are a handful of features in Gemini that are more sophisticated than their Apollo equivalents. I don't know if this is one of them, or if a 4-gimbal system was considered and rejected for Apollo due to weight considerations.
How Apollo Flew To The Moon suggests it was mainly a weight-driven decision, but also notes that the three-gimbal solution is more accurate:
[Susceptibility to gimbal lock] was inherent in the system as designed by the MIT team who had settled on a three-gimbal mounting for the platform, similar to the system they had designed for the Polaris missile, and unlike the four gimbals found in the Saturn V instrument unit and the Gemini spacecraft. Collins was a veteran of Gemini, and knew the advantage given by the fourth gimbal. But there were good, solid reasons for implementing only three gimbals.
As well as saving the weight of a heavy outer gimbal, trade-offs included a reduced tendency for the platform to drift in its orientation, and greater accuracy.
answered 56 mins ago
Russell Borogove
71.4k2222305
Gemini had a four-gimbal system as well:
The IMU is the usual gimballed stable platform with accelerometers and angular resolvers as in Apollo, except for a key difference that the Gemini IMU had four gimbals rather than the three gimbals of Apollo. This means that it was not subject to the phenomenon of "gimbal lock", and hence the software used to adjust spacecraft alignment could be simpler than with three gimbals. The value of the 4th gimbal can be appreciated when considering incidents like the mishap in Gemini VIII in which an uncontrolled roll occurred. (If the IMU had had only three gimbals, my understanding is that gimbal lock would have occured when the roll angle was too great.) On the other hand, at that point the spacecraft was under manual control anyway, and I'm sure that the notion that the IMU would have to be realigned later would have been the least of Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott's worries.
Surprisingly, because of the long lead time required for Apollo development, and the position of Gemini as a second-generation improvement over Mercury, there are a handful of features in Gemini that are more sophisticated than their Apollo equivalents. I don't know if this is one of them, or if a 4-gimbal system was considered and rejected for Apollo due to weight considerations.
How Apollo Flew To The Moon suggests it was mainly a weight-driven decision, but also notes that the three-gimbal solution is more accurate:
[Susceptibility to gimbal lock] was inherent in the system as designed by the MIT team who had settled on a three-gimbal mounting for the platform, similar to the system they had designed for the Polaris missile, and unlike the four gimbals found in the Saturn V instrument unit and the Gemini spacecraft. Collins was a veteran of Gemini, and knew the advantage given by the fourth gimbal. But there were good, solid reasons for implementing only three gimbals.
As well as saving the weight of a heavy outer gimbal, trade-offs included a reduced tendency for the platform to drift in its orientation, and greater accuracy.
answered 56 mins ago
Russell Borogove
71.4k2222305
edited 38 mins ago
answered 56 mins ago
Russell Borogove
71.4k2222305
answered 56 mins ago
Russell Borogove
71.4k2222305
answered 56 mins ago
Russell Borogove
71.4k2222305
71.4k2222305
There's a note about a comment by by Neil Armstrong in the block quote of this answer alluding to this as well. I wonder if they were grumbling about not having it in Apollo?
– uhoh
50 mins ago
1
I'm sure they were to some extent; it's natural to find something to grumble about, and on the whole Apollo seems to have been a very satisfactory ship. With all three of the Apollo 11 crew having been veterans of Gemini, the 3-gimbal system might have been one of the most obvious deficiencies they could identify.
– Russell Borogove
33 mins ago
add a comment |Â
There's a note about a comment by by Neil Armstrong in the block quote of this answer alluding to this as well. I wonder if they were grumbling about not having it in Apollo?
– uhoh
50 mins ago
1
I'm sure they were to some extent; it's natural to find something to grumble about, and on the whole Apollo seems to have been a very satisfactory ship. With all three of the Apollo 11 crew having been veterans of Gemini, the 3-gimbal system might have been one of the most obvious deficiencies they could identify.
– Russell Borogove
33 mins ago
There's a note about a comment by by Neil Armstrong in the block quote of this answer alluding to this as well. I wonder if they were grumbling about not having it in Apollo?
– uhoh
50 mins ago
There's a note about a comment by by Neil Armstrong in the block quote of this answer alluding to this as well. I wonder if they were grumbling about not having it in Apollo?
– uhoh
50 mins ago
1
1
I'm sure they were to some extent; it's natural to find something to grumble about, and on the whole Apollo seems to have been a very satisfactory ship. With all three of the Apollo 11 crew having been veterans of Gemini, the 3-gimbal system might have been one of the most obvious deficiencies they could identify.
– Russell Borogove
33 mins ago
I'm sure they were to some extent; it's natural to find something to grumble about, and on the whole Apollo seems to have been a very satisfactory ship. With all three of the Apollo 11 crew having been veterans of Gemini, the 3-gimbal system might have been one of the most obvious deficiencies they could identify.
– Russell Borogove
33 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30954%2fhas-a-spacecraft-ever-used-a-four-gimbal-gyroscope-did-michael-collins-get-his%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
