3 ms·
Was it because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock ? Apollo 11 engineers made the same mistake. :)
by a-dub 8y ago
Was it because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock ?
Apollo 11 engineers made the same mistake. :)
- SomeHacker44 8y agoI would characterize this more as a hardware engineering choice, with associated work around in software (don't rotate the spacecraft through gimbal lock/Euler angle singularity). Disclaimer: IANARS
- planteen 8y agoYes large differences in orientation will make Euler angles gimbal lock. And it looks strange, even for small differences in orientation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocoibc7MoKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocoibc7MoKg
- sehugg 8y agoThe Shuttle program used quaternions, although the ISS apparently uses a definition that is easier to read by sight: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-ivJED8B0uYJ:highorder.berkeley.edu/proceedings/aiaa-annual-2009/paper1025.pdf http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-ivJED8...
- skykooler 8y agoFor Apollo, it wasn't so much a "mistake" as a conscious decision to save weight. The Gemini IMU used 4 gimbals, and so avoided the issue entirely. Apollo dropped the weight of the extra gimbal and instead required the pilots to avoid flying in certain orientations.