Holy Gemini !!

C

carmelo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
11 March 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
26
The incredible "Gusmobile" family.
A great 60s classic !



zgeminis.png


paraglider2004.png


17ak.jpg


17a2y.jpg


17a3.jpg


zgemwing.png


laboratoriomorlsagganci.jpg


morl.png


gemini001.jpg


gemini2003.jpg
 
Advance Gemini Mission Proposal
index.php


index.php


index.php


index.php


Gemini Parasail with rokets landingsystem
index.php


more about here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2691.0.html

Gemini Ferry for MORL
index.php
 
Something big is coming. Since two years now I'm writting the alt-history where the shuttle is cancelled and Big Gemini takes over, to a space station... stay tunned.
 
The fun is that is possible imagine an entire US space program based only on Gemini family.
From Gemini - to fly by lunar Gemini to - Direct Gemini on the moon - to Gemini ferry/MORL-to Big Gemini/Skylab class stations-to Advanced modular biconic Big Gemini for LEO and BEO.
 
I'm not a great fan of spacecraft in general, but I truly find it fascinating that the Gemini concept had been envisaged as a possible basis for so many different projects... Great, great documents here, thanks!
 
Hey I remember that artwork for the paraglider sequence! It was from a National Geographic I used to have. I had a lot of cool reading material growing up. Too bad I don't have it anymore.

Those old Nat Geo's were a goldmine for me.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
I'm not a great fan of spacecraft in general, but I truly find it fascinating that the Gemini concept had been envisaged as a possible basis for so many different projects... Great, great documents here, thanks!
Click to expand...

Ah, but it wasn't, really.

A lot of this stuff was generated by a Mc-Dac desperate to get more space work after North American got the Apollo. NAA spun out a number of variants of the Apollo as well.

The presence of a lot of drawings doesn't prove that the design really was all that adaptable. It actually had substantial limitations, such as the lack of a docking port or airlock, and very little internal volume. Gemini was good for what it did, but it could not go very far beyond its basic design.
 
I really would not have liked that seat in front of the heat-shield hatch.

Yes, I know it would have made scant difference where you sat, but...

I suppose that was the best solution available given the lack of an axial hatch...
 
Nik said:
I really would not have liked that seat in front of the heat-shield hatch.

Yes, I know it would have made scant difference where you sat, but...

I suppose that was the best solution available given the lack of an axial hatch...
Click to expand...

It's really not that much of an issue. If you think of the hatch like a plug, with a wider outside and narrower inside, you can see how it would provide good protection. Keep in mind that there are hatches on the bottom of the shuttle--over the landing gear doors and over the connection points for the ET--and they have flown successfully over 100 times.
 
blackstar said:
If you think of the hatch like a plug, with a wider outside and narrower inside, you can see how it would provide good protection.
Click to expand...

...Or to look at it another way, recall during Glenn's Friendship 7 flight, and the erroneous landing bag deployment indicator. The thinking was that if the bag were deployed, and the retro pack straps were still holding the bag in place, then the pressure from the Earth's atmosphere during reentry would keep the bag in place at least until drogue deployment. In the case of that back hatch for Gemini, in addition to the plug design, McD's engineers not only expected the same effect to keep a loose hatch in place, there was also some expectation that the ablation process might actually provide a seal. The reflight of Gemini 2 with the modified hatch and shield proved that such an ablative seal did occur.
 
Excellent ! I had some worries for my astronauts that ride Big Gemini into orbit ;D Now I'm reassured
 
Greetings All -

Here's a pair of photos of a Gemini configuration I cannot ID along with artwork that appears to be of the same configuration. Any ideas what this is?

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • xD4C 11563.jpg
    xD4C 11563.jpg
    331.4 KB · Views: 375
  • xD4C 11565.jpg
    xD4C 11565.jpg
    328.1 KB · Views: 324
  • xD4C 16143.jpg
    xD4C 16143.jpg
    372.3 KB · Views: 285
  • xD4C 17458.jpg
    xD4C 17458.jpg
    324.3 KB · Views: 273
the last two picture are USAF - MOL

but the two first are years befor MOL

Modular Space Station Evolving from Gemini, Report No. 9572,
Volume I: Technical Proposal and
Volume II: Proposed Program and Available Resources,
McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, December 15, 1962.
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2010/10/modular-space-station-evolving-from.html

gemmod3.jpg


Where did you get the picture, Mark Nankivil ?
 
Well, the shape of the last illustration seems to match the shape of the model. Looks like they are the same thing. So if the model is not MOL, neither is that last image.
 
Greetings All -

Photos are in the collection of the Greater St. Louis Air & Space Museum.

Note though that the models are not identical. It appears the capsule and the section immediately aft are the same but the rest of the assemblies are different.

Thanks for the link - will check that out when I get home this evening.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Michel Van said:
the last two picture are USAF - MOL

but the two first are years befor MOL
Click to expand...

Not exactly Michel:

- The first picture depicts probably a "One room Space Station" but the Gemini is definitely a MOL one, with the unmistakable hatch in upper part of the heatshield.

- The second picture represents also a Gemini-MOL attached with some MORL module
- The third and fourth picture represent the same thing: it is for sure some Gemini-Transtage variant (rescue, or other) but not MOL for sure. The rocket seems to be a Titan IIIC and not a Titan IIIM while the lenght of the system is far too short to be a fully suited MOL. Not counting that the Gemini-MOL has a rear section pretty different from the nominal Gemini, while the two shots seem to deptics a typical Gemini RV + Engine Section + Orbital Section as usual.
 
Mark Nankivil said:
Greetings All -

Photos are in the collection of the Greater St. Louis Air & Space Museum.

Note though that the models are not identical. It appears the capsule and the section immediately aft are the same but the rest of the assemblies are different.

Thanks for the link - will check that out when I get home this evening.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Click to expand...

archipeppe said:
Michel Van said:
the last two picture are USAF - MOL

but the two first are years before MOL
Click to expand...

Not exactly Michel:

- The first picture depicts probably a "One room Space Station" but the Gemini is definitely a MOL one, with the unmistakable hatch in upper part of the heatshield.

- The second picture represents also a Gemini-MOL attached with some MORL module
- The third and fourth picture represent the same thing: it is for sure some Gemini-Transtage variant (rescue, or other) but not MOL for sure. The rocket seems to be a Titan IIIC and not a Titan IIIM while the lenght of the system is far too short to be a fully suited MOL. Not counting that the Gemini-MOL has a rear section pretty different from the nominal Gemini, while the two shots seem to deptics a typical Gemini RV + Engine Section + Orbital Section as usual.
Click to expand...

those two model are from "Modular Space Station Evolving from Gemini" Proposal
"One room Space Station" is the first to check the hardware in space,
later as Supply craft for a bigger station "Two room space Station"
build from Module show on second picture.
gemmod4.jpg

later it form base for bigger "Four room space Station"
gemmod6.jpg


there so many MOL picture, i lost overview now...
or is last picture a another USAF space project like Blue Gemini or Manned Orbital Development System ?
 
Michel,

Thank you for the great illustrations of the Gemini Stations. That would make a very nice and fun model.
 
Re: Holy Gemini !! reborn ?

the Space Operations, Inc (SOI) is a private company, Founded in January of 2011
who want to rebuild the Gemini as Eclipse Spacecraft for

Satellite Servicing/Repair
Satellite Deployment
Space Tourism
Debris Deorbit
New Space Station Construction/Resupply

The Eclipse Spacecraft use fourth Module for Payloads
and as adaptor to Delta IV, Atlas V or Falcon 9 Booster
landing will use paraglider & skids on land
SOI plans a test launch on February 20, 2012, with a regular flight schedule beginning in late 2012 or early 2013.

Source
http://www.spaceoperationsinc.com/index.html
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Space_Operations_Inc_Announces_First_Orbital_Manned_Commercial_Spacecraft_Operational_By_2012_999.html
 

Attachments

  • Eclipse_Spacecraft_Labelled.jpg
    Eclipse_Spacecraft_Labelled.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 205
Yeah... it's not going to happen.

Gemini is not a good design for what you need to do today (where's the docking ring?). And the idea that they're going to revive the parasail--which NASA could not make work 46 years ago--is just nutty.
 
blackstar said:
Yeah... it's not going to happen.

Gemini is not a good design for what you need to do today (where's the docking ring?). And the idea that they're going to revive the parasail--which NASA could not make work 46 years ago--is just nutty.
Click to expand...

...In order:

1) Note that there's no rear hatch or tube going to the rear of the entire stack, as Blue Gemini had. Which begs the question of whether they intend this to be an Agena-style docking with an EVA to transfer both crew and supplies.

2) Reviving the Rogallo as originally conceived is lunacy. However, using a modified version of the parasail intended for the X-38 is a different story altogether. Simpler in design, and from all accounts quite a bit more steerable.

3) And then there's the other unspoken question: are they also planning to include the "instant headache" ejector seats as the original had, or are they going to bite the bullet and go with a LET as Gemini would have resorted to had the Gemini-Saturn I versions ever flew?
 
blackstar said:
Yeah... it's not going to happen.

Gemini is not a good design for what you need to do today (where's the docking ring?). And the idea that they're going to revive the parasail--which NASA could not make work 46 years ago--is just nutty.
Click to expand...

the picture on SOI website are bad Photoshoped
i Think they build a MORL Gemini ferry

wat look like this
index.php
 
blackstar said:
Yeah... it's not going to happen.

Gemini is not a good design for what you need to do today (where's the docking ring?). And the idea that they're going to revive the parasail--which NASA could not make work 46 years ago--is just nutty.
Click to expand...

First of all I'm a big Gemini fun but,
I also fully agree with blackstar, I guess that Gemini re-usage for space turism or so on in highly unlikely.
 
One of the problems is that Gemini was an interim vehicle. When NASA started the program, they were planning on building the spacecraft that they really wanted and had the capabilities that they needed--that was Apollo.

Gemini was really an upgraded Mercury that allowed them to do some basic things like rendezvous testing and spacewalks. But it was not even very good at those things either. It would make more sense to revive the Apollo.
 
blackstar said:
Gemini was really an upgraded Mercury that allowed them to do some basic things like rendezvous testing and spacewalks. But it was not even very good at those things either.
Click to expand...

...I think Dave Scott, Neil Armstrong, Wally Schirra, Tom Stafford, Frank Borman, and Jim Lovell would have seriously disagreed with you on the rendezvous testing as their missions attested. And as much room as the rear Equipment Module provided, additional fuel for serious out-of-plane rendezvous missions would not have been that difficult to achieve, much less ruled out. Spacewalking was, as demonstrated, difficult, but not for reasons specific to the Gemini design, as *any* EVA mission requires a bare minimum number of strategically placed handholds. And referring back to historical track records once again, you can't deny most of those design limitations had been overcome by Gemini 12.

In all seriousness tho, I'd really love to see you back up your claims on these two, Dwayne. For an "interim vehicle", Gemini pulled it's weight a lot more than you seem unfairly willing to give credit to.
 
Slightly off-topic, but did the numbers work out for that elegant SASSTO proposal with the circular plug nozzle ?? IIRC, linear plug nozzles were tried for that 'Space Clipper' design, but, well, it never flew...

I'm curious because a sort-of inside-out plug nozzle is the latest wheeze at Reaction Engines, where a movable 'mushroom' matches a 'full expansion' nozzle to atmospheric pressure...
 
OM said:
1. And as much room as the rear Equipment Module provided, additional fuel for serious out-of-plane rendezvous missions would not have been that difficult to achieve, much less ruled out.
2. Spacewalking was, as demonstrated, difficult, but not for reasons specific to the Gemini design, as *any* EVA mission requires a bare minimum number of strategically placed handholds. And referring back to historical track records once again, you can't deny most of those design limitations had been overcome by Gemini 12.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, it would have been difficult to provide addition propellant. There wasn't any extra "room" on the adapter section. It was concave to fit over the dome of the forward propellant tank of the Titan II second stage. Even if there was "extra" room for propellant, the Titan II couldn't lift it. And additionally, the Adapter module structure would have to be strengthen to carry more propellant.

2. EVA's from the Gemini spacecraft were difficult due to the small volume in the cabin from which to prepare for an EVA.
 
the Gemini Ferry for MORL 1963 sturdy but actually reuse of 1962 proposal for there space station design
the Modular Space Station Evolving from Gemini, Report No. 9572,

index.php
 
...Thank you, Michael. I believe that puts paid to the "dome restraint" claim. ;D
 
OM said:
...Thank you, Michael. I believe that puts paid to the "dome restraint" claim. ;D
Click to expand...

Not true. Figure 5.1-1 of the same document shows how the Titan II tank uses adapter volume. The aft docking concept doesn't account for this and also uses some overly optimistic weight estimates (the tunnel structure). The adapter would have to be lengthened (additional weight not accounted for) and it would have launch site (white room) impacts. This is a marketing document after all.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled1.jpg
    Untitled1.jpg
    44.4 KB · Views: 1,058
Good a place as any to leave these:
http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2013/07/mcdonnell-nasa-gemini-booklets.html
 
Anybody ever see this one before?

Here's the FB thread I got it from: https://m.facebook.com/132774600078701/photos/a.134464163243078.16363.132774600078701/961263713896448/?type=1&source=48
 

Attachments

  • 11230900_961263713896448_6259920332497007323_n.jpg
    11230900_961263713896448_6259920332497007323_n.jpg
    113.1 KB · Views: 758
XP67_Moonbat said:
Anybody ever see this one before?
Click to expand...


That's from Lunar Gemini propsals
McDonnell-Douglas had several Studies for Gemini as rescue Spacecraft for Apollo Mission.
One was Lander, the other is Orbiter both need Saturn v launcher
 
Regarding the Gemini / Saturn V Rescue Vehicle...Does anyone know if there was a spacecraft with a heat shield inside the fairing behind the Gemini that the rescued party would enter the atmosphere in? There was certainly not enough room in the Gemini for more than the two astronauts.

Cheers from Texas
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom