Big Gemini

[Archibald]

More information - Big G bring results different from Big Gemini on Google :

http://mcgovern.library.tmc.edu/data/www/html/collect/Institution/NASAAll/AllMiss.pdf

http://mcgovern.library.tmc.edu/data/www/html/collect/Institution/NASAAll/AllBio.pdf

Amid these lists figures the eight volumes of the Big Gemini study by MDA, 1969.

I've summarized that in the following list

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/Archibaldlecter/BigG.jpg?t=1235392688

 

[Michel Van]

i take the Scan and photoshop it

look it that there two Big G

 

[archipeppe]

i take the Scan and photoshop it

look it that there two Big G

Oh...you're definitely right Michel.
Thanks for the notice.... ;D

 

[Barrington Bond]

Well I did know there was two but the photocopy isn't as good as the picture in Astronautics & Aeronautics...

Regards,
Barry

 

[Archibald]

Something that might be of interest - for a Titan III Big Gemini

These three documents - of which two are dated of February 22 and March 26 1968 - shows there was an excess of Titan III boosters at the time.

Looks like in 1961, USAF had over-estimated the Titan III launch rate... coincidentally, up to 70 per year (!) - just what NASA planned for the Shuttle ten years later. At least the excess Titan made them cheap, only $9 million each.


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%200285.html?search=Titan

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790072578_1979072578.pdf

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3101/is_3_52/ai_n29204805

 

[Michel Van]

here the Little Brother of Big G

Gemini Ferry (for MORL)

from this paper
"Report No. A 520 • 13 November 1963"
"GEMINI SPACECRAFTSTUDY MORL FERRY FOR MISSIONS"
PDF 1.37 MB
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750069218_1975069218.pdf

there was also proposal to use NASA MOL as Ferry
paper "MOL Briefing Drawings"
to find HERE
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspaceother.htm

 

[Barrington Bond]

;D

 

[SAustin16]

Good Afternoon to All,

Utilizing Archipeppe's excellent presentation, I've attempted to design a 1/96 scale card model. As you can see, this is just a rough prototype. I'm teaching myself the software packages to design, color, and then "unfold" the 3D model onto paper. I am a slow learner.

The back end of the Gemini is supposed to slide into the cavity in the cylindrical module, but that's one of many improvements I've yet to make.

The last pic shows the Big G stacked on the INT-05A Monolithic SRB. Of course we're missing the SIVB, but I haven't gotten that far yet.

Many thanks to Archipeppe for the inspiration.

 

[archipeppe]

Oh my gosh this is very nice!!!!

You had a nice idea SAustin, I'm eager to see the final result of your efforts....

 

[Michel Van]

Nice model and this in paper !

Respect B)

 

[Archibald]

Great !

 

[SAustin16]

Thank you all for the kind words. Big Gemini is a fun project.

I'll post an update when I make significant progress.

When I complete the model, I plan to post it on Jon Leslie's Lower Hudson Valley "Challenger" website at http://jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html

Jon's website has the best collection of card-model spacecraft that I am aware of ... all of them are free (but a donation is welcome). The level of design expertise for some of the models is staggering. A gentleman that goes by Greelt (I believe from Germany) is offering an incredibly detailed 1/48 Saturn V (available here ...http://jleslie48.com/gallery_models_other.html). He's designing his way up from the F-1 engines, and is currently up to the interstage. Just print it, cut it out, and start building. The finished model will be 8 feet tall, and museum quality. Real eye-candy for us space-cadets.

Thanks again to all of you for the information and inspiration.

 

[Kevin Renner]

Card Models offer a great opportunity for the modeler in that if you screw up just print another sheet. Plus you can practice build in B&W before commiting to the final build. Consider this Type VII U-Boat in paper from the Papermodelers and originally on Cardmodel.net

http://www.zealot.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135439&highlight=type

http://www.zealot.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146581&highlight=type

As to spacecraft models in card the master is the guy that goes by the handle DHanners at Papermodelers and Starship Modeler

 

[OM]

...Bumping this classic thread a little, has anyone ever come across studies on how Big G's design - which is essentially not that much bigger than a regular Gemini with the two tail modules attached - would have behaved aerodynamically during reentry? Did they determine that something that tall would still produce the same drag and coefficients with a wider tail to tall ratio?

 

[Archibald]

I think your answer may lie here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4229.msg52305.html#msg52305

Ok, did some search on the web
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Wesleyan_University (scroll down)

Anybody here close enough from Dakota ?

 

[OM]

...That's a start, thanks. As for "Dakota", keep in mind that about 68% of the US believes North Dakota does not exist simply because they've never actually met anyone from there. Used to be a running joke at Texas University in the early 80's that both North Dakota and Vermont didn't exist because out of some 40,000 students there were none registered who were actually from either state one semester -Fall '81, IIRC.

 

[Proponent]

These three documents - of which two are dated of February 22 and March 26 1968 - shows there was an excess of Titan III boosters at the time.

<snip>
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790072578_1979072578.pdf

The above-reference Bellcomm report indicates that as of February 1968, about twice as many Titan 3s were on order for 1968-1970 as were actually launched. But how many of these Titans were actually built? Might some have been cancelled as it became apparent that not so many were needed?

 

[Barrington Bond]

;D

 

[Byeman]

These three documents - of which two are dated of February 22 and March 26 1968 - shows there was an excess of Titan III boosters at the time.

<snip>
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790072578_1979072578.pdf

The above-reference Bellcomm report indicates that as of February 1968, about twice as many Titan 3s were on order for 1968-1970 as were actually launched. But how many of these Titans were actually built? Might some have been cancelled as it became apparent that not so many were needed?

the answer doesn't change just because you post the question in another thread
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4636.45.html

As I have said in variations before, no.

1. Bellcomm was an outsider and not knowledgeable about DOD requirements.
2. You are basing your conclusions from 2 pages in one document and one of those pages is from another source.
3. The lines have no designation, however here is my cut at it.
1. CCAFS T-IIIC
2. VAFB T-IIIB
3. VAFB T-IIID
4. VAFB T-24B/33B (improved T-IIIB)

4. Here are the actuals vs the plan in the document

a. T-IIIC 8 vs 12
b. T-IIIB 19 vs 23
c. T-IIID 1 vs 7
d. improved T-IIIB 5 vs 9

The C's could easily stretch out
The B's ended and the extra's could have been transitioned into the improved models and the improved could have been stretched out
D's stretch out is because of development problems with the payload, but no big deal

These are acceptance dates and not launch rates. Launches might be 6 months or more later.

In the end, the production rate would have been reduced and probably soon after the report.

 

[blackstar]

As I have in variations before no.

1. Bellcomm was an outsider and not knowledgeable about DOD requirements.

As I remember it, Bellcomm was originally created at NASA initiative as a sort of future planning think tank. It was created as part of Bell (i.e. AT&T), hence the name. Why it was spun out of Bell I have no idea. It's probably true that Bell was not familiar with DoD requirements and was simply trying to figure them out as best they could.

 

[OM]

As I have in variations before no.

1. Bellcomm was an outsider and not knowledgeable about DOD requirements.

As I remember it, Bellcomm was originally created at NASA initiative as a sort of future planning think tank. It was created as part of Bell (i.e. AT&T), hence the name. Why it was spun out of Bell I have no idea. It's probably true that Bell was not familiar with DoD requirements and was simply trying to figure them out as best they could.

...Was it affiliated with Ma Bell, or part of the breakup of Bell Aircraft? Ironically, there's no Wiki article on Bellcomm, and Google produced nothing of use on Bellcomm's history. So anyone here got a breakdown of Bellcomm's origins that we can contrast and compare with NASA's various think tank initiatives?

 

[Byeman]

As I have in variations before no.

1. Bellcomm was an outsider and not knowledgeable about DOD requirements.

As I remember it, Bellcomm was originally created at NASA initiative as a sort of future planning think tank. It was created as part of Bell (i.e. AT&T), hence the name. Why it was spun out of Bell I have no idea. It's probably true that Bell was not familiar with DoD requirements and was simply trying to figure them out as best they could.

...Was it affiliated with Ma Bell,

Yes, and Webb asked AT&T to form it.

from Chariots for Apollo

"Webb had set up the General Electric contract to provide NASA Headquarters
with the technical specialists to watch over and participate in
Apollo’s far-flung development activities in both government and contractor
establishments. He also wanted a bevy of engineering system specialists near
at hand to assist Holmes in making technical decisions. Webb asked Frederick
R. Kappel, President of American Telephone & Telelgraph Company,
to form a group to provide this talent for Apollo. Bellcomm, Inc., the new
AT&T division, began operating alongside Holmes’ NASA Headquarters
manned space flight engineers in March 1962."

 

[OM]

As I have in variations before no.

1. Bellcomm was an outsider and not knowledgeable about DOD requirements.

As I remember it, Bellcomm was originally created at NASA initiative as a sort of future planning think tank. It was created as part of Bell (i.e. AT&T), hence the name. Why it was spun out of Bell I have no idea. It's probably true that Bell was not familiar with DoD requirements and was simply trying to figure them out as best they could.

...Was it affiliated with Ma Bell,

Yes, and Webb asked AT&T to form it.

from Chariots for Apollo

"Webb had set up the General Electric contract to provide NASA Headquarters
with the technical specialists to watch over and participate in
Apollo’s far-flung development activities in both government and contractor
establishments. He also wanted a bevy of engineering system specialists near
at hand to assist Holmes in making technical decisions. Webb asked Frederick
R. Kappel, President of American Telephone & Telelgraph Company,
to form a group to provide this talent for Apollo. Bellcomm, Inc., the new
AT&T division, began operating alongside Holmes’ NASA Headquarters
manned space flight engineers in March 1962."

...After I posted the above, I recalled that bit from Chariots and went looking for a C&P to update the post. Thanks for beating me to it, as it proves despite our differences we do tend to think alike.

 

[Archibald]

A much cleaner picture features in page 19 of NASA history "Spacelab: an international success story" available on the NTRS

Why Spacelab, anyway ? Very early on, in 1970, Spacelab great ancestor was called the "experiment module concepts" (study also available on the NTRS).

Where practical from a payload standpoint, the modules should be compatible with
manned logistics systems consisting of Saturn IB-Modified CSM, Titan III-Big
Gemini, S-IC/S-IVB-Modified CSM, and S-IC/S-IVB-Big Gemini. Launching the
modules in an unmanned mode on these launch vehicles should be considered, and
the possibility of transporting the modules in an advanced logistics system should
be examined.
b. To the extent practical, experiment/laboratory modules will be designed to be
compatible for launch on both expendable and reusable logistics systems.

It is interesting to note that Spacelab ancestor was to be able to ride into orbit aboard an ELV, with or without a capsule (Apollo or Big Gemini).

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

Ron Downey has posted some excellent photos of the Big G mockup on his Aviation Archives blog:

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[carmelo]

We hypothesize a EVA from a big gemini capsule.
Only the pilot cabin would depressurized,or also the crew compartment?

 

[Michel Van]

We hypothesize a EVA from a big gemini capsule.
Only the pilot cabin would depressurized,or also the crew compartment?

from what i have see on Big-G design
seems that the Docking cone in aft end of Big-G is also to use als Hatch for EVA
that cone has to big volume for simply connect to a Space Station, you can fit astronauts into it.

 

[carmelo]

But the cone was also a arirlock?

 

[Michel Van]

But the cone was also a arirlock?

look at it size in this picture
there fit several astronaut in it.
of corse that could be airlock for different air pressure between BIG Gemini and Space Station.
If Big Gemini use 5 psi and Station 14.7 psi air pressure.

 

[archipeppe]

Good Day All -

Ron Downey has posted some excellent photos of the Big G mockup on his Aviation Archives blog:

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Absolutely cool!!


Many thanks for it Mark.

 

[carmelo]

So for EVA probably could be depressurizzed the cargo module.
Interesting possibility.

 

[blackstar]

Good Day All -

Ron Downey has posted some excellent photos of the Big G mockup on his Aviation Archives blog:

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Next month the November issue of Spaceflight magazine will come out with my lengthy article on Big Gemini. It was inspired by this post--Nankivil tipped me off to Ron Downey's very interesting high-res photos of the August 1969 Big Gemini mockup. That prompted me to go do some digging in archives and write an article about BG, which will include Downey's scans.

The information available on BG is limited, but I may soon get more. BG went through several iterations. It was first proposed in summer 1967. McDonnell Douglas then produced an initial outline of the proposal in early 1968 and they got a formal study contract from NASA around summer 1968. They produced an interim report in early 1969 and then the final report in August 1969. We have the executive summary of this final report, although not the entire multi-volume proposal. BG then existed as a possible future NASA spacecraft until around August of 1971 when it was finally rejected. There does not appear to have been any additional work by the contractor on the proposal between August 1969 and August 1971. And I don't think that anybody at NASA really wanted BG after August 1969. They wanted a more capable spacecraft, preferably a space shuttle. Big Gemini was sort of held in reserve in case the NASA budget got slashed even more than it did.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Hindsight is 20/20...

Well I'll definitely be looking out for that issue at B&N. Along with a copy of that Luftwaffe secret jets special.

 

[blackstar]

Hindsight is 20/20...

Huh?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

My bad, I was thinking aloud there. Big G has always been a favorite "what-if" of mine.

What I meant, and should've clarified, was that looking back on the Shuttle program, and all the difficulties that came with it, maybe going with Big Gemini might have been a more prudent investment. At least till a more practical Shuttle design was refined.

But that's just me. Sorry to throw you off. Dwayne.

FWIW, I'm an 80's kid and grew up with the Shuttle. It's still one fine piece of engineering despite the setbacks. It will always have that cool factor to it.

 

[blackstar]

My bad, I was thinking aloud there. Big G has always been a favorite "what-if" of mine.

What I meant, and should've clarified, was that looking back on the Shuttle program, and all the difficulties that came with it, maybe going with Big Gemini might have been a more prudent investment. At least till a more practical Shuttle design was refined.

I don't think it's ever a good/fair comparison between actual vehicles and paper studies. The actual vehicles had real problems. The paper vehicles, if they had been pursued to development, also would have had problems too, we just don't know what they are. In fact, many paper vehicles didn't get built because the people who evaluate them determined that they required far more effort and might not have worked--in other words, they stayed paper because somebody decided that the problems were insurmountable.

Big Gemini would have been a much easier vehicle to build than shuttle. But it also would have been far less capable. It just would not have been able to do many of the things shuttle actually did do. In addition, the primary reason NASA would have built Big Gemini is because its space program was being slashed to the bone, so BG might have had very little to do--maybe service the second Skylab workshop through the latter 1970s and then that would have been it. By 1980, NASA would have been stuck with a pretty limited low Earth orbit spacecraft. More internal volume than Apollo, but not even circumlunar capability.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I hear ya. Well, I can't wait to see the article.

 

[Archibald]

Good Day All -

Ron Downey has posted some excellent photos of the Big G mockup on his Aviation Archives blog:

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Next month the November issue of Spaceflight magazine will come out with my lengthy article on Big Gemini. It was inspired by this post--Nankivil tipped me off to Ron Downey's very interesting high-res photos of the August 1969 Big Gemini mockup. That prompted me to go do some digging in archives and write an article about BG, which will include Downey's scans.

The information available on BG is limited, but I may soon get more. BG went through several iterations. It was first proposed in summer 1967. McDonnell Douglas then produced an initial outline of the proposal in early 1968 and they got a formal study contract from NASA around summer 1968. They produced an interim report in early 1969 and then the final report in August 1969. We have the executive summary of this final report, although not the entire multi-volume proposal. BG then existed as a possible future NASA spacecraft until around August of 1971 when it was finally rejected. There does not appear to have been any additional work by the contractor on the proposal between August 1969 and August 1971. And I don't think that anybody at NASA really wanted BG after August 1969. They wanted a more capable spacecraft, preferably a space shuttle. Big Gemini was sort of held in reserve in case the NASA budget got slashed even more than it did.

Is it possible to buy Spaceflight Magazine on line as a Pdf ? I live on the wrong side of the Channel.

 

[cluttonfred]

I don't think it's ever a good/fair comparison between actual vehicles and paper studies. The actual vehicles had real problems. The paper vehicles, if they had been pursued to development, also would have had problems too, we just don't know what they are. In fact, many paper vehicles didn't get built because the people who evaluate them determined that they required far more effort and might not have worked--in other words, they stayed paper because somebody decided that the problems were insurmountable.

Big Gemini would have been a much easier vehicle to build than shuttle. But it also would have been far less capable. It just would not have been able to do many of the things shuttle actually did do. In addition, the primary reason NASA would have built Big Gemini is because its space program was being slashed to the bone, so BG might have had very little to do--maybe service the second Skylab workshop through the latter 1970s and then that would have been it. By 1980, NASA would have been stuck with a pretty limited low Earth orbit spacecraft. More internal volume than Apollo, but not even circumlunar capability.

I agree, but would also add that the same factors that drove the Space Shuttle development -- turning it from the spacefaring pickup truck with a camper top that it was originally intended to be to become instead a luxury RV with every option imaginable -- would also have influenced a production Big Gemini. Perhaps not to the degree that the shuttle was bloated almost beyond recognition, but the same dynamic -- put everything in one big fat program so Congress won't cut the little ones -- would have come into play.

 

[blackstar]

Rush to your newsstands, the article is out!