Big Gemini

[publiusr]

The Apollo concept was uglier but better.

The VA capsules with Cosmos 881 and 882 had the heat shield hatch. They were double stacked with retros/escape tower as a long Stabilio type stem apiece.

THE DREAM MACHINES had them as dual spaceplanes which was not the case. The hatch was—what, smaller than shuttles wheel well covers? They worked.

 

[RanulfC]

"Didn't need it as the Apollo CM had a docking port and attachment on the nose whereas Gemini didn't..."

I meant in addition to the existing nose port, so could access hab-module attached where Service Module had been. Without doing a 'Morris Dance' and back-flip...

Again didn't need it whereas Gemini did and Gemini taught NASA how effective a maneuverable spacecraft could be. Apollo was also heavier which makes it more difficult.

 

[Byeman]

Back when I first read of the Gemini variant with hatch through heatshield, my reaction was, quite reasonably, 'WTF ??'

But, apparently, it was okay...

Was a much thinner, hence much lighter, heatshield with similar 'hatchery' considered for post-Lunar LEO Apollo ? Would that have allowed a toroidal Service mini-Module and a hefty hab-module between Command and a shortened Service Module ? Said hab and short-SM modules perhaps being left docked to growing space-station while CM used its mini-SM to de-orbit ??

Didn't need it as the Apollo CM had a docking port and attachment on the nose whereas Gemini didn't
Which was kind of the whole 'problem' with Gemini it that it was never designed to actually be as versatile as it arguably was. It was meant to just be a 'larger' Mercury and kind of organically grew from there yet at the same time it wasn't really thought through since it was always going to be just a interim vehicle.

FWIW, my understanding is that Shuttle dimensions, hence design compromises, were driven by the huge 'cargo bay' demands of the NRO-ish TLAs, who wanted to loft surveillance stuff with really, really big optics etc at short notice. By cruel irony, meeting that extravagant specification delayed Shuttle so much the TLAs perforce went back to 'expendables'...

Actually the NRO (being super-secret at the time) wasn't directly contacted but as the 'face' organization for it the Air Force was and they essentially said "ya, whatever" to NASA's request for a large cargo bay and delta wings for cross range. The Air Force had no intention on actually using the Shuttle so they agreed to support NASA's requirement for a large cargo bay, (for Space Station modules) and agreed to the cross-range requirements that required the delta wings NASA wanted as well.

Several histories of the Shuttle point out that after this became known the head of the NRO (who was actually an Under-Secretary of the Air Force) asked for and met with NASA representatives and told them the Air Force "requirements" were possibly over-emphasized and that the "Intelligence payloads" likely didn't need that big a bay. Since NASA was the actual originator of the 'requirements' they ignored this in favor of the design they wanted. (Again he's "only" an Under-Secretary after all )

It was actually pretty clear from the start to the NRO, ("intelligence" after all ) that the Shuttle was never going to have the flight rate or the accessibility being promised so they never fully committed to the Shuttle. The Air Force on the other hand once MOL and Blue Gemini was canceled, ended up embracing the Shuttle but were more aimed at getting their own orbiters and systems hence the planot build a West Coast Shuttle facility and the 'switch' of Air Force space assets to be Shuttle compatible. The NRO on the other hand pretty much designed everything to either fly on the Shuttle or (they felt more likely) an expendable.

Randy

Not totally true. The NRO needed the length (See HEXAGON) and NASA needed the diameter (See ISS and Shuttle Centaur).

 

[Byeman]

Back when I first read of the Gemini variant with hatch through heatshield, my reaction was, quite reasonably, 'WTF ??'

The Shuttle orbiter had 5 hatches on its belly for landing gear doors and ET attachment.

 

[Byeman]

1) Saturn 1 wasn't that expensive compared to Titan III and had it had a higher flight rate the costs would have come down. Keep in mind the Air Force 'accounting' for Titan III was VERY dicey considering how little commonality it actually had with the Titan missile. This was exposed when they built the Titan IV and couldn't 'massage' the accounting with "current missile" budgets.

2) Agree that Shuttle didn't kill Saturn but there was a 'choice' to be made and it was specifically a NASA goal to toss all the Apollo hardware in favor of a "new" system. NASA killed Saturn because it didn't do what they wanted and more specifically because Congress wasn't going to pay for any more Saturn V's which was actually the only "Saturn" they cared about.

2a) Starship isn't "killing" anything and it's questionable if it will actually become operational. The sad part is how many people simply dismiss the actual market and operational requirements and 'assume' that if Starship flies that somehow all policy and direction will suddenly change to use it. Not how it works.

2b) "Winged" (actually more accurately "lifting") vehicles are fine as you point out and in no danger of Starship surplanting them. Interestingly several die-hard Musk fans have come out in support of vehicles like Dreamchaser.

3) I suspect more to the point it's about not quite understanding why and how Energia, Gemini, Saturn et-al came about and why more than anything. There's a specific and general set of background "needs" and "requirements" that Saturn, the Shuttle (and Energia/Buran) and other launch vehicles have met that allowed them to come into operation. Starship has almost none of those, meets almost none of them and only has a billionaire funding source (that can lobby and cajole government money to since he can't in fact support it himself) that is willing to spend money on the concept no matter if it actually address' the actual needs or not. Anyone who does NOT see the Shuttle program parallels (only more private sector with less well thought out planning and less over-sight) just isn't looking.

4) "Starship" doesn't exist yet all we have is a very minimal prototype mold-line with none of the needed operational systems or even their mass simulators. So far it's proven it is a bad design that lacks several key features and is NOT reusable in operation.

5) "Won't see an Apollo project and funding again" which is a damn good thing! Apollo was a wonderful aberration but it arguably tainted NASA with ambitions far beyond what the nation could support or fund and has directly led to our 'stagnation' for the past decades. The timetable and goal of our "Apollo" (rather than the original "Apollo" program) could only be reached in an unsustainable and outrageously expensive manner that would broke no delays or side-tracks and left a "legacy" system that was really only good for doing that one specific thing and nothing else. We might have come back even so but that legacy also infected the culture and organization of NASA itself and that is something the agency has never recovered from despite several near attempts to do so.

It's far past time we moved on and actually built up a credible and sustainable space program that embraces the commercial as well as the government needs and builds both up step-by-step.

Randy

1. Saturn I didn't have the performance of Titan III. Viking and Voyager would have had to been done by Saturn IB Centaur. Titan III was much cheaper tha it.

2. Saturn I & IB were unsustainable also

 

[Archibald]

Back when I first read of the Gemini variant with hatch through heatshield, my reaction was, quite reasonably, 'WTF ??'

The Shuttle orbiter had 5 hatches on its belly for landing gear doors and ET attachment.

And the TKS-VA had a hatch through the heatshield, returned from orbit repeatedly, and worked fine.

 

[publiusr]

1) Saturn 1 wasn't that expensive compared to Titan III

1. Saturn I didn't have the performance of Titan III.

2. Saturn I & IB were unsustainable also

It was not unsustainable. The Titans ballooned in cost...the last missions rivaling SLS. The Saturns also could have evolved with solids and Centaurs. It never had a chance to be sustained.

 

[Byeman]

1) Saturn 1 wasn't that expensive compared to Titan III

1. Saturn I didn't have the performance of Titan III.

2. Saturn I & IB were unsustainable also

It was not unsustainable. The Titans ballooned in cost...the last missions rivaling SLS. The Saturns also could have evolved with solids and Centaurs. It never had a chance to be sustained.

Wrong. The discussion does not include Titan IV. Titan IV was to be temporary program that was expanded to a replacement for the shuttle. It was not designed for operation-ability but for lift capability. Titan III was from 1965 to1989. Saturn IB would not cost effective during that timeframe and flight rates. Titan III with solids flew from both coasts and also had a no solid version. This spread the sustaining costs across multiple programs, something Saturn IB would be able to do.

Also, Titan IV costs were still far from close to what SLS costs are.

 

[Archibald]

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/titan-3_bo.htm

84 flights vs 10 & 9 for Saturn I & IB.

 

[Michel Van]

The Titan IIIC was cheaper as Saturn IB in launch cost in 1960s
During 1970s the Titan III family was main launcher for USAF
and mass produced the Rocket, like wise it's Fuel Aerozin50/nitrogen tetroxide in large quantity to reduce cost.
But in 1980s things change, Shuttle and other rocket launch smaller payload thank new Technology.
Also the ICBM Titan II were refurbish to Sat launch letting reduction in production, the prise rise...
The 1990 was the swansong of Titan III/IV, obsolete production method, reduce production numbers,
make the rocket more and more expensive, special the production of toxic Aerozin50
in mean time EELV program was underway for "cheaper" Launcher Delta 4 and Atlas 5.

 

[Byeman]

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/titan-3_bo.htm

84 flights vs 10 & 9 for Saturn I & IB.

Or 49 vs 0 for mid 1975 and on. NASA used 6 of them.

Plus Saturn IB would not have been able to support the 2-3 week launch intervals for Viking and Voyager.

 

[publiusr]

That didn't have to be the case. Medaris wrote all about what York and others did to sabotage things behind the scenes.

 

[Byeman]

That didn't have to be the case. Medaris wrote all about what York and others did to sabotage things behind the scenes.

Medaris was clueless about what was really going on and those are only his opinions and not reality.
Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, Polaris, Thor, SLAM, etc. He wasn't in on CORONA or any recon sats. We are better off that ABMA was relegated to bench. There would be no Saturn V.

 

[publiusr]

ABMA was a threat to the pilot's union-USAF couldn't stand it. Now Space Force is here. Medaris has been avenged.

 

[TimothyC]

Plus Saturn IB would not have been able to support the 2-3 week launch intervals for Viking and Voyager.

While the ground hardware as built would be hard pressed support such a rapid turn-around, if NASA had constructed a second milk stool on ML-2 or ML-3, there would have been the ability to launch two Saturn IB rockets inside of the windows. Even if a presumption is made that the Pads and not Mobile Launchers are a limiting factor, the gap between launches of STS-51-D and STS-51-B was 17 days and 4 hours, and this was with the pad being blasted by large solids that Saturn IB didn't have. Fundamentally, if NASA wanted to be able to have Saturn as the lifter in the second half of 1970s, there is no reason to presume that it would not have been able to perform the mission, provided some minor changes to the infrastructure that existed at lower cost than the changes that were made to support the Space shuttle. If west-coast facilities are limiting factor, there is plenty of space at VAFB to build a pad on the scale of LC-37, as is demonstrated by the three options available for new Titan IV pads in the late 1980s (conversion of the existing SLC-4 was selected over either a new pad, or a conversion of the then-shuttle-configured SLC-6).

 

[publiusr]

Saturn IB would have been better for Big Gemini and MOL both. It, the solid-equipped Titans and Falcon Nine had similar capabilities-yet it would look as if Saturn IB would be the one to lend itself to have landing legs between tanks. I can see it in my mind's eye atop SuperHeavy...

 

[Byeman]

ABMA was a threat to the pilot's union-USAF couldn't stand it. Now Space Force is here. Medaris has been avenged.

Wrong. Space Force is still part of the Air Force. Despite dealing with the fighter jocks, there was a cadre of "space cadets" within the Air Force in the 50's-80's. Most sacrificed promotion opportunities to stay within the space field. They successfully managed the space program better that the Army could.

Schriever was much better at the job than Medaris. He did more and had more responsibility.

 

[Byeman]

Plus Saturn IB would not have been able to support the 2-3 week launch intervals for Viking and Voyager.

While the ground hardware as built would be hard pressed support such a rapid turn-around, if NASA had constructed a second milk stool on ML-2 or ML-3, there would have been the ability to launch two Saturn IB rockets inside of the windows. Even if a presumption is made that the Pads and not Mobile Launchers are a limiting factor, the gap between launches of STS-51-D and STS-51-B was 17 days and 4 hours, and this was with the pad being blasted by large solids that Saturn IB didn't have. Fundamentally, if NASA wanted to be able to have Saturn as the lifter in the second half of 1970s, there is no reason to presume that it would not have been able to perform the mission, provided some minor changes to the infrastructure that existed at lower cost than the changes that were made to support the Space shuttle. If west-coast facilities are limiting factor, there is plenty of space at VAFB to build a pad on the scale of LC-37, as is demonstrated by the three options available for new Titan IV pads in the late 1980s (conversion of the existing SLC-4 was selected over either a new pad, or a conversion of the then-shuttle-configured SLC-6).

Shuttle costs have nothing to do with this matter. It is Titan vs Saturn.
Saturn costs were already higher as it was and adding another milk stool and keeping both pads operational were a non starters (and keeping the VAB in use). Just cheaper to add Centaur to Titan. A whole lot of MSFC, Chrysler and MDAC worker would have be employed vs using the same existing Martin and GD workers for Titan IIIE.

Again, a west coast Saturn pad would be a nonstarter when cheaper to upgrade an Atlas pad. Also, Titan didn't need a barge dock for stages.

 

[Byeman]

Saturn IB would have been better for Big Gemini and MOL both. It, the solid-equipped Titans and Falcon Nine had similar capabilities-yet it would look as if Saturn IB would be the one to lend itself to have landing legs between tanks. I can see it in my mind's eye atop SuperHeavy...

wrong.
a. MOL was designed around Titan and there was no west coast Saturn.
b. No, a Saturn Ib could not land regardless of legs.
C. There was no need for Big Gemini in the first place.
d. Your mind's eye needs corrective lens.

 

[publiusr]

Wrong. Space Force is still part of the Air Force. Despite dealing with the fighter jocks, there was a cadre of "space cadets" within the Air Force in the 50's-80's. Most sacrificed promotion opportunities to stay within the space field.

That’s very sad.

 

[Dew]

i found this picture on Flickr
sadly the person who uploaded it, not answer my question on Source of this picture

on first look it like Big Apollo capsule
but second look you notice the Gemini Doors and Life-support system of Gemini capsule.

can this be variation on Big G ?

View attachment 667275

Possibly - the manufacturer is McDonnell Douglas, and McDonnell was the Gemini manufacturer.

[Slide] shows the basic crew and cargo maneuvering modules. The vehicle is designed for nine to 10 men and 7 tons of cargo in low earth orbit or 8 tons to synchronous orbit. The synchronous capability is achieved simply by add-on propulsion tanks and engines. Furthermore, by elongating the cargo module, up to 31 tons of cargo can be placed in low earth orbit. The configuration is a hybrid Gemini/Apollo shape. The vehicle design is based on technology advancements over those available for Gemini and Apollo. In addition, it provides increased versatility and the ability to cope with a wide variety of missions.​

 

[Byeman]

Wrong. Space Force is still part of the Air Force. Despite dealing with the fighter jocks, there was a cadre of "space cadets" within the Air Force in the 50's-80's. Most sacrificed promotion opportunities to stay within the space field.

That’s very sad.

Not really. Most got great enjoyment out of their careers and were able to build on it for their post military careers. Air Force engineers were more employable than pilots.

 

[TimothyC]

Shuttle costs have nothing to do with this matter. It is Titan vs Saturn.
Saturn costs were already higher as it was and adding another milk stool and keeping both pads operational were a non starters (and keeping the VAB in use). Just cheaper to add Centaur to Titan. A whole lot of MSFC, Chrysler and MDAC worker would have be employed vs using the same existing Martin and GD workers for Titan IIIE.

Again, a west coast Saturn pad would be a nonstarter when cheaper to upgrade an Atlas pad. Also, Titan didn't need a barge dock for stages.

That wasn't your argument. Even given that, it still falls short, as even a low rate Saturn production is not substantively more expensive than Titan, and also avoids the stacking complexities added with the large solids.

Edit: I missed this when I made the initial post here, but you say "Keep both pads operational", which is explicitly what my note about STS-51-D and STS-51-B was about. Both of those shuttle launches, and in fact all of the shuttle launches prior to STS-51-L, took place from LC-39A.

 

[publiusr]

The fix was in.

 

[TimothyC]

It occurs to me that Byeman and I may have been talking past each other.

My point was as follows:

If NASA is sticking with Saturn (specifically Saturn IB) after the real-world end of the launch campaigns in 1975, then the cost for Saturn IBs, is not likely to have marginal flight costs much above that of Titan IIIE. Furthermore, the ground infrastructure of LC-39 (both A and B) is such that the flight rates needed to launch both Viking and Voyager spacecraft inside the designated launch windows is possible with the addition of a second Saturn IB configured ML (ie, a second milkstool).

Note: in an earlier post, I got which ML was configured with the milkstool wrong, because ML-1, which had the milkstool, became MLP-3, and ML-3, which never had the milkstool, was rebuilt into MLP-1. Given that the conversion of ML-3 to MLP-1 and the FSS on LC-39A happened between 1972 (with the launch of Apollo 17) and 1978 (images show a more or less clean LC-39A in 1976, construction in 1977, and by 1979 Enterprise is on MLP-1 and LC-39A for fit checks). Given this, a conversion of ML-2 to MLP-2 in preparation for the shuttle can be expected to take only 3-4 years. If we apply that to a reasonable shuttle requirement of a second MLP by 1982 (historically MLP-2 was first used in conjunction with LC-39A in 1983), then a dual-launch campaign for Voyager in 1977 seems reasonable.

To get to that state however, requires a point of divergence sometime in the late 1960s or early 1970s, with a commitment, by NASA, to maintain independent (ie Saturn, not Titan) launch capability in the 20 metric ton range. Getting that PoD is likely to drive other secondary effects that change the dynamics of the US Space program as the moon shots end, and result in a program that is widely dissimilar to the program we actually got.

 

[Archibald]

It occurs to me that Byeman and I may have been talking past each other.

My point was as follows:

If NASA is sticking with Saturn (specifically Saturn IB) after the real-world end of the launch campaigns in 1975, then the cost for Saturn IBs, is not likely to have marginal flight costs much above that of Titan IIIE. Furthermore, the ground infrastructure of LC-39 (both A and B) is such that the flight rates needed to launch both Viking and Voyager spacecraft inside the designated launch windows is possible with the addition of a second Saturn IB configured ML (ie, a second milkstool).

Note: in an earlier post, I got which ML was configured with the milkstool wrong, because ML-1, which had the milkstool, became MLP-3, and ML-3, which never had the milkstool, was rebuilt into MLP-1. Given that the conversion of ML-3 to MLP-1 and the FSS on LC-39A happened between 1972 (with the launch of Apollo 17) and 1978 (images show a more or less clean LC-39A in 1976, construction in 1977, and by 1979 Enterprise is on MLP-1 and LC-39A for fit checks). Given this, a conversion of ML-2 to MLP-2 in preparation for the shuttle can be expected to take only 3-4 years. If we apply that to a reasonable shuttle requirement of a second MLP by 1982 (historically MLP-2 was first used in conjunction with LC-39A in 1983), then a dual-launch campaign for Voyager in 1977 seems reasonable.

To get to that state however, requires a point of divergence sometime in the late 1960s or early 1970s, with a commitment, by NASA, to maintain independent (ie Saturn, not Titan) launch capability in the 20 metric ton range. Getting that PoD is likely to drive other secondary effects that change the dynamics of the US Space program as the moon shots end, and result in a program that is widely dissimilar to the program we actually got.

Maybe start by not cancelling Saturn IB Centaur late 1965 - or bring it back in 1968-69 for Viking, rather than putting Centaur on Titan ?

Cancellation of Saturn IB Centaur was related to Mars-Voyager brutal weight growth, this for an historical reason: Mariner 4 in July 1965 showing Mars atmosphere to be only 7 bar in pressure.
This send Mars-Voyager back to the drawing board... with a massive weight creep and a Saturn V launcher that was completely overkill - still better than Saturn IB Centaur that couldn't handle Voyager anymore.

Since Voyager was canned in the summer of 1967 and Viking started in its place the next year - why not a Saturn Centaur ? and the IB production line was NOT stopped back then, or barely.

Alternately: put a Centaur on top of some "late" Saturn IB (serials 211 to 216 had been ordered but were never used nor completed, Skylab even robing 212's S-IVB)

Saturn 209: Skylab rescue
Saturn 210: went to ASTP
------
Saturn 211: last complete and assembled, never flown.
Saturn 212: lost its S-IVB to a Skylab
-----
Saturn 213: first stage assembled, no S-IVB
Saturn 214: first stage assembled, no S-IVB
-----
Saturn 215: first stage not assembled, no S-IVB
Saturn 216: first stage not assembled, no S-IVB

So a whole bunch of Saturn IBs could have received a Centaur stage 3, even in 1968-69.

 

[Byeman]

It occurs to me that Byeman and I may have been talking past each other.

My point was as follows:

If NASA is sticking with Saturn (specifically Saturn IB) after the real-world end of the launch campaigns in 1975, then the cost for Saturn IBs, is not likely to have marginal flight costs much above that of Titan IIIE. Furthermore, the ground infrastructure of LC-39 (both A and B) is such that the flight rates needed to launch both Viking and Voyager spacecraft inside the designated launch windows is possible with the addition of a second Saturn IB configured ML (ie, a second milkstool).

The fix was in.

Again, unsupported biased belief. You see things that don't exist.

 

[Byeman]

It occurs to me that Byeman and I may have been talking past each other.

My point was as follows:

If NASA is sticking with Saturn (specifically Saturn IB) after the real-world end of the launch campaigns in 1975, then the cost for Saturn IBs, is not likely to have marginal flight costs much above that of Titan IIIE. Furthermore, the ground infrastructure of LC-39 (both A and B) is such that the flight rates needed to launch both Viking and Voyager spacecraft inside the designated launch windows is possible with the addition of a second Saturn IB configured ML (ie, a second milkstool).

My point is that the cost difference wasn't the hardware but the people (MSFC) and KSC facilities and infrastructure that made Saturn too expensive. Using LC-39 for 4 launches over 3 years (or 7 over 4) is very costly. Adding another milkstool, modding another highbay and adding Centaur to two MLs is much more costly than adding Centaur to LC-41 and two ML's. Titan could leverage savings by supporting 7 more launches from the same coast and 7 with solids from the west coast all paid for by another user. Launch team, VIB, SMAB and basic LC-41 sustainment was paid for by the USAF. NASA would be paying GD launch team regardless of booster. So NASA had to only pay for the Titan hardware and not the Titan people or facilities.

The solid "complexities" doesn't come into play since the people are paid for.

 

[publiusr]

Who said you had to have a milkstool? The cost of augmented Titan pads and a new build Saturn IB pad that didn't need to withstand solids points in Saturns favor. But let's say you are right about initial costs. I talked to a pick-up dealer who told me about a man who got the smallest vehicle on the lot...and added a bunch of options to it to make it into a service-utility deal...leaning over from a vice on the back. It didn't last. "Better to have too much truck than not enough." Saturn IB was the bigger truck-the Titan III a kludge. One last dig: if you go to www.spacelaunchreport.com/G38.html you see that an AF Thor-Able was put on pad 26 A...the Explorer I pad where an Army rocket put up the first American sat. As I said- the fix was in.

 

[Jemiba]

Folks, please, this thread is about the "Big Gemini", and I cannot help the feeling, that since quite a number of posts
here, this has been forgotten. So, please, back to the original topic, or there's no other way, than to clean up drastically.

 

[fightingirish]

https://flic.kr/p/2mKC6zr

View: https://flic.kr/p/2mKC6zr

 

[Byeman]

Who said you had to have a milkstool? The cost of augmented Titan pads and a new build Saturn IB pad that didn't need to withstand solids points in Saturns favor. But let's say you are right about initial costs. I talked to a pick-up dealer who told me about a man who got the smallest vehicle on the lot...and added a bunch of options to it to make it into a service-utility deal...leaning over from a vice on the back. It didn't last. "Better to have too much truck than not enough." Saturn IB was the bigger truck-the Titan III a kludge. One last dig: if you go to www.spacelaunchreport.com/G38.html you see that an AF Thor-Able was put on pad 26 A...the Explorer I pad where an Army rocket put up the first American sat. As I said- the fix was in.

Sorry, can't let misinformation go unchallenged

a. A Saturn IB needs a milkstool to be launched on LC-39. LC-34 and 37 were decommissioned and stripped of hardware.
b. There was no cost of "augmented" Titan pads. They already existed.
c. Titan III wasn't the smallest vehicle on the lot. It was one largest and pre-existing. It wasn't adding a "bunch of options"; it was just like the Saturn IB, just the Centaur needed to be added.
d. No "fix". Just a matter of logistics. 26A only supported 4 Redstone and 3 Jupiter launches before being modified by the Army for Jupiter CTL launches. This meant the MST couldn't be be moved to 26A, so the site was changed to a museum, they set up 26B with a Redstone and the MST. They just stuck a Thor Able over on what remained of 26A because it could support a vertical rocket (most of the rest were lying on their sides), which brought some symmetry to the displays.

Just stop with these clueless posts.