"Eclipse", Gemini reloaded

[carmelo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Lxuv5PMDM1Q

http://fundfeed.com/project/68586

https://www.facebook.com/SpaceOperations?hc_location=timeline

 

[carmelo]

Re: "Eclipse",Gemine reloaded

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

SPACECRAFT:
With funding, SpaceOps will be able to build and certify, a 2-seat orbital spacecraft much faster (9-13 months) than other companies. The reason for this is that the new ECLIPSE spacecraft is based on the highly successful and reliable Gemini, designed by NASA. Conversion of the original blueprints into the CAD format has already been completed. Although the basic structure will remain essentially unchanged, all other systems will be upgraded to the latest technology. (eg. GPS) The ECLIPSE will also have the capability to carry up to 10,000lb. of cargo. The design also allows "spacewalks" so that useful work may be done while in orbit. There are at least two U.S. manufactured rocket boosters that are able to launch the ECLIPSE into orbit. We propose to use the spaceX Falcon 9.

Are serious?

 

[blackstar]

Are serious?

Do you mean: "Do they really want to do this?"

To that, the answer is: "Apparently yes."

But if you mean: "Are they a real group that has a chance of making this work?"

To that, the answer is: "No. They are a joke."

 

[archipeppe]

Re: "Eclipse",Gemine reloaded

Are serious?

No.


I'm Gemini fan (big fan), but I cannot take seriously such kind of initiative.


In my opinion is only a "boutade" nothing more, nothing less....

 

[Michel Van]

i posted this project all several years ago (2008?) in this forum....

 

[OM]

i posted this project all several years ago (2008?) in this forum....

...Yeah, I thought so. Wasn't long after I got "Stumpy", but as usual the "search" engine for this place couldn't find the thread. Still, all of Dwayne's impressions of Jules Bergman's "doom-n-gloom" aside, this still raises the question that was unanswered even then: since there's nothing remaining of Gemini that's classified - "Gemini" as in "what wasn't part of MOL" - what sort of intellectual property rights are in place that would prevent someone from handcrafting the basic Gemini infrastructure, replacing the cockpit with updated/glass controls, and using that as the basis for returning *some* capability of getting at least two people back into orbit if such a reason was necessary and neither the Russians nor SpaceX were available?


...Say what you want, Gemini *worked*. The concept was sound, and had room for expansion - just look at the Equipment Module and how little of it was actually used - and we're just talking the basic "Gusmobile" too. Ignore Rogallo Gemini, Gemini B, Blue Gemini, Big Gemini, Lunar Gemini, Gemini Tug/Ferry, Flat Bottom Boat Gemini, and even MOL, the fact remains that save for one stuck thruster Gemini was a successful design. Aside from funding, what *seriously* stands in the way of reviving the design using modern improvements?

 

[patron_zero]

My only contribution to to this discussion is that American astronauts are currently hitching a ride in Cold War-era Soviet spacecraft to reach the International Space Station so why not support a homegrown alternative ?

 

[cluttonfred]

A ***conceptual*** update to Gemini makes a lot of sense, i.e. a simple and multipurpose manned spacecraft, but I can't see actually trying to rehabilitate a 50-year-old design.

 

[Byeman]

This design fails on many counts, It is not multipurpose, it is a one trick pony. It can only go to and from space. It can not dock with the ISS nor can it transfer astronauts to it without an EVA. The design precludes having a docking tunnel. It is small and cramped spacecraft. It has large hatches that carry an increased risk of problems. It used ejection seats for aborts, which were never proven in flight nor are viable with current launch vehicles.

 

[blackstar]

This design fails on many counts, It is not multipurpose, it is a one trick pony. It can only go to and from space. It can not dock with the ISS nor can it transfer astronauts to it without an EVA. The design precludes having a docking tunnel. It is small and cramped spacecraft. It has large hatches that carry an increased risk of problems. It used ejection seats for aborts, which were never proven in flight nor are viable with current launch vehicles.

It's amusing to imagine the pitch meeting to NASA:

NASA: So where does your spacecraft dock with the ISS?
SpaceOps: Well, you see, we've added this docking ring right here...
NASA: A third hatch?
SpaceOps: Er, yeah. Why?
NASA: Hatches increase mass. They also are risky. Any big hole cut in a spacecraft is risky. It can leak. It can fail. And you have three of them!
SpaceOps: Okay.
NASA: So how does it dock?
SpaceOps: Well, it backs up.
NASA: Backs up?
SpaceOps: Yeah!
NASA: So the astronauts are looking forward, but they are going to fly backward to dock?
SpaceOps: Well, now that you put it that way...
NASA: Thank you. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[OM]

NASA: Hatches increase mass. They also are risky. Any big hole cut in a spacecraft is risky. It can leak. It can fail. And you have three of them!SpaceOps: Okay.

...More likely:


SpaceOps: Uh...lessee, you guys took the Gemini 2 spacecraft, cut a big hole in it's heat shield, added a hatch, and *it* survived reentry as designed. Right?


[pregnant pause]


NASA: ...Okay, we'll concede that point.

 

[carmelo]

The only thing sensible could be a update version of Big Gemini.
With new technology,the crew cabin could be more spacious,the mission module could be a little airlock for EVA,and the vehicle could be return with a paraglider.
I think that could be better that Soyuz or Shenzou,and better of Dragon and CST-100.

 

[Byeman]

NASA: Hatches increase mass. They also are risky. Any big hole cut in a spacecraft is risky. It can leak. It can fail. And you have three of them!SpaceOps: Okay.

...More likely:


SpaceOps: Uh...lessee, you guys took the Gemini 2 spacecraft, cut a big hole in it's heat shield, added a hatch, and *it* survived reentry as designed. Right?

Wrong
1. NASA did nothing of the sort. it was the USAF.
2. it is irrevelant, that hatch would be of no use to Eclipse.

 

[Byeman]

better of Dragon and CST-100.

That is far from the truth. it would be more costly and require a larger launch vehicle.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It's amusing to imagine the pitch meeting to NASA:

NASA: So where does your spacecraft dock with the ISS?
SpaceOps: Well, you see, we've added this docking ring right here...
NASA: A third hatch?

It could be a *first* and *only* hatch. A heat-shield hatch could suffice to get the crew in and out of the capsule on the ground, though that would obviously be pretty clumsy. Get rid of the ejection seats, get rid of the individual doors. Gut the interior; replace instruments with a fricken Ipad or Google Glass. You'd still back up to whatever you're docking with, but since that might be largely or even entirely automatic, with any crew input being done via cameras rather than looking out a window, backing up hardly matters.

By the end it wouldn't really be a Gemini anymore, but what the heck...

 

[RanulfC]

The main point is the "Gus-Mobile" wasn't really optimized for anything more than it was originally designed to do: Get two men into Earth orbit and back again.

"Rebuilding" the Gemini has been discussed a number of times on the Internet:
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=businesstech&Number=68932&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=
http://xprizenews.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=798
http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=36140

The consensus was and still is to make it a "viable" personnel transfer vehicle you have to totally rebuild it and what you end up with is NOT the Gemini capsule!

Anyone know of a "personnel" list for SpaceOps? I'm wondering if anyone from the various threads is involved

Randy

 

[OM]

It's amusing to imagine the pitch meeting to NASA:

NASA: So where does your spacecraft dock with the ISS?
SpaceOps: Well, you see, we've added this docking ring right here...
NASA: A third hatch?

It could be a *first* and *only* hatch. A heat-shield hatch could suffice to get the crew in and out of the capsule on the ground, though that would obviously be pretty clumsy. Get rid of the ejection seats, get rid of the individual doors. Gut the interior; replace instruments with a fricken Ipad or Google Glass. You'd still back up to whatever you're docking with, but since that might be largely or even entirely automatic, with any crew input being done via cameras rather than looking out a window, backing up hardly matters.

By the end it wouldn't really be a Gemini anymore, but what the heck...

...In order:


1) My points exactly. Too bad "byeman" didn't comprehend them. :


2) I cede that point to you, Scott. However, the knowledge gained from Gemini's design could still be used to build a "Gemini Mark II" that could at the very least match a Soyuz in suited crew exchange as well as bulkcargo transfer. Consider it the same sort of evolutionary path that the original VW Bug took to its relaunch a few years ago - still the same shape, but overall a superior vehicle to its ancestors.


[thinks]


...Otay, perhaps you can't patch together the new Bugs with duct tape and bailing wire and have a reasonable expectation of the repair lasting until the next two paychecks and the rent are taken care of, but you see the point, right?

 

[Byeman]

2) I cede that point to you, Scott. However, the knowledge gained from Gemini's design could still be used to build a "Gemini Mark II" that could at the very least match a Soyuz in suited crew exchange as well as bulkcargo transfer. Consider it the same sort of evolutionary path that the original VW Bug took to its relaunch a few years ago - still the same shape, but overall a superior vehicle to its ancestors.

Not really. I doubt Scott's mods on the hatch and entry are viable. The hatch on MOL was only used in zero g and not on the ground. Also, it didn't take a 90 degree turn and go outside the adapter.

 

[RanulfC]

I doubt Scott's mods on the hatch and entry are viable. The hatch on MOL was only used in zero g and not on the ground. Also, it didn't take a 90 degree turn and go outside the adapter.

Uhm, Byeman I think you missed a few points. The hatch was installed and tested on the ground (in 1g) it was tested for entry (not suited just a tech going in closing it and then exiting IIRC) and egress. The whole point was to test a "hatch-in-the-heat-sheild" that had been opened and closed at least once to see if it worked or failed. Since they couldn't do that on-orbit it was done on the ground prior to launch. (Actually prior to stacking but that would probably be a bit of "nit" I suppose)

And what "didnt' take a 90 degree turn and go outside the adapter?"

As to NASA having a problem with hatches they don't have any room to talk you realize? Recall that the Apollo CM had 3? No? Entry/Egress, Docking and Urine Now dock with the LM and you have FIVE hatches that must "seal" and have mass accounted for. Skylab? At least 5 all by itself but I seem to recall one near the ATM, so maybe more. Dock a CM with and your hatch count went up by 3. Apollo-Soyuz? Five also, BEFORE docking. Soyuz? Three. And so on.

The major issues are NOT how many hatches it has, the fact that it has to "back-up" to the station, (Dreamchaser is planned to do this also but it really doesn't matter because in each case FINAL docking will be done with the remote arm) or such things but the "fact" it won't be "Gemini" and the amount of "work-and-money" that can be saved by modernizing the original design AND increasing its capability to match the needs will be minimum if any.

Eclipse's biggest problem is that they simply have started far to late in an already very narrow field and their overall concept is seriously lacking in the face of the competition. Had they come up with all and pitched it 10 years ago it might have gotten somewhere but now it's just to little, far to late to be considered.

Randy

 

[OM]

Not really. I doubt Scott's mods on the hatch and entry are viable. The hatch on MOL was only used in zero g and not on the ground. Also, it didn't take a 90 degree turn and go outside the adapter.

...Just curious. In your usual zeal to slap down pretty much any expressed beliefs and appreciations for various "secret and/or unflown projects", did you even bother to check your facts on the rear hatch tests? Or the Gemini to MOL tests that were done in the NBL? Or even looked at the ergonomics involved in modifying the internal arrangement of the Gemini cockpit to accommodate both the hatch and the need to move about a bit in the cabin? Or were even aware of why there was a special in situ tests of a lighter, more flexible Gemini suit for use aboard MOL?


[shakes head in mild but expected dismay]

 

[Michel Van]

so far i know, test were made with Gemini space suit, the X-20 suit and Litton RX-3 Hardsuit
made on ground, under water or in Aircraft (simulate zero gravity)
RX-3 were unable to turn and move in Gemini to reach the rear hatch. :
original was planed to use Gemini Spacesuits, but in end USAF order new space suit: the Hamilton MH-8.

one reason was the need that MOL Pilot has dress him self into the suit.
means the zipper muss be on chest site not on back like the Gemini suit.

 

[Byeman]

Not really. I doubt Scott's mods on the hatch and entry are viable. The hatch on MOL was only used in zero g and not on the ground. Also, it didn't take a 90 degree turn and go outside the adapter.

...Just curious. In your usual zeal to slap down pretty much any expressed beliefs and appreciations for various "secret and/or unflown projects", did you even bother to check your facts on the rear hatch tests? Or the Gemini to MOL tests that were done in the NBL? Or even looked at the ergonomics involved in modifying the internal arrangement of the Gemini cockpit to accommodate both the hatch and the need to move about a bit in the cabin? Or were even aware of why there was a special in situ tests of a lighter, more flexible Gemini suit for use aboard MOL?


[shakes head in mild but expected dismay]

I thought I heard something rattling on this site, now I know the source.
Of course, I checked my facts. That is why they are indeed facts. NBL tests would do nothing for entry while on the ground, much less exiting in during a pad emergency. A ladder would be required. Also, a heat shield hatch would work wonders for exiting the craft while bobbing in the ocean.

And also the rear hatch would have a major impact on the arrangement of systems in the adapter, not to mention the cg.

 

[RanulfC]

I thought I heard something rattling on this site, now I know the source.
Of course, I checked my facts. That is why they are indeed facts. NBL tests would do nothing for entry while on the ground, much less exiting in during a pad emergency. A ladder would be required. Also, a heat shield hatch would work wonders for exiting the craft while bobbing in the ocean.

And also the rear hatch would have a major impact on the arrangement of systems in the adapter, not to mention the cg.

Okay, this is getting a bit ridiculous as well as too personal. Byeman, if you checked your facts then you know testing was done on the ground (in 1G) as well as NBL etc, the heat-shield hatch wasn't meant to every be used in the water, (probably could have been used at some point since the Gemini crew was recovered with the capsule in a horizontal position) the considerations had already been made and studied for getting through the adapter and were not seen as an issue, neither was the CG effect. The cabin was going to be redesigned/rearranged around the needs of the crew to move around inside to take advantage of the hatch, etc...
(Part of this was also going to make the over-seat hatches permentatly sealed as well)

The proposal wasn't just thrown out there and a cutting torch taken to the capsule. They actually DID study and test to see if this would work and it did.

Further the entire heat shield was removed and replaced by a light weight pass-through bulkhead for the "Big-G" designs and the heat shield moved to the bottom of what would have originally been the Adapter section. The idea at the time was having THAT heat shield with a hatch in it to the connect to the "docking" segment of the vehicle.

Ladder? Why you'd think we'd never buit one of those before...

Considering the whole "Eclipse" concept is more similar to the Big-G designs than the vanilla Gemini capsule I highly suspect that the entire "capsule" section would actually be permantly joined to the Orbital section and would exclude the "capsule" entery doors. Given the dimensions and capacity of the original Gemini capsule there really wasn't any room (or need) to add another hatch. The capsule hatches served for entry and egress and emergency escape (ejection seats) but had there been enough "reason" and need (aka Air Force needs) then their utility becomes very limited and another method has to be (and was) found. Once the Gemini capsule is equipped with some sort of LAS system then the ejection seats become redundent and an un-needed system. Remove the ejection seats and you free up extra space to move inside the capsule. One of the biggest issues with "Blue Gemini" was the amount of storage they had in the return capsule. By attaching the (and redesigning) the Orbital and Adapter sections to the capsule "Blue" would probably have eventually evolved into "Big" for that reason alone had BG and MOL gone ahead.

Randy

 

[Byeman]

Okay, this is getting a bit ridiculous as well as too personal. Byeman, if you checked your facts then you know testing was done on the ground (in 1G) as well as NBL etc, the heat-shield hatch wasn't meant to every be used in the water, (probably could have been used at some point since the Gemini crew was recovered with the capsule in a horizontal position) the considerations had already been made and studied for getting through the adapter and were not seen as an issue, neither was the CG effect. The cabin was going to be redesigned/rearranged around the needs of the crew to move around inside to take advantage of the hatch, etc...
(Part of this was also going to make the over-seat hatches permentatly sealed as well)

The proposal wasn't just thrown out there and a cutting torch taken to the capsule. They actually DID study and test to see if this would work and it did.

Further the entire heat shield was removed and replaced by a light weight pass-through bulkhead for the "Big-G" designs and the heat shield moved to the bottom of what would have originally been the Adapter section. The idea at the time was having THAT heat shield with a hatch in it to the connect to the "docking" segment of the vehicle.

Ladder? Why you'd think we'd never buit one of those before...

What is ridiculous is thinking that it is feasible. Also, I never said the MOL hatch wouldn't work for MOL. The MOL analogy for Eclipse is not applicable. The MOL hatch was never intended for use on the ground. It was only for IVA transfer in zero g. The 1-g testing for it was done horizontally, and not vertically which would be needed for Eclipse. As a sole hatch for Eclipse, it would have to be used in the water and hence its non viability due to water intrusion. And no, the MOL Gemini hatches were not going to be permenently sealed, MOL was going to have the ejection seats.

As for a rear hatch on Eclipse, the tunnel would require a 90 turn and a hatch on the adapter to allow the crew to enter. That is where a ladder, CG effects, system rearrangement and the tunnel weight add up to make rear hatch a non starter for Eclipse.

 

[carmelo]

Once the Gemini capsule is equipped with some sort of LAS system then the ejection seats become redundent and an un-needed system. Remove the ejection seats and you free up extra space to move inside the capsule.

How much,with 2013 technology,can be miniaturized cabin systems and cockpit to save space?

 

[blackstar]

Have you seen the inside of a Gemini capsule? Have you seen the outside? There's not much space even if it is completely empty. It's a tiny vehicle.

 

[OM]

Okay, this is getting a bit ridiculous as well as too personal.

...Agreed. Not to turn this into a flamefest, but Byeman's had a chip on his shoulder regarding me since I first showed up here. Never have understood just -why-, but on the other hand I've seen the same sort of "will not suffer unto fools" attitude on other threads. The advice just given me in PM is to ignore the chip and continue on with the thread, as it's not worth giving yourself a headache over it. If he wants to troll me, fine. Just don't get yourself caught in the fallout


"We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in a total state of disarray..."

[/size]

And no, the MOL Gemini hatches were not going to be permanently (sinc) sealed, MOL was going to have the ejection seats.

...Had it remained on the Titan III. The Saturn I proposals would have seen the ejector seats scrapped and an escape tower mounted instead.


...That being said, there's one thing I'm not seeing, is where you're coming up with this 90deg turn issue? Care to diagram out where this takes place? I'll accept stick figures if necessary. ;D

 

[Byeman]

...That being said, there's one thing I'm not seeing, is where you're coming up with this 90deg turn issue? Care to diagram out where this takes place? I'll accept stick figures if necessary. ;D

If the standard Gemini hatches are permanently "sealed" and access to the cabin is from a hatch in the heat shield, then there has to access to this "path way" to the outer skin line of the vehicle.

______
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
---------l l--------
l l l l
l l l_____ l
l l
l l__________
l l
l l

 

[Michel Van]

note this McDonnell design for Advance Gemini Mission

there also the Gemini Ferry for MORL with Hatch true Heat shield.

 

[OM]

...That being said, there's one thing I'm not seeing, is where you're coming up with this 90deg turn issue? Care to diagram out where this takes place? I'll accept stick figures if necessary. ;D

If the standard Gemini hatches are permanently "sealed" and access to the cabin is from a hatch in the heat shield, then there has to access to this "path way" to the outer skin line of the vehicle.

______
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
---------l l--------
l l l l
l l l_____ l
l l
l l__________
l l
l l

...Michael's reply and attached image pretty much sums up the rebuttal I was going to make. That being said, on the subject of "prettie pichurz", I will confess I still have a large amount of fondness for old ASCII/ANSI artwork. Your argument may be a bit flawed, but you gain a few respect points for that ASCII diagram. Good job, sir!

 

[Byeman]

...That being said, there's one thing I'm not seeing, is where you're coming up with this 90deg turn issue? Care to diagram out where this takes place? I'll accept stick figures if necessary. ;D

If the standard Gemini hatches are permanently "sealed" and access to the cabin is from a hatch in the heat shield, then there has to access to this "path way" to the outer skin line of the vehicle.

______
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
---------l l--------
l l l l
l l l_____ l
l l
l l__________
l l
l l

...Michael's reply and attached image pretty much sums up the rebuttal I was going to make. That being said, on the subject of "prettie pichurz", I will confess I still have a large amount of fondness for old ASCII/ANSI artwork. Your argument may be a bit flawed, but you gain a few respect points for that ASCII diagram. Good job, sir!

My argument still stands. The supplied picture is only a tunnel to access the telescope and not to enter the cabin. There is no hatch in the adapter to enter the tunnel. The crew member still enters the capsule through the standard Gemini hatch. Even with the tunnel along the outer moldline of the adapter, the hatch is 90 degrees (or so) from the tunnel axis and there has to be room for the crew to make the turn from the side to up the tunnel and not to mention ingress aids (such as ladders, hand holds, some which have to extend into the capsule) Also, unless the side hatch is right below the heat shield, a platform will be needed in the tunnel to access the heat shield hatch and to support cabin close out crew.

 

[Michel Van]

Ok Byeman your right, i show wrong example.


here the right one, from 1963 gemini ferry study for MORL.
With the Aft docking system.

 

[luke strawwalker]

IIRC, I read that on the test flight of the Gemini with the heat shield hatch, that the hatch essentially was welded shut by the extreme heat of reentry-- the heat shield material itself had welded itself together, that is, not the actual metallic pressure hatch, but since it was attached to the "plug" of heat shield material on the backside of it which DID weld itself to the surrounding heat shield material, it doesn't make much difference.

What's important is that IF you were relying solely on the heat shield hatch for entry/egress, then there is NO way for the crew to leave the capsule after reentry until the capsule is recovered and the hatches are "cut apart" so that the inner metallic pressure hatch can be opened... the exterior heat shielding material would have welded itself solid and would have to be "cut away" for the crew to egress the capsule.

Seems more than enough reason to say it's a non-starter to me... just from a safety standpoint... capsule lands in the water, has say a stuck pressure equalization valve, or it pops open and cannot be closed, or the capsule lands hard and the pressure vessel is "breached" somehow, allowing water in... capsule eventually floods and sinks, taking the crew with it, since they couldn't remove the hatch to get out...

Later! OL JR

 

[Orionblamblam]

exterior heat shielding material would have welded itself solid and would have to be "cut away" for the crew to egress the capsule.

Only if the capsule designers were pretty dimwitted. You'd have to be pretty stupid to use an ablative heat shield around a hatch that needs to open after entry... so you'd use any of a number of other options. Shuttle-like silica tiles, for instance. Active cooling with water/steam. Refractory metal shielding. An inflatable heat shield. All these of course drive the design further from Gemini, but they all negate the notion that an undersie hatch is unworkable. The shuttle, of course, had five sizable hatches on the underside... landing gear doors which were closed on the ground, and ET attachment/umbilical hatches that close in space.

And even then an ablative shield does not negate the possibility of an underside hatch. Look at Mercury: after entry and before splashown, the shield came *off.* Clumsy as hell, but a heat shield that is, say, hinged to allow ingress and egress is at least possible.