Author Topic: Big Gemini  (Read 37601 times)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 585
Re: Big Gemini
« Reply #120 on: 04/11/2017 11:37 AM »
I wonder about MDD Gemini worforce to be retained for Gemini B - all the way from 1966 (last NASA Gemini)  to 1970 ? wouldn't that be a problem ?

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10956
  • Liked: 2436
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Big Gemini
« Reply #121 on: 04/11/2017 01:21 PM »
I wonder about MDD Gemini worforce to be retained for Gemini B - all the way from 1966 (last NASA Gemini)  to 1970 ? wouldn't that be a problem ?

I wondered about that too.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 585
Re: Big Gemini
« Reply #122 on: 04/11/2017 04:47 PM »
What would have made sense (IMHO) would be to build four or six Gemini B in 1967-68 before MDD wound down Gemini - and then put them into storage while the rest of MOL gets funded and build, up to 1970 or beyond.
 But military procurement doesn't always make sense, otherwise the F-35 would never exist in the first place   :P
« Last Edit: 04/11/2017 04:49 PM by Archibald »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10956
  • Liked: 2436
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Big Gemini
« Reply #123 on: 04/11/2017 05:01 PM »
What would have made sense (IMHO) would be to build four or six Gemini B in 1967-68 before MDD wound down Gemini - and then put them into storage while the rest of MOL gets funded and build, up to 1970 or beyond.
 But military procurement doesn't always make sense, otherwise the F-35 would never exist in the first place   :P


I don't know if putting them in storage would have been the right solution--things age in storage and have to be re-certified for flight. However, it might have made sense to make some of the long-lead and major components and then hold off on integration.

I don't know exactly what was going on with procurement. Ideally, you want all of the major components getting finished around the same time so that they can be integrated together. You don't want something finished and then sitting around for years. But MOL's launch date kept slipping. Did they slip the start date for constructing the Gemini's as well? Although the Gemini-B had some changes compared to the Gemini, it was the closest to an off-the-shelf piece of equipment that MOL had. Not much new design needed. Perhaps that allowed the start date to float, based upon the contractor's belief that the Gemini was an easy build and already well-known. Maybe the plan was not to start construction until the other major components--which were all unique--were well along to completion.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2017 05:36 PM by Blackstar »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Big Gemini
« Reply #124 on: 04/11/2017 06:36 PM »
What would have made sense (IMHO) would be to build four or six Gemini B in 1967-68 before MDD wound down Gemini - and then put them into storage while the rest of MOL gets funded and build,
Not technically feasible and doesn't make sense.  The actual design of MOL was not ready. 

The Gemini program was already winding down before 1967.  The spacecraft production would have ended in early 1966 and designer long gone before then. The hull was the same but the insides were different.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2017 06:37 PM by Jim »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10956
  • Liked: 2436
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Big Gemini
« Reply #125 on: 09/05/2017 12:04 AM »
Just this evening I wondered about the archives where I found the Big Gemini materials that I cited above (see the photos). I wondered if they had any problems during the hurricane. Turns out they are okay:

https://mcgovernhrc.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/mcgovern-historical-center-closed/

But this highlights one of the risks of archival collections--they can be destroyed. I was able to photocopy a few dozen pages of the ~1500 pages of the Big Gemini report. If the archives had been flooded, I might have ended up with the only remaining copy. And LOTS of other materials, including NASA materials and Texas medical history documents, would have been lost.


Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 260
  • USA
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Big Gemini
« Reply #126 on: 09/05/2017 01:50 AM »
But this highlights one of the risks of archival collections--they can be destroyed. I was able to photocopy a few dozen pages of the ~1500 pages of the Big Gemini report. If the archives had been flooded, I might have ended up with the only remaining copy. And LOTS of other materials, including NASA materials and Texas medical history documents, would have been lost.

Somebody ought to set up a crowdfunding project for this. This stuff needs to be digitized, but institutions rarely have much interest in doing so, and its way too expensive (if nothing else, cost of renting scanner time on-site) for individuals to make much impact

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1520
  • Likes Given: 2687
Re: Big Gemini
« Reply #127 on: 09/05/2017 02:46 PM »
But this highlights one of the risks of archival collections--they can be destroyed. I was able to photocopy a few dozen pages of the ~1500 pages of the Big Gemini report. If the archives had been flooded, I might have ended up with the only remaining copy. And LOTS of other materials, including NASA materials and Texas medical history documents, would have been lost.

Somebody ought to set up a crowdfunding project for this. This stuff needs to be digitized, but institutions rarely have much interest in doing so, and its way too expensive (if nothing else, cost of renting scanner time on-site) for individuals to make much impact

Digitizing is a great idea, but on the other hand, I can picture aerospace historians 50 years from now desperately trying to find a working CD reader to try and recover, and translate into their new-current formats, all of the documents you've gone to such trouble to digitize... :(
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 260
  • USA
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Big Gemini
« Reply #128 on: 09/05/2017 05:28 PM »
Well, CDs have already been obsolete for over a decade, so probably not.

For storage in general, its trivial to just keep copying to new hardware, and would be necessary for any preservation anyway (since most media degrades within a couple decades at best). And the formats the data itself are stored in are usually easily replicated, even in the unlikely event they aren't still the standard at the time (for images for example, theres really no gain to be had beyond current formats). I trust that a lot more than a couple paper copies in an unsecured library

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10956
  • Liked: 2436
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Big Gemini
« Reply #129 on: 09/05/2017 08:59 PM »
Well, CDs have already been obsolete for over a decade, so probably not.

For storage in general, its trivial to just keep copying to new hardware, and would be necessary for any preservation anyway (since most media degrades within a couple decades at best). And the formats the data itself are stored in are usually easily replicated, even in the unlikely event they aren't still the standard at the time (for images for example, theres really no gain to be had beyond current formats). I trust that a lot more than a couple paper copies in an unsecured library

Paper, when properly stored, will easily last 100+ years. I was looking at paper copies from 1967 (everybody can do the math on that) and there was no fading. Also, you don't really need to keep upgrading the hardware to read paper, other than buying reading glasses.


Tags: