As long as we're on the topic of Big Gemini, it's worth pointing out the "Advanced Gemini" concepts and the "Lunar Gemini" evolved concepts for NSF members who may not know of those paper programs. My opinion is that pre-Apollo Lunar Gemini was taken more seriously than post-Apollo Big Gemini by NASA.
Quote from: RanulfC on 04/21/2015 07:04 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 04/21/2015 06:51 pmRanulfC, you don't have to use quotation marks unless you're quoting somebody.Yes I've fallen back into that habit and will try and remedy it. Sorry.(Doesn't count if I'm quoting myself I suppose )RandyAlso, remember: 13-year-old girls are allowed an unlimited number of exclamation marks in whatever they write, but each adult is allocated only one per year.
Quote from: Blackstar on 04/21/2015 06:51 pmRanulfC, you don't have to use quotation marks unless you're quoting somebody.Yes I've fallen back into that habit and will try and remedy it. Sorry.(Doesn't count if I'm quoting myself I suppose )Randy
RanulfC, you don't have to use quotation marks unless you're quoting somebody.
Of all the Gemini variants and missions that MD was pushing, the circumlunar Gemini was the most likely to fly. It required very little modification to the Gemini spacecraft itself (mostly a beefed-up heatshield and a directional antenna to hang out of the equipment module), and could follow mission procedures that had been proven during the mainline Gemini program.Other variants, including Big G and Lunar Landing Gemini, were far less likely to be pursued in reality, as they would have required significant investments that would have had to come from Apollo funding
Gemini was definitely better than Mercury, but would not have been as capable overall as Apollo was supposed to be. It pretty much WAS an interim orbital spacecraft and, (no matter how cool I think it looked ) didn't have much general use beyond that but it DID do its job really well despite a lot of drawbacks inevitable with such an interim design.
>snipage<I would point out, however, that there is an important difference between these lunar Gemini concepts and Big G. Most of the lunar proposals were not solicited or paid for by NASA. This was McDonnell trying to horn in on other people's business. Big G was proposed as a new vehicle at a time when NASA was going to be looking for a new vehicle. It may have been unsolicited, but there was a reason for it. And I think it could have had a chance if NASA was forced to adopt a lower cost option than the shuttle.
Quote from: Blackstar on 04/21/2015 09:18 pm>snipage<I would point out, however, that there is an important difference between these lunar Gemini concepts and Big G. Most of the lunar proposals were not solicited or paid for by NASA. This was McDonnell trying to horn in on other people's business. Big G was proposed as a new vehicle at a time when NASA was going to be looking for a new vehicle. It may have been unsolicited, but there was a reason for it. And I think it could have had a chance if NASA was forced to adopt a lower cost option than the shuttle.I agree somewhat but disagree more so As noted in the next post the main issue was the Gemini WAS an interim vehicle and what NASA really wanted wasn't something "like" Apollo but different as it were. And the orbital ferry Big-G was pretty much going head-to-head with an Apollo ferry with very few inherent advantages (and more than a few flaws as noted) by sticking with the overall Gemini design. As a cockpit design I think Gemini had some points but you need the REST of the vehicle to make it click and I don't see Big-G as that vehicle...(Though I'm thinking around that same time was when someone came up with that whole Mars mission where the "lander" was a winged stage with a Gemini capsule on the front )Randy
I wouldn't say the advantages of Big-G over the Apollo ferry were few it would have been almost like a US version of the Soviet TKS but with more crew and own mass capacity.Since the docking hardware was on the back module it would be easier to change the docking system without messing with systems in the reentry vehicle.For LEO operations it would have be a much more capable vehicle.Apollo probably could not do half the things the Shuttle did in LEO but Big-G could have done maybe 80% of it's missions by changing the back module for different mission requirements.
North American Rockwell appears to be doing what McDonnell Aircraft did with Big Gemini proposals in this winged Apollo shuttle proposal thatwas even patented. It was trying to keep a program alive with kludge proposals.I see your Big Gemini and I raise you a Winged Apollo Shuttle, with swing-wings and X-15 like landing gear/skids. "Aerospace vehicle" from 1967 & 1971https://www.google.com/patents/US3576298?dq=apollo+rockwell&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kKc3VfStBM2RyATTo4DIBg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAAhttps://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US3576298-1.pnghttps://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US3576298-2.pnghttps://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US3576298-3.pnghttps://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US3576298-4.pngI think I have a name for it.....Apollo-Soar.
...Well, it's true the basic Big-G would have enough room to ferry anywhere from 9 to 12 astronauts, the vehicle could no longer be lifted by the Titan-II rocket and would require the man-rating (and upgrading) of the Titan-III rocket to lift into orbit...
Quote from: RanulfC on 04/22/2015 02:53 pm...Well, it's true the basic Big-G would have enough room to ferry anywhere from 9 to 12 astronauts, the vehicle could no longer be lifted by the Titan-II rocket and would require the man-rating (and upgrading) of the Titan-III rocket to lift into orbit...Just a minor set of nits -- first the Titan IIIC was already in process to be man-rated at that time, for the MOL program. MD had every reason to believe, in 1967 (when these design studies were generated, I believe) that MOL was going to be flown; after all, they were in the process of building Blue Gemini. So their proposals for Big G could reasonably assume that the Titan IIIC would be available and man-rated for any of their Gemini variants.Second, Big G (at least in the proposals I've seen) was proposed with its primary variant to be launched by a Saturn IB. Only the secondary variant, with a smaller diameter orbital module to fit the diameter of the upper stage of the IIIC transstage, was designed for the Titan. And, of course, the Saturn was designed from the start to be man-rated.So, the issue of needing to spend extra funds to man-rate the potential Big G launch vehicles is rather a non-issue, I'm afraid. Either way they went, they were looking to use boosters that were already to be man-rated.
Quote from: mike robel on 05/13/2015 11:33 pmMy impression, from Jim Orburg's latest book, is that NASA was pretty much focused only on the space shuttle and even if a better idea had been handed to them on a golden platter and with no charge, they would have rejected it.You mean John Logsdon's book.I posted two relevant pages up-thread. What surprised me was that Big Gemini was still in discussion as late as August-October 1971, which is quite a few years after it was initially proposed.
My impression, from Jim Orburg's latest book, is that NASA was pretty much focused only on the space shuttle and even if a better idea had been handed to them on a golden platter and with no charge, they would have rejected it.