Gemini B and Big Gemini are both excellent designs. It is ironic how (nearly) all good ideas and designs for today's manned spaceflight was already thought of approx. 40 years ago!

It is great to see all the old designs of the 60 and into the 70's and how they could be used even in todays senerios.

I was always sorry that Gemini did not get extended--even as an USAF program--when Apollo started up.

There would be many problems with resurecting the old designs as they were last built. One can use the basic shapes, materials for construction and not musch of any thing else for it probably is no longer made unfortunately for the space exploration vision.

back to gemini? its a good idea for OSP,a ferry from and for ISS Station,not realy good for CEV.

"Gemini B and Big Gemini are both excellent designs. It is ironic how (nearly) all good ideas and designs for today's manned spaceflight was already thought of approx. 40 years ago!"

Right now that is how it seems, and it is the truth. Both Gemini and Apollo desreve second looks. It is a shame that NASA threw away such good designs.

"I was always sorry that Gemini did not get extended--even as an USAF program--when Apollo started up. "

I feel the same way.

"There would be many problems with resurecting the old designs as they were last built. One can use the basic shapes, materials for construction and not musch of any thing else for it probably is no longer made unfortunately for the space exploration vision."

You are correct. But I think better materials have been developed, so I think you would get the same benefits of Gemini, but now with updated technology. It would make a great spacecraft better.

"back to gemini? its a good idea for OSP,a ferry from and for ISS Station,not realy good for CEV."

I wouldn't totally throw away the idea of a Gemini CEV. There were many studies done to get Gemini to the Moon. The only downside was going to be the cramped cockpit. If Big Gemini were used for a Moon voyage, you could cram in 12 astroanuts, but for crew comfort four or five could comfortably fit. The actual Gemini spacecraft used in Project Gemini can not be brought back, it is too small. A larger version like Big Gemini would be needed. Big Gemini had the same amount of space as Apollo at half the weight. Think off all of the cargo you could carry to the Moon.

Big Gemini reminds me vaguely of the "Kliper" design the Russians are proposing now. Both Kliper and a Big Gemini-derived vehicle have merit.

As I rrecall, there were plans to land Gemini's with a Rogallo wing and skiis. The wing can be updated to a Ram-air parasail. This is operationally better than hauling an Apollo drivative out of the water.

I agree that Gemini as it was would not be a good idea to rebuild. But, the general shape/concept with today's metals, equipment, etc....hmmmm....

As for it being a CEV/not a CEV...well, the whole project is modular, no? So why not use a two-man capsule for certain functions (rescue, cargo ferrying where you need a spacewalk or human intervention in some other area), etc.

John Young was part of a group studying a shuttle replacement that came up with the idea of resurrecting the Apollo capsule (actually, I have a feeling that many groups came up with the idea, including Buzz Aldrin and John Barnes in the novel "Encounter with Tiber"); there was some good stuff in that report about updating the basic design.

Heck, why couldn't a one-man variant work as well for a life pod on the ISS?

So lets make Boeing and lockheed both design capsules for the existing rockets of Atlas V and Delta 4 for Nasa to make use of for the Transportation needs. Oh, I forget they won't do this unless they have a contract for providing the Item of need, should this not be the other way around. Manufacture the item for others to buy instead.

No one has been able to answer this for me yet, but why hasn't a Gemini revival been brought up before this? From what I know, my article is the first on the subject. I read the article in Air and Space on how Apollo can be brought back. This most deffinatly means Gemini can be brought back since it is two years younger than Apollo. Every article I have read states that Gemini was the greatest spacecraft ever, I agree. If it is the greatest spacecraft built, then how come Gemini has been thrown away? You would think NASA would look to return to something this great.
I think Big Gemini would have been just as good, if not better than the Apollo CSM (maybe not for a Moon trip, but for Skylab type missions) and it deffinatly would have been better than the shuttle.

Also, if I were to send a copy to the Moon to Mars site, do you think they would atleast look at it? I think they have a section where you can send in a comment. Even if nothing amount sof it, atleast I can say I tried.

Just sent the article over to moontomars.org. It also gave an email adress if I would like to send further details. I probably will some time later. Hey maybe it will get some attention. If I can find the NASA Exploration page, maybe I can send it there too. (Maybe with some signatures attached, to give it a petition look?)

As far as I know, no images of Big Gemini exhist, other than the image of the mock-up seen on Astronautix. Until now it has been impossible to really see what Big Gemini would have looked like.
For the past few weeks I have been putting together a Big Gemini addon for Orbiter Space Flight Simulator. (If you are unfamiliar with Orbiter, it's a free space simulator) Go to www.orbitersim.com for Orbiter.

Here are two images of Big Gemini in the modeling program I use called Animator:

http://gladiator1332.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/biggemini05.jpg

http://gladiator1332.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/biggemini06.jpg

The textures you see on it are from Orbiter's Gemini addon (I'm working on Big Gemini with the Gemini addon's creator)

Right now you can only see it in Animator, but hopefully some time in the future you will be able to see how Big Gemini would have flown.

Mike if you want to get Nasa's attention try sending it in though the back door as a shuttle return to flight suggestion. That should spark someones interest into looking at it. I have had three of the four shuttle tank and orbitor emails replied to and have shared them on this site from them it usually does take a while. But it is worth the shoot.

Every one talks about the capsule , the size of the rocket but little of anything else seems to be up for discussion.

So here is a topic.
What do you do with the human waste product?

"Poop-powered Fuel Cells" nasawatch site

From: NASA Science News
Date: Tue May 18, 2024 4:12:02 PM US/Eastern
To: "NASA Science News"
Subject: Waste Not: Poop-powered Fuel Cells

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18may_wastenot.htm?list80160

"On a two-year trip to Mars, according to one estimate, a crew of six humans will generate more than six tons of solid organic waste--much of it feces. So what do you do with all that?"

"Right now, astronaut waste gets shipped back to Earth. But for long-term exploration, you'd want to recycle it, because it holds resources that astronauts will need. It will provide pure drinking water. It will provide fertilizer. And, with the help of a recently discovered microbe, it will also provide electricity."

Would you believe we keep hauling the stuff back to Earth rather than doing this cutting edge work on the ISS as a trial run to get it perfected for use on the journey to the moon or mars as it has been invisioned.
Where is the real science that the station is supposed to be doing?

Just sent an email to the shuttle return to flight address. Let's see what happens now. I don't expect much, if anything at all, but atleast I tried.

On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini
by
Barton C. Hacker
and
James M. Grimwood
Published as NASA Special Publication-4203 in the NASA History Series, 1977.
Page numbers from the original publication are included within the text within square brackets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very special thanks to David Woods for formatting this on-line version and to Chris Gamble for proofreading.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4203/toc.htm

Did the Gemini spacecraft have inertial guidance?

I seem to recall that the Apollo CSM was a departure from previous spacecraft designs because of its reliance on inertial navigation.

On the Shoulders of Titans is really interesting and filled with some great facts.

The one NASA document I wish I could read is the 8 Volume report that was put out on Big Gemini. Mark Wade of AStronatuix said it may be in NASA Archives, but he is unsure. I have not been able to find it. Too bad, there is probably some great information in there.

Lunar Base as a Precursor to Mars Exploration and Settlement
Wendell W. Mendell,
Co-Director, ISU91 Design Project
Solar System Exploration Div.
NASA Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058 USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
Debates over strategy for human exploration of the solar system focus on whether the next interplanetary travelers ought to go to the Moon or to Mars. The Space Exploration Initiative explicitly calls for a lunar presence, but the "Mars Now" advocates argue for a token effort on the Moon with major emphasis on Mars. A strategy which moves directly to piloted Mars missions incurs serious programmatic risks from (1) our current lack of knowledge on human performance on long-duration deep space missions, (2) our lack of experience designing manned space systems which must remain trouble-free for years without refurbishment, (3) our lack of experience with complex on-orbit operations, and (4) the political instability of the funding process. A well planned program of human exploration of the Moon would provide a context within which to increase our capabilities and experience to levels required for Mars exploration.
http://exploration.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/DOCS/EIC040.HTML

See the following poll on the Orbiter forum:

http://orbit.m6.net/v2/read.asp?id=16148

Interesting concept using the big gemini as a lunar/ferry craft .You also could use the parasail wing from the X38 with it.So the gemini could even be landed the way it was intended on an ordinary runway. It would help it make it easier to referbish since salt water is bad for spacecraft electrical and plumbing.In some ways the gemini was much more advanced then the apollo though it was very small it's main short comming as the craft was accually painful to use for long missions. The streched orbiter fairy version and the addition of a habitation module would fix that and still stay within weight limits for a medium class launcher such as the delta IV.Accually it may still be light enough to be launched with a 5 segment SRB equipted with a cryogenic upper stage.
Though it should be kept in mind this will be a 100% new spacecraft and would just use the original gemini as a guide.Though outdated for today the original gemini was light enough to be launched by a falcon V http://www.spacex.com/ or kistler K1 http://www.kistleraerospace.com/.
The x38 also might make a good choice for a CEV with the addition of a habitation/manovering module to the rear of the craft.
It also would be a good ideal to place the docking hardware on the habitation module on either the X38 derived or new gemini as it can act as an airlock alone with it's usual job of offering storage, toilet and hygine facilities just like it does with soyuz.This would make either craft much more versitle and safer.It's the main reason EVA is safe on a shuttle you don't have to depressurize the whole spacecraft.EVAs were a little hairy in the old days.

Basically build a new capsule for use with existing rockets. I have been saying just this very thing from the end of January. Building a completly new rocket is out of the fiscal scope of possibilities at this time due to the budget hold ups on congress. I say put the burden of this capsules construction, design back onto the rocket supplier and not on Nasa. They should act more like a consumer in this case.

In "advanced Big Gemini" it could eliminate the separation between the capsule gemini for comandant and pilot ,and the passenger compartment for the rest of the crew to have a only large capsule ?

I started a petition here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/07876/petition.html

I strongly urge that you sign this petition if you agree with me and think that an Advanced Gemini (or Big Gemini) should be built. This is your chance to vioce you opinion to NASA, who I will send this petition to. Our $$$ make those spacecraft go up, and I think it is time for us to tell NASA what we want.

And if you don't agree with Big Gemini, well go about your day as if you never read this. ; )

Well I have 2 signatures so far, pretty good for only being up for a few hours now.

I am going to step out for the weekend, so you won't be hearing much from me until Monday.