Apollo/Shuttle Used Flown Parts?!

[haywood]

Is this really true?<br /><br />http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-072604a.html<br />

 

[davf]

Now if I could just find out about the MOL Gemini that is on display beside it, I'd be happy!

 

[drwayne]

I have thought this qas quite cool, too:<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[davf]

I used to have a picture of Big Gemini on my desktop. It would definitely have been interesting to see in flight. It's a shame those big picture windows were only for visitors to see into the mock-up.... imagine being able to look out through those in space! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

It has only been in fairly recent years that I have become aware of all of the extensions that people were proposing for Gemini hardware.<br /><br />As a kid, I was always so focused on Apollo..<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

Have you come across the circum-lunar Gemini yet?

 

[drwayne]

I saw something on that a while back...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

I didn't realise that Encyclopedia Astronautica had an entire section on Lunar Gemini plans. This is good stuff <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[davf]

A year or so ago, Mark Wade offered the entire content on CD as well (for just about the cost of the CD). I can't think of a much better bargain on the net for a space nut.

 

[drwayne]

Hmmm, will have to check that out....<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

He's offered it periodically. I bought it a year ago, and I'm very pleased with it, though it could use updating. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Back to the original topic....<br /><br />I believe it is true. This got reported on another website I frequent as well. I'm not surprised at all. I'm on a space project right now, and I can testify that flight-qualifying hardware is a heckuva lot more time consuming than simply retesting it. The standards are different, mainly becuase flight-qualified hardware is handled much more carefully than non-flight-qualified hardware, in order to avoid compromising the flight qualification. A flown part will already have that qualification, unless somebody screwed up in its handling, so this would save a lot of time and money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>