Gemini: We can rebuild it, we have the technology

Page 22 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

darkenfast

Guest
I know these are old posts, and I may be duplicating what someone else has said, but I would like to clarify some things regarding chutes and capsules.<br />1. Mercury had both a main chute and a reserve chute. If the astronaut wanted to exit the capsule at sea, he had to remove a section of the instrument panel, push the reserve chute package out through the nose, and wiggle though the extremely small space where the chute had been. The reserve was never used.<br />2. Gemini had a main chute and the personal chutes in the ejection seats. The seats were never used.<br />3. Apollo had three main chutes and an impact attenuation system (the couches were in a shock absorbing framework) that, hopefully, would have let them survive a landing on only one chute. All the chutes deployed on all the missions (I believe, correct me on that).<br />4. Soyuz was under serious political pressure from the Kremlin to fly (or else). They were having problems with the chutes getting out of the extremely tight containers and knew that they were taking a terrible risk flying Soyuz 1. The chute problem was eventually fixed. It was more a problem of rushed work than anything inherently wrong with the chutes.<br />5. Regarding turnaround time on chute processing: it only matters if you have to re-use the same chute on that capsules next flight. Otherwise, you pull the next set off the shelf while your dirty ones are at the "cleaners".<br />This is an interesting thread. I'll keep reading. Thanks!
 
B

bfinger35

Guest
Hey Guys. I work for Bigelow Aerospace. You are kicking around some great ideas and you sure have lots of energy! Reply back and with some basic background information on yourselves (education, employment history, etc...). Bigelow Aerospace is hiring you know...
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Bigelow Aerospace is hiring you know... "</font><br /><br />I'm just a computer nerd with a hobby. I can't imagine Bigelow being <b>too</b> interested in these ideas. He's got enough on his plate designing a space station -- no spare bandwidth to also design and build a spacecraft to get there. Mind you, I'm sure I could come up with some ideas on that topic as well... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
B

bfinger35

Guest
Yup, we are definitely not building the transportation part of the business, but you should check out folks like T-Space or SpaceX. They are looking for motivated, intelligent, and hard working people...
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
<font color="yellow">" All the chutes deployed on all the [Apollo ]missions (I believe, correct me on that)."</font><br /><br />Apollo 15 landed with two main chutes only.
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...you should check out folks like T-Space or SpaceX"</font><br /><br />Well admittedly -- it'd be a lot of fun to be able to contact some of these companies where I've found interesting equipment for G-X3 and be able to say 'Hi -- I work for ____ . Could you send me a quote for your X350 Star-Tracker'. It'd be great to have some 'official' status so that I could make up a shopping list of components, then send it to the various manufacturers and ask them to provide proposals/costs/timeframe/specs on supplying the parts.
 
B

bfinger35

Guest
You are describing exactly the process that these companies are aiming to implement and follow - straight-forward commercial acquisition of hardware and systems. It just so happens that the hardware is going to fly in space. You might be surprised to find that working for one of these companies is not as much of a stretch as you might at first believe.
 
S

space_dreamer

Guest
I never dreamed that space could be anything more than a hobby for me. However just this week I have been offered a job with Bristol Spaceplanes!<br /><br />Go on Mr Morris, You don't give your self the credit you deserve! Apply for the posts, see what happens. <br />
 
R

rancamp

Guest
space-dreamer wrote:<br /> />I never dreamed that space could be anything more<br /> />than a hobby for me. However just this week I have<br /> />been offered a job with Bristol Spaceplanes!<br /> />Go on Mr Morris, You don't give your self the credit<br /> />you deserve! Apply for the posts, see what happens.<br /><br />Here-here! I agree with BOTH observations, your NOT giving yourself the credit you deserve, and even if we're not shopping the GX around, everyone is supposedly hireing. (Even the new 'Rocket Racing League' though only managers with racing experiance <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" />)<br /><br />Seriously we could shop the idea around and see if anyone bites at it....<br /><br />Randy
 
R

rancamp

Guest
mrmorris wrote:<br /> />The Falcon IX isn't really a reason to redesign G-X3.<br /> />Everything else aside, the increased price tag would<br /> />put it outside the range of the primary reason for<br /> />G-X3 -- namely the ASP. <br /><br />As I understand it, the Falcon IX is going to be about half again the cost of the Falcon-V and that price ASSUMES total vehicle expendeture instead of recovery.<br />If recovery works then the price is going to go way down way fast.<br />Not that we need to look at a 'redesign' of the GX, but more of a 'what else can we do with "x" amount more lift' type options.<br /><br />Randy
 
R

rancamp

Guest
What about a LUT with numerous smaller moters in a ring around/Under the docking collar portion of the capsule?<br />They would be angled out enough to fire past the capsule, (possibly with some exhause impinment but it shouldn't be that bad) with all of them fireing in an abort. Some for orbital manuvers, and deorbit burns. And any remaining fireing for landing.<br /><br />That way we don't have to worry about a LET, or having to jettison it at all.<br /><br />Randy
 
R

rancamp

Guest
Has everyone heard of this?<br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-05zzzs.html<br /><br />October 7<br />Space Tourism Firm Signs First Orbital Passenger<br /><br />The rocket-building firm Interorbital Systems (IOS) announced the sale of its first orbital space tourism ticket Friday, adding that initial test launches could occur in the next 10 months. <br /> <br />Midwestern businessman Tim Reed, of Gladstone, Missouri, purchased the first ticket for a seven-day trip aboard IOS’ Neptune Spaceliner – which is slated to make its first manned launch in 2008 – for about $250,000 under a promotional fare, IOS officials said. The anticipated full price for their orbital service is currently set at $2 million, they added.<br /><br />The sale of Reed’s ticket allows IOS to build a scale version of its Neptune spacecraft – the Sea Star – which is currently slated to launch within 10 months, said Randa Milliron, CEO of the Mojave, California-based IOS, in a statement. <br /><br />The Sea Star and Neptune vehicles are currently planned to launch from the Pacific Ocean off the California coast. For Neptune Spaceliner flights, up to five crewmembers would undergo 30 days of training before flying their week-long mission, then return to Earth in a crew capsule designed to splashdown Apollo-like in the ocean.<br /><br />Reed hopes to conduct a series of nutritional and biological experiments during his flight and also qualifies for a full rebate of his ticket price two years after his orbital flight, which is part of the promotional fare, IOS officials added.<br /><br />Founded in 1996, IOS is working to develop in-house launch systems for both unmanned and manned spaceflights. In addition to launching off the California coast, the company has plans to expand to the waters around the South Pacific Kingdom of Tonga and two other ocean locations according to flight demands. <br />-- SPACE.com<br /><br />Pretty
 
B

bfinger35

Guest
Hey - Bigelow Aerospace is looking for computer consultants that can spec out and set up video-intensive and data processing computer work stations. Let me know if you know somebody...
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Let me know if you know somebody... "</font><br /><br />Nobody any better than BA'd be able to find on Monster.com...<br /><br />I'm largely a programmer -- generally databases. Now if Bigelow is interested in developing a parts database for the inflatables... say with each part, its specs, cost, failure rate, failure modes, supplier, alternate supplier, lead time on replacements, # in stock, etc. ... let me know. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
D

darkenfast

Guest
Tap Sa, thanks for the picture of the parachute foul-up on Apollo 15. Do they know why it happened?<br />
 
R

rancamp

Guest
darkenfast wrote:<br /> />Tap Sa, thanks for the picture of the parachute<br /> />foul-up on Apollo 15. Do they know why it happened?<br /><br />I understand they were unable to recover the chute, but the after-incedent panel decided it was probably a burn-through on a shroud line that caused the chute to collapse.<br /><br />Randy<br />
 
R

rancamp

Guest
Not to joggle the elbow that inspires us... but...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" />)<br /><br />Space X has some new major plans, including fielding thier own 'crew modules' but are quite interested in flying others if available:<br />http://thespacereview.com/article/497/1<br /><br />Randy
 
R

rocketman5000

Guest
Yeah I heard about that back in February when some of my engineering team was trying to get together a startup company to compete in the American Space Prize. <br /><br />The representative from Bigelow, his name slips my mind commented about SpaceX's planned involvement. Unfortunately money didn't work out fast enough so those on the team that felt the need to make a lot of it left to persue more lucrative adventures. <br /><br />It's a shame, it would have been a fun expirence even if we didn't every get the money to fly.
 
R

rancamp

Guest
Rocketman5000 wrote:<br /> />Yeah I heard about that back in February when some<br /> />of my engineering team was trying to get together a<br /> />startup company to compete in the American Space<br /> />Prize.<br /><br />Interesting, I don't suppose your willing to give details?<br />:::Grin:::<br /><br />On another note, I found this while goofing around the internet for stuff from the old Roton program and some older NASA work.<br /> />http://www.aiaa-houston.org/cy0405/event-06may05/pres/pres013.pdf&lt;<br /><br />An interesting idea and concept. I can actually see this as 'part' of the G3 concept. I especially like the 'concept' idea shown on page 12, of a 'capsule' Service Module built using the same basic shape. I've always been 'bugged' by the expending of the SM, and this not only covers that, but allows a controlled reentry and landing of said module.<br /><br />Now this is 'baselined' as only a 4-seater, but I'm sure at least a fifth could be added fairly easily. And still come in around the launch capacity of the Falcon-IX vehicle. (Probably should get around to asking Space-X if it would be possible to use the Falcon-IX upperstage as a service and manuver module as some point)<br /><br />Randy
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Titan 2 ICBM modified for Gemini: <br />LEO Payload: 3,600 kg. Apogee: 300 km. <br />Core Diameter: 3.05 m. (10 ft) <br />Total Length: 32.80 m. <br />Mass: 150,530 kg. <br />Liftoff Thrust: 2,090.00 kN. <br /><br />Falcon V: <br />Payload: 200 km, 28 deg 4,200 kg <br />Core Diameter: 3.4 m (11 ft) <br />Total Length: 29 m. <br />Mass: 286,000 lb (129,700 kg) <br />Liftoff Thrust: 357,500 lb (1,590 kN) <br /><br />The Titan 2 liftoff thrust was 430,000 lbs provided by twin LR87 engines. This would have to be increased significantly to accomodate proposed crew size as would the baseline capability of the Falcon V. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
R

rrl2

Guest
If the planet were lined up right we could send it to mars and back using the gravitational sling shot. I think it should be built and launched from space. Then it could sling around the earth and with enough propulsion it could make very short work of the distance I presume<br />
 
N

najab

Guest
A body in Earth orbit cannot use the Earth for a graviational assist.
 
V

ve7rkt

Guest
If you did build a ship in Earth orbit to go to Mars, you could use this capsule... to get your Mars crew up to the ship once it's finished. You're not going to send five people to Mars in a capsule the size of a minivan, no matter how much propulsion you tack onto it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Maybe with a revised heat shield, long-term sealed-until-needed consumables, blah blah blah, you could use two heavily modified capsules as reentry vehicles for your crew and, say, two hundred kilos of Mars rocks. Personally I thought a good follow-up version would be an orbit-only capsule trading the thermal protection for more thruster fuel and rigged to push a small Bigelow inflatable module, as a "space bus" shuttling between stations. But the purpose of this thread is (was?) to discuss designing a capsule for Earth orbit... future modifications were left for the future.
 
R

rancamp

Guest
Are we dropping the discussion> Or has our 'leader' done run out with our various help and making plans to constuct the G3 for himself.<br /><br />..... I wonder <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" />)<br /><br />Randy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY