Gemini XI around the moon?

[tohaki]

I was looking at the Wikpedia page for Gemini XI and found the following statement:<br /><br /><i>"Conrad had originally hoped for a Gemini flight around the Moon, but had to settle for the highest Earth orbit ever reached by an American manned spacecraft (1374 kilometer altitude)."</i><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_11<br /><br />Could the Agena have worked as a translunar injection stage?

 

[najab]

><i>Could the Agena have worked as a translunar injection stage?</i><p>I believe the plan was for Gemini-Centaur to be used as the circumlunar combination.</p>

 

[drwayne]

"On June 24, 1965, McDonnell-Douglas and Martin Marrietta provided a detailed proposal to launch a refurbished, modified Gemini around the moon by April 1967 for $ 350 million. The Gemini would have 521 kg of mass deleted, half of it by removing the solid fuel retrograde rockets used to initiate re-entry (the liquid fuel Orbital Manoeuvring System would be reengineered to increase its reliability). The Titan 2-launched Gemini would rendezvous and dock with a Titan 3C-launched 'Double Transtage'. The Double Transtage consisted of an unmodified first Transtage that would place itself and a second Transtage into low earth orbit. The first Transtage retained the navigation and manoeuvring systems necessary to move the assembly to the rendezvous orbit with Gemini. The second Transtage would be stripped of unnecessary equipment (the orbital manoeuvring system) but was equipped with an Agena-type docking collar. <br /><br />After docking with the Double Transtage, the first Transtage would be cast off and the second Transtage would propel the Gemini into a circumlunar trajectory. The flights themselves, assuming go-ahead was given in September 1965, would follow immediately after the last Gemini flight. In December 1966 a Titan 3C would drive a 2450 kg circumlunar Gemini capsule to 11 m/s re-entry velocity to verify the heat shield design. This would be followed by a February 1967 manned qualification flight in earth orbit. A manned Gemini would dock with a Double Transtage and be propelled into a high orbit and re-entry speed. In April the sequence would be repeated, this time the Gemini being sent by Transtage into a loop around the moon."<br /><br />From here:<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lunemini.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[tohaki]

Do you have any idea why they didn't do it? ...cost?

 

[drwayne]

They talk about that that some in the article I linked. Mainly NASA didn't believe the cost figures, and they didn't need competition for 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>

 

[JonClarke]

It would have taken a lot of work - developing the Centaur transtage, modifying Gemini, practicing the docking, the preliminary high orbit mission. Had Gemini been selected for the lunar mission then they would have been useful, but with Apollo, they did not achieve anything that Apollo could not have done better. It was a dead end series of missions.<br /><br />Not everything that can be done is actually worth doing.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

There were a number of efforts to continue forth with Gemini hardware - some that made sense indepentently, some that seemed to compete with 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>

 

[tohaki]

One advantage I can see is that it would (supposedly) have gotten the US around the moon sooner. Perhaps NASA would have felt differently if the Soyuz 7K-L1 programme had been more mature.

 

[darkenfast]

Gemini was a magnificent (if somewhat historically neglected) program. Most Americans don't realize how fast the pace of launches was, and how much we learned. That said, sending a Gemini capsule around the Moon falls into the "stunt" catagory; the kind of thing I would have expected from the Soviets of the period: "Get something up to beat the Americans!" Apollo, with it's far greater capabilities, was on the way at that point, and I think they made the right decision.

 

[mikejz]

That said the idea of docking with a pre-launched upper-stage in LEO was a better approach to getting to the moon was far better idea than the Saturn V.

 

[drwayne]

How so?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Or how fast the program came together, and how effectively.<br /><br />At the time, as a kid, I know I didn't recognize its significance, but as I have gotten older, the value and greatness of the program strikes me more and more.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Mostly because of the fact that that configuration would of allowed for the use of boosters that had alternative uses (Titan II and IIIB) or another lower weight LV.<br /><br />Hence the ability to maintain the program from budget cuts would of been greater. <br /><br />The Saturn V died under the fact that it was a single purpose booster. No alternative customers. Had the DoD found a handy use for such a booster, Apollo might have continued on. However a application for such a weight class outside of Nasa was never realised.<br /><br />That is why i perfer an on-orbit approach supplied by uprated 50ton Delta-4H for our lunar return. Not that it is the best, or most cost effective solution, but it will be so much harder to cancel once it's started.

 

[vogon13]

At one time a Saturn V was proposed to carry an automated lab to Mars, but the project died early on.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I mean non-Nasa (in otherwords a booser the Mil can get behind--Look at Titan, it lasted 40 years as a orbital LV ONLY because of the DoD need for it)<br /><br />Here is more on Lunar Gemini.<br />http://www.astronautix.com/articles/bygemoon.htm

 

[steve82]

Nice Link. Geez that would have been cramped. Gemini rescue vehicle for a 3-man Apollo CSM crew!

 

[JonClarke]

The CSM-LM combination was much more capable than the Gemini to the moon options and therefore the better choice.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

I read somewhere that some of the reasons for not doing the mission were; Cost -- About $60 million (1965 dollars) to modify the Centaur and 1x Gemini spacecraft. The Agena didn't have enough Delta-V to complete a TLI burn. The flight would certainly have been a free-return circumlunar mission taking about 5 full days to complete, with no EVA from Dick Gordon. However, a "standup" EVA for 70mm high-resolution photography could have been undertaken by Gordon as the spacecraft rounded<br />the farside of the Moon.<br /><br />It was seen as a threat to Apollo, probably because if it had been successful, Nasa brass were worried that some space-hating Senators would say; "Hey, our boys beat the Russkies around the Moon. Let's do one landing with a really basic one-man LM design and then call it quits, and stop wasting money on this space crap".<br /><br />Anybody wanna bet that was the reason this intriguing idea was canned? On the balance, it was a good thing, as such a lunar landing mission would be far more of a flag-and-footprints than Apollo ever was: Put up the flag, take some photos, grab 5 or 6 pounds of regolith and rock and maybe place a laser range reflector experiment... And not much else. Even Apollo 11 was far better than this.<br /><br />I think history was better served by cancelling Lunar-Gemini.<br /><br />GEMINI MODS: Upgraded communications gear including High-Gain antenna, which would be mounted on Gemini rear service module. Thickened heatshield for re-entry and thermal protection for parachute systems. Fuel cells replaced by batteries for this mission, as fuel cells were deemed still too experimental to rely on for deep space missions. Spacecraft and crew suits given extra layers of protection for cosmic ray and Van Allen belt traverse.<br />Centaur stage insulation upgraded to reduce LH2 boiloff and extra batteries added to increase Centaur endurance up to and perhaps surpassing 2x mid-course correction burns. After Mid-course burn(s) accomplished, Centaur <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[steve82]

"I think history was better served by cancelling Lunar-Gemini."<br /><br />Undoubtedly. But I also think the way they were able to pursue that alternative concurrently with Apollo reflects on how much healthier our aerospace industry was back then.

 

[vogon13]

I don't vouch for this, but I seem to recall a discussion or 2 about using a Saturn V to launch a nuclear missle platform into orbit back in the sixties. If true, I'm sure the Soviets were annoyed. Probably less controversial then (imagine floating that idea in the Senate today!), but still a hot potato.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

You've been watching too much Star Trek...

 

[drwayne]

I find it amazing that Gemini, which was not part of the original roadmap, was conceived, brought to fruitition, and was so successul with developing important techniques for the lunar mission - all in a fairly short time line.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>