Is NASA bringing back Big Gemini?

[gladiator1332]

Found the following image on Nasawatch.com:<br /><br />http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/jsc.cev.jpg<br /><br />This concept is very close to the old Big Gemini concept. It appears to have a module for the pilot and copilot, a crew or passnger module as it was called on Big Gemini, and then we have the equipment module. It looks like behind the crew module that there appears to spacesuits on the wall, so I'd assume that this is another crew module (the Big Gemini concept had a crew module in the rear of the spacecraft as well) <br /><br />It also appears to have winglets, something that was considered for Gemini back in the 60's with the Winged Gemini concept.

 

[yurkin]

If so I think it would make some members of this board very happy.<br />And it certainly seems like the best move given the CEV requirements.<br />

 

[nacnud]

I'm not sure about the 'winglets', they look like the air bag doors.

 

[frodo1008]

This looks like the Boeing concept for a capsule type of head end vehicle for the CEV. From what I gather on other threads this is the current concept favored by Mike Griffen to be launched on top of a single SRB. The only diffference that I can see is that the Boeing capsule design would carry four people to LEO.<br /><br />Now, for budgetary reasons I think that this is what NASA is going to settle on. Personally, I prefer a lifting body type of vehicle over both a capsule or a winged concept. I am very certain that this is the eventual future of placing people into LEO. This is because that the future of doing this in a large way is going to be tied to space tourism. Burt Rutan is going to be shortly (if he has not already started) building spaceshiptwo, the first actual sub orbital ship to carry paying passengers to the edge of space. The only thing I can guarantee is tha it will NOT be a capsule design! When you start to take rich ordinary people into space you are going to HAVE to start to consider actual passenger comfort and viewing ability as part of your design. Capsules can't match either winged or lifing body concepts for this kind of thing. Capsules will be for cheaply getting astronauts into space. Space tourism type of people (in particular as they are going to be paying some $200k) are going to want relatively large viewing windows, otherwise why would they even take the risk of such an adventure at all! <br /><br />I believe that short sub orbital flights are only what to Rutan & Virgin Galactic as just a beginning. I would think that they would wish to continually improve (once they can reach a profit level with short sub orbital flights) their craft to fly faster, higher, and take more passengers. The next logical step is still sub orbital, but developing a true rocket powered craft capable of taking passengers at hypersonic velocities half way around the world to major destinations, and bringning people back. Such a vehicle would ha

 

[chriscdc]

Looks similar to Russias klipper and the CXV. But I suppose there are only a few ways to make a 6 person capsule.<br /><br />I just like the way they look like the shuttles from star trek.

 

[gladiator1332]

It also reminds me somewhat of the McDonnell Douglas X-33 concept. I found an image of it in Zubrin's "Entering Space" same Road Cone shape, only it had four fins.

 

[gladiator1332]

I wonder how this thing will re-enter...similar to the Shuttle or will it go nose first like DC-Y? I can't wait to see Grumman and Lockheed's take on this...as it seems that NASA is setting what type of design it has to be and now it is up to Lockheed and Grumman to come up with some additions.

 

[tomnackid]

This looks like NASA's "biconic" capsule. It would reenter belly down and can generate some lift (a biconic shape makes for a fairly low LD lifting body.) I think Boeing's design is for a base first reentry capsule pretty much modeled after Apollo. Lockheed seems to have gone for a full fledged lifting body. Is any contractor actually working on a biconic?

 

[spacefire]

biconics were the first lifting bodies <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[larper]

All shapes generate lift if they are going fast enough. The Apollo capsule generated sufficient lift to steer the capsule during reentry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[gladiator1332]

Man this is pretty cool, so that design shown above is pretty much a flying Road Cone? And I do not mean that in a bad way, I mean the shape of it, is it pretty much a road cone?<br />And I also wonder if Lockheed will stick with their full lifting body or if they too will go the biconic route. <br /><br />I guess we will know in a few days. <br /><br />

 

[john_316]

<br />Sometimes the best way is to look at the other plans made that were abandoned. NASA has always had studies and plans for these types of concepts.<br /><br />Now is the time to dust them off, update them, and go foward with them...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[gladiator1332]

Yeah, I agree with you. They speant the money on those studies for a reason...might as well use what was learned.

 

[georgeniebling]

Apollo was *steerable*????? How so?<br /><br />Control jets?<br /><br />Waht was the crossrange ability?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"All shapes generate lift if they are going fast enough."</font><br /><br />Not <b>all</b> shapes. Spheres -- even with an offset cg don't really generate lift. I'd consider this nitpicking... except there have been numerous studies on spherical re-entry vehicles (not generally for manned use). They have the advantage of maximum capacity for a given mass, and purely ballistic re-entry... which makes the landing spot easily calculable.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Apollo was *steerable*????? How so? "</font><br /><br />It had and RCS that allowed the craft to be rolled. The capsule had an offest center of gravity which meant that there was more lift in one direction than another. This lift was used to steer up, down, left, right. When the craft was on target for a fully ballistic trajectory to hit the landing target, the craft was put into a slow roll to nullify direction changes due to the lift.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Waht was the crossrange ability? "</font><br /><br />I can't find it for Apollo using a quick search. Here's a bit from a history on the Gemini-program. It had a 50 km crossrange, with an l/d ratio of .18. Apollo had a ratio about twice that. DUnno if the relationship is linear or not thoug. Figure at least twice though, so 100km or more.<br /><br /><i>"There was only one significant event left before Conrad and Gordon wrapped up their mission. A secondary objective called for the crew to make an automatic reentry. The commanders of other Gemini flights had flown their spacecraft down from 120,000 meters, using the spacecraft's offset center of gravity to generate lift for changes in direction. This had enabled them to make corrections up to 550 kilometers downrange and 50 kilometers crossrange. Conrad, however, would not fly the spacecraft with his handcontroller in conjunction with computer directions; the spacecraft would follow these commands automatically.46<br /><br />On 15 September 1966, after 70:41 hours of flight and in the 44th revolution of Earth, the retrorockets fired. Conrad and Gordon watched the computer closely. It certainly seemed to be working right. Conrad then disengaged his handcontroller and put the system on automatic. When the first crossrange errors developed, the computer commanded bank angle changes. On several occasions, the spacecraft displayed an almost human characteristic, hesitating before accepting its orders. But the system</i>

 

[najab]

I believe Apollo was about the same as Gemini, at least that's what I have seen quoted.

 

[tomnackid]

"The next logical step is still sub orbital, but developing a true rocket powered craft capable of taking passengers at hypersonic velocities half way around the world to major destinations, and bringning people back."<br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />That has got me wondering: Does anyone know offhand how far Spaceship One (or Two) could travel if it launched at a 45 degree angle instead of going straight up and coming down at it launch site? Could the Spaceship One system be used for fast package delivery? Back in the 40's and 50's there was a lot of talk about using suborbital rockets for mail delivery. I wonder what kind of cargo that is less or equal to the weight of 2 adults could justify the cost of a Spaceship One launch? Organs for transplant or other medical supplies? Transport of VIPS to international hotspots? Of course WMD's Also spring to mind. i assume people are keeping an eye on this technology.

 

[wvbraun]

Another view of the vehicle:<br /><br />Link

 

[gunsandrockets]

"This concept is very close to the old Big Gemini concept. "<br /><br /><br />This vehicle isn't like Big Gemini or some Apollo Command Module knockoff. It is an asymetric bi-conic lifting body with two body flaps. It has a launch fairing which covers the flat bottom of the vehicle. It uses parachutes to recover and lands on a combination of airbags and a forward nose skid. It has two decks similar to the Space Shuttle and accomodates a crew of six people. It has a mass of around 12 tonnes. A separate service module is attached to the rear.<br /><br />

 

[gladiator1332]

Here is a nice view as well<br /><br />http://francisdrake.cybton.com/images/cev-bic0.jpg<br /><br />(that is a model being done for an Orbiter add on of the biconic CEV)<br /><br />When I say NASA is bringing back Big Gemini, I don't mena an exact clone. You have to look at things closely. I see many things with that vehicle that are Big Gemini. <br /><br />Big Gemini had two decks in a way...the pilot and co pilot were in their own section or deck during operations. Underneath your normal Gemini spacecraft was another deck where the rest of the crew was. <br /><br />The skids...pure Big Gemini, I'm sure if Big Gemini were built, eventually landing bags would have been added. I see that landing configuration and I immediatly think Blue Gemini and Big Gemini. <br /><br />Sure I would love to see a Big Gemini clone, a modern day Big Gemini, like the Apollo rebirths we have seen, but this biconic concept is a nice compromise. <br /><br />