Student organization want to revive Gemini spacecraft

[matthewota]

All they need is the money to do it....

Seems to me a better clean sheet design could be made.

http://www.aio50.org/

[Glom]

So is this for equipment or do people go up with it?

[matthewota]

People go, one pilot, one passenger. This is why they picked the Gemini design and not Mercury.

[NEOWatcher]

All they need is the money to do it....

That's always the issue, isn't it.

Seems to me a better clean sheet design could be made.

I agree, especially since it can be designed in line with the current boosters, electronics, and materials technology.

http://www.aio50.org/

I'm not sure what's going on from that sight.

The plan at the last 1 minute at end of the AIO-50 Presentation video is about a Re-created Mercury with a Falcon 9 for around 30 million launch cost.

The page has Gemini information and student experiments.

It seems like it's trying to give the impression of sending students, but only talks about participation.

So; what's the plan beyond the re-creation of Glenn's flight?

[samkent]

How do the students participate?

Do they send things to float around the cabin?
Do they ask questions over the radio?
Do the astronauts visit schools?
What is the real long term benefit of any of those?

[Larry Jacks]

I think the students are involved in the actual fabrication of the vehicle.

People go, one pilot, one passenger. This is why they picked the Gemini design and not Mercury.

I see a disconnect. The video on the website shows a Mercury style capsule with a launch escape system. Gemini was launched on the Titan II rocket which used hypergolic propellants. Since those propellants don't explode, the Gemini astronauts had ejection seats in case of an emergency. However, the Falcon 9 uses kerosene/LOX just like the Atlas (Mercury) and Saturn (Apollo) rockets, so it stands to reason that it could explode. Does the new design use the Gemini ejection seats, add a launch escape system, or have no provision for crew protection? I don't think ejection seats would be adequate but adding a LES would be a major redesign.

[kucharek]

Gemini used ejection seats because it was planned in the beginning to land Gemini capsules on solid ground with some kind of hang glider. To be more correct, the technics used later for hang gliders were developed from research done for Gemini. So the whole hang gliding thing can be labelled a spin-off of manned spaceflight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_gliding#History
Thus, ejection seats for the landing phase were needed and because they could also be used during launch, no escape tower was planned. Later it was switched back to water landing, but alreay too late to change other designs, from ejection seat to escape tower. The astronauts never had much confidence in the ejection seat system and were determined to use it only when staying inside would mean certain death. I think it was John Young who observed a failed test where the seat was shot right through the door that didn't opened as planned.

[NEOWatcher]

I see a disconnect. The video on the website shows a Mercury style capsule with a launch escape system.

My impression was the video was only about a single commemoration flight of Mercury and not a part of the rest of thier plans.

[samkent]

No to be correct.

Francis Rogallo applied for a patent on his Rogallo wing in 1951. Long before NASA was created. NASA merely tested various configurations for Gemini.

There is a difference between NASA creating something and NASA testing someones patent designs.

Just another erroneous/non spin off from the space program.

[kucharek]

yeah. But it was NASA that tried to turn a patent into something usable and their results were picked up and developed into the modern hang gliders.

[Sticks]

Wasn't there a made for television film along these lines, but about the Mercury capusle staring Robert Wagner?

[Larry Jacks]

Wasn't there a made for television film along these lines, but about the Mercury capusle staring Robert Wagner?

I recall seeing a movie several years ago where someone took a Redstone rocket and added strap-on solids to boost a Mercury capsule into orbit. IIRC, the capsule carried some critical part to a crippled Shuttle in orbit. The astronaut was a teenager. That might be the same movie you're thinking about called Rocket's Red Glare from 2000.

There was also the Astronaut Farmer movie from a few years ago.

[Gemini]

I attended a presentation last night over Technology Hall on this project, given by Craig Russell, the head of the project. The project involves building a modernized Gemini (heh) capsule with 21st tech, adding a science module to the aft section, and making it reusable. Currently, the plan is to launch it from Cape Canaveral in 2012 atop a Falcon 9. The best part is that UAHuntsville is the lead university involved, which will be retrofitting an old Gemini Boilerplate (currently on display at the Space and Rocket Center) for use with the project, which includes equipping it for landing on a runway (though the water landing option is still possible ) at Edwards or White Sands. Even though the project is chiefly for MAE 490 students, the professor said that anyone is welcome to help out; and I will if it all possible.

http://aio50.org/aio50Blog/

[Swift]

Is that the program that was discussed in this thread?

[mozzieIV]

I think it was John Young who observed a failed test where the seat was shot right through the door that didn't opened as planned.

Ouch. Imagine the headache.

[schlaugh]

Ouch. Imagine the headache.

Wayne Hale from NASA blogged about ejection seats a while back (bold mine). Allthough he's talking about the early Shuttle seats I assume the same issues would confront the proposed new stack.

Today I want to talk about ejection seats. Gemini had ejection seats and so did the shuttle for the initial flights. I don't know much about the Gemini seats but the shuttle ejection system used on the first four flights was the best there was at the time. And it wouldn't have done much good.

For example; an ejection on the launch pad would not get high enough for the parachute to open in time. Yep, you'd hit the ground from a few hundred feet altitude with the chute still unfurling. Not recommended. If your rocket was in the process of blowing up (remember Titov and Strekalov?) the blast overpressure would still be fatal at the distance the ejection seat would push you. As a final insult, the "landing" would be in the flame trench. So, an ejection off the launch pad was not a good idea for a shuttle crew.

So if this new configuration will use ejection seats, they have some work to do.

[Glom]

Wasn't there a made for television film along these lines, but about the Mercury capusle staring Robert Wagner?

It aired on five ages ago I think under the title The Mercury Project. It was a kind of nice film until it got stupid by having the kid get sent up to rescue the Space Shuttle using the frickin Redstone rocket. I know the Space Shuttle doesn't break many altitude records, but it isn't that bad. It can at least achieve orbit for a start.

[Gemini]

Forgot about that one.

[Middenrat]

Forgot about that one.

Please get over there and inform the discussion, plans sound considerably advanced from your report.

[slang]

For example; an ejection on the launch pad would not get high enough for the parachute to open in time. Yep, you'd hit the ground from a few hundred feet altitude with the chute still unfurling. Not recommended.

Curious, since jet fighters have had zero/zero ejection seats for a while now. But maybe not yet when the Shuttle was designed, although the 70's design F-16 does have them (IIRC).

If your rocket was in the process of blowing up (remember Titov and Strekalov?) the blast overpressure would still be fatal at the distance the ejection seat would push you. As a final insult, the "landing" would be in the flame trench. So, an ejection off the launch pad was not a good idea for a shuttle crew.

Those are bigger problems, of course.

[Larry Jacks]

Curious, since jet fighters have had zero/zero ejection seats for a while now. But maybe not yet when the Shuttle was designed, although the 70's design F-16 does have them (IIRC).

Zero-zero ejection seats date back to the 1960s, IIRC. Perhaps part of the problem is the attitude: fighter pilots are sitting upright while astronauts are lying down while on the launch pad. I recall seeing test footage of an ejection seat firing from a Gemini capsule sitting on the pad back in the 1960s so that issue can be worked. The concerns about how far the seat will get the astronauts from the launch pad and where they'll land sound legitimate. The Titan II rocket used for the Gemini flights used non-explosive hypergolic propellants so they probably didn't need to get so far away as you'd need for a Shuttle or even a Falcon 9.

Ejection seats have saved many lives but they're still very dangerous. I heard one fighter pilot say that using an ejection seat was "attempted suicide to avoid certain death." The seat gives you a chance but it's far from a certain thing. You can find a lot of good information about ejection seats here. The main menu has a page dedicated to all of the NASA ejection seats (no direct link available).

[Swift]

I've merged the two threads on this topic

[publiusr]

The Gemini is a sexy craft, and the Icarus from POTA and the Eagle from Space 1999 owe it their looks---but no docking port?

Now they might want to contact the folks at India about this, since they are just trying to get a man up there from scratch.

I'd love to see a Gemini atop the GSLV III