 | Gemini Lunar SRS Credit - McDonnell Douglas
| Right up to the end of the Gemini program, the Gemini spacecraft was considered by its contractor and certain factions within NASA as an alternate means of
reaching the moon. The Gemini re-entry capsule, smaller and lighter than that of Apollo, would allow direct launch
of a mission to the moon using a single rocket. Alternatively, rendezvous and docking of components launched by two
small rockets (Titan 3C's or Saturn IB's) would eliminate the need for development of the Saturn V.
There were several proposals for lunar Gemini, right up to the very end of the program:
- Circumlunar flights by Gemini, boosted by Centaur, as part of the original Mercury
programme plan (August 1961)
- Lunar landing by Gemini, boosted by a Saturn C-3, in competition with Apollo,
as part of the revised original Gemini programme plan (September 1961)
- Use of Gemini, launched atop a Saturn V, as a Lunar Logistics and Rescue Vehicle
(September 1962)
- Circumlunar Gemini, launched by Saturn IB, to replace cancelled Apollo
circumlunar flights (March 1964)
- Circumlunar Gemini, propelled by Titan 3C-launched double Transtage (June
1965)
- In the wake of the Apollo fire, use of Gemini B, launched atop a Saturn V, as a Universal Lunar Rescue Vehicle (April 1967)
August 1961 - Circumlunar Gemini
|
Gemini-Centaur Gemini Docked to Centaur for Circumlunar Flight... Credit- © Mark Wade
|
At its birth Gemini was known as the Mercury Mark II programme. NASA was already committed to the three-man Apollo
spacecraft and considered Gemini an interim spacecraft to test rendezvous, docking, and EVA techniques before Apollo
was available. But NASA's James Chamberlin and McDonnell Aircraft considered Gemini as a viable competitor to
Apollo for the circumlunar and lunar landing missions. Such proposals might be welcomed by the current 'cheaper,
better, faster' NASA. But in 1961, as a direct challenge to the Apollo project and Lyndon Johnson's dream of a
Southern High Technology Crescent, they were anathema.
The original August 14, 1961 Mercury Mark II program plan went like this:
|
Date | Flight | Description | |
Mar 1963 | Gemini 1 | Unmanned
orbital | |
May 1963 | Gemini 2 | Manned
orbital | |
Jul 1963 | Gemini 3 | 7-day manned
orbital | |
Sep 1963 | Gemini 4 | 7-day manned
orbital | |
Nov 1963 | Gemini 5 | Agena
docking | |
Jan 1964 | Gemini 6 | 14-day primate
orbital | |
Mar 1964 | Gemini 7 | Agena
docking | |
May 1964 | Gemini 8 | 14-day primate
orbital | |
Jul 1964 | Gemini 9 | Agena
docking | |
Sep 1964 | Gemini 10 | Agena
docking | |
Nov 1964 | Gemini 11 | Centaur docking, boost to high Earth
orbit | |
Jan 1965 | Gemini 12 | Centaur docking, boost to high Earth
orbit | |
Mar 1965 | Gemini 13 | Centaur docking, boost to Lunar
flyby | |
May 1965 | Gemini 14 | Centaur docking, boost to Lunar
flyby |
The Centaur would be launched atop a Titan II booster. The lunar Gemini spacecraft would have weighed 3,170 kg, an
extra 270 kg over the basic rendezvous Gemini. The difference consisted of a backup inertial navigator and
additional heat shielding for re-entry at 11 km/sec instead of 8 km/sec. This program was estimated to put an
American around the moon for only $ 60 million more than the basic $ 356 million program. An even more aggressive
alternative, a nine-flight program, was promised to cost only $ 8.5 million more than the basic program and fly
around the moon in May 1964! This first attempt to fly Gemini to the moon was quickly suppressed, and a revision of
the plan was issued only a week later, with all mention of lunar flights deleted.
!clip!
|
Langley 4,372 kg LM Langley 4,372 kg lunar lander... Credit- © Mark Wade
|
September 1961 - Gemini Lunar Landing
But the idea seemed too good to just drop and a month later Chamberlin came up with an even more ambitious plan. He
proposed to not just fly around the moon, but to land on it, at a cost 1/20 of that of the Apollo project. The key
was the use of the technique of lunar orbit rendezvous and a bare-bones, open cockpit lunar module. This would weigh
4,372 kg in the storable propellant version or 3,284 kg in the cryogenic Lox/LH2 version (calculated propellant
loads 3,500 kg and 2,200 kg, respectively). The total mass to be injected into an escape trajectory toward the moon
would be no more than 13,000 kg, one fifth of the 68,000 kg planned for the Nova-boosted direct-lunar landing
approach favoured at that time. At this mass, instead of Nova, a Saturn C-3 launch vehicle could be used. The flight
schedule would have been delayed by a year in order to develop a more capable spacecraft. However by launching
every 45 days instead of every 60 days Gemini would still put an American on the moon by January 1966:
|
Date | Flight | Description | |
Titan 2 Launches | | |
Mar 1964 | Gemini 1 | Unmanned
orbital | |
May 1964 | Gemini 2 | Manned
orbital | |
Jun 1964 | Gemini 3 | 7-day manned
orbital | |
Aug 1964 | Gemini 4 | 14-day manned
orbital | |
Sep 1964 | Gemini 5 | Agena
docking | |
Nov 1964 | Gemini 6 | Agena
docking | |
Dec 1964 | Gemini 7 | Agena
docking | |
Feb 1965 | Gemini 8 | Centaur docking, boost to high Earth
orbit | |
Mar 1965 | Gemini 9 | Centaur docking, boost to high Earth
orbit | |
May 1965 | Gemini 10 | LM
docking | |
Jun 1965 | Gemini 11 | LM
docking | |
Jul 1965 | Gemini 12 | LM
docking | |
Sep 1965 | Gemini 13 | Centaur docking, boost to Lunar
flyby | |
Oct 1965 | Gemini 14 | Centaur docking, boost to Lunar
flyby | |
| |
Saturn C-3 Launches | | | | |
Nov 1965 | Gemini 15 | Manned Lunar
orbital | |
Jan 1966 | Gemini 16 | Manned Lunar landing |
The lunar module would have been launched separately by Titan II for the three Earth orbital docking missions.
This moon landing project was projected to cost $ 584 million 'plus the cost of two Saturn C-3's'.
|
Gemini Docks with LM Gemini rendezvous above lunar surface with open cockpit Lunar Module after first
lunar landing in 1966... Credit- © Mark Wade
|
Chamberlin was actually the first member of the Space Task Group (STG) to advocate lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) as a
method for reaching the moon. Earlier efforts through 1960 and 1961 by Robert Hoboult and other engineers at
Langley to interest STG in the method had been seen as the impractical musings of theorists. Chamberlin and
McDonnell Aircraft did not fall in this category. They saw clearly that separating the re-entry and lunar landing
functions allowed optimised spacecraft designs for each role, and solved many of the intractable engineering
problems the direct-ascent advocates were struggling with.
Chamberlin made one last effort at the end of September to interest STG in including lunar Gemini as part of an
"Integrated Apollo Program". This involved the same flight schedule as advocated earlier, but with the cost estimate
now firmed up at $ 706 million (including the Saturn boosters!), and the lunar module mass cut to 1,800 kg. NASA
brass still rejected the lunar aspects of the plan, but told STG to go ahead with negotiations with McDonnell,
Martin, and Lockheed for the spacecraft and boosters. Chamberlin submitted the revised plan without lunar flights
on October 27, and this was approved as the basis for project Gemini.
The actual Gemini project as flown was over a year late to the original optimistic plan. This was due to delays in
development of both the Titan 2 launch vehicle and the Gemini paraglider landing system. The pivotal 14-day flight
actually came in December 1965 versus January 1964 in the first Mercury Mark II proposal and August 1964 in the
September 1961 plan.
|
Date | Flight | Description | |
Apr 1964 | Gemini 1 | Unmanned booster orbital test;
boilerplate spacecraft. | |
Jan 1965 | Gemini 2 | Unmanned suborbital test of
spacecraft | |
Mar 1965 | Gemini 3 | Manned
orbital | | |
Jun 1965 | Gemini 4 | 4-day manned
orbital | |
Aug 1965 | Gemini 5 | 8-day manned
orbital | |
Dec 1965 | Gemini 7 | 14-day manned
orbital | |
Dec 1965 | Gemini 6 | Rendezvous with Gemini 7 (Agena target
failed to orbit) | |
Mar 1966 | Gemini 8 | Agena
docking | |
Jun 1966 | Gemini 9 | Agena
docking | |
Jul 1966 | Gemini 10 | Agena
docking | |
Sep 1966 | Gemini 11 | Agena
docking | |
Nov 1966 | Gemini 12 | Agena docking |
It is possible to estimate when Chamberlin's Gemini moon landing would have actually occurred based on the actual
delays to Gemini. It must be considered that the time necessary to develop the Saturn C-3 could not have been much
less than that actually taken for the C-5 (the final December 1961 C-3B configuration differed from the C-5 only in
the propellant loading in each stage and in having three F-1 engines in the first stage as opposed to five in the
C-5). Therefore, with perfect hindsight, if Gemini had been selected in lieu of Apollo, the actual final program
would have looked about like this:
|
Date | Flight | Description | |
Titan 2 Launches | |
Apr 1964 | Gemini 1 | Unmanned booster orbital test;
boilerplate spacecraft. | |
Jan 1965 | Gemini 2 | Unmanned suborbital test of
spacecraft | |
Mar 1965 | Gemini 3 | Manned
orbital | | |
Jun 1965 | Gemini 4 | 4-day manned
orbital | |
Aug 1965 | Gemini 5 | 8-day manned
orbital | |
Dec 1965 | Gemini 7 | 14-day manned
orbital | |
Dec 1965 | Gemini 6 | Rendezvous with Gemini 7 (Agena target
failed to orbit) | |
Mar 1966 | Gemini 8 | Agena
docking | |
Jun 1966 | Gemini 9 | Agena
docking | |
Aug 1966 | Gemini 10 | Centaur docking, boost to high Earth
orbit | |
Oct 1966 | Gemini 11 | Centaur docking, boost to high Earth
orbit | |
Nov 1966 | Gemini 12 | LM
docking | |
Jan 1967 | Gemini 13 | LM
docking | |
Feb 1967 | Gemini 14 | LM
docking | |
Mar 1967 | Gemini 15 | Centaur docking, boost to Lunar
flyby | |
Apr 1967 | Gemini 16 | Centaur docking, boost to Lunar
flyby | |
| |
Saturn C-3 Launches | |
Aug 1967 | Gemini 17 | Unmanned test of Saturn
C-3 | |
Feb 1968 | Gemini 18 | Unmanned Lunar orbital
test | |
Oct 1968 | Gemini 19 | Manned Lunar
orbital | |
Dec 1968 | Gemini 20 | Manned Lunar landing |
So in the end, the first lunar landing would have been moved up by six months at best. There would have been a cost
savings, but again analysis of the detailed cost breakdowns for Apollo indicate the savings would have been on the
order of 'only' $ 4 billion out of the NASA $ 18 billion project share. So in retrospect it would seem that NASA's
management was correct, for the Apollo missions flown were much more capable than a Gemini-based approach would have
been.
|
Gemini-Agena Gemini docked to Agena... Credit- © Mark Wade
|
This was not the end of lunar Gemini. At least three times in the next four years such plans were again actively
discussed.
September 1962 - Gemini Lunar Logistics and Rescue Vehicle
In the summer and fall of 1962 NASA headquarters asked Space Technology Laboratories and McDonnell to study use of
Gemini as a 'lunar logistics and rescue vehicle'. The eight week study looked at using Gemini to land two men
directly onto the lunar surface and identified the design changes required to accomplish this. An estimate was made
of the cost of purchasing extra Gemini spacecraft for this purpose. But at that point in time Gemini was in deep
financial and schedule problems, and the matter was not pursued further.
March 1964 - Gemini / Saturn IB
In the spring of 1964, with manned Apollo flights using the Saturn I having been cancelled, use of a Saturn I to
launch a Gemini around the moon was studied. This could either be flown in the long gap between the end of Gemini
and the start of Apollo/Saturn IB flights, or as a contingency to beat the Russians around the moon if Apollo
suffered severe delays. But Von Braun and others were not interested in Congress getting wind of anything that could
undermine support for Apollo. On June 8 NASA headquarters issued instructions that "any circumlunar mission studies
related to the use of Gemini will be confined to in-house study efforts" and prohibiting issuance of contracts to
McDonnell to pursue the matter.
June 1965 - Gemini / Double Transtage
Still the matter would not die. A year later, astronaut Pete Conrad conspired with Martin and McDonnell
corporations to advocate an early circumlunar flight using Gemini. Discretely called 'Gemini - Large Earth Orbit',
the plan would use a Titan 3C-launched Transtage to boost the Gemini to translunar speed. A declassified memorandum
from the Director, Gemini Systems Engineering, documents a June 24, 1965 meeting at Manned Spaceflight Center
between the contractors' corporate heads and highest NASA management. At this meeting the companies 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.
!clip!
|
Gemini/Transtage-LEO Translunar Gemini with Double Transtage - LEO Configuration... Credit- © Mark
Wade
|
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.
|
Gemini/Transtage-TLI Translunar Gemini with Transtage - Translunar Configuration... Credit- © Mark
Wade
|
The author of the memo thought that Gemini extension efforts would be better directed towards proving space station
assembly techniques and procedures using Gemini and Agena. He also thought the schedule and cost estimates to be
over-optimistic. The reaction of top NASA management was more categorical. Pete Conrad managed to stir Congressional
interest, but NASA administrator James Webb informed them that any extra funds Congress cared to appropriate for
such a project would be better spent accelerating the Apollo program. After further internal struggles, Conrad
finally got NASA approval for the Agena on his Gemini 11 flight to boost him into a record 1,570 km orbit. This
high flight was the only remnant of lunar Gemini.
April 1967 - Gemini Universal Lunar Rescue Vehicle
In the wake of the Apollo fire, NASA reexamined many safety aspects of the Apollo project. The Apollo mission
profile was inherently risky, and the likelihood of a crew being stranded in lunar orbit or on the lunar surface was
relatively high. McDonnell returned to a concept first studied in 1962 - the use of Gemini as a Lunar Rescue
Vehicle. Use of the Gemini B capsule, then in construction for use with the US Air Force's Manned Orbiting
Laboratory, with various combinations of Apollo lunar module stations, would provide a rescue vehicle that could
pick up Apollo astronauts stranded in lunar orbit or on the lunar surface. Three variant rescue schemes were
studied:
|
Gemini LORV Gemini Lunar Orbit Rescue Vehicle, studied for rescue of an Apollo crew stranded in lunar
orbit. Gemini would be launched by Saturn V. Following lunar orbit insertion it would rendezvous with the disabled
Apollo. The three Apollo crew members would transfer by spacewalk to a compartment in the stretched Gemini capsule.
It would then boost itself on a transearth trajectory. This was rejected in favour of the more flexible Gemini Lunar
Surface Rescue Vehicle.... Credit- McDonnell Douglas
|
- Gemini Lunar Orbit Rescue Vehicle - This version could rescue an Apollo CSM
crew stranded in lunar orbit. The Gemini would be launched unmanned on a translunar trajectory by a Saturn V.
Following lunar orbit insertion it would automatically rendezvous with the disabled Apollo. The three Apollo crew
members would transfer by spacewalk to the passenger compartment of the stretched Gemini re-entry module. It would
then boost itself and the rescued crew to a transearth trajectory.
- Gemini Lunar Surface Survival Shelter - Prior to an Apollo moon landing
attempt, the shelter would be landed, unmanned, near the landing site of the Apollo Lunar Module. In the event the
LM ascent stage would not light to take the crew back to the Apollo CSM in lunar orbit, the two astronauts could go
to the shelter and await a rescue mission. The astronaut in the CSM would return alone in the Apollo spacecraft.
- Gemini Lunar Surface Rescue Spacecraft - The unmanned Gemini spacecraft
would be piloted by remote control to a landing near a stranded Apollo lunar module. An extended Gemini re-entry
capsule had a passenger compartment for the two rescued astronauts. The basic LSRS design used three Lunar Module
descent stages for lunar orbit insertion, lunar landing, and lunar ascent.
An alternate configuration used two Apollo Service Modules and a repackaged LM descent stage. In the alternate
configuration the first Service Module completed the translunar injection manoeuvre begun by the S-IVB stage; the
second SM accomplished lunar orbit insertion and then functioned as a 'lunar crasher' stage, bringing the Gemini to
just above the lunar surface. The Gemini and the third transearth-lunar landing stage would then hover to a landing
near the stranded lunar module. The same final stage then boosted the Gemini capsule into a transearth trajectory.
McDonnell summarised the advantages of the various schemes, as contrasted with use of Apollo hardware for the same
task, in the following matrix:
| Lunar Orbit
Rescue | Lunar Surface Survival Shelter | Lunar Surface Rescue |
| Gemini | Apollo | Gemini | Apollo | Gemini | Apollo |
| Vehicle Description | Modified Gemini & repackaged LM Ascent Stage | Apollo
CSM | Modified Gemini & Modified LM Descent
Stage | Modified SM & Modified LM | Modified Gemini, repackaged LM Ascent Stage & Modified LM Descent
Stages | Apollo CSM & LM |
| Mission | Unmanned to
lunar orbit, three man direct return | Unmanned to lunar orbit,
three man direct return | Unmanned to lunar surface, 28 day
quiescent storage, 28 day 2-man operation | Unmanned to lunar
surface, 30 day manned operation | Unmanned to lunar orbit, 30 day
unmanned quiescent stay, 2 man direct return | Unmanned to lunar
orbit, LM to lunar surface, LM to lunar orbit, 2 man return |
| Advantages |
Uses developed equipment | No new development Can be
accomplished with current acquisitions | Extension of lunar
orbit vehicle | Similar to planned post-Apollo exploration
shelter | Extension of lunar orbit/shelter vehicle No
rendezvous required Direct return | No new
development Same as existing mission |
| Disadvantages | New spacecraft development | Possibility of same
failure mode | New spacecraft
development | Requires modifications to existing
hardware | New spacecraft
development | Rendezvous required May be difficult to
automate transpose docking |
| Recommendations | Do not
develop-rescue capability too limited. Greatest emergency potential at lunar surface | Do not develop - need for shelter and total number of Saturn launches reduced by providing
an on-station backup return capability | Modify to a 'Universal'
Rescue Vehicle by improving capability to cover three-man cases |
McDonnell concluded that an unmanned Gemini 'Universal Lunar Rescue Vehicle' could be developed that would
perform all three tasks. The Gemini capsule would be extended to allow up to three rescued Apollo crew members to be
returned. Such a craft could rescue the entire Apollo crew at any point along the Apollo mission profile. Some
sketches appear to show a two-man Gemini crew in addition to three crew couches in the Gemini capsule extension. The
unspoken point was that the Saturn V was in fact large enough to land men on the moon using the direct-ascent
method. Use of lunar orbit rendezvous was only necessary because of NASA's adherence to the 6 tonne, three-crew
Apollo command module design. The 2 tonne Gemini capsule, even in a form stretched to accommodate three to five
crew, could accomplish a direct landing on the moon using Apollo components.
This last attempt to resuscitate Lunar Gemini failed as well. At that point in the Apollo program cut-backs already
had begun. No funds would be forthcoming to build additional launch vehicles and spacecraft beyond those already
purchased. There was definitely no money to provide a rescue capability, using either Apollo or Gemini hardware.
A Personal Postscript
Not considered at the time, but truly having the potential for a reduced-cost, reduced-risk program would have been
a purely Titan-based, USAF-managed project. By using earth-orbit rendezvous and Titan 2 and Titan 3C as the launch
vehicles, a program can be constructed that would have landed an American on the moon much earlier than Apollo. With
a 2,500 kg open-cockpit LM the moon landing could be accomplished using only two Titan 3 launches: one a Titan 3E,
putting a Centaur upper stage into low earth orbit; the other a Titan 3D, putting a Lunar Gemini-LM combination into
low earth orbit, which would dock with the Centaur and then proceed to the moon. Such a program, taking into
account the actual Gemini and Titan 3C development schedules, would have looked something like this:
|
Date | Flight | LVs | Description | |
Apr 1964 | Gemini 1 | Titan 2 | Unmanned booster orbital test; boilerplate spacecraft. | |
Jan 1965 | Gemini 2 | Titan 2 | Unmanned suborbital test of spacecraft | |
Mar 1965 | Gemini 3 | Titan 2 | Manned orbital | | |
Jun 1965 | Gemini 4 | Titan 2 | 4-day manned orbital | |
Jun 1965 | Gemini L-1 | Titan 3C | First test flight of Titan 3C; unmanned lunar flyby | |
Aug 1965 | Gemini 5 | Titan 2 | 8-day manned orbital | |
Oct 1965 | Gemini L-2 | Titan 3C | Unmanned lunar flyby test; Transtage exploded | |
Dec 1965 | Gemini 7 | Titan 2 | 14-day manned orbital | |
Dec 1965 | Gemini 6 | Titan 2 | Rendezvous with Gemini 7 (Agena target failed to orbit) | |
Dec 1965 | Gemini L-3 | Titan 3C | Unmanned lunar flyby | |
Mar 1966 | Gemini 8 | Titan
2/Atlas-Agena | Agena docking | |
Jun 1966 | Gemini 9 | Titan
2/Atlas-Agena | Agena docking | |
Jun 1966 | Gemini L-4 | Titan 3C | Manned lunar flyby | |
Aug 1966 | Gemini 10 | Titan
2/Atlas-Agena | LM docking | |
Aug 1966 | Gemini L-5 | Titan 3E | Titan 3E test; unmanned; failure | |
Oct 1966 | Gemini 11 | Titan
2/Atlas-Agena | LM docking | |
Nov 1966 | Gemini L-6 | Titan 3E | Unmanned lunar orbiter | |
Jan 1967 | Gemini L-7 | Titan 3E | Manned lunar orbiter | |
Apr 1967 | Gemini L-8 | Titan 3E/Titan 3D | Manned earth orbit rendezvous, lunar orbit, LM descent | |
Jul 1967 | Gemini L-9 | Titan 3E/Titan 3D | First landing on moon |
Such a program could have achieved a manned lunar landing two years earlier than Apollo at half the cost, a savings
of $ 9 billion.
References
- Baker, David, The History of Manned Space Flight,Crown Books, 1982.
- Hacker, Barton C. and Grimwood, James M.On the Shoulders of Titans - A History of Project Gemini, NASA,
1977.
- Hall, Edwin H., Memorandum to Deputy Director, Gemini Program, "Circumlunar Missions", June 29, 1965.
- McDonnell Douglas Briefing Materials, Universal Lunar Rescue Vehicle, April 1967.
- Many thanks to Tom Gangale for his thoughts and references on this subject, to Scott Lowther for discovering and
providing the June 1965 memorandum, and to Mike Mackowski for uncovering details of the 1967 Gemini Universal Lunar
Rescue Vehicle.
Contact us with any corrections, additions, or comments.
Conditions for use of drawings, pictures, or other materials from this site..
To contact astronauts or cosmonauts.
© Mark Wade, 1997 - 2008 except where otherwise noted.
|
|