HOME | DD
vermeil — Gemini
by-nc-sa
Published: 2007-10-04 22:01:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 627; Favourites: 5; Downloads: 6
Redirect to original
Description
A Gemini spacecraft from the mid 60ies. NASA used project Gemini to try out equipment and procedures for extended duration missions, orbital plane adjustment, rendez-vous and docking, deep-space orbits, and EVA ("space walks").This is my favorite (existing) spacecraft, and it's probably the most effective spacecraft USA has ever launched.
This drawing is inspired by 's wonderful aircraft illustrations. It is based on a small pixelart image by Mark Wade.
Made with Inkscape.
EDIT: I've improved proportions and added a few more details.
Related content
Comments: 11
I agree, the best & most effective! Gemini was awesome, my favorite. It's a shame that it's not as well remembered as Mercrury & Apollo. The astronauts loved Gemini, they called it the "pilot's spacecraft". In the event that Apollo was not successful in getting the first man on the moon, NASA was prepared with a Lunar Gemini program. In the movie "Countdown", you'll see this concept in use. Gemini Rules!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Good stuff ; makes me wonder about how things would be if MOL or Big Gemini got a chance to fly. I agree, a much more effective craft than the flying Edsel NASA's got right now.. And now they got the Orion CEV replacing it. Back to single-use Capsules, go figure... haha
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
by "flying edsel" I HOPE you don't mean the STS (a.k.a. Space Shuttle)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do...
I believe the shuttle outlived its usefulness as a satellite launcher once the unmanned launchers like Delta, Proton, etc. got into full swing.
I also believe the shuttle helped retard man's expansion into outer space by 30 years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Possibly - but without the Shuttle, Hubble would have just been an orbiting piece of junk, and the International Space Station wouldn't have worked as well (I dont think)
Besides, any deep space exploration (beyond Earth Orbit) would require a vessel built in orbit anyway, and not on the ground.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As I mentioned to vermeil, the ISS, after already being overbudjet and behind schedule seemed to only exist to continue to give the Shuttle a reason to still fly and vice versa, Hubble just happened to be supremely lucky to have a manned system like the shuttle around.
Either way you look at it, though, America's been shortdicked on its manned space program by having to foot the bill for a system that barely lives up to its touted cost-effectiveness.
I agree that future manned space exploration outside of LEO would require a vehicle built in orbit which, like the Constellation program will not require the shuttle to put into orbit. Sure the Ares launch vehicles will have parts based off the SRBs and ET, but at least the Man-Rated vehicle like the Orion won't have to be huge, complex and require a complete overhaul after every flight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, the thing that killed the space program was not the shuttle, it was budget cuts. Technically, it was a massive budget infusion, based on sentimentality toward the late President Kennedy, that got us to the Moon. That, and the drive to beat the Russians there. Without that, we wouldn't have even considered going until the early 80's
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I suppose large, reusable vehicles made sense back in the early 70's when they still expected to send a lot of tonnage into space on a regular basis. In hindsight, as the Soviet/Russian Soyuz turned out to be the better concept, there's no reason why modified Apollos or Geminis couldn't have done the job cheaper and faster.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah. The place where the shuttle failed was its main selling point. NASA sold the shuttle to the Nixon administration because they said that it'd be able to turn a profit. Unfortunately the launch rates are significantly less than originally speculated. The amount of prep time between each shuttle launch cannot be brought to the tempo of "50 launches a year" that it was sold on. The main reason aside from safety concerns is the orbiter itself. It's not a "re-usable" vehicle in the true sense of the word. After each flight, everything on the spacecraft has to be either overhauled or outright replaced.
Plus, ever since the post-Challenger hiatus in the 80s, unmanned launch vehicles have evolved significantly, so most of the payloads that otherwise would have gone up on the shuttle are now able to be serviced by Delta, Atlas, Airane, Proton, etc.
Now, the only thing going up on the shuttle are the remaining ISS components. This is probably the only reason the shuttle still flys... to service ISS, and vice-versa.
NASA doesn't want to leave it's contractors in the cold by shutting down the shuttle production centers (one of the reasons the X-33 and VentureStar programs were killed). Since the shuttles satellite payloads were being sourced to unmanned launchers, the ISS is its only lifeline.
But its days are numbered, and in due time, IMO. It's high time we quit screwing around in Low-Earth Orbit and pick up where we left off after Apollo.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you! I hope to improve it further with a couple of new reference photographs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0