 Big Gemini spacecraft concept, August, 1969. | |||
| Manufacturer | McDonnell Douglas | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Country of origin | United States | ||
| Operator | NASA | ||
| Applications | Logisticspacecraft derived fromGemini that would be used to resupply an orbitingspace station | ||
| Specifications | |||
| Spacecraft type | Space capsule | ||
| Bus | Project Gemini | ||
| Dry mass | 34,370 pounds (15,590 kg) | ||
| Payload capacity | 5,500 pounds (2,500 kg) | ||
| Crew capacity | 9 to 12 | ||
| Volume | 660 cubic feet (19 m3) | ||
| Dimensions | |||
| Length | 38.00 feet (11.58 m) | ||
| Diameter | 14.00 feet (4.27 m) | ||
| Production | |||
| Status | cancelled | ||
| Related spacecraft | |||
| Derived from | Gemini B | ||
| |||
Big Gemini (or "Big G") was proposed toNASA byMcDonnell Douglas in August 1969 as an advanced version of theGemini spacecraft system (albeit actually having little in common). It was intended to provide large-capacity, all-purpose access tospace, including missions that ultimately usedApollo or theSpace Shuttle.
The study was performed to generate a preliminary definition of alogisticspacecraft derived from Gemini that would be used to resupply an orbitingspace station. Land-landing at a preselected site and refurbishment and reuse were design requirements. Two baseline spacecraft were defined: a nine-man minimum modification version of theGemini B calledMin-Mod Big G and a 12-man advanced concept, having the same exteriorgeometry but with new, state-of-the-art subsystems, calledAdvanced Big G. Three launch vehicles-Saturn IB,Titan IIIM, andSaturn INT-20 (S-IC/S-IVB) were investigated for use with the spacecraft. The Saturn IB was discarded late in the study.
The spacecraft consisted of a crew module designed by extending the Gemini B exterior cone to a 419-cm-diameterheat shield and a cargopropulsion module. Recovery of the crew module would be effected by means of a gliding parachute (parawing). The parametric analysis and point design of the parawing were accomplished by Northrop-Ventura Company under a subcontract, and the contents of their final report were incorporated into the document. The landing attenuation of the spacecraft would be accomplished by a skid landing gear extended from the bottom of the crew module, allowing the crew to land in an upright position. The propulsion functions oftransfer,rendezvous,attitude control, and retrograde would be performed by a singleliquid propellant system, and launch escape would be provided by a large Apollo-typelaunch escape system.
In addition to the design analysis, operational support analysis and a program development plan were prepared.
The concept was given serious consideration. In 1971, faced with budget cuts which rendered the development of a fully-reusable space shuttle infeasible, NASA administratorGeorge Low lamented that shuttle development might have to be delayed until the 1980s, with "something like a "big G" approach and a cheap space station" filling in as an interim. TheOffice of Management and Budget was much more favorable to the idea than NASA, concluding in a staff paper that Big Gemini launched aboard an uprated Titan III would be a more cost-effective option than any shuttle design. Ultimately OMB Deputy DirectorCaspar Weinberger helped to broker a compromise where Big G was taken off the table and NASA was given the greenlight for immediate development of a partially-reusable thrust-assisted orbiter shuttle.[1]
This article incorporatespublic domain material from websites or documents of theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration.| Missions |
|  | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Astronauts |
| |||||
| Components | ||||||
| Launch sites | ||||||
| Developments | ||||||
| Related | ||||||