Dual Gemini launches considered before GTA-6 Agena failure

Browsing through an issue of Aviation Week, May 17, 1965 (recently
bought from a local antique store), I found an article in the
"Industry Observer" on p. 23:

"NASA is considering the possibility of launching two manned Gemini
spacecraft within a few days of each other so that the two would
operate concurrently in space for a day or two. If approved, the plan
probably would not be implemented until late in the Gemini program.
With only one Gemini launch stand at Cape Kennedy, NASA would likely
have to erect and check out the second vehicle first, then lower and
store it until the first vehicle had flown. This approach would
require checkout equipment during the storage of the second
vehicle--one of the biggest hurdles in this plan."

So apparently the "GT-7/6" joint mission was not dreamed up within
hours of the GTA-6 launch hold-kill in October 1965, but was actually
already under analysis for at least 5 months. (This is news to me.)

John Charles
Houston, Texas

"John Charles" wrote in message
om...

So apparently the "GT-7/6" joint mission was not dreamed up within
hours of the GTA-6 launch hold-kill in October 1965, but was actually
already under analysis for at least 5 months. (This is news to me.)

Hadn't heard that, thanks for passing it along. Fits in with what we know
about how NASA prepared for mission contingencies: little or no real
"improvisation", just reaching into a binder to review the results of a
prior sim or think-piece.

--
Terrell Miller


"In the early days as often
as not the (rocket) exploded on or near the launch pad; that
seldom happens any longer."
-Columbia Accident Investigation Board report, vol.1 p.19

In article ,
Terrell Miller wrote:
Hadn't heard that, thanks for passing it along. Fits in with what we know
about how NASA prepared for mission contingencies: little or no real
"improvisation", just reaching into a binder to review the results of a
prior sim or think-piece.

Well, yes and no. The problem was that the sims and think-pieces often
didn't precisely cover the contingency in question. They could provide
useful starting points, but often extensive improvisation *was* necessary.

In particular, assorted work on "LM lifeboat" options for Apollo all
assumed that the failure was in the CSM *propulsion* system -- nobody had
ever simulated, studied, or even thought about getting home with the CSM
*dead*, as Apollo 13 did. Which is why doing that was one frantic
improvisation after another.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message
...
"John Charles" wrote in message
om...

So apparently the "GT-7/6" joint mission was not dreamed up within
hours of the GTA-6 launch hold-kill in October 1965, but was actually
already under analysis for at least 5 months. (This is news to me.)

Hadn't heard that, thanks for passing it along. Fits in with what we know
about how NASA prepared for mission contingencies: little or no real
"improvisation", just reaching into a binder to review the results of a
prior sim or think-piece.


Gemini 7/6 challenges -

Record turnaround time for a Titan II launch (that was never repeated by the
USAF)
..... and Schirra winning the "steely eyes missile man "award on December 12
(not aborting)
How to handle 2 manned Gemini vehicles in orbit (not performed for another 4
years with Apollo 9)

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...203/ch12-3.htm
Chapter 12 - On the Shoulders of Titans
In September 1964, Mueller had asked Schneider if he thought activating a
second launch complex would help to shorten the time between launches.
Schneider's first reaction was no. But, in February 1965, he had his office
study the value of launching two Gemini spacecraft either simultaneously or
in quick succession. Eldon W. Hall, Schneider's Systems Engineering
Director, reported that having two crews in orbit at the same time and
trading pilots in mid-space would have public appeal. Other advantages might
be using an unmanned Gemini for a space rescue or completing a rendezvous
mission if a spacecraft failed to launch. But none of these things was worth
the cost of a second pad and spacecraft modifications. In summary, Hall
said, "It might be nice, but there is no overwhelming necessity."17

gb

G.Beat wrote:

Record turnaround time for a Titan II launch (that was never repeated by the
USAF)

I'm pretty sure that the Air Force could've gotten fifty or so Titan
II's airborne inside of say, thirty minutes, if they had had the proper
motivation....

.... and Schirra winning the "steely eyes missile man "award on December 12
(not aborting)


I'll agree with you fully on that one...that was the coolest operator
(actually both of them were cool) that ever came down the pipe for that
example of trusting one's instincts over SOP in that situation... I was
watching that one of TV and I think I was more concerned about the
situation than he was....although from the discussions of the
effectiveness of those Gemini ejection seats in relation to an on-pad
abort that we've had here, staying in the capsule until you are _sure_
that the launch vehicle is falling apart might be the safest move.

Pat

GT-7/6 is still the only time, when more than one manned US-spacecraft was
in orbit simultanously, not counting space stations. Isn't it?

"Harald Kucharek" wrote in message
om...
GT-7/6 is still the only time, when more than one manned US-spacecraft was
in orbit simultanously, not counting space stations. Isn't it?

No, Apollo 9 technically counts.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Harald Kucharek" wrote in message
om...
GT-7/6 is still the only time, when more than one manned US-spacecraft was
in orbit simultanously, not counting space stations. Isn't it?

No, Apollo 9 technically counts.

How about Apollo 10-17. Technically (Actually) the moon orbits the
earth, right?

Sam "Word fight....." Seiber

"Sam Seiber" wrote...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Harald Kucharek" wrote in message
om...
GT-7/6 is still the only time, when more than one manned
US-spacecraft was in orbit simultanously, not counting
space stations. Isn't it?

No, Apollo 9 technically counts.

How about Apollo 10-17. Technically (Actually) the moon
orbits the earth, right?

Apollo 13 never really qualified for two manned spacecraft - they were
never separated when they were manned.

- Peter

Peter Smith wrote:
Apollo 13 never really qualified for two manned spacecraft - they were
never separated when they were manned.

- Peter

tongue in cheek
Leave it to sci.space.nit!
Perhaps it could be viewed as one spacecraft, but I think it
could be argued to be two.
/tongue in cheek

I think I am going to stay out of this word war. I feel my
chances of winning are poor. Point taken.

Sam