From: pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu
J. Clarke writes:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:42:15 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
> wrote:
>>
>>There were a lot of proposals along the way that were floated more so
>>they could say they'd considered everything than because there was any
>>chance of it actually happening. "Gemini to the moon" was one of them --
>>the only goals for the Gemni program were to investigate spacewalks and
>>docking at less cost than using Apollo capsules for the purpose. It
>>wasn't killed off because it was a threat, it was killed off because
>>(like Mercury before it) it had accomplished its goals.
>
> So why didn't they fly the Gemini-Centaur missions? The
> Gemini-around-the-Moon mission would have been easy to accomplish.
Why *should* they have flown Gemini-Centaur missions?
They weren't going to send Apollo to the moon without sending it around
first. Sending Gemini around the moon first would have been an extra
mission with no real benefit.
>>> NASA had a real problem with Centaur for some reason. The Shuttle was
>>> designed to carry it in the payload bay, but never did, instead they
>>> used the vastly less capable "Interim upper stage" that later became
>>> the "Inertial Upper Stage" and further crippled an already crippled
>>> system.
>>
>>You do know it's used as the upper stage in Atlas V some versions of the
>>Titan, right? If I can believe Wikipedia, Shuttle-Centaur was cancelled
>>right after Challenger due to the risk of carrying it. I suspect the big
>>difference that led them to thinking the IUS wasn't as risky is that it
>>was solid fueled.
>
> Yes, I'm well aware of the history of Centaur. NASA wouldn't fly it
> on Gemini missions or on the Shuttle.
For good reasons other than "had a real problem with Centaur".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
