I found a cool scale picture

[astropapi1]

Did you read the posts above? Gemini 7 was a (near) 14 day mission, a lot more than the Apollo 11 mission of a little over a week. That was all done in the same cramped seat, eating, sleeping, pooping, you name it. Imagine living in the driver's seat of a sportscar car for two weeks, with another guy right next to you...

Doing routine missions to the moon in that situation wouldn't be very nice...

[Camacha]

Doing routine missions to the moon in that situation wouldn't be very nice...

They weren't with Gemini either, yet they did extended missions with that. Though I do think that some of lessons learned in the Gemini program resulted in more creature comforts for the Apollo missions. Astronaut parameters were apparently better without bulky suits, leading to the jumpsuits first used in the Apollo program and that we still see today. The crew is - and were even more in those days - an important mission asset and it pays to keep them as fresh and happy as is reasonably possible.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Camacha

[Albert VDS]

Gemini is a great capsule, but they couldn't have done a 3 manned mission with it. Which is the minimum.

[astropapi1]

Gemini is a great capsule, but they couldn't have done a 3 manned mission with it. Which is the minimum.

By what standards? The russians planned to do a two-man moon mission, and they would have done it if the N1 wasn't so explosive.

[KASASpace]

How do you figure that? It was the final Gemini flight, and the radar failed (causing a manual rendezvous) and there was a problem with the Agena.

Well, let's see.

It was cheaper.

Lighter with close to similar capabilities.

no Oxygen tank exploded

no thruster packs sticking out

the list goes on

That state does not exist, especially in spaceflight. To think otherwise is to invite disaster.

Obviously. I was referring to level of reliability. As in, no Oxygen tanks exploded, and no cabin fires (deadly ones, which ALL would be deadly) occurred. The stuck thruster from Gemini 8 was fixed, the weird thruster stuff from Gemini 5 was fixed (go Gordo!). And the launch vehicle, which wsa KNOWN for problems, never (save Gemini 6) had problems.

[Camacha]

Well, let's see.

It was cheaper.

Lighter with close to similar capabilities.

no Oxygen tank exploded

[...]

It all very much depends on what you look at. We know Apollo has been developed because Gemini was not satisfactory. Otherwise they would not have bothered. That is the way of technological systems in development - improvements will be made. It also in no way diminishes the accomplishments of Gemini and its crew. Without it Apollo would not have been possible, as most spacecraft strongly depend on predecessors.

Most of the arguments are quite arbitrary. One could argue that Gemini was cheaper because it did not go as far and had less creature comforts. No oxygen tanks exploded, but a multitude of other errors and problems occured - as is to be expected with highly experimental technology. Similar arguments could be used for the other statements.

It is clear that you feel strongly about Gemini, but I think was a great succes and a stepping stone to more complex and probably advanced craft.

[Skyrunner27]

Obviously. I was referring to level of reliability. As in, no Oxygen tanks exploded, and no cabin fires (deadly ones, which ALL would be deadly) occurred. The stuck thruster from Gemini 8 was fixed, the weird thruster stuff from Gemini 5 was fixed (go Gordo!). And the launch vehicle, which wsa KNOWN for problems, never (save Gemini 6) had problems.

And, the points you pointed out against Apollo were also fixed.

[ArmchairGravy]

God I miss the Saturn V. Most badass thing we've yet to build.

[StrandedonEarth]

The oxygen tank wouldn't have exploded if it hadn't been dropped

And yes, such a shame the Saturn V didn't fly more. Stupid wars.

[Umlüx]

without wars we maybe wold have never even been on the moon.

[StrandedonEarth]

True, war is a great driver of technology. Given how barren Kerbin appears, perhaps that's what happened there.

Not all wars are stupid, but in my opinion, Vietnam was. The problem these days is the military-industrial juggernaut keeps looking to justify its continued existence, along with generals wanting to play with their fancy new toys.

[Wahgineer]

Well, let's see.

Obviously. I was referring to level of reliability. As in, no Oxygen tanks exploded, and no cabin fires (deadly ones, which ALL would be deadly) occurred. The stuck thruster from Gemini 8 was fixed, the weird thruster stuff from Gemini 5 was fixed (go Gordo!). And the launch vehicle, which wsa KNOWN for problems, never (save Gemini 6) had problems.

The Saturn V never had any problems at all. Apollo 1 was a malfunction in the capsule, it also used a saturn IB. Apollo 13 was a problem in the CSM, and skylab was a problem with the fairings on separation. The Saturn V/Saturn family is probably (emphasis on probably) one of the only rockets/rocket families to have a flawless service record over its lifetime.

[Klingon Admiral]

The Saturn V never had any problems at all. Apollo 1 was a malfunction in the capsule, it also used a saturn IB. Apollo 13 was a problem in the CSM, and skylab was a problem with the fairings on separation. The Saturn V/Saturn family is probably (emphasis on probably) one of the only rockets/rocket families to have a flawless service record over its lifetime.

During Apollo 13, the central engine of the Saturn Vs second stage shut down early, although the rest of the engines were able to compensate.

[Kryten]

The Saturn V/Saturn family is probably (emphasis on probably) one of the only rockets/rocket families to have a flawless service record over its lifetime.

During AS-203, an entire S-IVB stage (from a Saturn-IB, but practically identical to the same stage on a Saturn V) outright exploded, which I think most people would consider a 'flaw'.

[sgt_flyer]

Early Saturn V's did suffer from dangerous pogo oscillations - notably in apollo 6 mission. (Two j2 engines were damaged in the sII, and the S-IVc j2 engine could not be restarted for the TLI burn - so they had to resort of using the csm's engine to mimick reentry speeds of a return from the moon, instead of doing the full intended mission (and actual real return from the moon)

[Camacha]

Not all wars are stupid

All wars are stupid. They cause invariably major loss of life, material goods and suffering among people that did not start or want the war. Even in the most lopsided conflict there are always two losing sides. Winning a war is simply losing the least.

They can be, however, a major catalyst for technological improvements. This was true in Roman times and this is true today. It is quite certain we would not have flown in space the way we did without it - or even at all. As in nature, our tools are the sharpest in times of conflict. The gains come at a great cost though.

[Wahgineer]

I meant clean service record as in no loss of life, nor jeopardy to the mission. (AS-203 was a test mission, so it actually contributed in that there was a flaw that needed to be fixed before it became a problem. It was also stated as a successful mission.)