Gemini Titan K-21

[hoverhans]

Just found this site and am real happy I did. Been a BAR for about 5 years and built all the rockets I had as a kid from available plans.

Have one I am doing now and need some expert help. The K-21 Gemini. It calls for a JT70A tube for the dual engine mount. I need to know the proper length of the tube. I can't seem to find this out anywhere.

Also I have done all the fins and balsa parts I can find and drawn them up in cad for laser cutting as I have a laser cutter in my shop. Not sure if anyone bothers with laser cut fins, but thought I would put it out there if anyone may need some.
Hans

[EchoVictor]

Welcome to YORF, Hans!

Let me be the first to ask, as I'm sure many others will, can you post some pictures? We always love to see some of the oldies, either in original or in clone form.

Also, I have to ask, do you have a brother named Franz? :D

Later,
EV

[hoverhans]

Thanks for the welcome.
Right now I have built these rockets from plans and available parts.
The old Sizzler, not the new rear eject
The meduim size V-2
The small early V-2
The Maxi V-2
The Big Bertha
The Mean Machine
The Orbital Transporter
The swing Wing is cut and ready to build
And the Gemini Titan is being built now as well.
Someone told me that the JT70A tube is 1.25" long, so I should have that one done soon.

I am looking for a nose cone for the Maxi Pershing.

I also have the Saturn V and a Saturn 1B on the list as well as the Mercury Atlas and old Space Shuttle built. Need to get the Redstone.
I'll see about taking a few pics of the old models and the clones this weekend. I really love building the old rockets from the plans. It is more fun than it was building the kits all those years ago.

No brother named Franz.
Hans

[ghrocketman]

Not sure if you are aware of this or not but the K-21 is now being cloned commercially.
I bought one of these and can say it is a great kit !

http://www.pdrocketry.com/rocket.htm

Cost of the kit is $34.95 at the PDR website shown above.
Lots of other great clones such as the Trident, Thor-Agena B, Orbital Transport, Andromeda, Starlight, and Mars Snooper are available too.

I purchased the K-21 Gemini Titan, Trident, and Orbital Transport and they are all as good if not better than the original issued Estes kits from the 60's/70's.
The Orbital Transport even includes laser-cut fins !

Good luck with the Pershing 1A nose cone....there are exactly ZERO available clone replacement cones nor can any common known parts be assembled to resemble one. The only known alternative to this is to have one commercially or home turned out of balsa on a LARGE lathe; this would be extremely costly, heavy, and impractical.

Good luck with the Saturn 1B (K-29 1/70 I assume) as several of these parts are near impossible to get (BT-51 tank tubes).
The Estes 1/70 Saturn 1B is supposed to be issued as a limited production re-release in the Fall of 2006. Originally it was supposed to be fall of this year and was on the eHobbies site as a future product. It has been removed from the site as it was decided by Estes to delay the intro for a year (no reason given for the delay)

The Mercury Atlas uses a unique body tube that was shared by the 1/45 Centuri Little Joe...this is also an impossible find for cloning.

[hoverhans]

GH thanks for the link. Had no idea they were being made. Looks like very nice stuff!

The thing is I like doing the whole thing myself. Just more fun for me that way.

When I did my Orbital Transporter I laser cut the fins as well. Sure is a nice tool to have around the shop. I make my own decals too.
I bought boxes and boxes of body tubes in all sizes and made a cutting jig to cut them to length, I laser cut my fins, paper shrouds, and centering rings, and print my own decals on an ALPs printer. I guess I could go into production if I really wanted to :) I sat down one day and made all the parts up for 12 Sizzler kits just for the fun of it.

The Saturn 1B that I have is a Kosrox kit. Not sure if you can still get them or not. I heard the Pershing cone is a major no go. Too bad. I thought I heard of a guy that made a few about 4 years ago, but never heard anything more about it. My Atlas was a real kit and so are both my Saturn Vs.

Again, thanks for the link. The more I learn the better.

Once the BAR bug hits, you are a lost cause!
Hans

[hoverhans]

GH,

"Good luck with the Saturn 1B (K-29 1/70 I assume) as several of these parts are near impossible to get (BT-51 tank tubes)."

Thought I would let you know that the T-50+ from Totally Tubular is a near perfect replacement for the Estes BT-51. The BT-51 is 1.010 outside and .984 inside. The T-50+ is 1.011 outside and .984 inside.

Hans

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

I'm pretty sure someone out there is selling Pershing cones. Let me see if I can track the info down.

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

That was quicker than I had anticipated. A place called Alien Enterprises sells Pershing cones. (Or at least they did.) The info is all in this post.
http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5640&highlight=pershing+cone

[hoverhans]

Thanks Bill. I knew I had seen them someplace.
I tried the email contact, but it is not formatted right.
I'll try to PM the author and see if he has another way to contact them.
Hans

[EchoVictor]

Thought I would let you know that the T-50+ from Totally Tubular is a near perfect replacement for the Estes BT-51. The BT-51 is 1.010 outside and .984 inside. The T-50+ is 1.011 outside and .984 inside.

Hans

Hmmm...."near perfect"?

I'd call a difference of .001" damn perfect enough!

You one of us "anal" engineers, Hans? :D

Later,
EV

[Ltvscout]

Good luck with the Pershing 1A nose cone....there are exactly ZERO available clone replacement cones nor can any common known parts be assembled to resemble one. The only known alternative to this is to have one commercially or home turned out of balsa on a LARGE lathe; this would be extremely costly, heavy, and impractical.
BZZZZZZZTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

Ed Miller of Alien Enterprises sells a fiberglass clone of the cone and fins. I bought a set a number of years ago. Nice quality. I'll try to attach the last "catalog" I had from him that's in Word format. This is the last email address I have for Ed:

Thunderhead@ihs2000.com

[Royatl]

Just found this site and am real happy I did. Been a BAR for about 5 years and built all the rockets I had as a kid from available plans.

Have one I am doing now and need some expert help. The K-21 Gemini. It calls for a JT70A tube for the dual engine mount. I need to know the proper length of the tube. I can't seem to find this out anywhere.

Also I have done all the fins and balsa parts I can find and drawn them up in cad for laser cutting as I have a laser cutter in my shop. Not sure if anyone bothers with laser cut fins, but thought I would put it out there if anyone may need some.
Hans


I'm building one from the PDR kit. The catalogs from the '60s say JT70A is 1.25" long. The one from PDR is 1.3".

My concern is with the separation of the BT20s within the two centering rings. The PDR parts have only 0.08" separation at the front, and 0.14" at the rear ring. This seems to me to be way too small, from my memory of the original kit. The only patterns I've found, though are redrawn ones from this site, which PDR apparently used to make their parts.

If you, or anyone, has better info on these rings, or original ones you can measure or scan, put it up here.

[ghrocketman]

I stand corrected regarding the BT-51's and the Pershing cone !
You learn something new everyday !
I always liked the Pershing, but the originals have always went for WAAAAAAAAY too much $$$.
I may have to check this one out !

[Ltvscout]

I'm building one from the PDR kit. The catalogs from the '60s say JT70A is 1.25" long. The one from PDR is 1.3".

My concern is with the separation of the BT20s within the two centering rings. The PDR parts have only 0.08" separation at the front, and 0.14" at the rear ring. This seems to me to be way too small, from my memory of the original kit. The only patterns I've found, though are redrawn ones from this site, which PDR apparently used to make their parts.

If you, or anyone, has better info on these rings, or original ones you can measure or scan, put it up here.
Are you talking about these?

http://www.rocketshoppe.com/decals/Gemini_Titan.pdf

[Royatl]

Are you talking about these?

http://www.rocketshoppe.com/decals/Gemini_Titan.pdf


Yup,
Those are the patterns from Sunsite (now at http://ibiblio.org/pub/archives/rec.models.rockets/GRAPHICS/DECALS/Estes.zip [Gemini Titan Fin and Ring Patterns.eps - 10/28/1997]). I think they are badly wrong, or they were done by someone going for what they thought was a more scale-like appearance.
For instance, the engine bell shroud is much shallower than the Estes patterns (which PDR uses). If you were to build this motor mount, and use the Estes shrouds, the shrouds would be smushed together (technical term :p ). In fact, somewhere on one of these forums, or maybe on OldRockets, I've seen a picture of a GT2 that shows just that problem.

The two engine tubes must be separated by at least .21" and then some at the gimbal/thrust structure to clear the JT50 parts that surround the BT20s. In the PDR kit, the tubes are barely .25" apart at the very end. At the point where they should go on the PDR kit, the tubes are about .16" apart!!

So, I'm certain these are different from the original Estes parts.

Update:
So I pulled out "ROTW" and looked up the GT2. The centers of the motor tubes at the gimbals should be ~1.1" apart, which means the outsides of the tubes should be about 0.36" apart at that point. The tubes should be leaning out at 3.5 degrees. For the proper angle, the separation of the holes in the rear ring should be 0.165" instead of 0.14". That would put the separation at the gimbals at 0.35, close enough. By sliding the rear ring forward until there was 0.48" of space between the two rings, I got what appeared to be the right amount of spacing. I'll play with it some more tomorrow.

[hoverhans]

Great info all!

LTV, I tried that email several times and it keeps coming back as bad. I think I will try and mail a letter to him as the address is on the form. I'll let you all know what I find out.

Roy,
Great post! When you find out what the best length for the JT70 ends up being, please post it for us.

GH, I learn new things everyday. That is what makes the hobby fun.

Echo, Maybe not an anal engineer, but pretty close :) I also build scale R/C planes for the Scale Masters and Top Gun.

Man I'm glad I found this site!!! Great people and awesome advice.
Thanks all!!!!

Here is a plane I am building now for the 401st Bomb Group
Hans

[kurtschachner]

Yup,
Those are the patterns from Sunsite (now at http://ibiblio.org/pub/archives/rec.models.rockets/GRAPHICS/DECALS/Estes.zip [Gemini Titan Fin and Ring Patterns.eps - 10/28/1997]). I think they are badly wrong, or they were done by someone going for what they thought was a more scale-like appearance.
For instance, the engine bell shroud is much shallower than the Estes patterns (which PDR uses). If you were to build this motor mount, and use the Estes shrouds, the shrouds would be smushed together (technical term :p ). In fact, somewhere on one of these forums, or maybe on OldRockets, I've seen a picture of a GT2 that shows just that problem.

The two engine tubes must be separated by at least .21" and then some at the gimbal/thrust structure to clear the JT50 parts that surround the BT20s. In the PDR kit, the tubes are barely .25" apart at the very end. At the point where they should go on the PDR kit, the tubes are about .16" apart!!

So, I'm certain these are different from the original Estes parts.



Whoa, that someone is me. I had all that stuff posted to the sunsite eons ago, I didn't even know it still existed. I redrew all those items.

The engine bell patterns I had when I built my clone were from an original Estes sheet. They did not fit, they bumped together just like you said. However, the ones I redrew (and Scott posted the link) *should* fit just fine. They did on my kit. The centering ring patterns were redrawn from original Estes centering rings for this model.

Are you saying that when you cut out the rings and the bells as shown on my redrawn sheet they don't fit? That shouldn't be. You aren't shrinking or enlarging them, are you? Also, are you sure you are assembling the rings properly? The finished engine tubes point out, not in.

It is funny, the picture on Pimp Daddy rocketry is my model. It is also the one shown on JimZ's site.

Anyway, let me know what kind of problems you are having and maybe I can help. The only thing that isn't stock Estes in my pattern (besides the redrawn bells) is the "corrugated" shroud pattern. That I redrew and made into a decal for my model.

Kurt

[kurtschachner]

Here you go, a small picture of the bells on my model. They almost touch but do not.

[Ltvscout]

It is funny, the picture on Pimp Daddy rocketry is my model. It is also the one shown on JimZ's site.
Hmmm, time to contact the owner of PDR to get your free kit of choice to cover royalties. ;)

[kurtschachner]

Hmmm, time to contact the owner of PDR to get your free kit of choice to cover royalties. ;)

Heh, ya I don't think so. All my stuff has been public domain since day one. I know of others that make money off my redrawn decals as it is.

What's with the name anyway? "Pimp Daddy" rocketry? Why not Crack Whore Rockets or Smack Addict Rockets? Besides, the decals I have seen for these kits aren't anything to write home about.

[Green Dragon]

You know you guys are bad influences, don;t you ? :-)

Now I;m going to have to build one of these as well... in fact just added the capsule at the last minute on my BMS order .

interesting ( sad, so don't cry ) story on this kit:

sometime back in the early 80's a friend of my cousin had given him some old rocketry items, don;t recall the specifics, couple kits,parts,etc (all built up ).

anyways, included was a K21 gemini Titan , with no capsule or clear fins - he did not know what to do with it (or want to try clustering as he was a beginner at the time (never di dfly much more after that,as I recall ) - so he gave the Gemini to myself and my brother.

rocket was VERY well done, roll patterns painted very nicely,as I recall the engine section was all silver,had modt of the dowel details,etc.

never knew where to get parts or a cone, so it sat around forever.... did fit a Big Bertha cone, not exactly scale :-)

well, sad end - eventually my brother added six fins glued around the tube - small fins,ala Wizard kit or similar.
wasn't very stable on it's one try... so sat more.

later, he cut the top off, added a BT70 section and used it for D egglofting .. and it was lost in the woods :-(

a georgeous Gemini I could have flying now in one night :-(

* sobs*

if we only knew then........

~ AL

[Green Dragon]

I note that the length of the JT-70 coupler has been addressed here (and made note of :-)

however, I failed to find the lengths of the JT-50 coupler sections used on the engine assemblies .

did I miss that posted, or, if not, can someone please advise :-)

thanks,

~ AL

[Royatl]

7/16"

[kurtschachner]

Here is one more thing about the G-T. I posted this build report to RMR about a million years ago, perhaps there is something in there that might help in building one yourself.

*****************

First off, my intent in construction was not to create a more "scale" model than the Estes kit. I have seen posts that this kit, constructed as described, is not very scale. My intent was to recreate a kit from my childhood To that end I am happy with what I have.

A couple of general notes:

There was (and continues to be) confusion over the fin size, shape, and geometry, with accompanying confusion over the height of the fin ring. I hear from (I think Buzz) that he has an original kit with 2 7/16 inch root-length fins. I have a set of plans from Bob Craddock that show a fin with a root length of about 3 inches. The ones on Jim Z's site are longer.

I ended up using the 3" root-length fins that I had, mainly because I had already cut them before I discovered the other sizes. Bottom line is that it was stable in flight, probably would have been with the smaller fins too, and the small length of ring and fins that extends below the bottom of the body tube was absolutely no problem.

I built the fins out of 0.040" thick polycarbonate, and the fin ring out of 0.020" PC. As I have posted here before, I did end up having a machinist friend make me a mandrel that I used to heat-treat the ring material into a nice, stress-free ring. If you use polystyrene sheet instead of polycarbonate, perhaps you wouldn't have to do that. However, a short piece of 2 1/4" diameter aluminum rod is also the right diameter, so you could use that. You will have to play around with oven temperatures, but on my home oven, I set it to between 300 and 325 degrees F. I used a solution of 10% polycarbonate in methylene chloride to bond the ring together, and the fins to the ring. There are commercial solvent bonding agents available.

Going through the instructions, I have the following comments.

The engine mount is composed of two centering rings and a tube coupler. The centering ring's holes (for the engine tubes) are off-center (one ring has the holes slightly closer together than the other). I think Jim Z is going to post a drawing of these rings. I had a Xerox of two original rings to go by.

Don't build the stuffer tube as shown. I believe that is way more complicated than is necessary, plus it makes it nearly impossible to get the shroud on correctly. Build the stuffer tube out of a single piece of BT-50, and leave 4" or so at the top of the BT-70 for the parachute. That makes a stuffer tube about 8 1/2 to 9" long. You need to cut two RA-5070 rings for the tube.

Then construct the capsule like the Centuri (or Estes re-release) Saturn 1B. Use an additional JT-70A and short piece of BT-60. This way, the shroud (service module) and capsule are one unit, and the whole thing pops off at ejection. You get a couple of good benefits this way-a bigger parachute tube (BT-70 instead of BT-60), simpler construction, and a much better looking shroud. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, download the S1B (or newer Estes SV) plans and it should be pretty clear. Trying to glue a shroud onto the edge of a body tube is very difficult to do.

I also used CA to butt-join two shorter launch lugs together for the wiring tunnels.

The engine bells on the pattern sheet were way off for me. Use ShroudBuilder or something to make your own. It took me only about 20 tries to get it looking right :)

I ended up attaching the fin unit with two 4-40 nylon screws, which screwed into two nylon nuts I embedded in the two little balsa wood pieces at the bottom of the rocket. This left two holes in the exterior of the tube, but it's not all that noticeable, and I like the idea of positive fin attachment.

Oh, and by the way, for the little engine combustion chambers just above the bells, I cut a 7/16" piece of BT-50, and used two RA-2050 rings to make them. Trying to cut down a tube coupler (and cut it straight) was impossible for me. This looked very nice when done.

Now to finishing. I painted on the white and silver, and made black decals for all the rest (except the capsule). Jim Z is planning on posting the decal patterns to his website soon. You could just as easily paint on the roll patterns, but the vents and UNITED STATES are more difficult. For the capsule, I called up Revell-Monogram and got a set of decals for their Mercury capsule since they were white. I also had the machinist cut my capsule windows with a 3/8" end mill.

I used 3/64" wide white detailing tape to make the white stripes. The first three were easy to put down, and the last one was difficult. Getting it to lay down over the launch lugs is a problem.

Well that's about it. How did it fly? Great! Especially on 2 B6-4s. The 2 A8-3 flight was kind of a cliff hanger, but nothing dangerous. I just liked the higher boost on the Bs.

[Green Dragon]

OK, definately on a roll to start on this, ordered the capsule ... and hit the parts bin this afternoon .

few comments ,etc.

noting the Jt70 length, it was mentioned at 1.2, iirc, and that PDR uses 1.3" ( .1" doesn;t seem like much until you realize the seperation of the tubes changes due to the angle mount .so will make a difference, did nto sit down and run the numbers to see how much )
however, in finding a nice used vintage JT70 in my parts pile - it measures right at 1.25" . dead centered between the two, so sounds like it can be used as is ( and possibly the original length Estes used ? can't believe I'd have one that just happens to be 'right' .... is that a common JT70 ?

regarding fin sizing and hints, polycarb does sound strongere / stiffer so will look into that, might be slightly heavier, but stability might be fine - still not sure I feel 'safe' just taping or friction fitting the fin unit on, comments?, ppl glued them on ?

Kurts comment on using a 3/8 endmill is good, not sure if I have one that size, but can come up with one ( don;t have a mill in my home shop, but ran one enough when I was working..

also, re: decals - Kurt - you have those posted already, right ? ( on the Kurt's Decal page ? ) , will use those over painted patterns.

also, regarding the white stripe being hard to apply over the lug - is that a 'conduit' lug, or the actual launch lug ? ( pardon my ignorance, did not go over every little step in the instructions I downloaded yet ), if it;s the actual lug, can;t it be moved, or eliminated ? ( wire loop lugs might be good here,nice and tidy.)

as for the comments on the capsule, gonna have to disagree, since my vintage one (see horror story above), had a nicely done shroud, and I;ve built many competition boatails,etc that are at the ends of the BT (same shroaud,just backwards).

I'll likely fill the shroud with foam and that will be fine - a little extra weight will keep it stable anyways ( and that's why Quest is coming out with the 18mm D, right ? :-)

was thinking on the stuffer tube,etc befroe I saw this and it did seem it could be simpler - my take as follows :
why not eliminate the stuffer completely ?
just glue the JT70 motor assembly into the back, and then use the parachute tube 'floating' with maybe a baffle (Semroc ST16 could be made to fit, I think, or a steel whool mesh ,ala LOC/Aerotech).
as long as the ejection charges get tot he chute, should be ok .... and the BT60 tube is plenty large, we pack 40 inch mylar chutes into BT50's for eggloft duration....

Kurt did comment on the short JT50's.. and I'm following that well, seems it would be a lot easier to use a BT50, and the heavy paper AR-2050's, too ( note comment on foam adding nosewieght, so it will even out ) - maybe even no BT50 at all ? just a stack or AR-2050 rings (7/16" = 3 AR2050 @ .25" thick,plus a RA2050 ring sandwiched in the stack to get close to 7/16" ?

>I also used CA to butt-join two shorter launch lugs together for the wiring tunnels.

why not plastruct or similar styrene tube,etc ?

>The engine bells on the pattern sheet were way off for me. Use ShroudBuilder or >something to make your own. It took me only about 20 tries to get it looking right :)

hmm - I actually downloaded,and printed on cardstock, the shroads both from Jim Z, and the Sunsite version, and they DO differ, will have to make up both sets and see what looks good .
if I remember ok, the vintage one we had, the shrouds just touched,but could have been ' smushed' a little. hard to recall how 'tight'
( see Bill, used your technical term :-)

>I ended up attaching the fin unit with two 4-40 nylon screws, which screwed into two >nylon nuts I embedded in the two little balsa wood pieces at the bottom of the rocket. >This left two holes in the exterior of the tube, but it's not all that noticeable, and I like the >idea of positive fin attachment.

nswers my question above, and might not even need to be 4-40, then even less noticable, note made , thanks :-)

>Well that's about it. How did it fly? Great! Especially on 2 B6-4s. The 2 A8-3 flight was kind >of a cliff hanger, but nothing dangerous. I just liked the higher boost on the Bs.[/QUOTE]

hmm... no C6-5's ... D21's ? :-)

thanks for the tips, will keep poting how it goes..

~ AL

[dtomko]

Got back to my clone the other night. I used a paper model wrap for the capsule. The radius on the main cabin section didn't fit the BMS cone, so I sanded down the top part and the instrument section. I may make the wrap darker, but I like the look. I am using a single BT-60 inner tube; it will be glued to the top of the engine unit. It just fits over the tops of the engine tubes and will be glued there for a seal. This will go all the way up to the capsule. I am cutting slits in the BT-70 for the plastic fins. The slits will be mostly hidden by the black roll pattern.
Drew

[hoverhans]

Well,
I got back home from Japan last week and went out into the shop to look at my rockets. I think my Titan would be better off if I just started over. The nose cone is fine but the rest is a bit rough from sitting half built for 5 or 6 years.
I went through and cleaned up and inspected my other rockets and they all look O.K. so that's some good news. I also dug through all my boxes of stuff and found all the nose cones I bought and all the other building stuff in good shape. I just made a large BT order and ordered a bunch of plastic parts from Moldin Oldies so I can get back into things.
I was so bored in Japan that I spent much of my time drawing decals and laser cut files for OOP rockets. I have more than enough to keep me busy over the winter!
First on the list is the U.S.S. America and second is the Intercepter, then the SR-71. I may make a few more Sizzlers and would like to do a Mega Sizzler if anyone has the fin templates.

Will take a few pics of my rockets this weekend to post. Still trying to get back into the swing of things here.
Hans

[barone]

.... I may make a few more Sizzlers and would like to do a Mega Sizzler if anyone has the fin templates.



I've got a built Mega Sizz (1998) that I can get the pattern off of if that will do you. Need decals? I haven't put mine on yet so I can scan them for you.

Don
NAR 53455

[hoverhans]

Barone,
Thanks, but I found the patterns and I made up the decals. Only thing that is tough is the nose cone. PNC-60RL. Not available anywhere that I can find. All I can think is the RL means real long. Seems it is 8.375" long. May have to turn one out of balsa.
Hans

[Ltvscout]

Barone,
Thanks, but I found the patterns and I made up the decals. Only thing that is tough is the nose cone. PNC-60RL. Not available anywhere that I can find. All I can think is the RL means real long. Seems it is 8.375" long. May have to turn one out of balsa.
Hans
Do you know about the Estes Nose Cone Reference found on my main Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe site? It's in the building tips section. Here's a list of the rockets with that cone:

P/N 072305, PNC-60RL (Blow Molded)
Kit Number Kit Name
1987 Sentinel
1998 Mega Sizz'
2014 Firehawk
2029 Raven
2032 Magnum
2037 National Aerospace Plane
2127 Sizzler

You can see pictures of all the cones here:

http://www.rocketshoppe.com/info/Nose_Cones.pdf

[hoverhans]

Scott,
I did not know about that page. I'm still trying to soak all the info here in. In fact I drew a whole set of U.S.S America decals before I found the decal page that already had them done, and better than mine.
Hans

[kurtschachner]

Scott,
I did not know about that page. I'm still trying to soak all the info here in. In fact I drew a whole set of U.S.S America decals before I found the decal page that already had them done, and better than mine.
Hans

BTW, if you are talking about the ones on Scott's site (Kurt's Decal Page), then I am the one who redraw those. I mention this because what is posted there are PDF files, but if anyone wants the native Illustrator files they should let me know. I can email them to you.

Most modern drawing packages (Illustrator, Corel Draw) can open up the PDF files just the same, but if you run into any problems let me know.

[hoverhans]

Kurt,
Yes they were yours and great job on them by the way! I opened them in Corel 11 and was able to move them around and make them fit my print area perfect. I was also able to copy them and paste them onto a second sheet and make them all black so I could do the white backing layers. Great stuff Kurt.
Thanks much.
I have a bunch that I have drawn in Corel Draw. I would be glad to donate them to the site if Scott wants them, or I could add them to your decal page if you like. Just let me know.
Hans

[kurtschachner]

Kurt,

I have a bunch that I have drawn in Corel Draw. I would be glad to donate them to the site if Scott wants them, or I could add them to your decal page if you like. Just let me know.
Hans

By all means send them to Scott (right, Scott ;-)? They can be either posted along with my stuff or he can start a new page (Hans' Decal Page). Either way we get the benefit of your work too.

Thanks.

[Ltvscout]

Kurt,
Yes they were yours and great job on them by the way! I opened them in Corel 11 and was able to move them around and make them fit my print area perfect. I was also able to copy them and paste them onto a second sheet and make them all black so I could do the white backing layers. Great stuff Kurt.
Thanks much.
I have a bunch that I have drawn in Corel Draw. I would be glad to donate them to the site if Scott wants them, or I could add them to your decal page if you like. Just let me know.
Hans
Sure, send them over. I have a separate decal area for decals scanned/created by rocketeers.

You can send them to scotth@execpc.com.

[dtomko]

Back on topic: I did a little more work on my Gemini-Titan. I glued the BT-60 stuffer tube to the top of the engine unit and used lots of yellow glue to make a seal. Then I installed it in the BT-70. I had cut the BT-70 so I could use a hole punch to make the vent holes. I'll use a coupler to join it back together. The stuffer tube is too long now; I'll trim it carefully after I glue on the shroud at the top.
Drew

[dtomko]

I test fitted wraps made from the free paper model available at the Lower Hudson Valley Paper Model E-Gift Shop. It's a 1/48 scale model and I printed it at 90% on my Epson printer. The fit is nearly perfect except for all those vent holes below the interstage not lining up. I am still trying to figure out a way to get the shiny aluminum effect.
Drew

[dtomko]

I've been doing more work on the GT this week. I used wraps from the paper model for the roll patterns and used chrome Trim Monokote for the aluminum areas. It's a bit too shiny, so I fiddled with the wraps in Photoshop and took out most of the gray color leaving the United States and lines. I printed those on clear decal paper and will apply them over the chrome. This will take some of the shine out of those areas. Then I have white dry transfer striping for the white lines. I cut slits in the lower BT; the clear plastic fins will slip into these.

Here are a few shots.

Drew

[hawkshobby]

GH,

"Good luck with the Saturn 1B (K-29 1/70 I assume) as several of these parts are near impossible to get (BT-51 tank tubes)."

Thought I would let you know that the T-50+ from Totally Tubular is a near perfect replacement for the Estes BT-51. The BT-51 is 1.010 outside and .984 inside. The T-50+ is 1.011 outside and .984 inside.

Hans

Semroc has the BT-51 tube on there website now. :)

[Ltvscout]

Semroc has the BT-51 tube on there website now. :)
Now to get the BT-52 for a "true" Thor-Agena and SPEV clone. ;)

[dtomko]

I finally finished this today. Clear plastic fins fit in slots in the BT. For display, the slits are hidden by balsa strip. Hardly any painting on this; paper wraps and chrome trim Monokote mostly.
Drew

[leftover]

Finishing up my GT clone John Pursley special. It based on a BT-80 on the same scale as the new little Joe.

Went togther fairly easy. I used the Shapeway capsule/spacecraft, interstage and engine nozzles. I used heavy duty phot mat board from Hobby Lobby for the centering rings, BT-20 tubes for the engine mount and stuffer tube, and of course John Pursleys awesome skin set for the body.

Plan on using twin 24" nylon chutes . Still need to completed the capsule and adapter sections onece those wraps are done.

Engine bracing and longerons were made using greenway plastic rods

Fins are made form 3/16th lexan sheeting and will slide in from the rear into balsa wood slots built into the lower section
http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a506/Jcholder65/IMG_0545_zpsji2kdtot.jpg (http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/Jcholder65/media/IMG_0545_zpsji2kdtot.jpg.html)
http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a506/Jcholder65/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_0943_zpsb274ufxh.jpg (http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/Jcholder65/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_0943_zpsb274ufxh.jpg.html)


http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a506/Jcholder65/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_1023_zpsqltyoycr.jpg (http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/Jcholder65/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_1023_zpsqltyoycr.jpg.html) http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a506/Jcholder65/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_1030_zpsyplpsqp7.jpg (http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/Jcholder65/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_1030_zpsyplpsqp7.jpg.html)
http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a506/Jcholder65/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_1039_zpsma7vyqsf.jpg (http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/Jcholder65/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_1039_zpsma7vyqsf.jpg.html)

[GuyNoir]

I finally finished this today. Clear plastic fins fit in slots in the BT. For display, the slits are hidden by balsa strip. Hardly any painting on this; paper wraps and chrome trim Monokote mostly.
Drew

Great work on the fins!

[johnpursley]

I saw my Gemini skin kit referenced here and figured I would say a few words about it (and more <G>)

I offer three different sized fin kits for the Gemini Titan to fit BT-80 (1/45 scale in long dimension to go with Estes Little Joe II), BT-70 (to "clone" or skin the Estes K-21 from the 1960s) and BT-60 (to skin the 1986-87 Estes Gemini Titan kit).

Many have asked why I don't do it in silver. A couple of reasons...the first and foremost is that even though I can print "metalized" material I just haven't found such a material that truly comes close to matching the appearance of the Gemini Titan boosters. Second, if you'l look at many of the GT photographs you notice they don't appear to be anywhere near a bright, shiny, metallic appearance. This is because of the thin aluminum oxide on the surface of the bare metal...which actually makes the metal look gray (it was an intentional treatment that prevented/slowed surface corrosion and was one of the "man-rating" requirements that corrosion be inhibited...especially due to the salt-air environment at the Cape [many alloys of aluminum are more rapidly attacked and deteriorate more quickly than even bare steel in such environmnets]). The "military" versions of the booster largely remained bare/untreated/polished due to their constant care and "launch rediness" down in an environmentally controlled hole in the ground.

The skins I offer are specific to the Gemini 8 mission manned by John Young and Neil Armstrong...with Armstrong skillfully saving the mission from certain doom by piloting the spinning, tumbling, out of control spacecraft back to stability and return to earth in the first successful "abort from orbit" mission.

The skins are a very thin tensilized poly with a gloss finish. Check them out on eBay, or contact me direct through either my Accur8 website or email (see links below).

[ghrocketman]

It never made ANY sense to me why NASA did not launch the Gemini-Titan vehicles from already existing USAF underground silos equipped to handle the Titan missile as their primary mission.
The ONLY reason I can see is a PR stunt to show the entire rocket on a launch platform prior to BLAST-off.

[Doug Sams]

It never made ANY sense to me why NASA did not launch the Gemini-Titan vehicles from already existing USAF underground silos equipped to handle the Titan missile as their primary mission.
The ONLY reason I can see is a PR stunt to show the entire rocket on a launch platform prior to BLAST-off.<speculation> I wonder if having it in the silo impacts the man-rating. Maybe it's more reliable when launched above ground. </speculation>

Doug


.

[johnpursley]

It never made ANY sense to me why NASA did not launch the Gemini-Titan vehicles from already existing USAF underground silos equipped to handle the Titan missile as their primary mission.
The ONLY reason I can see is a PR stunt to show the entire rocket on a launch platform prior to BLAST-off.

I don't imagine the astronauts would have fared too well if they were forced to do an ejection/abort inside a silo... Ejecting while "only" a hundred feet above ground from the launch pads that were used probably wan't a pleasant proposition either...but surviable (supposedly).

[johnpursley]

I also imagine the astronauts being turned into jelly just from the acoustics of that thing lighting up in a giant tubular echo chamber (and remaining in the silo for several seconds). There were huge and very substantial sound absorbing panels lining the inside of the silo...and the astronauts would have been on the "wrong" side of those panels.

Thank heavens the designers and planners wanted to "showboat" the launching by doing it from an above ground launch pad <G>!

[tbzep]

Good reasons above. In addition:

Titan II silos were in Arkansas, Kansas, and Arizona. That could have put debris in populated areas if the rocket had to be destroyed.

I don't know if the Titan II was maxed out with the Gemini payload. They had to rendezvous with an Agena to get their higher orbits. Higher latitudes of the silos wouldn't have given as much free velocity that the lower latitude Cape provided.

The silos were all Air Force. NASA was at the Cape.

[johnpursley]

Good reasons above. In addition:

Titan II silos were in Arkansas, Kansas, and Arizona. That could have put debris in populated areas if the rocket had to be destroyed.

I don't know if the Titan II was maxed out with the Gemini payload. They had to rendezvous with an Agena to get their higher orbits. Higher latitudes of the silos wouldn't have given as much free velocity that the lower latitude Cape provided.

The silos were all Air Force. NASA was at the Cape.

I can't help but giggle to myself a little bit (okay, once it was out loud) about launching a manned vehicle, especially with real and perceived reliability back then, from a hole in the ground. I'd almost doubt that anyone even considered what a Gemini Titan might do on an abort from a silo, populated areas or not nor the performance penalties from launching from higher latitudes because nobody in their right mind would have thought about popping a Gemini Titan out of a silo back then...though someone since then has definitely thought about launching them from silos (and consequently has US thinking about it, now <G>). But, you're right. Launching near populated areas with no safe "downrange" and performance penalties are all valid points ("What if" scenarios exercise the mind!).

Then again, "back then" there were plenty of crazy ideas!

[MarkB.]

Minor Quibble:

It was Dave Scott with Neil Armstrong on Gemini 8. And I will be ordering a BT-70 size Gemini wrap. I didn't realize you made it that size.

[johnpursley]

Minor Quibble:

It was Dave Scott with Neil Armstrong on Gemini 8. And I will be ordering a BT-70 size Gemini wrap. I didn't realize you made it that size.

Big "OOPS" on my part. Sometimes going entirely (mostly) from memory doesn't serve me well, especially when it comes to names like James T. Stine, Harry Spock...you, know, the names everyone knows. I probably need to keep Bing/Google hard at work when responding with/to easily verifiable historical facts! One of my "memory failings" even since childhood, has been names and associating names with faces (I was told once what the "condition" was called... but don't remember <G>)

[luke strawwalker]

I don't imagine the astronauts would have fared too well if they were forced to do an ejection/abort inside a silo... Ejecting while "only" a hundred feet above ground from the launch pads that were used probably wan't a pleasant proposition either...but surviable (supposedly).

Exactly...

Actually Wally Schirra SHOULD have aborted on Gemini 6's first launch attempt, when the rocket ignited and lifted off the pad about an inch before a plug prematurely popped out of the base of the rocket and the engines shut down (which telemetry showed the rocket's thrust was decaying prematurely even before the shutdown order falsely originated from the popped plug cut the engines-- a dust cover had carelessly been left in the gas generator ducting and the booster would have failed in flight (most likely) had the plug NOT popped out prematurely and shut the engines down at liftoff.

Wally's reasons for NOT ejecting (as the mission rules stipulated) was that he could feel that the rocket hadn't lifted off and was sitting stably on the pad, so there was no need. He said also that they'd been soaking in 16 PSI of pure oxygen for over an hour on the pad inside the capsule and the ignition of the solid propellant ejection seat motors would have made him and Tom Stafford "a couple of Roman candles" coming out of there", as everything inside the capsule, including their suits, would have been ignited by the flames of the ejection seats and, as John Young had said after witnessing an ejection seat test of the Gemini in which the hatches failed to automatically blow off the capsule before the ejection seats fired, sending the ejection seat THROUGH the still-closed hatch as it departed the capsule, ejecting from the capsule was risking a high probability of death to avoid certain death. (He made similar statements about the first four shuttle flights with their ejection seats as well, and the entire RTLS abort schemes for the shuttle as well).

By not ejecting, Wally not only possibly saved his and Tom Stafford's lives, as the Gemini ejection was rather "iffy" at best (the seats had SUCH high g-force acceleration that anybody ejecting from a Gemini had a high risk of severe injury or even death if everything didn't work properly) or, at the very least, having a "kink in their backs for a few weeks" if everything DID work correctly-- the Gemini ejection seats were designed to propel them out of the spacecraft and about 800 feet away-- the safety distance calculated for a deflagrating Titan booster (the propellants would mix and burn on contact, rather than 'explode'), and they needed additional altitude from the ejection seat anyway to successfully inflate their parachutes before landing anyway. Had they ejected, the Gemini spacecraft would have basically been destroyed, even if Wally and Tom survived, there would have been NO Gemini 6A mission (which went on to perform the first space rendezvous with Frank Borman and Jim Lovell in Gemini 7 acting as "target", itself on a 2 week mission to test duration of crew and spacecraft for lunar flight duration time).

The liftoff from a silo would have precluded ANY type of abort from the spacecraft, and Gemini was not designed nor equipped with a tractor rocket system to pull the entire capsule to safety. I'm certain the acoustics and other issues associated with a silo launch would also have been much worse from a vehicle standpoint as well. Plus, I'm not sure that there were any silos capable of launching a Titan at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; there were silos constructed for testing Minuteman missiles there, but those silos are MUCH simpler in design from Titan and Titan II silos (and much smaller... Minuteman uses "fire in the hole" silos with no exhaust ducts, Titan I had an elevator to raise the missile out of the silo for launch, and Titan II launched out of the silo itself, BUT it had a "flame bucket" and exhaust ducts to vent the engine exhaust until the missile cleared the silo... ) Most if not all the development tests of the Titans done at the Cape were pad launches from surface pads, so it made sense to use the same methods for the Gemini Titan II which followed. That and manrating requirements certainly played a part as well I'm sure.

Actually, the Titan "derrick" tower and white room (which folded down horizontally prior to launch) was a pretty innovative idea-- too bad it wasn't carried over onto other manned vehicles like the Saturns which followed...

Later! OL J R :)

[luke strawwalker]

Good reasons above. In addition:

Titan II silos were in Arkansas, Kansas, and Arizona. That could have put debris in populated areas if the rocket had to be destroyed.

I don't know if the Titan II was maxed out with the Gemini payload. They had to rendezvous with an Agena to get their higher orbits. Higher latitudes of the silos wouldn't have given as much free velocity that the lower latitude Cape provided.

The silos were all Air Force. NASA was at the Cape.

Yes, a very good point that I thought about but failed to make.

Equatorial launches due east are performed from Cape Canaveral specifically due to the fact that the spent rocket stages will fall into the ocean east of the Cape. There are specific limits to the orbital inclinations that can be achieved from launches from the Cape due to the overflight restrictions-- you can't launch into a true polar orbit from Cape Canaveral-- in fact about 60 degrees of orbital inclination is the max IIRC-- launching any further north would send the rocket directly over the densely populated Eastern Seaboard including Washington DC, New York, Boston, etc... where any mishap would likely prove disastrous... and where even if everything went as planned, I don't think folks in New York would be very happy about having spent rocket stages landing in Times Square... (or even Central Park)... especially ones containing residual hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide (both highly poisonous rocket propellants that burst into flame on contact). Launches out of the Cape to the south are limited to azimuths that do not overfly Cuba and South America for the same reasons.

Vandenberg DOES have (or did have) Titan II capable silos, used for training of flight crews and readiness tests of the missile and its systems... BUT those launches were more or less "due west" into the Pacific proving grounds around Kwajalein, designed to fly ballistic missile trajectories to put the warhead "on target" and not insert payloads into orbit... in fact such retrograde orbits flown due west cut the performance capabilities of the rocket in terms of payload considerably, since you get no "free 1,000 mph" like you do launching due EAST WITH the Earth's direction of rotation-- in fact the opposite is true, since you have to overcome that the Earth is turning eastward by adding ANOTHER 1,000 mph to the rocket's speed to achieve a retrograde orbit (a westerly equatorial orbit) versus even a polar launch (which is insensitive to the rotational direction of the orbit, at least for a true 90 degree inclination, which most aren't).

Vandenberg also had surface pads capable of launching Titan III's and Titan II's on satellite payload missions, BUT, those pads are ONLY capable of launching into polar or near-polar high-inclination orbits, NOT into equatorial orbits (unless such a mission were flown in a retrograde (flying westward instead of eastward) orbit). Equatorial launches due eastward aren't performed from Vandenberg, because of the same reasons limiting launch azimuths out of the Cape-- a rocket launched eastward out of Vandenberg would overfly Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and depending on launch azimuth, Lousiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina or Florida before being over "open water" in the Atlantic... and I doubt folks in Las Vegas or Flagstaff or Albuquerque or El Paso or San Antonio would enjoy having spent rocket stages (or debris from a failed launch vehicle) landing in their fair cities... ( In Houston, New Orleans, Jackson and Atlanta or most of the cities in Florida, a spent rocket stage crashing in might actually do some improvements LOL:) Launches from Vandenberg are virtually ALL for polar orbit missions, meaning mostly milsats-- communications, navigation, and spy sats... national security payloads that need to overfly the ENTIRE Earth's surface from a polar orbit. While a shuttle pad WAS constructed at Vandenberg, it was ONLY going to be launching high-inclination "polar" orbit USAF "national defense" shuttle missions southward-- the shuttle boosters would have splashed down off the west coast of Baja California and the ET separated somewhere near southern Chile near the Antarctic, and splashed down later in the southern oceans... (This was why the Soviets considered the shuttle an "orbital bomber"-- the flight plan was identical to their FOBS concept (which they built a number of missiles to perform the mission of "fractional orbital bombardment system" (FOBS), ie launching from the southern end of the Soviet Union, overflying the South Pole, and coming in "over the horizon" from the SOUTH, instead of from the NORTH over the North Pole, which all our DEW line and early warning radars designed to detect a Soviet missile attack were designed to defend against... IOW, flying in from "behind the lines" to deliver nuclear warheads on target from the opposite direction... The shuttle was at least, on paper, considered capable of lifting off from Vandenberg, flying south over the South Polar region, ejecting nuclear warheads in special reentry vehicles over Moscow and the western Soviet Union, and then reentering over the North Polar region and landing at Edwards Air Force Base after a "once around" mission... The Soviets knew that the proffered 'savings' of the "reusable" shuttle system were a farce, and that in fact the Shuttle would be a VERY expensive vehicle to build, fly, and maintain, and the only way *they* saw to justify such costs and expenditures was if it were actually serving a specific military purpose worth such expenditures, and saw the facetious arguments about the 'savings' that the shuttle would create as a "cover story" since they *knew* that the shuttle wouldn't save money but would cost MORE than the expendable systems it was designed to replace... AND since the US *obviously* saw the military need worthy of the expenditure of money, manpower, and resources necessary to "justify" developing and building and maintaining a shuttle system, they decided that they *must* do the same to maintain "parity" with the US in this military role, hence their "Energia/Buran" shuttle system to give them the same capability).

TBC... OL J R :)

[luke strawwalker]

Continued...

At any rate, polar orbits for Gemini, while POSSIBLE, would NOT have been COMPATIBLE with the then-existing NASA network of telemetry stations and ships designed to maintain communications with orbiting spacecraft. Remember that it was well into the shuttle era before the TDRSS relay satellites came online and allowed constant communication between spacecraft and the ground (in fact one of the TDRSS satellites blew up with Challenger IIRC and delayed the completion of the system). Up until then, ground contact was sporadic with telemetry and voice contact being lost for significant portions of each orbit, as "line of sight" communications with fixed ground stations and ships stationed at various points "mid-ocean" was gained and lost-- and the problem was exacerbated by orbital "phasing" on longer duration missions as the orbital inclination and orbital period combined with the Earth turning constantly under the spacecraft caused the orbits to shift westward with each orbital revolution around Earth... after about 3 orbits the spacecraft was virtually in a "dead zone" with little communication possible, except over more highly populated areas of the world or nations friendly enough to allow communications to be set up... at least until the orbital phasing eventually brought the spacecraft back to a position where communications coverage was more favorable-- Remember on Gemini 8 when Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott experienced their thruster malfunction that nearly killed them, they were out of contact with mission control and only informed them of the situation once they overflew a communication station in the distant Pacific Ocean... by which point IIRC they had already performed retrofire for reentry since they had to use their reentry maneuvering fuel to stabilize their tumbling spacecraft, which essentially dictated the mission must immediately end as part of the mission rules.

Flying the Gemini program out of Vandenberg into polar orbits would have required that all the Atlas-Agena target vehicles be flown out of Vandenberg as well, and would have required the installation of man-rated equipment for launching manned spacecraft (something that Vandenberg would not be equipped for until the Space Launch Complex 6 was completed for the Vandenberg shuttle launches, which were to begin shortly after the ill-fated Challenger mission which exploded in early 1986, ending the Air Force's Vandenberg shuttle launches forever before the first mission ever took place from there... SLC-6 was later retooled to launch Delta IV's after its original purpose launching MOL's, Titan III's, and Shuttles never materialized...

All that extra expense and effort to launch manned spacecraft from Vandenberg would have been a distraction to NASA and a waste of resources already in place at the Cape which would have been useless for such polar Gemini's... Plus, the already mentioned communications problem would have been MUCH worse, as most of NASA's communications stations would have only had short contacts with orbiting Gemini's when they flew within range of the ground stations in polar orbit, as the Earth turned beneath that orbit... at least in "equatorial" low-inclination orbits, for part of the time the spacecraft flies from west to east, somewhat northerly or southerly depending on the inclination, and flies from "one ground station to the next", allowing for periods of long communication and contact between the spacecraft and mission control as communications are handed off from one ground station to the next in the chain, which is usually when "mission critical" activities or experiments are performed-- when the spacecraft is "out of phase" with the ground stations, is usually when less important experiments are done, earth observation, and other "non-mission critical" type activities occur, when the limited ability to communicate with the ground is not such a liability...

Later! OL J R :)

[luke strawwalker]

Good reasons above. In addition:

Titan II silos were in Arkansas, Kansas, and Arizona. That could have put debris in populated areas if the rocket had to be destroyed.

I don't know if the Titan II was maxed out with the Gemini payload. They had to rendezvous with an Agena to get their higher orbits. Higher latitudes of the silos wouldn't have given as much free velocity that the lower latitude Cape provided.

The silos were all Air Force. NASA was at the Cape.


Yeah, I guess when World War III breaks out, nobody is going to particularly worry about spent missile stages landing all over the northern US and Canada... (as well as northern Russia). They'll probably do plenty of damage in more remote locations too far removed from major nuclear targets that otherwise would have been unscathed (at least at first).

Later! OL J R :)

[tbzep]

Yeah, I guess when World War III breaks out, nobody is going to particularly worry about spent missile stages landing all over the northern US and Canada... (as well as northern Russia). They'll probably do plenty of damage in more remote locations too far removed from major nuclear targets that otherwise would have been unscathed (at least at first).

Later! OL J R :)
I won't worry about it....the flight path will likely be to the northeast judging by transatlantic flight paths, well north of me. If it's with NK or China, they may even be launched to the west. Oh...and then there's that Armageddon thing. ;)

[johnpursley]

Exactly...

Actually Wally Schirra SHOULD have aborted on Gemini 6's first launch attempt, when the rocket ignited and lifted off the pad about an inch before a plug prematurely popped out of the base of the rocket and the engines shut down

It was unanimously acknowledged at the time (and since, to this very day) that Schirra had done exactly the right thing. There was also someone in launch control with an "abort" button who also did the right thing....that is to say, nothing. The parameters for neither manual nor automatic abort had been satisfied by the events during or after the engine shutdown. The shut-down was determined NOT by the plug that had fallen out but that telemetry indicated pressures, turbine status and chamber pressures, etc., had not reached their acceptable levels by the time period that they were supposed to do so. Thrust levels never reached lift-off level. There was never a liftoff situation and the pyro bolts that held the GT on the pad never fired...so the GT-6 never budged, even "an inch", on the pad. This is further supported by the fact that the launch vehicle was NOT removed and returned to the factory in Maryland which would have been a requirement had the bolts fired...let alone had the vehicle even moved a fraction of an inch and all hundred and something tons banged back down on the four itty bitty supports.

It's easy for the story of the "one inch" flight to originate and be repeated in this day and age of the internet (not faulting 'OL JR'). I think perhaps some "re-historian" (I call them that because they either REvise or REwrite historical facts either through misinterpretation, not doing research, or simply stating what they "think" as fact...again not blaming OL JR!). I suspect the REAL roots of the "one inch" flight are in the aborted launch of MR-1...which DID move and settle back on the pad...about six years earlier and would be easy to equate with the events associated with the start and shut-down of GT-6.

A few years back when talking with someone who was about as close to the "non-launch" in real time as anyone could be, I rather naively mentioned the aborted ignition and short "liftoff" of the GT-6 (kind of like I did here on YORF by opening my yap and mis-naming the GT-8 crew)...and was quickly told that "about a hundred" other parameters that needed to be satisfied, that weren't, before the signals could have been sent to pop the bolts holding it to the pad simply weren't satisfied. GT-6 simply wasn't going anywhere WELL before (in terms of "go" events) the commands to "let it go" would have been sent. The plug falling out happened before the sequence to fire the hold-downs...and itself was reason NOT to fire the hold-downs. Of course, at the instant of the event, no one knew that. All the automatic systems had done their job. Either the D-ring being pulled in the capsule or the button being pushed in the control center (I think it was in the Launch Control Center and not Mission Control was where the button was located) would have been exactly the wrong thing to do.

The issue of oxygen saturation would not have been on anyone's mind either in the spacecraft nor in the control center...just "getting out" would have been the overwhelming factor. And, once in "atmospheric" pressure, even oxygen saturated space suits likely would not have conflagrated such as they did with Apollo 1. The instant they left the spacecraft they'd be going from about 21 psi absolute 100% oxygen to 15 psi absolute 21% oxygen (plus, any thinking related to the oxygen saturation wasn't likely a big matter in the minds of most, even the astronauts, since the Apollo 1 incident was over a year into the future). It was estimated that the pressure in the Apollo 1 capsule rose to several times atmospheric which accelerated the situation even more.

It was pretty much a given that ejecting would trash the spacecraft...so that was not a concern...nor was any damage that might have been done to the booster (It would be a foregone conclusion that something serious enough for an abort via ejection seats would have already been well on its way to"take out both the spacecraft and the booster" by the time the ejection seats left the premises). Concerns about firing the ejection seats through closed hatches was solved before the first manned GT launch. The "harsh ride" of the ejection seats was pretty much accepted by all test/military pilots (of which the Astronauts were...). But, it DOS make for "interesting" conversation a half-century after the fact! It's unfortunate that "what if's" and uninformed/misinformed speculation during that half-century have tended to overwhelm the "facts"...mainly because they make for a better story to the minds of many.

There are transcripts of the chatter before, during, and after the even between (mainly) Schirra and the controllers. Within just a few short minutes (as in less than five) the question was asked from the spacecraft "...no liftoff?" and the response from the controller was "no liftoff" after they were instructed to "stow the D-ring" (the hands-on abort mechanism in Schirra's hand) and further messages stating that the pyros and other systems regarding an abort had been safed. If the vehicle HAD lifted off and the ONLY thing keeping it upright was a precarious balance, unbolted from the pad, you can bet there would have been no stowing of the D-ring nor safing of all abort systems!

[luke strawwalker]

Interesting...

Learn something new every day.

In all the histories I've read, there's varying accounts of the "liftoff" but it makes sense that the rocket actually did not (although it did on the aborted Redstone liftoff, which of course was unmanned).

What I read about the "oxygen saturation" and "we'd have been a couple of Roman candles coming out of there" were attributed directly to Wally himself, and I presume he would be more "in the know" about the consequences of an ejection after being in a high pressure pure oxygen environment than you or I... after all it WAS his @ss on the line, and you tend to familiarize yourself with possible consequences in such situations... At any rate, and while the ejection issues had been dealt with (inasmuch as the failure of the hatches to blow off before the seat fired in one test, which John Young witnessed and commented on how that would tend to give a guy a h3ll of a headache (or such to that effect) Wally also pointed out in comments I read that most astronauts, himself included, were not terribly impressed with the likelihood of unscathed survival after a Gemini ejection, on the pad or otherwise... I read comments attributed to Wally that said in effect that the tests had been done out at White Sands on static and rocket-propelled rail-sled mounted capsules operating horizontally, and not in actual vertical flight... And the ride would have been MUCH rougher than that from an actual aircraft ejection seat.

At any rate, it's all basically historical minutiae... Like most things, we'll probably never know the COMPLETE, REAL story to the fullest extent... There's always some vagueness or conflicting accounts, some made at the time from uninformed or accidental mistakes, some from exaggeration or misremembering, and of course other accounts occurring years later suffer from misremembering or mistakes creeping in, which eventually "muddy the water" even further.

Later! OL J R :)

[dtidmore]

Years ago, shortly before the Air Force decommissioned the Titan fleet, I had the opportunity to get a very up close and personal tour of an empty Titan silo. I was doing some software development for a contractor that had won the rebuild of the silo in southern KS (Rock KS, near Wichita) that had been severely damaged as the result of a fueling accident.

I was meeting with the contractor (Mayfair Construction) and was asked if I would like to see the silo. I jumped at the chance. Standing at the bottom of a empty Titan silo is a VERY humbling experience. It is MASSIVE. The flame trenches leading from both sides of the bottom of the silo reminded me an angry monster about to devour its prey. It was a bit unnerving and I have to say I was glad when we got back to the surface. The silo sustained massive damage due to over 13,000 gallons of nitrogen tetroxide (highly corrosive) that pooled at the bottom of the silo due to a poppet shutoff valve that did not seal during the disconnection of the fueling line, which was caused by the failure to follow procedures prior to the accident as well as at the moment of the accident. While I have nothing more than what I was told and I have never read anything that confirms this, but I was told that the destruction was made worse by a decision to release the sound suppression water reservoir in an effort to dilute the nitrogen tetroxide which reacted to form nitric acid. All of this sat at the bottom of the silo for an extended period and even when finally removed continued to eat away the concrete. Two people lost their lives in this accident. The silo was never recommissioned as by the time the rebuild neared completion, the Air Force pulled the plugged on the Titan II ICBM.

[johnpursley]

Interesting...

Learn something new every day.

In all the histories I've read, there's varying accounts of the "liftoff" but it makes sense that the rocket actually did not (although it did on the aborted Redstone liftoff, which of course was unmanned).

I tend to be a bit "leary" of many so-called "histories"...particularly by those long separated in time from the actual events and where there is no appreciable footnoting to references contemporary to the events (you see more and more "footnoting" point to web reference and sources themselves separated in time and expertise form the actual event). And, there are out and out mistakes, such as my naming the crew of GT-8 as Armstrong and Young (every one knows it was Louie Armstrong and George C. Scott :) ). Just watch, someone, somewhere, some time may attribute my intentional silliness here as being fact...

The account of "someone being as close to the abort as anyone" I mentioned in an earlier post was actually in a conversation I had with Schirra back in 2005. Though the conversation was "lengthy" (as a result of he and I being speakers at an event in Huntsville) I have to admit to only spending a minute or two on his Gemini experience (most of our conversation had to do with Mercury and...especially...Apollo). He's the one who instantly corrected my ignorant misconception of the GT-6 "liftoff". Ejection was mentioned but there was no elaboration or anything that evoked him to go much further than saying it was a "last resort" as I recall. Feel free to call me a name-dropper :chuckle:

Schirra is (was) a very "colorful" character (he was the supposed "model" for the Sutherland character in the Space Cowboys movie). He really knew how to "add excitement" to points he really wanted to get across. I wouldn't doubt that he would describe an ejection seat ride as a "Roman Candle"...I would actually be more inclined to know those words were spoken by him than not.

Drop me a note to my email and we can discuss more about my "encounters with Wally"<G>