|WikiProject Spaceflight||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|This article is written in American English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from British English and other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
Some good content here, but note Gemini program already exists, plus we have articles for each individual mission too. (At 320,000+ articles, there's virtually no chance that an article on a well-known topic doesn't exist already.) Stan 05:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Depending on your definitions of "virtually no chance" and "well-known topic", that's debatable. I'm often amazed at the subjects that lack a stub or even a substub, including those that I assume are "well-known" to mainstream society, and those "well-known" to geekdom. Regardless, I'm making an attempt at a merger. Tverbeek 00:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Display of metrics
In the specs table the metric mesurments have commas after every three digits. the official SI way is with a space cc220.127.116.11 16:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- As I have never seen nor heard anything about a space being used instead of a comma, I am changing it back to commas. I have countless texts that use commas for SI units. Also, with a space it copies very sloppy into spreadsheets and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Gemini-Titan in fiction
Wel, I liked the section. Perhaps a sepearte entry? Here it is if anyone wants to put in the work.
Gemini-Titan in fiction
- The Doctor Who story The Tenth Planet features a manned space program called Zeus, modeled after Gemini.
- In an episode of Chuck Jones' Tom and Jerry, "Puss N Boats", The Gemini spacecraft appeared in the cartoon as a possible debut of the project.
- Two Gemini spacecraft (called "Jupiter" in the film) play a role in the James Bond movie You Only Live Twice. The first is captured in space by an unidentified (and supposedly Soviet) spacecraft early in the movie. A second almost meets the same fate during the final showdown, but is saved by Bond who blows up the hostile vessel seconds before it can capture the capsule.
- In the 1968 Robert Altman-directed film Countdown, a modified Gemini spacecraft is sent to the moon with a single astronaut in an effort to beat the Soviets following delays to Apollo. In the film the mission and craft are called Pilgrim. The film uses footage from both Gemini and Apollo launches. In real life, contractors for Project Gemini made proposals to NASA to develop the Gemini spacecraft as a cheaper and quicker vehicle to carry out a cislunar mission.
- In the 1964 novel Marooned, by Martin Caidin, a Mercury astronaut is stranded in Earth's orbit and a boilerplate Gemini (GT-2) is launched to rescue.
- The novel Autopsy for a Cosmonaut, by Jacob Hay and John Keshishian, is an account of a pathologist trained for a Gemini 12-A flight and EVA, to conduct in-flight autopsies of Soviet cosmonauts who have perished in a marooned Voskhod prototype.
- In the comic book series Dan Cooper number 16 - "SOS dans l'espace" by Albert Weinberg, a "Gemini 13" mission plays an important role.
- In the TV series I Dream of Jeannie, footage from the project is used to depict a fictional Gemini mission.
i put hard work for looking for information to "Gemini-Titan in fiction" and other space flight stuff only to find someone cut my effort out pages with "because off..." I have enough with this "Edit War", i stop to work for Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Was the first rearangement due to delays in the production of the Agena Target Vehicle as indicated in the article. Or was Theodore Freeman's T-38 crash and Charles Bassett's assignment to Gemini the first? The later occurred on Halloween, 1964.--RadioFan (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
More advanced than Apollo?
I'm not suggesting it isn't true, but the part about Gemini being, in some respects, more advanced than Apollo needs to cite a source at the very least. Giving some examples of why Gemini was more advanced might also be a good idea.126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs support or else should be deleted. It seems to be original research (I've been a space enthusiast since 1965 and I've never heard anyone say that,) so I strongly support deletion. Hiding a link to Big Gemini in the phrase is a sloppy tactic and doesn't really support the statement.
However, I think it would be a good idea to include a brief "Proposed Gemini applications" section with links to Big Gemini, Blue Gemini and MOL.And Big Gemini is already linked in the "Gemini applications" section. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
When did Gemini start?
I placed a "when?" tag in the program history. We need to put (at least a year) on this. This might help place the Apollo Block I / Block II design decision in context. It doesn't seem logical that NASA would design the Block I Apollo for earth orbit only, and end up only making two planned flights (later reduced to just the ill-fated Apollo 1.) But if Gemini didn't exist at the time of this decision, it would make more sense that they would have planned for more Block I flights which would have accomplished most of Gemini's objectives. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I found it! The start dates were actually in the article as of April 25, 2008, when some a*hole vandalized it by replacing the "Announcement" section with a single-word obscenity. Some well-meaning soul fixed it by removing the obscene word, instead of by undoing the a*hole's update. I'm going to replace the dates in "Program objectives" where they belong. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: "As it happened, despite these random substitutions and similar ones in Apollo, and a different number of unmanned flights in both programs, Slayton's rotation philosophy dominated to create a curious coincidence: most of the Gemini astronauts who went on to fly in Apollo occupied an Apollo mission numbered one more than their corresponding Gemini mission:
Schirra commanded Gemini 6 and Apollo 7. Borman and Lovell flew together on Gemini 7 and Apollo 8. David Scott flew on Gemini 8 and Apollo 9. Stafford and Cernan flew together on Gemini 9A and Apollo 10. Collins flew on Gemini 10 and Apollo 11. Conrad and Gordon flew together on Gemini 11 and Apollo 12. Lovell commanded Gemini 12 and Apollo 13. The only exceptions to this pattern were:
McDivitt, who commanded Gemini 4 and Apollo 9 Young, who flew Gemini 3, Gemini 10, and Apollo 10 Armstrong, who commanded Gemini 8 and Apollo 11":
If this is merely a "curious coincidence", then I don't think it deserves mention in the article, especially at this considerable length. Anyway, there are enough stated exceptions to make it not all that remarkable a "curious coincidence". TheScotch (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "Slayton says nothing about this in his book, IIRC, indicating it's not more. MartinSFSA (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The $5.4 billion reported here is way wrong (is that supposed to account for inflation?) and is unsourced. Also, wikilinking it to NASA budget is way out of order. John Noble Wilford gives reliable figures in We Reach the Moon, in 1969 dollars from an estimate NASA gave to Congress for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo combined, which put the total for Gemini at $1.283,4 billion (1969). (The COL index ought to be easy to find and apply, too.) I'll put this in tomorrow when I get a chance. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Meaning of ironic
Yes, it was ironic that See and Bassett crashed into the campus where their Gemini 9 spacecraft was housed, in one sense of the word. According to Merriam-Webster, one meaning of irony is " (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity." It was not expected that they would be killed while visiting the manufacturer to consult on their spacecraft. ITRW, the word doesn't have to refer only to the literary device (sarcasm or humor), despite the lack of such usage in Irony. Ironies can be tragic, as well as funny. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Given that whether this particular incident qualifies as irony is a matter of judgment, I think it would be better to leave it out. It doesn't add anything to the basic mission of providing information. Let the reader decide for herself whether it is ironic. We don't need to characterize it. TJRC (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This article states: "The Titan II had debuted in 1962 as the Air Force's second-generation ICBM to replace the Atlas." Titan II also replaced Titan I which also used LOX like the Atlas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need redundancy in the first paragraph "Titan II GLV launch vehicle" as GLV stands for Gemini Launch Vehicle? The line thusly states "Titan II Gemini Launch Vehicle launch vehicle". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbert2000 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps, but this youtube playlist has some interesting Project Gemini videos, e.g CBS coverage of Gemini 6 and 9, the rendezvous simulator, and status reports. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)