Talk:Project Gemini

Duplicate article

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)

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)

Is it worthy to note that the entire manned Gemini flight roster took place during a pause of only 25 months in the Soviet manned space program? (Gemini 3 launched four days after Voskhod 2 landed.) In other words, while the Soviets were developing Soyuz, the US perfected the techniques for getting Apollo to the moon.

Subsequently, only Soyuz 1 flew, then a year and a half later, Apollo 7, the land of which was followed only four days later by Soyuz 3. I created a very interesting chart of these flights using Excel. GBC (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2020 (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)

Yes or rephrase it to say like, *Citation source from where you got the information* said it was ironic that this event occurred. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Gemini-VII

Gemini 7 is not in the list of fights! We need to fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esb5415 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done, marking as done to avoid confusion. Gemini 7 is mentioned MaximusEditor (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Gemini 9, Gemini-IX

Gemini 9 is not in the list of flights. It's the "angry alligator" flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReedScarce (talk • contribs) 10:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources

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)

Class upgrade

Although the article could more, it has just enough high quality references cited to push it over the line to B class. More reference support will be necessary to reach Good Article level, but it would otherwise satisfy GA criteria. Folklore1 (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Origins

The article states:

After the existing Apollo program was chartered by President John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961, to land men on the Moon, it became evident to NASA officials that a follow-on to the Mercury program was required to develop certain spaceflight capabilities in support of Apollo. Specifically, Jim Chamberlin, the head of engineering at the Space Task Group (STG), was already assigned to start working on a bridge program between Mercury and Apollo in February 1961.

The opening word “After” is contradicted later by the date of February 1961.

If Gemini was only conceived to build towards Apollo and Apollo was started as a result of Kennedy’s speech, how can Gemini have been started before the speech was made?

PointOfPresence (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Who says Gemini was "only conceived to build towards Apollo"? The article says that it was originally conceived as "Mercury Mark II", its original name, and it was announced as Gemini after Apollo had started (which was before Kennedy's May 25 "man on the Moon" declaration). Does this need to be made clearer?

Acually, on second reading, it probably could be improved. There were actually two motivations behind Gemini. The first was to extend the capabilities of Mercury (to compete with the Soviet's Vostok flights); the support for Apollo came later after Kennedy's "man on the Moon". JustinTime55 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Gemini spacecraft - Adapter module etc

Article gives a mass for the space craft, but does not seem to break it down into the reentry-module/capsule and Adapter module(retro & equipment). No description/specification/numbers for the capsule or parts of the Adapter module ? From early comments above ("metrics") it looks like there was a specs section in 2006/2008. - Rod57 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Pas 207.236.72.58 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Adapter module wording

The wording of the Adapter module section appears to be referencing something with the words ¨ in turn ¨ Does anybody know what this is referencing? Andpug1 (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)