PROJECT GEMINI 


TECHNOLOGY AND OPERATIONS 


Prepared by 

James M. Grimwood and Barton C. Hacker 


with Peter J. Vorzimmer 


THE NASA HISTORICAL SERIES 

Scinztific and Technical Information Division 

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION 1969 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Washington, D.C. 

Gemini was one of the early pioneering efforts in the developing space 

capability of this nation. The initiation of this program was timed to take 

advantage of the knowledge gained in our first series of manned space flightsProject Mercury. The Mercury program successfully demonstrated manned 

orbital flight. Perhaps more important it provided extensive information on 

how to build and fly spacecraft for the more complex missions yet to come. 

Drawing on this experience, the Gemini program was able to produce for its 

time a highly flexible space vehicle of oonsiderable operational capability. 

These characteristics enabled a rapid expansion of American flight horizons. 

The most significant achievements of Gemini involved precision maneuvering in orbit and a major extension of the duration of manned space flights. 

These included the first rendezvous in orbit of one spacecraft with another and 

the docking of two -spacecraft together. The docking operation allowed the use 

of a large propulsion system to carry men to greater heights above Earth than 

had been previously possihle, thereby enabling the astronauts to view and 

photograph Earth over extensive areas. Precision maneuvering was also 

employed during the very high speed reentry back to the surface of Earth, 

enabling accurate landings to be made. The length of our manned space flights 

was extended to as long as 14 days, a duration that has yet to be exceeded as of 

this writing, a.Jthough this was accomplished about three years ago. 

Of great general interest were the investigations of the operations of an 

astronaut outside the oonfines of his spac.ecra.ft, protected from the hard vacuum of space by his pressurized space suit. These extravehicular activities did 

in fact produce some difficulties, but, in the end, highly successful operations 

were conducted. 

All of these activities have greatly contributed to expanding activities in 

space that we now have undenvay or will be forthcoming. In Apollo, the program involved with landing men on the lunar surface, the crews must be transported roughly 240,000 miles to the Moon and then back to Earth. This trip will 

take a week or more. The Apollo spacecraft must perform a rendezvous not 

near Earth but out at lunar distances in order for this mission to be successful. Once again, the astronauts must leave their spacecraft and, in their pressure 

suits, step out onto the lunar surface so that scientific exploration can be conducted. The fact that all of these things were initially demonstrated and then 

investigated further in a number of the Gemini missions greatly aids the development of the more difficult missions that we are about to undertake. 

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the Gemini program was the manner in which the astronauts contributed to the success of each mission. In the 

flying of the spacecraft, in the management of the systems, in the overcoming 

of problems, and in the aid to attainment of important scientific and technological infonnation, their presence enhanced greatly the success of the program. 

v 
vation to make the Gemini program work, the rapid reaction in overcoming d

ficulties, large and small, and the attention to detail are all factors contributi

to the ten successful manned flights which provided nearly two thousand m

hours of direct space flight experience. 

CnART,F.S W. MATITEWS 

Deputy Assoclate Administrator 

Office of Manned Space Flight 

September 16, 1968 

vi 
PAGE 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS____________________________________ viii 


INTRODUCTION_______ ---------------------- __ ------------___ xiii 


PART I-CONCEPT AND DESIGN_______________________ _____ 1 


PART II-DEVELOPMENT AND QUALIFICATION____________ 69 


PART III--FLIGHT TESTS__________ ----------_--------_______ 173 


APPENDICES__ _______________________________________________ 263 


1. 	GEMINI PROGRAM FLIGHT SUMMARY DATA __ ----------------- 264 

TABLE A: General-------------------------------------- 264 

TABLE B: Orbital Operations_____________________________ 266 


TABLE C: Project Gemini Experiments____________________ 268 


TABLE D: Extravehicular Activity on Gemini Missions______ 270 


2. 	GEMINI PROGRAM AND MISSION OBJECTIVES__________________ 271 


3. 	VEHICLE MANUFACTURING AND TESTING HISTORIES___________ 277 


TABLE A: Gemini Launch Vehicle________________________ 277 


TABLE B: Gemini Target Vehicle__ ----- __ ________ -------_ 279 


TABLE C: Gemini Target Launch Vehicle__________________ 280 


TABLE D: Gemini Spacecraft_____________________________ 281 


4. 	WORLDWIDE TRACKING NETWORK---------------------------

------------------------

M---------------------------- _______________ 

HTS--------------------------------------

C--------------------------------------------------------

M--- ------

282 

5. 	COST OF GEMINI PROGRA 283 

6. 	 NASA CENTERS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES PARTICIPATING IN THE GEMINI PROGRA 283 

7. 	CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND VENDORS 284 


8. 	U.S. MANNED SPACE FLIGHT RECORD, SUMMARY OF MERCURY 

ANDGEMINIFLIG ~90 

INDEJ 291 

vii 
FIGURE PAG

Frontispiece First successful rendezvous_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 

1 Proposed mission for modified Mercury capsule_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 

8 Proposed "Lunar Lander" for use with advanced Mercury space10 Launch schedule for final version of Mark II Project Development 


Plan------------------------------------------------------ 1

15 General arrangement of liquid rocket systems in the Gemini 


17 Main elements of the radar rendezvous system on Gemini space2 Early version of "lifting" Mercury capsule____________________ 

____________________ 3 Proposed version of one-man space station_ 

4 Orbital operations requiring a rendezvous development program__ 

5 Deployment sequence for Mercury paraglider___________________ 

6 Interior arrangement for proposed two-man Mercury spacecraft__ 1

7 Adapter section of proposed two-man Mercury spacecraft_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1

craft: Artist's conception____________________________________ 1

9 Drawing of modified Titan II for launch of advanced Mercury___ 1

11 First publicly released illustration of Gemini spacecraft_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 

________ 

_______________ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ 

2

12 Operating principle of General Electric fuel cell for Gemini_ 2

13 Early conception of rendezvous mission_ 2

14 Block diagram of Gemini environmental control system_ 2

spacecraft and typical thrust chamber assembly_ 2

16a Gemini flight trainer for crew training_ 2

16b Gemini docking trainer for crew training______________________ 

______________________________ 

________ -----___________________ 

_____ ..;·_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

2

craft and Agena target vehicle_ 2

18 Block diagram of the attitude control and maneuvering electronics 


system of Gemini spacecraft _ 2

19 Gemini spacecraft landing gear for land landing with the para­ glider 3

20 Ejection seats in the Gemini spacecraft: Artist's conception______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 

__________ 

_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ 

____________________ 

3

21 Reactant supply system for Gemini fdel cells_ 3

22 Operation of the horizon sensor for Gemini spacecraft_ 3

23 Retrograde rocket system for the Gemini spacecraft_ 3

24 Gemini spacecraft communications system_ 3

25 Table showing communiciation functions during a mission_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

______ ___________________ __ __ 

3

26 Inertial guidance system 3

27 General nomenclature of the Gemini spacecraft 3

28 Gemini spacecraft tracking aids_ 3

29 Block diagram of the Gemini spacecraft guidance and control 


system____________________________________________________ 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 

______ 

4

30 Solid-propellant retrograde rocket motor_ 4

31 Parachute recovery system for the first Gemini spacecraft_ 4

viii 

y_____ 

86 Emergency parachute recovery system for full-scale paraglider
 flight test vehicle________________________ - _________ ----_____ 54 


87 Engineering mockup of Gemini spacecraft at McDonnell, St. 


Louis----------------------------------------------------- 57 


38 Proposed layout of Gemini facilities at Cape CanaveraL________ 58 


42 Manned Spacecraft Center Gemini facilities at Cape Canaveral 


39 Sequence of events for Gemini missions_______________________ 59 


40 Proposed sequence of events for first Gemini mission____________ 60 


41 The B. F. Goodrich partial-wear full-pressure suit for Gemini____ 64 


and Merritt Island Launch Area ___________ ---- ____ -----_____ 65 


43 Paraglider half -scale test vehicle being lifted by helicopter_______ 66 


44 Ten percent model of Gemini spacecraft used for wind tunnel 


testing at McDonnell_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 67 


45 Consoles in tracking network remote stations_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 72 


49 Assembly of Gemini launch vehicle fuel and oxidizer tanks for 


Stages I and II ____ -------- ________ ------------------------ 81-82 


51 "POGO" suppression equipment __ --------------------------- 93 


46 Gemini fuel cell stack_______________________________________ 74 


47 Titan II N-15launch at Cape CanaveraL_____________________ 77 


48 Ballute deployment_________________________________________ 78 


50 Primary propulsion system of Gemini Agena target vehicle______ 88 


52 Gemini Launch Vehicle 1 being tested in Martin's vertical test 


facility in Baltimore_ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 95 


53 Malfunction detection system showing interface with Gemini 


spacecraft------------------------------------------------- 97 


54 Preparation of Gemini ejection seat for a dynamic sled test___ ___ 99 


55 Reentry control system for Gemini Spacecraft No.!____________ 

56 Preparation for a test run in the centrifuge at Johnsville, Penn101 


sylvania--------------------------------------------------- 102 


57 Paraglider full-scale test vehicle______________________________ 105 


58 Desert training for astronauts________________________________ 106 


59 Water impact test of the Gemini parachute recovery system_____ 107 


60 Proposed parasail landing system: Artist's conception__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 110 


61 Gemini parachute recovery system operational sequence_________ 112 


62 Diagram of the Gemini launch vehicle Stage II engine_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 115 


63 Instrumentation pallets for Gemini Spacecraft No. L _________ 116-117 


64 Installation of right ballast pallet and instrumentation pallet in 


Gemini Spacecraft No. L ----------------------------------- 118 


65 Jump-testing the 36-inch ballute at EI Centro, California________ 124 


66 Sequence compatibility firing of both stages of Gemini Launch 
 Vehicle l _____________________ ---- __ ____ _____________ _____ _ 128 


67 Interface between Gemini launch vehicle and spacecraft_________ 130 


68 Gemini Boilerplate 3A in the production area at McDonnell_ _ _ _ _ 132 


69 Agena secondary propulsion system_________________________ __ 134 


IX 
76 Egress training in Galveston BaY----------------------------- 15

78 Backup and prime crews for Gemini-Titan 3 at Rollout Inspection 


for launch vehicle: 1. tor., Thomas P. Stafford; Walter M. Schirra, 


82 Zero-G tests in a KC-135 __ --------------------------------- 16

83a Astronauts Grissom and Young in the Gemini mission simulator 


83b Technicians at consoles of the Gemini mission simulator at Cape 


KennedY-------------------------------------------------- 16

_____________ _____ 

74 Special instrumentation pallets for Gemini Spacecraft No. 2_ _ _ _ _ 15

75 Unloading of Gemini Launch Vehicle 2 first stage at Cape Kennedy_ 15

77 Gemini Launch Vehicle 3 undergoing final checks_______________ 15

Jr.; John W. Young; and Virgil I. Grissom __ ------------------ 16

79 Gemini network____________________________________________ 16

80 Water egress training at Ellington Air Force Base, Texas________ 16

81 Gemini G4C extravehicular suit______________________________ 16

at Cape Kennedy ___ ----------------------------------_____ 16

84 Agena Target Vehicle program tenninology ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 16

85 Gemini Launch Vehicle Stage I hydraulic system.___________ __ _ 16

86 Agena D 82 being modified to Gemini Target Vehicle 5002 _ _ _ _ _ _ 17

87 Gemini G4C extravehicular suit with chest pack and umbilicaL _ _ 17

88 Gemini Spacecraft No.3 being unloaded at Cape Kennedy______ 17

89 Simulated Off-the-Pad Ejection Test No. 13 at China Lake, 


Caluornia_________________________________________________ 17

90 Tracking network for the second Gemini mission_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 18

91 Gemini Launch Vehicle 5 erection at the vertical test facility, 
 Martin-Baltimore_____ ----_________________________________ 18

92 Agena target vehicle command and communication system locations.----------------------------------------------------- 18

93 Gemini-Titan 3 on pad 19----------------------------------- 18

94 Gemini Spacecraft No.4 entering altitude chamber at McDonnelL_ 18

95 Extravehicular activity practice in the altitude chamber at 


McDonnell------------------------------------------------ 18

98 Astronaut James A. McDivitt undergoing wet mock simulated 


launch---------------------------------------------------- 19

102b Gemini-Titan 4 launch _____ --------------------------------- 20

103 Gemini-Titan 4 extravehicular activity ______________ --- ___ ---- 20

96 Astronauts Young and Grissom walking toward elevator on Pad 19 19

97 Gemini Spacecraft No. 3 being hoisted aboard recovery ship_____ 19

99 Hand-held maneuvering unit_ _______ ----- __ ------_-----______ 19

100 Gemini Spacecraft No.5 cleanup_____________________________ 19

101 Target docking adapter assemblY----------------------------- 19

102a Launch vehicle erector tower being lowered.___________________ 19

104 Rendezvous evaluation pod in the equipment section of Gemini 


Spacecraft No. 5 _______________________________________ --- _ 20

105 Gemini 5 ingress practice.----------------------------------- 20

X 
108 Florida peninsula from Gemini 6----------------··------------- 210 


111b Augmented target docking adapter equipment __ -·-------------- 221 


112 Mockup of augmented target docking adapter and Gemini space116 Attempted launch and shutdown of Gemini VI-A.------------- 227 


109 Gemini Spacecraft No.7 in clean room at McDon:nell___________ 212 


110 Gemini Spacecraft No.8 in McDonnell's clean room_____ __ ___ __ 214 


111a General arrangement of augmented target docking adapter______ 221 


craft at McDonnelL_-------- ________________ -·-------------_ 222 


113 Gemini VII crew walking toward elevator at pad l.9____________ 223 


114 Gemini VII crew on deck of U.S.S. Wasp after recovery________ _ 224 


115 Gemini Spacecraft No.6 being hoisted at complex 19____________ 225 


117 Houston Mission Control Center reaction to first rendezvous_____ 228 


118 Swimmers attaching cable to Gemini VI-A spacecra1rt after landing_ 228 


119 Donning the astronaut maneuvering unit__ ______ _______________ 234 


120 Launch of Gemini Atlas-Agena target vehicle for Gemini VIII
 mission ____________________________________ -··_____________ 236 


121a Final stage of Gemini VIII and Gemini Agena target vehicle ren­ dezvous_____________________________________ .. _____________ 237 

121b Gemini VIII and Agena in docked configuration_ . ------------- 238 


122 Demonstration of astronaut maneuvering unit___ .. _____________ 242 


123 Augmented target docking adapter with shroud still attached____ 245 


124 Gemini Launch Vehicle 11 Stages I and II arriving at complex
 19__________________________________________ , _____________ 247 

125 Gemini Atlas-Agena target vehicle for Gemini X at complex 14_ _ 249 


126 Gemini XI spacecraft in the pyrotechnic installation building at 


Merritt Island Launch Area__ ------------ ______ ------------- 250 


127 Gemini XI astronaut returns to spaceeraft hatch__ ------------- 254 


128 View of India and Ceylon during the Gemini XI mission_ _______ 255 


129 Gemini XI during landing phase ________ --------------------- 256 


131 Tethered operation during Gemini XII___________ ------------- 260 


130 · Gemini XII astronaut with micrometeoroid packa~ e____________ 259 


This Chronology belongs to a broad historical program undertaken by the 

N ationnl Aeronautics and Space Administration to fulfill its statutory obligation to "provide for the widest practical and appropriate dissemination of 

information concerning its activities and the results thereof." 1 Project Gemini 

was the United States' second manned space flight program, a bridge behveen 

the pioneering achievement of Project Mercury and the yet-to-be realized lunar 

mission of Project Apollo. A history of Project Mercury has been written; 2 

that of Project Apollo is still in the future.' This Chronology, a step in preparing the history of Project Gemini, marks the completion of the first phase of our 

study of the Gemini program and lays the foundation for the narrative history 

that will follow. What we have done must stand as an independent work in 

its own right. But at the same time, some of its characteristics-in particular, 

what it contains and what it omits---ean be properly justified only in terms of 

the larger whole of which it is a part. 

We have deliberately focused this Chronology very narrowly, excluding 

much material of undoubted relevance to the background of events, the context 

of decision, and to other matters that might be characterized as the external 

environment of Project Gemini. In part this is the inevitable result of a 

chronological format, which leaves little scope for explaining and interpreting 

events. Equally important, however, was our decision to reserve for the less 

restricted confines of a subsequent narrative history our confrontation with the 

subtle problems of interpretation and causation, of controversy and cooperation, 

of individual achievements and failures in the Gemini program. Several major 

features of this text grew directly from this decision. 

Our orientation throughout has been primarily institutional. Organizations rather than individuals are ordinarily the actors in events as we describe 

them. The point of view embodied in most of the entries is that of Gemini 

Program Office (the Manned Spacecraft Center element created to carry through 

the Gemini program) and of major Gemini contractors. The events that we 

have been most concerned to elucidate are technological-the engineering and 

developmental work which transformed the concepts and objectives of the 

Gemini program from idea to reality. 

The technological orientllltion of this Chronology has imposed some burdens 

on its authors. Like other works in the NASA Historical Series, the Gemini 

1 "National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958," Sec. 203(a) (3). 

• Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander, Thi1 New 

Ocean: A History of Project Mercuri/, NASA SP--4201. 

• The ftn~t volume of a projected multivolume chronology at Project Apollo is: Ivan D. 

Ertel and Mary Louise Mon~e, The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronolog11, Vol. I: Through 

NovcrnJJer '1, 196!. 

xiii 
describing test programs, and, in general, making Project Gemini comprehen

sible to readers who have no special knowledge of the events we discuss. Th

need not, we feel, impair the Chronology's value to the more technically sophist

cated. Even within NASA and contractor organizations directly concerned wi

Project Gemini, few individuals could be familiar with every aspect of so larg

and complex an undel'taking. We hope we have avoided the pitfall of belabo

ing what is obvious to the render who knows the program while not explainin

enough to the uninitiated. 

Our attempt to achieve this goal has dictated, in part, that this Chronolog

be more than a mere Jist of dated events. Each entry is intended to be relative

independent and complete. One minor, though not insignificant, manifestatio

of this intent is that we have given all names, acronyms, and abbreviation

in full upon their first appearance in every entry, with one exception: becau

its name is both ubiquitous and lengthy, we regularly refer to the N<ion

Aeronautics and Space Administration as NASA. A more important cons

quence of our attempt to write indh·idunJly intelligible entries is that we hav

often combined several events under a single date. In doing this, we cou

naturally follow no hard and fast rules; wl1at was or was not to be included in 

single entry became ult.imllltely a matter of judgment. To enable the reader t

follow these judgments, which at times must appear somewhat arbitrary, w

have provided a comprehensive index of the text. 

This Chronology is fully documented, with sources for each entry in th

text cited immediately after the entry. Our greatest, though not exclusiv

reliance has been on primary sources. Of these, perhaps the most widely usefu

have been the various recurring reports issued by both NASA and contracto

organizations. Foremost among these are tl1e Project ~mini Quarterly Statu

Reports,' the Manned Spacecraft Center weekly and monthly activity reports

and contractor monthly progress reports.8 Another extremely useful class o

materials comprises nonrecurring reports and documents, such as workin

papers, technical reports, statements of work, mission reports and analyse

• Gemini Program Oftlce Issued 19 quarterly reports, the first covering the three mon:h

ending May 31, 1962; the last, the three months ending Nov. 30, 1966. 

• MSC Weekly Actl\"ity Report for the Office of the Director, Manned Space Flight; MS

Consolldft'ted Ae:fvlty Report for the Oftlce of the Dln>etor, Manned Space Flight. Eac

report consisted or separate reports from major MSC elements, Including Gemini Program 

Ofllce. 

• Tbe~~e varied In format and usefulness. Of greatest valut>: Lockheed Missiles and Spac

Company, Gt>mlnf Agena Target Vt>hlcle Program ProgrMs !\(>port.~ for the months Sep

tember 196-i through Nov('mber 1966 (Ll\!SC-A605200-1 through -27) ; North America

Aviation, Inc., Space and Information Sys:t>ms Division, Contract NAS 9-167, Paragllde

Developmt>nt Program, Phase II, Part A, 1tlonthly Progn>ss Letters Nos. 1-16 for Nov. 2

1962, through Mar. 31, 1963; idem., Contract NAS 9-639, Paragllder Development Program

Advanced Trainer and Prototype Wing Design, Phase II, Part B(1), Monthly Progn!IJ

Letters Nos. 1-9 for June 20, 1962, through Mar. 31, 1003; idem., Contract N'AS 9-1484

Paragllder IAlndlng System Program, 1\-!ontbly Progress Reports Nos. 1-21 for the month

May 1003 through .January 1965. 

xiv 
yy py y 

materials. Among those that deserve special mention are the press handbooks 

issued by several contractors,8 NASA press releases and fact sheets,9 the records 

of congressional hearings, and several other chronologies.10 We have also had 

the benefit of personal interviews and conversations with a number of persons 

from government and industry who participated in Project Gemini. As part of 

its historical program, NASA is sponsoring an oral history project based on 

taped interviews with participants at all levels in American space programs.11 

In working on Project Gemini, we have so far conducted about 150 such interviews. Although some have been useful in preparing this Chronology, their 

larger role lies in providing material for the narrative history. Of much greater 

value for strictly chronological purposes have been the less formal conversations, often by telephone, we have had with persons who have helped us to clear 

up specific problems. 

The present text is the second revised version, after critical comments from 

many persons both within and outside NASA, on the Chronology as a whole 

and within their areas of special competence. These comments have not only 

been invaluable to us in correcting and improving our text; they have also on 

occasion emerged as significant sources in their own right.12 

'Notably Aerospace Report TOR-1001(2126-80)-3, Gemini Program Launch Syatetn-8 

Final Rcf)ort: Gemini/Titan Launch Vehicle,· Gemtni/Agcna Target Vehicle; Atlaa SLV-3, 

January 1967; McDonnell Report F169, Gemini l<'inal Summary Report, Feb. 20, 1967; North 

American ~port SID 65-196, Final Report of Paraglider Reaearch and Development Program, Contract NAS 9-148-f, Feb.19, 1965. 1 Lockheed, Gemini A gena Target Preas Handbook (LMSC-A 766871), Feb. 15, 1966 ; 

McDonnell External Relations Division, Gemini Preaa Reference Book, various ed.; Martin 

Company, Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle Preu Handbook, Feb. 2, 1967. Each 

of tlhese appeared In several . editions, corresponding to changing vehicle configurations 

in different Gt-mlni mlsslonR. The differences between the editions are minor. 1 Especially the MSC Fact Sheet 291 ~mini Program Series, one of which was Issued for 

each manned Gemini mission. Author of the series was Ivan D. Ertel, 1\ISC Assistant 

Historian. Another useful source was MSC Space Ncwa Roundup, an official biweekly 

publication of MSC. 

"Notably the series of annual chronologies compiled by the NASA Historical Office, 

with varying titles and dates of publication: Report of NASA to House Commhtee on 

Science and Astronautics, Aeronautical and Altronautical Eventa of 1961, 87th Cong., 2nd 

Sess., June 7, 1962; Report of NASA .to House Committee on Science and Astronauacs, 

AltrCift4utkal and Aeronautical Events of 196!, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., June 12, 11)63; 

Alltronautic1 and Aeronautlc1, 1968: Chronology Ofl Sclencc, Technology, and Policfl, NASA 

SP-4004; same title, 1964, NASA SP-4005; same title, 1965, NASA SP-4006; same title, 

1966, NASA SP-4007. One other chronology was of particular value: Howard T. Harris, 

Gemini Launch Vehicle Chronology, 1961-1966, AFSC Historical Publications Series 66­

22-1, June 1966. 

u Eugene M. Emme, Grimwood, and William D. Putnam, "Historl<.'81 Notes on Oral 

History In NASA," NASA Hqs. Wstorlcal Note 77, November 1967. 11 For example, memo, Chief, Technical Services Division, to Public Affairs Officer, subject: Comment Draft of "Projoot ~mini Operations: A Chronology," May 31, 1967; letter, 

B. A. Hohmann to Grimwood, Aug. 16, 1967, with enc., "Aerospace Critique, Project Gemini 

Technology and Operations: A Chronology"; letter, Gordon P. Cress and C. E. Helmstadt, 

Weber Alreraft, to MSC Historical Office, May 12,1967. 
pj) y g , pgg 

equipment to achieve the program's objectives was the major focus. Thee-rents 

of these two years, and a relatively small number of relevant events during 

1959 and 1960, make up Part I, "Concept and Design." Part II of the Chronology spans the years 1963 and 1964, when the main task became translating 

Gemini designs into working machinery reliable enough for manned space flight. 

This phase of the Gemini program culminated in the two unmanned Gemini 

missions which preceded the manned flights.u The most visible portion of 

Project Gemini belongs to 1965 and 1966, dominated by the 10 manned missions 

whir.h, to the public, constitute the Gemini program. Part III, "Flight Tests," 

chronicles the events of these two years, as well as some of the program's 

terminal events early in 1967. To round out this volume, we have includ~d several appendixes, which summarize, tabulate, and otherwise make easily accessible some major aspects of Project Gemini. 

The great number of persons who have contributed, in one way or another, 

to the preparation of this Chronology precludes our acknowledging their help 

individually. We can only offer our thanks for their help, without which the 

Gemini Chronology would have been distinctly poorer. For such shortcomings 

as it sti11 suffers, its authors alone are responsible. 

JMG 

June 1968 BCH 

'"We follow here the categorization suggested in NASA's Tenth Semiannual Report to 

Congreu, July 1-Dccember 31, 1963, p. 24; "The Gemini program can broadly be categorized by calendar years as follows: 1961-feasiblllty; 1962-design; 1963--development; 

1964--production, test, initial ftlghts; 1965 and 1966-production and operational fttght 

missions." 

" The second unmanned ftlght, although attempted In 1964 and conceptually belonging 

to the period covered in Part II, was not accomplished until 19615; it therefore appears 

in Part III. 

XVl 
PART I 

Concept and Design 

828~220e& 2 


PART I 

Concept and Design 

DeMarquis D. Wyatt, Assistant to the Director of Space Flight Development, 

testified in support of a National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) request for $3 million from Congress for research into space rendezvous techniques. He explained what these funds would be used for. The logistic 

support of a manned space labOratory, a possible post-Mercury development, 

would depend on the resolution of certain key problems to make rendezvous 

practical, among them the establishment of referencing methods for fixing the 

rela.tive positions of two vehicles in space; the development of accurate, lightweight target acquisition equipment to enable the supply craft to locate the 

space station ; the development of very accurate guidance and control systems 

to pennit precise detennination of flight paths; and the development of sources 

of controlled power. 

Houae Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 

4, Heartnp on H.R. 61512, 1960 NASA AutT&orlzatiott [17], 86th Cong., 1st Bess., 

1959,pp.97, 17~267-28& 

The Goett committee met for the first time. On April 1, .Tohn W. Crowley, 

NASA's Director of Aeronautical and Space Research, had appointed Harry J. 

Goett of NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, to chair a 

Research Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight. Committee members 

agreed from the outset to concern themselves with the long-range objectives of 

NASA's man-in-space program, which meant deciding on the kinds of supporting research required, coordinating the research activities of the various NASA 

centers, and making recommendations on research and vehicles. The first order 

of business before the committee was a manned space flight program to follow 

Mercury. H. Kurt Strass of NASA's Space Task Group (STG), Langley Field, 

Virginia, described some preliminary STG ideas on Mercury follow-ups. These 

included: ( 1) an enlarged Mercury capsule to put two men in orbit for three 

days; {2) a two-man Mercury plus a large cylinder to support a two-week 

mission; and {3) the Mercury plus a cylinder attached by cables to a launch 

vehicle upper stage, the combination to be rotated to provide artificial gravity. In its 1960 budget, NASA had requested $2 miJlion to study possible 

methods of constructing a manned orbiting laboratory or converting the 

Mercury capsule into a. two-ma.n la.boratory for extended spa.ce flights. 

1919 

A,.;. 

24 

M111 

21-26 

1 

'"'" 

4 

22 

A.ugtnl 

12 

At a staff meeting, Space Task Group Director Robert R. Gilruth s

studying a Mercury follow-on program using maneuverable Mercury 

for land landings in predetermined areas. 

Memo, Paul E. Purser to Gllrutb, Subj: Log tor the Week ot June 1, 1959. 

H. Kurt Strass of Space Task Group's Flight Systems Division (FSD

mended the establishment of a committee to consider the preliminar

of a two-man space laboratory. Representatives from each of the 

groups \vithin FSD would work with a special projects group, the 

culminate in a set of design specifications for the two-man Mercury

M£>mo, Strass to Chief, FSD, Subj : Activation of a Study Group Per

Advanced Manned Space Projects, June 22, 1959. 

The New Projects Panel of Space Task Group (STG) met for the f

with H. Kurt Strass in the chair. The panel was to consider problem

to atmospheric reentry at speeds approaching escape velocity, mane

the atmosphere and space, and parachute recovery for earth landing. 

Kehlet of STG's Flight Systems Division was assigned to initiate a 

leading to a second-generation capsule incorporating several advances 

Mercury spacecraft: It would carry three men; it would be able to m

in space and in the atmosphere; the primary reentry system would be 

for water landing, but land landing would be a secondary goal. At 

meeting, on August 18, Kehlet offered some suggestions for the new sp

The ensuing discussion led panel members to agree that a specifica

should be prepared as the first step in developing an engineerin

requirement. 

Memos, Strass to Chief, FSD, Subj: First Meeting ot New Projects Panel 

Aug. 15, 1959; Second Meeting of the New Projects Panel .. . , Aug. 26, 

McDonnell Airct·aft Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri, issued a repo

company's studies using a modified Mercury capsule to explore some pro

space flight beyond the initial manned exploration of space through 

The 300-page report discussed six follow-on experiments: touchdown 

maneuver in orbit, self-contained guidance, 14-day mission, manned re

sance, and lunar-orbit reentry. These were more in the nature of te

supported suggestions than firm proposals, but all six experiments 

conducted with practical modifications of Mercury capsules. 

McDonnell Engineering Report No. 0019, "Follow On Experiments, P

Mercury Capsules, 1 September 1~9," revised Oct. 5, 1959. 

Space Task Group's (STG) New Projects Panel discussed the M

Aircraft Corporation proposals for follow-on experiments using 

2 

28 
90N M. · .· ..... .·· ...... \_ / ' POSIGRADE DROGUE CHUTE DEPLOYMENT I 

!.................... ./ESCAP£ TOWER 


,.. '•. 

DllOGUE CHUTE AND ANTENNA FAIRING~ 

:~~ ~ ~·-~•oo-• i 

Figure 1.-JlcDonneU'a propo11ed mi.!Bion for a Jlercur11 capau'te modifted to be oapab'te of 

maneuvering in orbit. Th-iB 'lOa.! one of the &i:D tol~ott serleB ot e:Dperiments incorporated in the com.panv'11 report on potential weB of the Mercury capaule beyond the 

otf!clallfl approved prO(lram. (McDottnell Engineering Report No. 6919, "Follo'IC on 

E111perlmenta, Project Jlet'curu C'apaule, 1 September 1959," rev. Oct. 5, 1959, p. ! ..!-!.) 

Mercury capsules. After concluding that these proposals came under panel 

jurisdiction, Chairman H. Kurt Strass asked for further studies to provide 

STG with suggestions for action. Discussion at the panel's next meeting on 

October 5 centered on McDonnell's proposals. All had shortcomings, but the 

panel felt that certain potentially valuable elements might be combined into 

a single .proposal promising increased spacecraft performance and an opportunity to evaluate some advanced mission concepts at an early date. Noting that 

any amplification of current Mercury missions would demand increased orbital 

weight, the panel advised an immediate study of possible follow-on missions 

to determine the performance specifications for a second-stage propulsion system with restart and thrust control capability. Other studies were needed to 

specify a second-stage guidance and control system to ensure the achievement 

of the desired orbital altitude (up to 150 miles) and to control reentry within 

the heat protection limits of the current, or slightly modified, capsule. Also 

worth studying, in the panel's opinion, were maneuvering in orbit (rendezvous 

experiments) and within the atmosphere (reentry control experiments). 

Memos, Strass to Chief, FSD, Subj : Third Meeting ot New Projects Panel ... 

(Information), Oct. 1, 1959; Fourth Meeting of the New Projects Panel . . . 

(action requested), Oct. 7, 1959. 

3 

1959 

September 
MII'Y 

16-17 

gg 

Mercury configuration, chiefly in the areas of afterbody, landing sy

to control impact point), and retro-escape system, rather than o

configuration concepts. Strass suggested that advanced work be clas

(1) modifications refining the design of the present Mercury or (2) n

in configuration design, and others present agreed. Johnson consent

models for both program categories. FSD's Aerodynamics Sectio

range for and perform tests necessary to evaluate both modificati

vanced proposals. Strass also suggested another modification, a large

diameter allowing for half-ringed flaps which could be extende

portion of the afterbody near the heatshield to provide some sub

capabilities. Strass stated the need for aerodynamic information on 

Mercury configuration under consideration by his group, and on th

vehicle proposed by Aerodynamics Section. 

Memo, Dennis F. Hasson to Chief, FSD, Subj: Meeting of January 7

Discuss Future Wind-Tunnel Test Needs for Advanced Mercury Projects

1960. 

Preliminary specifications were issued by Space Task Group (STG

the Mercury capsule by adding a reentry control navigation system

fied capsule would obtain a small lifting capability (lift-over-drag 

equal approximately 0.26). The self-contained capsule navigation sy

consist of a stable platform, a digital computer, a possible star trac

necessary associated electronic equipment. Dispersion from the pred

point would be less than 10 miles. The prospective development 

prototype to be delivered to NASA for test.ing in February 19

qualified system, or Modifi<;ation I, to be delivered by August 1961; a

qualified system, or Modification II, to be delivered by January 

anticipated that four navigational systems (not including prototype 

tion units) would be required. 

NASA-STG, SubJ: Preliminary Specification for Reentry Control N

System, Apr. 5, 1000. 

Representatives of NASA's research centers gathered at Langley Re

ter to present papers on current programs related to space rende

discuss possible future work on rendezvous. During the first day of 

ence, papers were read on the work in progress at La.ngley, Ames, 

Flight Resea.rch Centers, Marshall Space Flight Center, and Jet 

Laboratory. The second day was given to a roundtable discussio

strongly that rendezvous would soon be essential, that the techniqu

developed immediately, and that NASA should make rendezvous 

to develop the technique and establish the feasibility of rendezvous

John M. Eggleston, "Inter-NASA Research and Space Developme~~t Cente

slon on Space Rendezvous, Langley Research Center, Hay 16-17, 1960," 

1960. 

4 

Charles J. Donlan, Associate Director (Development), described an intermediate program that might fit into the period between the phasing out of Mercury 

and the beginning of flight tests of. the multimanned vehicle. During this time, 

"it is attractive to consider the possibility of a flight-test program involving the 

reentry unit <!f the mult.imanned vehicle which at times we have thought of as 

a lifting Mercury." What form such a vehicle might take was uncertain, but it 

would clearly be a major undertaking; much more information was needed 

before a decision could be made. To investigate some of the problems of a reentry 

vehicle with a lift-over-drag ratio other than zero, STG had proposed wind 

tunnel studies of static and dynamic stability, pressure, and heat transfer at 

Langley, Arnold Engineering Development Center, and Ames facilities. 

STG, "Guidelines for Advanced Manned Space Vehicle Program," June 1960, pp. 

li, 49-00, 52, 53. 

Figure 2.-0nc version of the " lifting" Mcrcurv 

capattlc 

test program 

being 

betwcett 

considered 

the 

in 

end 

1960 

of lf

tor 

crcurv 

li flightand 

the start of a manned circumlunar program. I, FLAP EFFECTIVENESS (M • 0,5 TO 25.) 

2. FLAP AND CAPSULE LOADS (STG, "Gttidclincs tor Advanced ,1/anncd 3. FLAP AND CAPSUlE HEATING 

4, AFTERIO DY HEATING Space Vclliclc Program,'' June 1960, p. 5S) 5. STABILITY 

6. GUIDANCE 


7, SIMUlATO~ ANALYSIS 


McDonnell Aircraft Corporation proposed a one-man space station comprising 

a Mercury capsule plus a cylindrical space laboratory capable of supporting one 

astronaut in a shirtsleeve environment for 14 days in orbit. Gross weight of the 

combined vehicle at launch would be 7259 pounds (Mercury, as of October 25, 

1960, 'vas 4011 pounds), which would provide an 1100-pound, laboratory-test 

payload in a 150-nauticnl-mile orbit, boosted by an Atlas-Agena B. The result 

would be a "minimum cost manned space station." 

McDonnell, "One Man Space Station,'' Aug. 24, 1960 (rev. Oct. 28, 1960). 

NASA's Space Exploration Program Council met in Washington to discuss 

manned lunar landing. Among the results of the meeting was an agreement that 

NASA should plan· an earth-orbital rendezvous program independent of, 

although contributing to, the manned lunar program. 

llinutes, Space Exploration Program Council Meeting, Jan. ~. 1961. 

Space Task Group management held a Capsule Review Board meeting. The 

first topic on the agenda was a follow-on Mercury progra.m. Several types of 

missions were considered, including long-duration, rendezvous, artificial grnv5 

1961 


J111111tlr'Y 


5-6 

20 
TEST AND LAB EOUII'MENT TOTAL SPACE LAI 

~ cu fT (6FT 1,0, X IO FT) 

282 CU FT 

0 2 • 6 8 10 l..........I-J..o.. ..L ...... ...L. •....J 

SCALE IN FT 

Figure 3.-0nc of two vcr1ions of a one-man apace 11tation propoaed 

by 21/cDonnell- In thi11 ver11lon, acceBII to the laboratoru tea& 

thro11gh an inflated tunnel connecting the Mercurfl-tupe CG.paule 

(in tehich the astronaut rode into orbit) teith the la'boratoru 

proper (the forteard section of an Agenn boo&ter attached to the 

capaulc) . (McDonttcll, " One Man Space Station," Aug. ~~. 1960, 

rev. Oct. gs, 1960, p. 3.) 

1961 ity, and flight tests of advanced equipment. Major conclusion was t

]~ low-on program needed to be specified in greater detail. 

STG, "Notes on Cnp!<ule Review Board 1\ll'l'ting," with enclosed chart, "Fo

Mercury Missions," Jan. 20, 1961. 

NASA and McDonnell began discussions of an advanced Mercury 

McDonnell had been studying the concept of a. maneuverable Merc

craft since 1959. On February 1, Space Task Group (STG) Direc

R. Gilruth assigned James A. Chamberlin, Chief, STG Engineering 

who had been working with McDonnell on Mercury for more than 

institute studies with McDonnell on improving Mercury for future ma

flight programs. Work on several versions of the spacecraft, ranging f

modification to radical redesign, got under way immediately. Early 

the prospect of conducting extravehicular operations prompted M

Faget of STG to query John F. Yardley of McDonnell about the po

a. two-man version of the improved Mercury. Yardley raised the que

Walter F. Burke, a McDonnell vice president, who in turn ordered th

drawing of a two-man Mercury be prepared. STG described the work i

at McDonnell to Abe Silverstein of NASA Headquarters in a meeti

lops Island, Virginia, March 17-20. On April!, James T. Rose of S

Chamberlin in studying possible objectives for the advanced Me

concentrated on mission planning, trajectory analysis, and performan

Memo, Purser to Gilruth, Subj: Log for the Week of Jan. 30, 1961, Feb. 

paper, McDonnell, anon., "Early History of Project Gemini," undated ; Actio

Management Discussion, Mar. 17-20, 1961; interviews: Purser, Houston, M

1964; Chamberlin, Houston, Feb. 15, 1965, and Mar. 10, 1966; Rose, St. Louis, 

1966; Burke, St Louis, Apr. 15, 1966; Yardley, St. Louts, Apr. 13, 1966; conve

with Faget, Houston, March 1966. 

6 
One result of this line of thought was a basic change in equipment location, 

from inside the pressure vessel (where it had been in Mercury) to the outside. 

The contractor was authorized to acquire several long-lead-time procurement 

items under an amendment to the basic Mercury contract, but Space Task Group 

limited company expenditures to $2.5 million. :rhe McDonnell project team 

initially included 30 to 40 engineers. 

"Early HiBtory ot Project Gemini"; interviews: Fred J. Sanders, St. Louis, Apr. 14, 

1966; Winston D. Nold, Sl Louis, Apr. 14, 1966; Glenn F. Bailey, Houston, Dec. 13, 

1966. 

Major General Don R. Ostrander, NASA Director of T~aunch Vehicle Programs, described plans for \Vork on orbital rendezvous techniques to the House 

Committee on Science and Astronautics. The subject of orbital rendezvous 

figured prominently in House hearings on NASA's proposed 1962 budget. On 

May 23, the Committee met to hear Harold Brown, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, and Milton W. Rosen, Ostrander's Deputy, explain the 

needs for orbital rendezvous, the means of achieving it, and the support level of 

component activities required to achieve it. 

House Committee on Science and Astronautics and Subcommittees Noe. 1, 8, and 4, 

for 

Group 

Anticipating 

thorization 

mittee 

87th 

Hearings 

a center 

(STG) 

Cong

on 

.

Science 

on 

, 

existed 

the 

1st 

[No. 

H

proposed 

.

Sess

R. 

expanded 

7], 

and 

3238 

., 

in 

Part 

May 

Astronautics, 

and 

STG, 

a 

23,1961. 

2, 

manned 

scope 

H

87th 

.R. 

which 

6029 

Cong., 

of 

Hearing, 

spacecraft 

manned 

(superseded 

wa.S 

1st Sess., 

Orbital 

handling 

space 

development 

1961, 

by 

Rendezt!Otl8 

flight 

H.R. 

the 

pp. 

6874), 

805--806; 

programs, 

Mercury 

center. 

ln 

1962 

Space 

House 

NASA 

program. 

The 

Space 

[No. 

Comnucleus 

18], 

A.,

Task 

­A 

program of much larger magnitude would require a substantial expansion of 

staff and facilities and of organization and management controls. 

STG, "Manned Spacecraft Development Center, Organizational Concepts and Sta~­

ing Requirements," May 1, 1961. 

A NASA Headquarters working group, headed by Bernard Maggin, completed 

a staff paper presenting arguments for establishing an integrated research, 

development, and applied orbital operations program at an approximate cost 

of $1 billion through 1970. The group identified three broad categories of orbital 

operations: inspection, ferry, and orbital launch. It concluded that future space 

programs would require an orbital operations capability and that the development of an integrated program, coordinated with Department of Defense, 

should begin immediately. The group recommended that such a program, because of its scope and cost, be independent of other space programs and that 

a project office be established to initiate and implement the program. 

NASA Hqs., sta~ paper, "Guidelines for a Program tor 1\.lanned and Unmanned 

Orbital Operations," May 1961; briefing memo, Maggln to Assoc. Adm., Subj: 

Sta~ Paper-"Guldellnes for a Program for Mann~ and Unmanned Orbital Operations," May 22, 1961. 

7 

24 

~ 

1 

' 

1961 

M"y 

8 

17 

ORBITAL LAUNCH . ''·" ~... . ... ~ : ~~~~~~NS

. · ;.:.· ....... ··,_...;~.; ,:·.~:- :'~.~ :.. . 	 e CHECI< OlJ

.• ··:. ·• ...• ; .. ,;-,_. 8~\ ·,~~ . • 	 LAUNCH F

.·t:_'F - .~~-

Figure 4.-Thc classes of orbital operations which a NASA He

working group felt would be required in any ftlture apace p

which th·ua made a rendezvous development program 11eecBB

Hq., Btaf! paper, "G11idelinea tor a Program tor ,lfamtcd. and 

Orbital Operations," llfay 1961, p. 4) 

Martin Company personnel briefed NASA officials in Washington, D

Titan II weapon system. Albert C. Hall of Martin had contacted NA

sociate Administrator, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., on April 7 to propose 

II as a launch vehicle for a lunar landing program. Although skep

mans nevertheless arranged for a more formal presenta,tion . .Abe S

NASA Director, Office of Spa.ce Flight Programs, '\"as sufficiently imp

the Martin briefing -to ask Director Robert R. Gilruth and Space Ta

to study po~ible Titan II uses. Silverstein shortly informed Seam

possibility of using the Titan II to launch a scaled-up Mercury spa

Interview, Seamans, Wa8hington, May 26, 1966. 

Space Task Group (STG) issued a Statement of Work for a Design S

Manned Spacecraft Paraglide Landing System. The purpose of the 

to define and evaluate problem areas and to establish the design param

system to provide spacecraft maneuverability and controlled energ

and landing by aerodynamic lift. McDonnell was already at work on a 

Mercury spacecraft; the proposed paraglide study was to be carried o

rently to allow the pa.raglide landing system to be incorpor!llted as a

subsystem. STG Director Robert R. Gilruth requested that contra.c

design study be negotiated with three companies which already had e

with the paraglide concept: Goodyear Aircraft Corporation, Akro

North American Aviation, Inc., Space and Information Systems 

Downey, California; and Ryan Aeronautical Company, San Diego, C

Each contra.ct would be funded to a maximum of $100,000 for a st

completed within two and one-half months from the date the con

awarded. Gilruth expected one of these companies subsequently to b

to develop and manufacture a paraglide system based on t~e approv

8 
ment of Work for a Design Study of a Manned Spacecraft Paraglide Landing 

System," May 17, 1961; "Paragllder Development Program, Phase I-Deslgn 

Study : Test Programs," June 30, 1961. 

]llfN James A. Chamberlin, Chief, Engineering Division, Space Task Group (STG), 

briefed Director Robert R. Gilruth, senior STG staff members, and George M. 9 

Low and John H. Disher of NASA Headquarters on McDonnelrs advanced 

Figure 5.-The deplovmcnt of the McrCilf'1/ paraglidcr propoiJcd by North American after Phtue I of the Para· 

glider Developme11t Program. (North American Aviation, Inc., Rpacc and lnformaticm Syltem. DiviriOtl, 

"Paraqlidcr Development Program, Pl1a1Je 1: Final Report," BID 61-!!6, Aug. 15, 1961, p. 18.)

• 

lfi..U.V 01 rtlOT CNJfl 

TO STMILIZ:E C»SLU 

hp e G,DOO fT 

PAIAOI.Iafl EJ(C110N COMIU:ltD 


ANO U:G_... INFLATION .. , • 25,00D n 


HUnON TO, 22 PSIG 

(""" INTUYAl 7 SKI 

•,• 24,oao n 

AII..AnY'E $HtU.D OfiN(D, lfUASf 

N.OT OMI AN> lllfUASl liAJl...C (DG( CMLIS 

CAI'RI.f SWINGS QOW: AS FC:WWAID CMU 

EXltNDS l.f.IIB l'fNSION LOAD 

KIIWAID c:.AIUS NOT 'tiT AI.I.Y txltNDE'D A$ fUlaOUI' CON11NUfS 

",•21,.FT 

fLAil: 0UJ AND LANDING 
12 

lllh 

7 

seemed to be a complete redesign of the Mercury spacecraft, but it de

meet again on June 12 to review the most desirable features of the new 

After discussing most of these items at the second meeting, the group 

to ask McDonnell to study a minimum-modification capsule to provid

orbit capability. 

STG, "Notes on Capsule Review Board Meeting, McDonnell Advanced Ca

Design," June 9, 12, 1961. 

Space Task Group and McDonnell representatives discussed paraglid

neering and operations problems at a meeting in St. I...ouis. Immediate 

were how to prevent the space~raft from "nosing in" during the landin

a requirement for increased stowage areas in the spa<:ecraft, and a m

effect emergency escape for the pilot after deployment of the paraglid

Minutes of Meeting, Subj : Paraglider Development Program, June 21, 1961. 

Walter F. Burke of McDonnell summarized the company's studies o

designed Mercury spacecraft for Space Task Group's senior staff. Mc

had considered three configurations: ( 1) the minimum-change capsule, m

only to improve accessibility and handling, with an adapter added to ca

Figure 6.-.VcDonncll-proposed two-man ,Vereury spacecraft. Shown is the 

terior arrangement of spacecraft eqrlipmet~t. (McDont~cU Report, "Man

Spacecraft-Advanced Versions," Jul11 2'1-!8, 1961, part .J, "Two M

M K 11 Spacecraft," unpaged report.) 

TWO· MAN MAliK II 5PAClCRAFT 

I. SEQUENCING AND MilliON PROFILE 

2. ELECTRICAL AND POWfl !liiTRIIUTIO

3. COMMUNICATIONS 

4. ITAIILIZATION AND CONlROL 

~. ENVIRONMENTAl CONTROl SYSTEM 

6. CRfW STATIONS 

7. ROCKETS AND MOTECHNICI 

8. INSTaUMENTATION 

9 . LANDING 

10. RECOVERY AIDS 
two-man capsule, McDonnell used Atlas Centaur booster perfonnance data. 

STG, "Notes on Senior Stair Meeting; Presentation by McDonnell Aircraft Corporation on the Results of Mercury Capsule Hardware Studies Applicable to an 

Advanced Mercury Program," July 11, 1961. 

Representwtives of NASA and McDonnell met to decide what course McDonnell's work on the advanced Mercury should take. The result: McDonnell was 

to concentrate all its efforts on two versions of the advanced spacecraft. The 

first required minimum changes; it was to be capable of sustaining one man in 

space for 18 orbits. The second, a .two-man version capable of advanced missions, 

would require more radical modifications. 

"Early History of Project Gemini"; McDonnell Report, "Manned SpacecraftAdvanced Versions," July 27-28,1961. 

Figure 1.-The adapter section of McDonnell'& propo&ed. 

two-man Mercury spacecraft. (McDonnell Report, 

"Manned Spacecraft- Advanced Vcrrions," Jul'Y !1- ZB, 

1961, part 4. "Two Man ,lfK II Spacecraft," unpaged.) 

Space Task Group engineers James A. Chamberlin and James T. Rose proposed 

adapting the improved Mercury spacecraft to a 35,000-pound payload, including a 5000-pound "lunar lander." This payload would be launched by a Saturn 

C-3 in the lunar-orbit-rendezvous mode. The proposal was in direct competition 

with the Apollo proposals that favored direct landing on the Moon with a 

150,000-pound payload launched by a Nova-class vehicle of approximately 12 

million pounds of thrust. 

Interviews : Rose; Chamberlin, Houston, June 9, 1966. 

11 


27-28 
1961 

]uJy 

During 

th• 

month 

Figure B.-Engineering drawing bv Harr11 0. Shoaf (Space Task Group Eng

vfrion) ot the proposed "lunar la·f«lcr" to be used with an advanced ve

MercurusptU!e(lf'aft. (Shoaf, Drawtnu, Nov.15, 1961.) 

James L. Decker of Martin Company submitted a proposal for 11. Tit

Mercury vehicle. A Mercury-Titan program, expected to span an 

flight schedule, would benefit from the Air Force's booster de.velopm

of the ballistic missile system and the considerable design and test t

Force had expended in the Dyna-Soar program to adapt the vehicle 

space flight. The Titan, with, its sen-level rating of 430,000 pounds o

t.he first stage and 100,000 pounds in the second stage, was capable 

significant.Jy heavier spacecraft payloads than the Mercury-Atlas. 

golic propulsion system, using storable Jiquid propellants, was a mu

system than the cryogenic propellant system in Atlas. A highly relia

could be provided, employing complete redundancy in the flight cont

in the form of a three-axis reference system, autopi1ot, servo, elec

hydraulic systems. The short time he proposed 'vould depend on the a

of pad 19 at Cape Canaveml, planned for conversion to the Titan II 

tion. Pad 19, unlike the other three Titan I pads, had been intende

a.pplications and was better designed for required prelaunch test pro

Decker, Martin-Baltimore, "A Program Plan for a Titan Boosted Mercury V

July 1961. 

Representatives of Martin Company briefed Director Robert R. G

some of the senior staff of Space Task Group on Titan II technical 

istics and expected performance. At a senior staff meeting four 

12 
1135.6 FT -----------' 

COMPARTMENT 1 COMPARTMENT 2 COM,ARTMENT 31 

(TRANSITION I (tETWEEN TANKS I (TRANSITION I INC. ADAPnR 

Fl(lure 9;-The modlfted Titan II booBter thai 10M to l4utte1a. the 114vataeed 

JfcrcurJI spacecraft. (STG, "Preliminaru Project Development Pl4n for an 

Advanced Manned Space Program Utilizing the Jlark II Two Man Spacecraft," Aug. t.J, 1961, Fig. .p.) 

August 7, Gilruth commented on the Titan II's promise for manned spa.ce 

flight, particularly its potential ability to place larger payloads in orbit than 

could Atlas, which would make it "a. desirable booster for a. two-man spacecraft." Martin had estimated the cost of procuring and launching nine Titan II 

boosters, with cost of ancillary equipment, at $47.889 million spread over fiscal 

years 1962 through 1964. 

STG, "Notes on Senior Staff Meetlng," Aug. 8, 1961, p. 3; Purser, notes on briefing 

by Decker and Bastian Hello ot Martin to Gllruth et aJ. on Titan II teehnlcal and 

performance aspects, Aug. 3, 1961; Chart, Mercury-Titan Program, ProgTam Cost, 

Aug. 2, 1961. 

Fred J. Sanders and three other McDonnell engineers arrived at Langley 

Research Center to help James A. Chamberlin and other Spa.ce Task Group 

(STG) engineers who had prepared a report on the improved Mercury concept, 

now known as Mercury Mark II. Then, with the assistance of Warren J. North 

of NASA Headquarters Office of Space Flight Programs, the STG group 

prepared a preliminary Project Development Plan to be submitted to NASA 

Hea.dquarters. Although revised six times before the final version was submitted 

on October 27, the basic concepts of the first plan remained unchanged m 

formulating the program. 

Interviews : Sanders; Cham·berUn, .June 9, 1966; William C. Muhly, Houston, 

June 2, 1967 ; STG, "Preliminary Project Development Plan tor an Advanced 

Manned Space Program Utilizing the Mark II Two Man Spacecraft," Aug. 14, 1961. 

James A. Chamberlin, Chief of Space Task Group (STG) Engineering Division, expecting approval of the Mark IT spacecraft program within 30 days, 

urged STG Director Robert R. Gilruth to begin reorienting McDonnell, the 

proposed manufacturer, to the new program. To react quickly once the progt"8JD 

was approved, McDonnell had to have an organization set up, personnel 

assigned, and adequate staffing ensured. Chamberlin suggested an amendment 

to the existing letter contract under which McDonnell had been authorized to 

13 

1961 

.4.1181111 

14 

Oaohw 

27 
27 

Space Task Group (STG) , assisted by George M. Low, NASA Assist

tor for Space Flighlt Operations, and Warren J. North of Low's office

a project summary presenting a program of manned space flight for 1

This was the final ' 'ersion of the Project Development Plan, work on w

been initiated August 14. A two-man version of the Mercury spacecr

be lifted by a modified Titan II booster. The Atlas-Agena B combinat

be used to place the Agena B into orbit as the target vehicle for rendez

proposed plan was based on extensive use of Mercury technology 

ponents for the spacecraft. A suggestion was incorporated to negoti

source, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with McDonnell Aircraft Corpo

the Mark II Mercury spacecraft. Launch vehicle procurement 

arranged through the Air Force : with General Dynamics/Astronau

Diego, California, for Atlas launch vehicles; with Martin-Marie

Systems Division (Martin-Baltimore), Baltimore, Maryland, for •the 

Trtan II launch vehicles; and with Lockheed Missiles and Space C

Sunnyvale, California, for the Agena target vehicles. A project office 

estabJished to plan, direct, and supervise the program. Manpower req

for this office were expet-ted to reach 177 by the end of fiscal year 1062. E

cost of the proposed program was about $530 million. STG justified 

by suggesting that the next. ~p in manned space exploration after 

would be to gain experience in long-duration and rendezvous missions. 

II program was to provide an immediate continuation of a suceessfu

Mercury, using equipment and vehicles already developed for other 

as much as possible. The Mark II would allow a much wider range o

objectives than Mercury, which could not readily be adapted to o

simple orbital missions of up to one day's duration. Mark II objectiv

passed flights of longer duration than the 18 orbits to which Mer

limited, making a multiman crew necessary, contributing to the devel

operational techniques and equipment for extended space flights, and 

data on the psychological and physiological effects on the crew o

periods in the space environment. Objectives also included flights t

techniques for achieving rendezvous in orbit-a necessary prelude to 

flights in order to extend the limits on mission capabilities impose

limitations of available boosters-and controlled land landing to avoi

mize the magnitude of the effort. required to recover spooecraft at sea a

space flight on something like a routine basis. The Mark II project 

quickly accomplished; not only would most hardware be modification

already existed, but equipment would be modularized, allowing 

requirements and available hardware to be maintained in balance with 

dislocations. Twelve flights were planned, beginning with an unmann

fication flight in May 1963. Succeeding flights would occur at two-mo

vals, ending in March 1965. Flight No. 2 would be a manned 18-orb

with the twin objectives of testing crew performance in missions of th

14 

LAUNCH 

UNMANNED QUALIFICATION 

18 Oltln MANNfD 

LONG 0\JRATION MANNfD 

1961 

Figure 10.-Thc launch schedule that accompanied the jlnal ver.don of the Marl' II Project 

Development Plan. (ISTG, "Project Development Plan for Rendezvous Development 

Utilizing the Mark II Two Man Spacecraft," Oct. 'l7,1961, Fig. 5.5) 

and of further qualifying the spacecraft for longer missions. The next two 

flights (Nos. 3 and 4) would be long-duration tests to demonstrate the crews' 

ability to function in space for up to 14 days. Remaining flights "·ere to establish 

orbital rendezvous techniques and to demonstrate the capability to rendezvous 

and dock in space. 

STG, "Project Development Plan for Rendezvous Deyelopment Utilizing the Mark 

II Two-Man Spacecraft," Oct. 27, 1961; interview, James E. Bost, Houston, June 1, 

1967. 

Martin Company received informal indications from the Air Force that Titan 

II 'vould be selected as the launch vehicle for NASA's advanced Mercury. 

Mart.in, Air Force, and NASA studied the feasibility of modifying complex 19 

at Oa.pe Canaveral from the Titan weapon system configuration to the Mercury 

Mark II launch vehicle configuration. 

Interviews: Walter D. Smith and Ht-llo, Baltimore, May 23, 1966. 

Space Task Group's Engineering Division Chief James A. Chamberlin and 

Director Robert R. Gilruth briefed NASA Associate Administrator Robert C. 

Seamans, Jr., at NASA Headquarters on the Mercury Mark II proposal. Specific approval was not granted, but Chamberlin and Gilruth left Washington 

convinced that program approval would be forthcoming. 

Interview, Chamberlin, June 9, 1966. 

Space Task Group, the organization charged with directing Project Mercury 

and other manned space flight programs, was redesignated Manned Spacecraft 

Center, with Robert R. Gilruth as Director. 

Memo, Purser to ?tiSC Employees, Subj: Designation of Space Task Group as 

"Manned Spacecraft Center," Nov. 1, 1961. 

328~22 0-69-3 15 

1961 

Oclober 

1 
20 

20 

~29 

inc1uded housing many of the mission-sustaining components in an ad

would be carried into orbit rather than being jettisoned following lau

pellant thrusters to effect. orbital maneuvers, crew ejection seats for 

use, onboard navigation system (inertial platform, computers, radar

fuel cells as electrical power source in addition to silver-zinc batteries

duration mission was viewed as being seven days. 

McDonnell Rt>port No. 8356, "Mercury 1\fk II Spacecraft Detail Specif

Nov. 15, 1961. 

Manned Spacecraft Center notified North American to proceed with P

of the Paraglider Development Program. A letter contract, NAS 

lo,ved on November 21 ; contract negotiations were completed Februa

and the final contract was awarded on April16, 1962. Phase I, the des

that ran from the beginning of June to mid-August 1961, had alrea

strated the feasibility of the paraglider concept.. Phase 11-A, System 

and Development, called for an eight-month effort to develop the d

cept of a paraglider landing system and to determine its optimal pe

configuration. This development would lay the groundwork for Phase 

comprising prototype fabrication, unmanned and manned flight testin

completion of the final system design. tntimately Phase III-Implem

would see the paraglidcr being manufactured and pilots trained to fly i

Message, Bailey to Nell C. Dophelde, Nov. 20, 1961 ; STG, "Statement o

for Phase II, Part A, System Research and Development of a Paragllder D

ment Program," Sept. 15, 1961; NA.A, letter 63MA8041, Subj: Final Set

Proposal, Paragllder, Phase II, Part A, NAS !>-167, June 11, 1963,JJ. I-1. 

Milton W. Rosen, Director of Launch Vehicles and Propulsion in 

Office of Manned Space Flight, presented recommendations on r

to D. Brainerd Holmes, Director of Manned Space Flight. The work

Rosen chaired had completed a two-week study of launch vehicles fo

space flight, examining most intensively the technical and operational 

posed by orbital rendezvous. Because the capability for rendezvou

was essential to a variety of future missions, the group agreed that "

high priority rendezvous development effort must be undertaken imm

Its first recommendation was that a program be instituted to develo

vous capability on an urgent basis. 

Memos: Rosen to Holmes, Subj: Large Launch Vl'hicle Program, Nov. 6

Rosen to Holmes, Subj: Recommendations for NASA Manned Space Flig

hicle Program, Nov. 20, 1961, with enc., "Report of Combined Working 

on Vehicles for Manned Space Flight"; Seamans to Holmes, Subj: Recom

tions for NASA Manned Space Flight Vehicle Program, Dec. 4,1961. 

Representatives of the Space and Information Systems Division 

American, Langley Research Center, Flight Research Center (form

16 

support the paraglider program with wind tunnel tests. Flight Research Center would oversee the paraglider flight test program. Coordination of the paraglider program would be the responsibility of Manned Spacecraft Center. 

Minutes of Meeting of North American Aviation .. . Program Review, Dee. ~. 

1961. 

On the ba.sis of a. report of the Large La.unch Vehicle Planning Group, Robert 

C. Seamans, Jr., NASA Associate Administrator, and John H. Rubel, Department of Defense Deputy Director for Defense Research and Engineering, recommended to Secretary of Defense Robert S. MeN amara that the weapon system of the Titan II, with minimal modifications, be approved for the Mercury 

Mark II rendezvous mission. The planning group had first met in August 1961 

to survey the Nation's launch vehicle program and was recalled in November 

to consider Titan II, Titan II- 1,.2, and Titan Ill. On November 16, McNamara 

and NASA Administrator James E. Webb had also begun discussing the use 

of Titan II. 

Memo, Seamans and Rubel to McNamara, Subj : Recommendations Relative to 

Titan III and II-%, Dee. II, 1961. 

Robert R. Gilruth, Director of the Manned Spacecraft Center~ transmitted the 

procurement plan for the Mark II spacecraft to NASA Headquarters for 

approval-including scope of work, plans, type of contract administration, 

contract negotiation and award plan, and schedule of procurement actions. At 

Headqua.rters, D. Brainerd Holmes, Director of Manned Space Flight, advised 

Associa.te Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., tha.t the extended flight would 

be conducted in the last ha.lf of calendar year 1963 and that the rendezvous 

flight tests would begin in early 1964. Because of short lead time available to 

meet the Mark II delivery and launch schedules, it was requested that fiscal 

year 1962 funds totaling $75.8 million be immediately released to Manned 

Spacecraft Center in preparation for the negotiation of contracts for the 

spacecraft and for the launch vehicle modifications and procurements. 

Memos, Gllruth to NASA Hqs., Attn: Ernest Brackett, Subj : Transmittal of Procurement Plans for Mark II Spacecraft for Approval, with encs., Dee. 6, 1961 ; 

Holmes to Seamans, Subj : Mark II Preliminary Project Development Plan, Dee. 

6, 1961, "·ltb Seamans' handwritten approval on basic document. 

NASA Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., approved the Mark II 

project development plan. The document approved was accompanied by a 

memorandum from Colonel Da.niel D. McKee of NASA Headquarters stressing the large advances possible in a. short time through the Ma.rk II project and 

their potential application in planned Apollo missions, particularly the use of 

rendezvous techniques to achieve manned luna.r landing earlier thnn direct 

ascent would make possible. 

Memo, Holmes to Seamans, Dee. 6, 1961. 

6 

7 

17 

7 

11 

be launched into orbit and would attempt to rendezvous with an Age

put into orbit by an Atlas. Total cost of 12 capsules plus boosters a

equipment was estimated at $500 million. The two-man flight progra

begin in the 1963-1964 period with several unmanned ballistic flight

overall booster-spacecraft compatibility and system engineering. 

manned orbital flights would follow. Besides rendezvous flybys of th

vehicle, actual docking missions would be attempted in final flights. Th

crn.ft would be capable of missions of a. week or more to train pilots fo

long-duration circumlunar and lunar landing flights. The Mercury as

would serve as pilots for the program, but additional crew members 

phased in during the latter portions ofthe program. 

Rt>port ot NASA to the House Committee on Science and Aeronautics, 

natttwal and Astronatttical Events of 1961, 87th Oong .• 2d Sess., June 7, 

p. 71 ; Baltimore Sun, Dec. 8, 1961. 

NASA Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., and John H

Department of Defense (DOD) Deput.y Director for Defense Rese

Engineering, offered recommendations to Secretary of Defense R

McNn.marn. on the division of effort between NASA and DOD in the 

program. They stressed NASA's primary responsibility for manag

directing the program, although attaining the program objectives w

facilitated by using DOD (especially Air Force) resources in a contrac

tion to NASA. In addition, DOD personnel would acquire useful expe

manned space flight design, development, and operations. Space Syste

sion of Air Force Systems Command became NASA's contractor for dev

procuring, n.nd launching Titan II and Atlas-Agena vehicles for the 

program. 

Memo, Seamans and Rubel to 1\-lcNamarn, Subj : Recommendation Relative t

Divl!'lon ot Ell'ort between the NASA nnd DOD In the Devt:>lopment ot Space 

dezvous and Cnpabillties, Dec. 7, 1961; Howard T. Harris, Gemini Launc

hidc Ol1ronology, 1961-1965, AFSC Historical Publications Series 66-22-1, 

1966, p. 1. 

NASA laid down guidelines for the development of the two-man spac

a document included us Exhibit "A" in NASA's contract with McDonn

development program had five specific objectives: ( 1) performing 

orbital flights lasting up to 14 days, (2) determining the ability of man 

tion in a space environment during extended missions, (3) demon

rendezvous and docking with a target vehicle in Earth or·bit as an ope

technique, ( 4) developing simplified countdown procedures n.nd te

for the rendezvous mission compatible with spacecraft launch veh

target ,•ehicle performance, and ( 5) making controlled land landing 

mary recovery mode. The tv.·o-man spa.cecraft would retain the gene

dynamic shape and basic systems concepts of the Mercury spacecraft bu

also include seYe.ral important changes: increased size to accommod

18 

landing. Target date for completing the program was October 1965. 

Letter, Bailey to McDonnell, Subj: Letter Contract No. NAS 9-170, enc. 4, Exhibit 

"A" to NAS 9-170, Dec. 15,1961. 

Colonel Daniel D. McKee of NASA Headquarters compiled instructions for an 

Air Force and NASA ad hoc working group established to draft an agreement 

on the respective responsibilities of the two organizations in the Mark II program. Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) Director Robert R. Gilruth assigned 

his special assistant, Paul E. Purser, to head the MSC contingent. 

Memo, Purser to Gilruth, Subj : Log for the Week ot Dec. 11, 1961, Dec. 18, 1961; 

McKee, "Instructions to Ad Hoc Working Group on the Mercury Mark II," Dec. 12, 

1961 ; "Members ot ad hoc working group on Air Force participation in the Mercury 

Mark II Project;• Dec. 13, 1961. 

A week after receiving it, McDonnell accepted Letter Contract NAS 9-170 

to ';conduct a research and development program which will result in the development to completion of a Two-Man Spacecraft." McDonnell was to design and 

manufacture 12 spacecraft, 15 launch vehicle adapters, and 11 target vehicle 

docking adapters, along with static test articles and all ancillary hardware 

necessary to support. spacecraft operntions. Major items to be furnished by the 

Government to McDonnell to be integmted into the spacecraft \vere the paraglider, launch vehicle and facilities, astronaut pressure suits and survival equipment, and orbiting target vehicle. The first spacecraft, with launch vehicle 

adapter, was to be ready for delivery in 15 months, the remaining 11 to follow 

at 60-day intervals. Initial Government obligation under the contract was $25 

million. 

Letter Contract NAS 9-170, Dec. 15, 1961; interviews: Robert N. Lindley, St. Louis, 

Apr. 13, 1966; Harry W. Oldeg, St. Louis, Apr. 14, 1966. 

Manned Spacecraft Center directed Air Force Space Systems Division to 

authorize contractors to begin the work necessary to use the Titan II in the 

Mercury Mark II program. On December 27, Martin-Baltimore received a 

go-ahead on the launch vehicle from the Air Force. A letter contract for 15 

Gemini launch vehicles and associated aerospace ground equipment followed 

on January 19, 1962. 

Memo, Purser to Gilruth, Subj: Log for the Week ot Dec. 25, 1961, Jan. 2, 1962; 

Harris, Gemifti LauncA Vehicle CJhronologJI, pp. 1, 2. 

NASA issued the Gemini Operational and Management Plan, which outlined 

the roles and responsibilities of NASA and Department of Defense in the 

Gemini (Mercury Mark II) program. NASA would be responsible for overall 

program planning, direction, systems engineering, and operation-including 

Gemini spacecraft development; Gemini/ Agena rendezvous and docking equipment development; Titan II;Gemini spacecraft systems integration; launch, 

flight, and recovery operations; command, tracking, and telemetry during 

12 

22 

26 

29 

19 

support. A slightly revised version of the plan was signed in a

March 27 by General Bernard A. Schriever, Commander, Air For

Command, for the Air Force, and D. Brainerd Holmes, Director 

Space Flight, for NASA. 

"NASA-DOD Operational and Managemen-t Plan for the Gemini Program,

1961; letter, Holmes to Schrieve-r, Jan. 26, 1962; me-mo, Seamans and 

Secretary ot Defense and NASA Administrator, Subj: NASA/DOD Op

and Management Plan for AC(:omplishlng the Gemini (formerly Mercury M

Program, Jan. 29, 1962; Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle ChroMlogv, p. 1. 

"Gemini" became the official designation of the Mercury Mark I

The name had been suggested by Alex P. Nagy of NASA Headquar

the twin stars Castor and Pollux in constellation Gemini (the Twi

to him to symbolize the program's two-man crew, its rendezvous m

its relation to Mercury. Coincidentally, the astronomical symbo

Gemini, the third constellation of the zodiac, corresponded ne

Mark II designation. 

Memos, Nagy to George M. Low, Subj: Selection of the Name, Gemini, 

1961; Harold L. Goodwin to Nagy, Subj : Selection of the Name "Gemini

1002; Report of NASA to House Committee on Science and Astronautic

nautical and Aeronautical Events of 196!, 87th Cong., 2nd SeRB., June 7, 1

Figure 11.-'l'he ffrlt ill.utratioft of the Gemini 1pacecratt to be relea1ed pvl

diltrilmtcd at the Nme time NASA antl01l-ttecd that the project wa1 

"Gemini." (NASA Photo 8-6!-88, rel6tuedJan. 3, 196!.) 

- -· ­ ~ 

- - •• -.o ~ or"_

- ~ ~ .. ..- ~

--- -·- - 

..-"" . <- :~ .:~:.:l.-~::-~--..;-

PROJE

MER

PROJECT GEMINI 

were to be kept to a minimum. The Statement of Work accompanied a. purchase 

request for $27 million, dated January 5, 1962, for 15 Titan launch vehicles. 

Pending ratification of the Gemini Operational and Management Plan, however, funding was limited to $3 million. To oversee this work, SSD established 

a Gemini Launch Vehicle Directorate, headed by Colonel Richard C. Dineen, 

on January 11. Initial budgeting and planning were completed by the end of 

March, and a final Statement of Work was issued May 14; although amended, 

it remained in effect throughout the program. 

Memo, Purser to Gllrutb, Subj: Log for the Week of Jan. 1, 1962, J·an. 8, 1962; 

Defense Purchase Request No. T-2356-G, Jan. 5, 1962, with Statement of Work, 

Jan. 3, 1962; Harris, GemtJt.i LauJt.CTI. Vehicle Chrono,ogJI, pp. 1, 2; Bost Interview. 

Manned Spacecraft Center published its first analysis of the Gemini spacecraft 

schedule. Potential problem areas in pulse-code-modulated (PCM) telemetry, 

the bipropellant attitude and control system, and time required to install electrical components and wiring had not yet affected the launch schedule. Scheduled launch dates were adjusted, however, because program approval had come 

a month later than originally anticipated in the Project Development Plan. 

The first flight was now planned for late July or early August 1963 with 

six-week launch centers between the first three flights. Subsequent launches 

would occur at two-month intervals, with the last flight in late April or early 

Ma.y 1965. The first Agena mission wa.s scheduled for late February or early 

Ma.rch 1964. 

NASA-MSC, Gemini Project Office, "Project Gemini Schedule Analysis," Jan. 5, 

1962. 

Director Robert R. Gilruth of Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) a.ppointed 

James A. Chamberlin, Chief of Engineering Division, as Manager of Gemini 

Project Office (GPO). The next day MSC advised McDonnell, by amendment 

No. 1 to letter contract NAS 9-170, that GPO had been established. It was 

responsible for planning and directing all technical activities and all contractor 

activities within the scope of the contract. 

Letter, Balley to McDonnell, Subj: Amendment #1 to Letter Contract NAS 9-170, 

Jan. 16, 1962; MSC Announcement No. 12, Ref. 2-2, Subj: Personnel ABBignments 

for Mercury and Gemini Program Offices, Jan. 31, 1962; James M. Grimwood, 

Project Merour11: A Chrono'louJI, NASA SP-4001, p. 220. 

Manned Spacecraft Center completed an analysis of possible power sources 

for the Gemini spacecraft. Major competitors were fuel cells and solar cells. 

Although any system selected would require much design, development, and 

testing effort, the fuel cell designed by General Electric Company, West Lynn, 

Massachusetts, appeared to offer decided advantages in simplicity, weight, and 

compatibility with Gemini requirements over solar cells or other fuel cells. A 

basic fea.ture of the General Electric design, and the source of its advantages 

over its competitors, was the use of ion-exchange membranes rather than gns­

21 


23 
COOLING 

SYSTEM 

CHEMICAL REACTIONS 

OVEitAll 	 CATHODE 

2H2 •02 • 2>l20 <li ~' • 0 2 • 2>l2o 

Figure 1!.-TAe operating principle of the fuel celJ deBiflfled bv Genera

Electric, adopted for use in the Gcminlapacecraft. (McDonnell, "Projec

Ueminl Familiarization Clla,·t,," June 5, 196!, unpaged.) 

1962 diffusion electrodes. On March 20, 1962, McDonnell let a $9 million sub

]411UMY to General Electric to design and develop fuel cells for the Gemini sp

XASA-MSC, Gemini Project Note of January 23, 1962, Subj: Summary of An

for Selecting the Power Source for the Gemini Project, Jan. 27, 1962; Procur

and Contracts Division Records, Subj: llcDonnell Subcontracts (over $250,00

of Dec. 31, 1962. 

26 	 After investigating potential malfunction problems of the modified T

Gemini launch vehicle, Martin-Baltimore prepared a study report wi

to provide the components necessary to ensure flight safety and enhan

bility. Martin defined the malfunction problem quantitatively in term

probability of each cause nnd its characteristic effect on the system and 

Martin intended to keep the launch vehicle ns much like the weapon 

as possible; thus the data obtained from the Air Force's weapon system 

ment program would be applicable to the launch vehicle. Only minimal m

tions to enhance probability of mission success, to increase pilot safety

accommodate the Gemini spacecraft as the payload were to be mad

included a malfunction detection system; backup guidance, cont

hydraulic systems; and selective electrical redundancies. 

SSD/Martin, Malfunction Detection 8'1/Btem Trade Study-Gemini Program La

Vehicle, Jan. 26, 1962; Interviews: Guy Cohen, Baltlmorl', May 24, 1966; H

Harris, Gemittl Launch Vehicle Chronology, pp. 2-4. 

3l 	 Manned Spacecraft Center notified Marshall Space Flight Center, Hu

Alabama (which was responsible for managing NASA's Agena progra

Project Gemini required 11 Atlas-Agenas as rendezvous targets and r

Marshall to procure them. The procurement request 'vas accompanie

Exhibit "A" describing proposed Gemini rendezvous techniques and 

the purpose of Project Gemini ns developing and demonstrating Enr

rendezvous techniques as early ns possible. If feasible, these techniqu

provide a prncticnl bnse for lunar and other deep spnce missions. Exh

the purchase request was a Statement of Work for Atlas-Agenn vehic

used in Project Gemini. Air Force Space Systems Division, acting as 

22 
--

docking unit; and provision of a jettisonable aerodynamic fairing to enclose 


the docking unit during launch. The first rendezvous vehicle was to be delivered 


to the launch site in 20 months, with the remaining 10 to follow at 60-day 


intervals. 


Letter, Gllruth to Marshall, Attn: Dr. Wernber von Braun, Director, Subj : Pro­


curement of Atlas-Agena Space Vehicles, Jan. 31, 1962, with 2 enc. 


1. ATLAS-AGENA B lAUNCHED 2. DETERMINE ORBIT Of AGENA B 

_.----~------- i4 ,,f I~ 

AGENA B 


\ .. I,...--­

Figure 18.-Four stages tn a rendelJWVI mllft<m aa conceived earlJI tn 196!. (NASA Photo 

8~!-8!, c. Jan. S, 1962.) 

Air Force Space Systems Division issued a Technical Operating Plan to Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California, for support of the Gemini Launch 

Vehicle Program; a contract followed on March 15. Aerospace was to assume 

responsibility for general systems engineering and technical direction of the 

development of the launch vehicle and its associated subsystems. Aerospace had 

already established a Gemini Launch Vehicle Program Office in January. 

Aerospace, Draft of Annual Report, Fiscal 1962~. undated; Harris, Gemtnt 

Launch Vehicle Chrott.Olof1JI, pp. 5, 6. 

Howard W. Tindall, Jr., Flight Operations Division, requested consolidation of 19 

all Gemini computer programming and operation at Manned Spacecraft Center 

in Houston. The complexity of trajectory control needed for rendezvous, the 

novelty of computer programming required (a management rather than an 

arithmetic problem), -the lengthy tim~ required for such a program, the need for 

23 

19 

19 

20 

Memo, Tindall to Walter C. Williams, Subj: Consolidation of Gemini C

Programming and Operation at Houston, Texas, Feb. 19, 1962. 

AiResearch Manufacturing Company, a division of the Garrett C

Los Angeles, California, received a $l!S million subcontract from 

to manufacture the environmental control system (ECS) for the Ge

craft. This was McDonnell's first purchase order in behalf of 

contract. Patterned after the ECS used in Project Mercury (al

AiResearch), the Gemini ECS consisted of suit, cabin, and cool

and an oxygen supply, all designed to be manually controlled whene

during all phases of flight. Primary functions of the ECS were con

and cabin atmosphere, controlling suit and equipment temperature

viding drinking water for the crew and storage or disposal of w

Project Gemini Quarterly Status Report No. 1 tor Period Ending May 

pp. 15-16; McDonnell Subcontracts (over $250,000) as of Dec. 31, 1962 ; 

"Gemini Engineering Program, McDonnell Aircraft Corporation," paper p

to the Institute of Management Sciences, Dallas, Tex., Feb. 16, 1966, 

'McDonnell Report F169, Gemlm Fi11aZ Summarv Report, Feb. 20, 196

(hereafter cited as McDonnell FiMl Report). 

The initial coordination meeting between Gemini Project Office and 

was held at Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston. Gemini Projec

James A. Chamberlin and McDonnell Engineering Manager Robert 

outlined statements of policy. The purpose of subsequent coordinatio

was to discuss and settle problems arising between McDonnell a

These coordination meetings were the central focus of decision-mak

the development phase of the Gemini program. After five indoctrin

ings (February 19, 21, 23, 27, and 28), during which McDonnell repr

described spacecraft systems, regular business meetings began on 

subsequent meetings were tentatively scheduled for Monday, Wedn

Friday of each week. 

'Minutes ot ... McDonnell Coordination Meeting, Feb. 26, 1962; Minutes 

Project Office-McDonnell Coordination Meeting, Mar. 6, 1962; Interview, 

Meyer, Jr., Bouston, Jan. 6, 1967. 

McDonnell issued specifications for the crew-station system for t

spacecraft. The crew-station system would include displays of spacec

functions, controls for spacecraft systems, and the means of integ

crew members into the system. The specifications also establishe

responsibility for each crew member. 

McDonnell Report 8635, Gemini 8pacecratt-arew Station 8111tem Spec

Feb. 20, 1962, rev. July 13, 1962. 

Martin-Baltimore submitted its initial proposal for the redundant fli

and hydraulic subsystems for the Gemini launch vehicle; on March 

was authorized to proceed with study and design work. The major 

24 


22 
------------------

_____________

.........

·---

I I 

I 

I 

I 

--·-·--... 
 

I 

I 

I 

I JL 

I 

I 

-· 

I 
 I 

I 

I 
 I ' I
 I 
I 


I 


I
 I 

I 


l 

I 


I C) C) : 

SEC. 0 2 I 

ONlAINI!I 

ID

I.EGEND 

•----- SUfT tEC•CULATW<fG fLOW' 
 

---SfCONOMY lATE FLOW 

----OXYGEN !UmY 

Figure 1-i.-Biock diagram of the Gemini f!ftvironmental control 1111tem, •ubco

turing Co. (McDonnell, "Project Gemini Familiarization Ch
-----------------

liaison, computer programs, and ground-based computer operation an

tenance were contracted to Burroughs Corporation, Paoli, Pennsylva

July 3. 

Conc1uslon ot Meeting ot NASA, SSD, 1\lartin, 1\lcDonnell, 1\lar. 2, 1962; Ha

Gemini Latmch Vehicle Chr()fi,Ql<>gy, pp. 5, 9. 

24 	 McDonnell let a $32 million subcontract to North American Aviation's 

dyne Division, Sacramento, California, to build liquid propulsion syst

t.he Gemini spacecraft. Two separate systems "·ere required: the orbit 

and maneuvering system ( OAMS) and the reaction or reentry control 

(RCS). The OAMS, located in the ada.pter section, had four functio

providing the thrust required to enable the spacecraft to rendezvous 'v

target vehicle; (2) controlling the attitude of the spacecraft in orb

separating the spacecraft from the second stage of the launch vehi

Figure 15.-Thc general arrangement of liquid rocket sy.rtcms (OAJ£8 and RCS

Gcm·i11l spacecraft. The Insert diaplava a typical thrust chamber auembly. (Jlc

"Project Gemini Familiarization Charts," June 5,1962, unpaged.) 

""' lf'ol.tT (WJU.CTOIV) 
py, y, y

pg 

system, only critical components were to be duplicated. The RCS was located 

forward of the crew compartment in an independent RCS module. It consisted 

of two completely independent systems, each containing eight 25-pound 

thrusters very similar to those used in the OAMS. Purpose of the RCS was to 

maintain the attitude of the spacecraft during the reentry phase of the mission. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 1, pp. 12, 20; McDonnell Subcontracts (over $250,000) 

as of Dec. 31, 1962. 

Representatives of McDonnell, North American, Manned Spacecraft Center, 

and NASA Headquarters met to begin coordinating the interface between spacecraft and paraglider. The first problem was to provide adequate usable stowage 

volume for the paraglider landing system within the spacecraft. The external 

geometry of the spacecraft had already been firmly established, so the problem 

narrowed to determining possible volumetric improvements within the spacecraft's recovery compartment. 

Abstract of Meeting on Spacecraft-Paraglider Interlace, Mar. 2, 1962. 

Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) suba1lotted $5.2 million to Marshall Space 

Flight Center for procuring Atlas-Agena vehicles for Project Gemini. Marshall 

was to spend no more than $2 million, however, until a Statement of Work had 

been made definite. Regularly scheduled meetings were planned ·to resolve technical and management problems between MSC and Marshall. The first AtlasAg~na launch under this program was expected to take place on or about 

March 15, 1964. 

Minutes of Meeting of Gemini Project Otllce and MSFC-.Agena Project Otllce, Mar. 

5, 1962. 

Harold I. Johnson, Head of the Spacecraft Operations Branch of Manned 

Spacecraft Center's Flight Crew Operations Division, circulated a memorandum 

on proposed training devices for Project Gemini. A major part of crew training depended on several different kinds of trainers and simulators corresponding 

to various aspects of proposed Gemini missions. Overall training would be provided by the flight simulator, capable of simulM:ing a complete mission profile 

including sight, sound, and vibration cues. Internally identical to the spacecraft, the flight simulator formed part of the mission simulator, a training 

complex for both flight crews and ground controllers that also included the 

mission control center and remote site displays. Training for launch and reentry would be provided by the centrifuge at theNa val Air Development Center, 

Johnsville, Pennsylvania.. A centrifuge gondola would be equipped with a mockup of the Gemini spacecraft's interior. A static article spacecraft would serve as 

an egress trainer, providing flight crews with the opportunity to practice normal 

and emergency methods of leaving the spacecraft after landings on either land 

or water. To train flight crews in land landing, a boilerplate spacecraft equipped 

with a full-scale paraglider wing would be used in a flight program consisting 

28 

28 

27 

COMI'IJTER FACILITY 

(A) 

Figure 16.-The two major tvpe1 of limttlator1 to be u11ed in training crews for G

ltlon.~t. (A) The Gemini flight trainer would simulate the entire mission, whi

docking trainer would simulate the ftnal 1tlagea of rcndezvou11. (McDonnel

Gemini Familiarization Ohartlt," June 5, 196!, unpaged.) 

PITCH fMvAw I 

' 

1962 

M•ch 

(l) 

of drops from a helicopter. A docking trainer, fitted with actual docki

ware and crew displays and capable of motion in six degrees of freedom

train the flight crew in docking operations. Other trainers would 

major spacecraft systems to provide training in specific flight tasks. 

Memo, Johnson for All Concerned, Subj : Preliminary Descri-ption of Simu

and Training Equipment Expected to be used In Project Gemini, Mar. 5, 

Quarterly Status Report No. 1, pp. 3~9. 

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland, received a 

lion subcontract from McDonnell to provide the rendezvous radar an

ponder system for the Gemini spacecraft. Purpose of the rendezvou

sited in the recovery section of the spacecraft, was to locate and t

target vehicle during rendezvous maneuvers. The transponder, a c

receiver and transmitter designed to transmit signals automatically w

gered by an interrog111ting signal, was located in the Agena target 

28 
Figure 1'1.-Thc location of the matn elements of the 

rendezvo1111 radar svstem on the Gemini spacecraft and 

the Agcn-a target vehicle. (Charta prerentcd bv R. R. 

Carlev · (Gemini Project Offtce), "Project Gemini 

Familiarization Briefing," Julv 9-10, 196!.) 

McDonnell awarded a $6.5 million subcontract to Minneapolis-Honeywell 7 

Regulator Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota., to provide the attitude control 

and maneuvering electronics system for the Gemini spacecraft. This system 

commanded the spacecraft's propulsion systems, providing the circuitry which 

linked the astronaut's operation of his controls to the actual firing of thrusters 

in the orbit attitude a.nd maneuvering system or the rea.otion control system. 

Quarterly Status Report No.1, p. 18; McDonnell Subcontracts (over $250,000) as 


of Dec. 31, 1962; McDonnell Fift4l Report, pp. 202-204. 


Figure 18.-A functional block diagram of the altitude control and tna­

neuvcrlng elcclrontcr avatem of the Gemini spacecraft. (AicDonnell, "ProJ· 


ect Gemini Familiarization, Charta," June 5, 196!, unpaged.) 


REENTRY 

~~~T10N------, ~-------------------+~~~~~~ SYSTEM 

ORBIT ATIITUOE JET FIRING AND MANEUVER 

COMMANDS 	 REACTION CONTROL 

SYSTEM 

26V, <100• 

p,q,r 
8 

Manned Spacecraft Center directed North American to design and deve

emergency parachute recovery system for both the half-scale and ful

flight test vehicles required by Phase II-A of the Paraglider Develo

Program and authorized North American to subcontract the emergency 

ery system to Northrop Corporation's Radioplane Division, Van Nuys

fornia. North American awarded the $225,000 subcontract to Radiopl

March 16. This was one of two major subcontracts let by North Americ

Phase II-A. The other, for $227,000, went to Goodyear to study materia

test fabrics for inflatable structures. 

Fig11re 19.-Gcminllanding gear: part of the land landing sgstcm along with the par

(MoDonnell, "Project Gemini Familiarization Charts," June 5,1962, unpaged.) 
Marshall Space Flight Center delivered an Agena procurement schedule (dated 

March 8) to Gemini Project Office. Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD) 

was to contract with Lockheed for 11 target vehicles. SSD assigned the Gemini 

Agena target vehicle program to its Ranger Launch Directorate, which was 

responsible for programs using Agena vehicles. Marshall also reported the 

expected delivery of a qualified multiple-restart main engine in 50 weeks, an 

improvement that removed this development requirement as the pacing item in 

Agena scheduling. 

Abstract of Meeting on Atlas-Agena Coordination, Mar. 12, 1962; Interview, Maj. 

Arminta Harness, Los Angeles, Apr. 18, 1966. 

12 

Ft{lure !0.-An arti.9t'6 venfon of the u1e of ejectfon 1eat1 to e•cape from the Gemlfti 

spacecraft. The scatll were to be UBcd before launch (o!J-the-tJad abort) or during the 

fl,r1t pha~e ot flOWered flight (to about 60,000 teet) if the 14unch whick malftmetloned. 

(McDonnell, "Project Gemini Familiarization ahart1," June 5, 196!, unpaged.) 

Gemini Project Office (GPO) decided that seat ejection was to be initiated 

manually, with the proviso tha.t the design must allow for the addition of automatic initiation if this should later become a requirement. Both seats had to eject 

simultaneously if either sea.t ejection system was energized. The ejection seat 

31 


14 
14 

16 

the seat from the spacecraft, a personnel parachute system to su

astronaut after his separation from the seat, and survival equipmen

astronaut's use after landing. At a meeting on March 29, represen

McDonnell, GPO, Life Systems Division, and Flight Crew Operatio

sion agreed that a group of specialists should get together period

monitor the development of the ejection seat, its related components

attendant testing. Although ejection seats had been widely used in 

aircraft for years, Gemini requirements, notably for off-the-pad ab

bility, were beyond the capabilities of existing flight-qualified systems

nell aw,arded a $1.8 million subcontract to Weber Aircraft at 

California, a division of Walter Kidde and Company, Inc., for th

ejection seats on April 9; a $741,000 subcontract went to Rocket Pow

Mesa, Arizona, on May 15 for the escape system rocket catapult. 

Quarterly Status Report No.1, pp. 20-21; McDonnell Subcontracts (over $25

as of Dec. 31, 1962; Abstracts of Meetings on : Mechanical Systems, Mar. 

Apr. 12, 1962; Ejection Seats, Apr. 3, 1962; McDonnell Final Report, p. 36

Moanned Spacecraft Center issued its second analysis of the Gemini 

schedule. Unlike the first, it considered launch vehicles as well as the sp

Procurement of the Agena target vehicle had been initiated so rece

scope for analysis in that area was limited. A key feature of engineeri

opment for the Gemini program was the use of a number of test articles

of which had sometimes delayed the Mercury program; although con

these test articles might oause some initial delay in Gemini spacecraft 

tion, the data they would provide would more than compensate for a

No problems beset launch vehicle development, but th~ schedule allow

contingency time for unexpected problems. The first unmanned qua

flight was still scheduled for late July or early August 1963, but th

(manned} flight was now planned for late October or early November 

the first Agena flight for late April or early May 1964, with remainin

to follow at two-month intervals, ending in mid-1965. Flight missions 

unchanged from the J a.nua.ry analysis. 

NASA-MSC, Gemini Project Office, "Project Gemlnl Schedule Analysis," M

1962. 

Gemini Project Office restated its intention to use Project Mercury h

and subcontractors for Gemini. Justification for using different equi

subcontractors was required for each item. 

Abstract of .. . Coordination Meeting (Electrical), Mar. 15, 1962. 

The Air Force successfully launched a Titan II intercontinenbal ballisti

This was the first full-sca.le test of the vehicle; it flew 5000 miles out 

Atlantic Ocean. 

NASA 8e11tmt1t. SemlannuG' Report to COfl{lrellll, .TantuJ'lf 1, 196!-Jufle ~o. 

pp. ~23. 

32 

gp

gq

their containers by supercritical pressures at cryogenic temperatures. Heat 

exchangers converted them to gaseous form and supplied them to the fuel cells 

at operating temperatures. 

McDonnell Subcontracts (over $250,000) as of Dec. 31, 1962; McDonnell Final 

Report, p. 104. 

Ftoure !1.-Block dia(lram of 111-e reaclat&t 1111'fJJt/1111tem /M" 

the Gemlnt spacecraft fuel cella. (M8C Flioht Crew Oper· 

atioM Divirion, Crew Bngtn.eertn.o, "Gemltri Famlliarlza-­

tion Package," Aug. :J, 196!.) 

Advanced Technology Laboratories, Inc., Mountain View, California, received 

a $3.2 million subcontract from McDonnell to provide the horizon sensor 

system for the Gemini spacecraft. Two horizon sensors, one primary and one 

standby, were part of the spacecraft's guidance and control system. They 

scanned, detected, and tracked the infrared radiation gradient between Earth 

IN$TANTANEOUS 

OPIICAI.- AXIS .POSITIQN 

SPACEONT 

HOOIIZON SENSOI HEAD 

II HOIIZON Of EAIITH 

Fioure ZZ.-Illustrattn.o the operation 

of the horizon scmor tor the Gemini 

•pacccraft. (McDonnell, "Project 

Gcmtnl Familiarlzation Charta," 

June 5, 196!, unpaged.) 

19 
19 

21 

21 

Qy pp(

ot Dec. 31, 1962; McDonnell Final Report, pp. 213-214; McDonnell External R

tions Division, Gem~nt Preu Reference Book: Gemini Spacecraft Number Th

undated, p. 38. 

Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Elkton, Maryland, received a $400,00

contract from McDonnell to provide the retrograde rockets for the 

spacecraft. Only slight modification of a motor already in use was plann

a modest qualification program was anticipated. Primary function of th

propellant retrorockets, four of which were located in the adapter sectio

to decelerate the spacecraft at the start of the reentry maneuver. A seo

function was to accelerate the spacecraft to u.id its separation from the 

vehicle in a high-altitude, suborbital !libort. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 1, p. 11 ; A. B. Atkinson, "Gemini-Major Sub

tracts, McDonnell Alrcratt Corp~ratlon," July 3, 1962; McDonnell Final Report, 

278-279. 

"D"PT!R, R!TROGR"D! I!CTION 

cf-....... 


Figt1re !~.-Location and arrangement of the retrograde rocket 

Rfl/ltem in the Gemtni spacecraft. (McDonnell, "Project Gemtn~ 

Familiarization Charts," June 5, 196!, unpaged.) 

Air Force Space Systems Division awarded a letter contract to Aeroje

eral Corporation, Azusa, California, for the research, development, an

curement of 15 propulsion systems for the Gemini launch vehicle, as well 

design and development of the related aerospace ground equipment. A

had been authorized to go ahead with work on the engines on Februa

1962, and the final engine was scheduled for delivery by April 1965. 

Harris, Gemlni Launch Vehicle Chronologfl, p. 6. 

McDonnell awarded a $4.475 million subcontract to the Western M

Division of Motorola, Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona, to design and build the 

command system (DCS) for the Gemini spacecraft. Consisting of a rec

decoder package and three relay packages, the DCS received digital com
Quarterly Status Report No.1, pp. 25-26; l\IcDonnell Subcontracts (over $250,000) 

as of Dec. 31, 1962; McDonnell Final Report, pp. 166-167. 

VOICE CONTROl BEACON SELECTOR 

CENTER PANELS 

RECOVERY SM 

WHIP ANTENNA 

·BAND ANTENNAS 

S ·BAND ANTENNA 

MODULATION 

TRANSMimR 

VOICE TRANSMITTER 

RECOVERY BEACON 

Figure $?.f.-Gemini spacecraft commrmicat1ons BIJiltcm, which received gror111d commandJJ 

tor transfer to .~paccC'f'ajt ,,y~rtcm.,. (McDonnell, " Project Gemini Fflmiliarizfltion lllanrtaZ: .11anned Spacecraft, Rrndc::vous Cfln{iguration," REDR 300, Jt1nc 1, 1962, p. 8- 1.) 

Air Force Space Systems Division published the "Development Plan for the 2J 

Gemini Launch Vehicle System." From experience in Titan II and Mercury 

programs, the planners estimated a budget of $164.4 million, including a 50 

percent contingency for cost increases and unforeseen changes. 

Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle Chronology, p. 6. 

35 

29 

,, 


highfrequency voice transceiver, this system provided communic

tween the astronauts, between the blockhouse and the spacecraft durin

between the spacecraft and ground stations from launch through ree

between the spacecraft and recovery forces after landing. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 1, I'· 25; McDonnell Subcontract!! (o'l"er $2

as of Dec. 13, 1962; McDonnell FiMl Repcwt, p. 131. 

lAUNCH LAUNCH 

COUNTDOWN BOOST ORIIT RFIIOGU.D£ RHNTRY LAN

INTERCOMMUNICATION 

ASTRONAUT NO.1 TO GIOUND-------i"'"'""""'"" 

ASTlONAUT N0.2 TO GIOUND-------I"'u"'"""'"'u 

ASTlONAUT NO. I TO NO. 2------~nnnutuueeut• .euutnnt '""''"u "'"'"""'"' uuun•n•n nuuu

RADIO COMMUNICATION 

UHF TRANSMITTfVlfCfiVfl ·ADAPTU ----~ 

UHf TRANSMrml/RECflvtl -lfENTitV'I ••t~uuuuu""' ,.,....,.., ntnnuunn• '""'"""' nntn

HIGH FREQUENCY TUNSMITTfR/IECEIVfl NO.1 01 NO. 2" 

DIGlTAL COMMAND SVSTfM 1111111111 '"''"'""''"'" """'"'" 

TUEMETRV DflAvtO TIANSMfTTU(SJ-------f••nnnnuuttH '"'"""' tttMutu 

TflEMfTtY TAANSMiml( S)----------1""'""""''11111 '"'""'" '"'''""' """'"""'" '"'"'"''" ,..'"

C· lAND RADAR lfACON---------f""'""'"'""'" nttuutu '"'""''' tunutunntt '""'"'""' """

S-IANO lADAR 1£ACON ---------+"''""""utuu '"""""'"'"""" 


ACQUISITION AID I!ACON ................... IUUIIIUI .......... 


UHF RfCOY£1Y lfACON----------1 

RfNDI!ZVOUS RADAR-----------1 

• UHF TRANSMimR/RfaMR -lffNTRY Sf:IVfS AS A RUllVf MCKUP FOI UHF TRANSMITTfl/RfaJV£1- 

DUitiNG OUIT 

Figure !5.-lllulltrating the 11tage1J of a miiJIIion during 1Dhich wrlou1 eleme

Gemini tJpacrcraft communicationiJ IJIIIJtcm would be tiiJcd. (ChartiJ pretJented 

mafl (GPO), "Project GcmitJt Familiarization Briefing," J11l11 9-10, 196!.) 

The St. Petersburg, Florida, Aeronautical Division of Minneapolis-H

received an $18 million subcontract from McDonnell to provide the iner

uring unit (IMU) for the Gemini spacecraft. The IMU was a stabilize

platform including an electronic unit and a power supply. Its prim

tions were to provide a stable reference for determining spacecraf

and to indicate changes in spacecraft velocity. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 1, p. 17; McDonnell Subcontracts (over $200,0

ot Dec. 31, 1962; McDonnell Final Repcwt, p. 105; McDonnell Gemtni Pre1J

e,.encc Book, pp. 31-32. 

Martin-Baltimore submitted a "Description of the Launch Vehicle for 

ini Spacecraft" to Air Force Space Systems Dil'ision. This documen

foundation for the design of the Gemini launch vehicle by defining th

and philosophy of each proposed subsystem. 

l\fartin Report ER--12209, "Description ot the Launch Vehicle tor the Gemini 

cratt," Rev. A, Mar. 30, 1962; Harris, Gemini Lauttch Vehicle ChrotJology, p. 7. 

36 
-INSTRUMENT PANELSFigure 26.-Thc Gemini spacecraft inertial gt~Ulance sr~ltem. (McDOMleZl, 


"Project Gcm1nl Familiarization ~fanunl: ,lfa.nncd Spacecraft Rcn· 


dczvous Controuration," SEDR SOO, June 1, 196!, p. 7-23.) 


The configuration of the Gemini spacecraft was formally frozen. Following 1962 

receipt of the program go-ahen.d on December 22, 1961, McDonnell began de­ Mtn'ch 

31 fining the Gemini spacecraft. At that time, the basic configuration was already 

firm. During the three-month period, McDonnell wrote a series of detail specifications to define the overall vehicle, its performance, and each of the major 

subsystems. These were submitted to NASA and approved. During the same 

period, the major subsystems specification control drawings-the specifications against which equipment was procured-were written, negotiated with 

NASA, and distributed to potential subcontractors for bid. 

Lindley, "Gemini Engineering Program," pp. 7-8. 

Representatives of Manned Spacecraft Center, Ames Research Center, Martin, 

and McDonnell met to discuss the participation of Ames in the Gemini wind 

tunnel program. The tests were designed to determine: ( 1) spacecraft and 

launch vehicle loads and the effect of the hatches on launch stability, using a six 

percent model of the spacecraft and launch vehicle; (2) the effect of large 

angles of attack, Reynold's number, and retrorocket jet effects on booster tumbling characteristics and attachment loads; ( 3) exit characteristics of the spacecraft; and ( 4) reentry characteristics of the reentry module. 

Minutes of Coordination Meeting on Gemini Wind Tunnel Program, Apr. 9, 1962. 

Manned Spacecraft Center awarded the Aerospace and Defense Products Divi­ 4 

sion of B. F . Goodrich Company, Akron, Ohio, a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for 

$209,701 to design, develop, and fabricate prototype pressure suits. Related 

37 

REACTION CONTROL 

SYSTEM SICTION/ 

CI.IIN MATING LINE 

IIINTRY MOOULI/AOAPrlt 

PARTING liNE 

IETtOGIAO£ SECTION/ 

IOU I I'MINT SECTION 

PARTING LINE 

EOUI I'MINT SECTIONI MATING SECTION 

PARTING LINE 

SPACECRAFT /LAUNCH VEHKlE 

MATING LINE 

Figure !1.--Gemini 1pacecra/l nomenclature. (McDonnell, 

"Project Gemi11.i Familiarization Manual: llfanft.cd Spacecraft Rcndczvou1 Oon/fgtlration," SEDR 800, June 1, 196!, 

p. Z--3. ) 

1962 

contracts went to Arrowhead Products Division of Federal-Mogul 

Atwil 

tion, Los Alamitos, California, and Protection, Inc., Gardena, Ca

B. F . Goodrich had begun work related to the contract on January 10,1

contract covered two separate .pressure suit development programs, n

them initially identified with a particular manned space flight progr

original Statement of Work required B. F. Goodrich to produce fou

sively improved prototypes of an advanced full-pressure suit, and tw

types of a partial-wear, quick-assembly, full-pressure suit. The cont

amended on September 19, 1962, to identify the development program

cally with Project Gemini. 

Procurement and Contracts Division Weekly Activity Report, Mar. 5--9, 

B. F. Goodrich, "Design, Development, and Fabrication of Prototype Pre

Suits Final Report," Feb. 1, 1961S (hereafter cited as "Goodrich Final Rep

7 

ACF Electronics Division, Riverdale, California, of ACF Industries, 

ceived a $1 million subcontract from McDonnell to provide C- and S-ha

beacons for the Gemini spacecraft. These beacons formed .part of th

craft's tracking system. With the exception of frequency-dependent dif

the C-hand beacon was nearly identical to the S-hand beacon. Their 

was to provide tracking responses to interrogation signals from ground 

McDonnel'l Subcontracts (over $250,000) as of Dec. 31, 1962 ; McDonnell 

Report, pp. 149-150; McDonnell Gemi"i Prell Reterew.ce Boo'k, p. 21. 

38 

5, 196!, unpaged.) 

Earl Whitlock of McDonnell presented a "Gemini Manuf11cturing Plan" (dated 	 1962 

April April 6} to Gemini Project Office (GPO). The schedule called for production 

spacecraft No. 1 to be followed by static article No. 1. Because of the normally 9 

poor quality of a first production item, GPO asked McDonnell to start static 

article No.1 first on or about May 15,1962, while leaving spacecraft No.1 where 

it was in the schedule. McDonnell's contract called for four statie articles, 

ground test units similar in construction to, a.nd using the same material as, flight 

articles. 

Abstract of .. . Coordination Meeting (Manufacturing), Apr. 12, 1962. 

Manned Spacecraft Center collifirmed that a five-day orbital lifetime of Agena 12 

systems would be adequate for currently planned missions. 

Abstract of Agena/Spacecratt Interface Meeting, Apr. 18, 1962. 

Martin-Baltimore and Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD) reported to 

Gemini Project Office on the problems of establishing abort criteria. for the 

malfunction detection system (MDS). Manned Spacecraft Center had formed 

a task force of Martin, McDonnell, and Aerospace personnel to begin a maximum effort to define overall abort criteria. On April 23, Martin submitted to 

SSD its descriptive study and proposed configuration of the MDS, intended to 

monitor the performance of launch vehicle subsystems and display the data to 

the astronauts. The abort decision was to be the astronauts' alone. A launch abort 

simulation study by Chance Vought Corporation, Dallas, Texas, completed in 

April showed the feasibility and desirability of manually initiated abort. 

Memo, Robert E. Arnull to Chief, FOD, subj : Gemini Abort Simulation Program, 


Sept. 11, 1962; FOD Monthly Activity Report, Apr. 30, 1962 ; Abstract of Meeting 


on Gemini/Titan Coordination, Apr. 19, 1962; Martin Report MMB LV-14, "MDS 


Descriptive Study," Apr. 28, 1962; Harris, Gemini La11nch Vehicle Chronologv, p. 7. 


NASA announced that app1ications would be accepted for additional astronauts 18 

until June 1, 1962. NASA planned to select five to ten astronauts to augment 

the seven-member Mercury astronaut team. The new pilots would participate in 

support operations in Project Mercury and would join the Mercury astronauts 

in piloting the two-man Gemini spacecraft. To be chosen, the applicant must 

(1) be an experienced jet test pilot and preferably be presently engaged in 

39 

19 

be recommended by his parent organization. Pilots meeting these q

tions would be interviewed in July and given written examinations 

engineering and scientific knowledge. Selected applicants would 

thoroughly examined by a group of medical specialists. The training 

for the new astronauts would include work with design and developm

neers, simulator flying, centrifuge training, additional scientific train

flights in high-performance aircraft. 

Memo, Holmes to Webb, Dryden, and Seemans, Subj: Selection of 

Astronauts, Apr. 28, 1962, with enc., "Gemini and Apollo Astronaut Selec

MSC Space Newa Ro11ndup, May 2, 1962, p. 1; Aatronautical and Ae

EvCfll8 of 196!, p. M. 

McDonnell awarded a $26.6 million subcontract to International 

Machines (IBM) Corporation's Space Guidance Center, Q,vego, New 

provide the computer syst~m for the Gemini spacecraft. The digital c

was the heart of the spacecraft's guidance and control system; supple

equipment consisted of the incremental velocity indicator (which visu

played changes in spacecraft velocity), the manual data insertion u

inserting data into, and displaying readouts from, the computer), 

auxiliary computer power unit (to maintain stable computer input v

Figure !9.-Block diagram of the Gemini apacecraft guidance and control 8fl8tcm

ttell, "Project Gemini FamUiamation Charta," June 5, 196!, unpaged.

~. I COMMAND ~CITAL I I I AW«1<l DATA TIMI ·-INCI I
 INSEITION UNIT ffiTfM SYSTfM 

I 

IIINTIY lANk COMIUN05 


rliiNDlZIIOUS I TAIGIT IANGI, .I OIGITAl COMPVTIDPOINTINGANGLIS 
 ~!lllii~'Il!Df 

IADAI I IUVATION, "I COMI'I/!11 5 lANCE, ' AVIOMJ.TIC 

MODf I ' AZIMUTH coors lANOE 

II.CI~fNTAL I I ATTITUCI CONTIOL VUOCITY ANDMANfWD " 

INCICATOI ILICTIONICS 

~ z I I T • IANGI IANCI&IATf ~ 

DISI'UY 
 i E~ I J ATTITVIll IOOY I " ~2 INDICATOIS U.TES I

~ ~- I 

~ I

I 

HOliZON I LlVRING & J INRTIAl I

I 
 r-~'!.0~~-J.~L~ I .

1 SINSOliS AliGNME.NT MUSUIING r--------' UNIT 

OIIIT ATTIT'UIIJ 

TAIGIT ILIVJ.TION & AZIMUTII ~~!J.C~--- ATTITUill MODf 
controls and displays, and aerospace ground equipment. 

Quarterly Status Report No.1, p. 17; McD<lnnell Subcontracts (over $250,000) as 


ot Dec. 31, 1962 ; McD<lnnell Final Report, pp. 208--211. 


Studebaker Corporation's CTL Division, Cincinnati, Ohio, received a subcon­ 21 

tract for $457,875 from McDonnell to provide two backup heatshields for the 

Gemini spacecraft, similar in material and fabrication .technique to those used 

in Project Mercury. The CTL heatshield would be used only if a new shield 

McDonnell was working on proved unusable. Test results from screening advanced heatshield materials had yielded four promising materials. McDonnell 

had contracted with Vidya, Inc., Palo .Alto, California (March 16), and Chicago Midway Laboratories, Chicago, Illinois (mid-April), to test the new 

ablation materials. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 1, p. 9; Atkinson, "Gemini-Major Subcontracts, 


McDonnell .Aircraft Corporation"; McD<lnnell Subcontracts (over $250,000) as of 


Dec. 31, 1962. 


At an Atlas-Agena coordination meeting, Lockheed presented a comprehensive 26 

description of its proposed propulsion development pla.ns for the GeminiAgena. Lockheed's planned program included: propulsion system optimization 

studies, a multiple-restart development program for the primary propulsion 

system, and a development program for the secondary propulsion system. 

Abstract ot Atlas-Agena Coordination Meeting, Apr. 28, 1962. 

Representatives of North American, NASA Headquarters, Langley Research 26-27 

Center, Flight Resea.rch Center, Ames Resea.rch Center, and Ma.nned Spa.cecraft Center met to review the design and testing philosophy for the half-scale 

test vehicle (HSTV) in phase II-A of the Pa.raglider Development Program. 

After the emergency parachute recovery system had been qualified, the HSTV 

would be used to evaluate paraglider stability and control in drop tests with the 

wing predeployed and to provide empirical data on the functioning of vehicle 

systems in deployment tests. At the end of the review, the NASA Half Scale 

Test Vehicle Design Review Board recommended 21 changes in test vehicle 

design and test procedures to North American. 

Minutes ot Meeting ot Paraglider Development Program (Phase II-A) Halt Scale 


Test Vehicle Design Review, May 16, 1962; N.AA Report SID65-196, "Final Report 


ot ParagUder Research and Developmeut Program, Contract NAB 9-1484," Feb. 19, 


1965, p.184 (hereafter cited as "Paragllder Final Report"). 


McDonnell proposed to evaluate the Gemini rendezvous radar and spacecraft MillY 

maneuvering system on early flights by using a rendezvous evaluation pod to be I 

ejected from the spacecraft in orbit. Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) liked 

the idea and asked McDonnell to pursue the study. During the last week in 

June, McDonnell received approval from MSC to go ahead with the design 

41 

1 Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD) awarded a letter contract t

heed Missiles and Space Company for eight Agena vehicles to be mod

Gemini Agena target vehicles (GATV). Mission requirements were 

establish a circular orbit within specified limits, (2) provide a stable targ

which the spacecraft could rendezvous and dock, (3) respond to com

from either ground stations or the spacecraft, ( 4) perform a complex s

orbital maneuvers by means of either real-time or stored commands if le

optimum launch of A gena or spacecraft occurred, and ( 5) provide an 

orbit life of five days. Lockheed's analysis of these mission requiremen

vided the design criteria for the major modifications required to ad

Agena to the Gemini mission : ( 1) modification of the primary pro

system; (2) addition of a secondary propulsion system (two 16-pound a

200-pound thrusters) to provide ullage orientation and minor orbit 

ments; (3) design of a digital command and communications subsystem 

ing a programmer, controller, pulse-code-modulated telemetry syste

onboard tape recorder; (4) design of changes to provide the guidan

control functions peculiar to the GATV; and (5} addition of an au

forward equipment rack with an interface capable of supporting the 

docking adapter. On direction from Air Force Systems Command 

quarters, SSD authorized Lockheed to proceed with the Gemini-Agcna p

on March 19. 

Lockheed LMSC-A60l5200-2 and -7, Gemini Agma Target Vehicle Program Progr

Reports: October 1964, p. A-1; March 1965, p. A-1 (hereafter cited as GA

Progre11s Report); Aerospace Report TOR- 1001(2126-80)-3, Getnlttt Prog

Launch Systems Final Report: Gcmtnl/Titan Lau11eh Veh.icle; Gemini/Ag

Target Vehicle; Atla.s/SLV-9, January 1967, pp. UI. A-1, III. C-1 (herea

cited as Aerospace Final Report). 

1 Following a Lockheed briefing on pulse-code-modulation (PCM) instru

tion systems, representatives of Goddard Space Flight Center and M

Spacecraft Center (MSC) fonned a small working group to discuss th

bility of making the Gemini telemetry system a full PCM system. PCM 

digital telemetry system which could provide more channels of inform

faster data rates, improved accuracy, and less weight of equipment p

channel. Goddard had already reviewed several PCM ground station pr

and had concluded that such a system could handle future NASA pro

All who attended the meeting agreed that a full PCM telemetry syste

borne and ground, could be implemented in time to support the Gemi

gram. Gemini Project Office approved the formation of an MSC-Gemin

Instrumentation Working Group to be responsible for the implementati

compatibility of the airborne and ground PCM system for Gemini. On J

Walter C. Williams, MSC Associate Director, notified Goddard of N

decision "to utilize a PCM telemetry system for Gemini and Agena re

data." Ten sites were selected for the installation of PCM equipment; 

these also received dual acquisition equipment, dual digital command 

42 
196!, pp. 131-132. 


Manned Spacecraft Center issued its third analysis of the Gemini program 

schedule. Spacecraft ground test plans had been formulated, and construction 

of test ha.rdware had begun. Two boilerplate spacecraft had been added to the 

program to facilitate ground testing. Flight No.2 was the first planned to use 

paraglider, but the paraglider program required close attention to prevent 

schedule slippage; plans to substitute a parachute landing system for pa.raglider in this flight, should it prove necessary, had been initiated. Spacecraft 

manufacturing schedules were endangered by late delivery of components from 

vendors: chief threats to spacecraft No. 1 were components of the instrument. 

and recording system and the inertial platform; for spacecraft No. 2, communication and electrical system components. No problems were anticipated 

with the booster. The analysis indicated no change in the launch schedule. 

NASA-MSC, Gemini Project Oftlce, "Project Gemini Schedule Analysis," May 4, 


1962. 


Gemini Project Office directed McDonnell to determine what would be involved 1o-11 

in opening and closing the spacecraft hatches in the space environment and 

Manned Spacecraft Center's Life Systems Division to determine what special 

pressure suit features would be required to provide crew members with a 

15-minute extravehicular capability. 

Abstract of Meeting on Crew Support Systems, May 14, 1962. 

Manned Spacecraft Center's Life Systems Division proposed to measure seven 1o-11 

parameters for determining crew condition during all Gemini flights. These 

were, in order of priority: blood pressure, with electrocardiogram and phonocardiogram serving as first and second backup; electroencephalogram; respiration; galvanic skin response, and body temperature. The bioinstrumentation 

required would cost about three and one-half pounds per man, with a total 

power consumption of about two watt-hours and the shared use of six channels 

of telemetry. Gemini Project Office reviewed these requirements and approved 

the following measurements: electrocardiogram, respiration rate and depth, 

oral temperature, blood pressure, phonocardiogram, and nuclear radiation dose. 

Biomedical measurement devices had still to be designed, developed, qualified, 

and procured. 

Memo, Chamberlin to Stanley C. White, Subj : Development of Biomedical Instru­


mentation for Gemini Missions, Aug. 23, 1962; Quarterly Status Report No. 1, 


pp. 40-41 ; Abstract of Meeting on Crew Support Systems, May 14, 1962. 


The postlanding survival kit proposed for use by Gemini crew members would lo-11 

be basically similar to the one used in Project Mercury. Each kit would weigh 

about 24 pounds, and one kit would he provided for each crew member. 

Abstract of Meeting on Crew Support Systems, May 14, 1962. 

43 
12 

14-15 

16-17 

16-17 

of information between MSC and Martin. 

Abstract of .. . Gemini/Titan Coordination Meeting, May 14, 1962; Int

Vogel, Baltimore, May 23,1966. 

James E. Webb, NASA's new Administrator, reviewed the Gemini 

Project Gemini cost estimates at this point ($744.3 million) had incre

stantially over the original estimate of $520 million. Estimated space

had risen from $240.5 to $391.6 million; Titan II cost, from $113.0 

million; Atlas-Agenn, from $88.0 to $106.3 million; and supporting 

ment (including the paraglider program), from $29.0 to $36.8 mill

mated operations costs had declined from $59.0 to $47.8 million. 

Memo, Holmes to Webb, Subj: Project Gemini C~st Estimates, Apr. 29, 196

enc., "Status of Project Gemini Cost Estimates." 

Representatives of McDonnell, Northrop Ventura (formerly Rad

Weber Aircraft, and Manned Spacecraft Center attended the first eje

design review at McDonnell in St. Louis. 

Abstract of Meeting on Ejection Seat Design Review, May 21, 1962. 

A Launch Vehicle-Spacecraft Interface Working Group was es

Gemini Project Office (GPO) and Aerospace had agreed on the need f

group at a Gemini-Titan coordination meeting on May 11. The main 

of the group, composed of Martin and McDonnell personnel with a M

representative as chairman, was to provide mutual exchange of design a

ical data on mechanical, electrical, and structural details between the s

contractor and the booster contractor. The group would make no po

sions; its actions were to be reviewed at regularly scheduled coordinat

ings held by GPO. 

Abstract ot ... Gemini/Titan Coordination Meeting, May 14, 1962; Abst

Coordination Meeting on Mechanical Systems, 1\Iay 19, 1962. 

At a mechanical systems coordination meeting, representatives of M

and Gemini Project Office decided to develop more powerful retrogra

motors for the Gemini spacecraft. The new motors, similar in configu

the old but with some three times the thrust level, would permit re

aborts at altitudes as low as 72,000 to 75,000 feet. McDonnell's origina

tract with Thiokol was accordingly terminated and a new subcontract w

July 20. Development of the new motors was expected to cost $1.255 

Quarterly Status Report No. 2 for Period Ending Aug. 31, 1962, p. 9; McD

Subcontracts ( O'l"er $250,000) as of Dec. 31, 1002; Abstract of Coordination 

Ing on Mechanical Systems, May 19, 1962. 

McDonnell subcontracted the parachute landing system for Gemini to 

Ventura at an estimated cost of $1,829,2'72. The parachut~ landing sy

to be used for the first Gemini flight. Gemini Project Office had d

April on using a single-chute system, one 84.2-foot diameter ring-sail p

44 


18 
VIEW A· A 

INITIATO« AND 

MOGEN IGNITElt 

GRAIN 

Figure 30.-The solid-propellant retrograde rocket motor for the Gemlnl spacecraft. (McDonnell, "Project Gemini Familiarization Manual: Jfanncd Spacecraft Rcndczvou1 Configuration," SEDR 300, June 1, 1962, p. 11--30.) 

At a mechanical systems coordination meeting in Houston on May 16-17, however, it was decided to add an 18-foot diameter ring-sail drogue parachute to the 

system. McDonneJI proposed deploying the drogue at 10,000 reet, two seconds 

after release of the rendezvous and recovery system. Fifteen seconds later the 

main recovery parachute would switch from single-point to two-point suspension, followed in five seconds by the initiation of reaction control system propellant dump which would take no longer than 105 seconds. The recovery parachute 

would be jettisoned shortly after impact. At another coordination meeting on 

May 23-24, Manned Spacecraft Center concurred in this proposed sequencing. 

1962 

M•y 

45 

1962 

M., 

21 

21 

MAIN PAAACHUTE 

Df5CONNECT 


IARO SWITCHES 


(liGHT HAND FORWAAD SIDE l'tfSSUH IULKHEAD )
 MAIN PARACHUTE 

SUPPORT ADAPTER 

C£N£RAL ARRANGEMENT DESCENDING 

PARACHUTES RATE OF DESCENT 

MAIN-IU·FT DIA . liNG·SIIIl RENDEZVOUS & RECOVERY SECTION ON 

DlOGUE-18-FT DIA. RING· SAIL DROGUE- 4 FT / SEC AT 10,00C>-FT AlTITUD

LANDING SECTION ON MAIN- 30 FT / SEC 

DEPLOYMENT 


DROGUE-DEPLOYS AT 10,600 fT •750·FT ALTITUDE DYNAMIC l'tfSSUlf 


MAIN DEPLOYS 2 SEC LATER q • 120 U P£11 SO FT 


Figure 31.-The paraeh"tc recover11 111dcm to be u11ed iniJtead of paraglider on 

Gemini 1paeecratt: llowed and deployed model. (McDonnell, "Project Gem

neering .lloc1.:up Review.'' Aug. 15-16,196!, p. 39.) 

GPO Monthly Activity Report, Apr. 30, 1962; McDonnell Subcontracts 

$250,000) as of Dec. 31, 1962; Abstracts of Coordination l\Ieetlngs on l\lecba

Systems, May 19 and ~. 1962. 

McDonnell awarded an $8 million subcontract to Electro-Mechanical R

Inc., Sarasota, Florida, to provide the data transmission system for the 

spacecraft. Both the spacecraft and target vehicle used pulse-code-mo

(PCM) telemetry, a technique for encoding data in digital form hy 

the length of pulses to form an information-carrying code. Once encode

urements were transmitted over a radio link to ground receiving statio

data transmission system consisted of a PCM subsystem, an onboa

recorder, and two VHF transmitters; it was capable of transmitting 

real time or delayed time. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 1, p. 27; McDonnell Subcontracts (over $250,000

of Dec. 31, 1962; McDonnell Final Report, pp. 186-187. 

Amendment No. 6 to the Gemini launch vehicle procurement contract a

$2.609 million to fund the construction necessary to convert pad 19 

Canaveral for Gemini flights. The Air Force had originally constructed 

for the Titan I development program. Following the final Titan I deve

flight (January 29) from the Cape, design of the required modificati

begun in February. In April, Gemini Project Office decided that .pad 1

have an erector rather than a gantry, the upper third of which woul

signed as a white room. The final design review of pad 19 modificatio

46 
23 

"Gemini Launch Com.plex 19, Cape Kennedy, Florida," May 1964; Martin, Gemfnf,­

Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, Press Handbook {second ed., 1965, revised 

Oct. 24, 1966), p. 7-2; Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle ChronolOQJI, pp. 29, A-1. 

Representatives of McDonnell and Manned Spacecraft Center completed a 

series of 24 meetings to negotiate the technical details of McDonnell's plans for 

supporting and documenting Project Gemini, specifications for Gemini systems 

and subsystems, environmental and structural design criteria for the spacecraft, spacecraft performance specifications, test programs, and plans for 

reliability, quality assurance, and validation. Meetings had begun April 19. 

Abstracts of Technlca'l Negotiation Meetings on: Simulators and Trainers, Apr. 24, 

1962; Support Plan, MAC Report 8580-4 {Feb. 2, 1962), May 2; Associate Contractor Coordination, Enginet>ring Inspections and Incorporation of Government 

Furnished F..qnlpment, May 16; Gemini Facility Plan~. MAC Report 8580-2 

{Mar. 15, 1962), May 4; Documentation Plan, MAC Report 8580-8 {Jan. 29, 1962), 

May 4; Post Landing and Survival System, Apr. 27; Programmer/Timer (Time 

Reference), May 1 ; Environmental Control Subsystem, Apr. 27; Propulsion Systems, May 1 ; Environmental Criteria, May 1; Pyrotechnics System Specification, 

May 4 ; Electrical System Specification, May 8; Guidance and Control System 

Specifieatlon, May 9; Structural Design Criteria, Mny 1 ; Landing Sy,.,'tem, May 11; 

Gemini Spacecraft Performance Specification, May 5; Program Progress Report, 

May 8; Test Program, May 21; Rellablllty Plan, MAC Report 8580-3 {Feb. 5, 

1962), May 11; QuaUty Assurance Plan, MAC Report 8580-7 {Jan. 22, 1962), 

May 11; Publication Plan of Support Plan, MAC Report 8580-4 {Feb. 2, 1962), 

May 16; Validation Testing, May 23, 1962. 

Ames Research Center began the first wind tunnel test of the half-scale inflatable paraglider wing in support of the Paraglider Development Program. This 

was the first test of a large-scale inflatable paraglidcr wing in the full-scale test 

facility. Purpose of the test was to obtain basic aerodynamic and loads data for 

the combined wing/spacecraft system and to spot and evaluate potential aerodynamic and design problem areas. The flight regimes studied included wing 

deployment as well as glide, preflare, and flare. In the last stages of the test, the 

sail ripped. Since the .basic objectives had already been achieved, and the failure 

occurred under conditions more stringent than any expected during flight testing, only minor corrective action was considered necessary and the test was not 

repeated. Testing ended July 25; at a .paraglider landing system coordination 

meeting on July 26, the Ames test program was considered completed. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 2, p. 11; Abstract of Meeting on Mecbanlcal Systems, 

May 25, 1002 ; Abstract of Meeting on Paraglider Landing .System, Aug. 1, 1962 ; 

"Paraglider Final Report," pp. 152-155. 

Manned Spacecraft Center concurred in McDonnell's proposed sequencing 

of the paraglider recovery system. In a normal mission, the drogue parachute 

(a small parachute to pull the recovery compartment away from the spacecraft 

and stl'ip the paraglider from the recovery compartment) would deploy at 

60,000 feet, followed by the release of the rendezvous and recovery section at 

50,000 feet. Starting at 10,000 feet, all reaction control system propellant re

23 

23-24 

47 

24 

PAAACLIO!R BROUGHT TO l'ttOPU 

POSmON. REACTION CONTROL 

MTEM FU£l MANUALLY DUMPED. 

ANTENNA SYSTEM SWITCHED TO OfSaNT MODE. UHF TIM£· TO· 

CO·TO· RESET SWITCHED TO Of 

MODE. UHF lEACON ON. 

DIVE 


CREW 

RECOVERY 

INITIATED, 

POST 

liGHT 

lANDING 


ON, 

flASHING 

S • aAND 
 lANDING 

AT INITIATfS APPROXIMATflY DIVE 

GEAR 

MANfUVU, 

EXTENSION 


250fT CREW MAIN 
 ~ 

BEACON OFF, TELEMETRY TIME­
 MANUAllY INITJATfD JY CREW 


TO·GO · TO·RESET & TAPE 
 AT ANY TIME . 


RECORDER 

RElEASED. 

FO!t ~ Hl5 

OFF 

FOOD 

ElECTRICAl 

. PARAGLIDER 


AND WATEit 


POWER 


~ 

20,000 HET CABIN AIR fOR 12 HRS, 

~;~A~~:'Es~~!lbN. 

~ CAIIN FAN Off,

FLARE 

AT APPROXIMATELY 123 FT 

;::.: - ;~ 't.~~ INITlAT£5 

Figure 8!.-Th.e propo1ed aeqtlence ofr-vcntll in deploying the para· 

glider to land the Gemini apac:ecraft. (McDonnell, "Project 

Gemini Famlllarlzation Manual: -'fanned Spacecraft Rendezvous 

C'onjfgt1ration," SEDR 800, June I, 196!, p. 1!-8.) 

North American began a test program to qualify the emergency parac

tem for the half-scale flight test vehicle required for Phase II-A of t

glider Development Progra,m. The first two drop tests were successful 

June 20); but during the third (July 10), the main recovery parachu

to deploy. The trouble was analyzed and detailed modifications were 

out at n. meeting on August 16 between North American and Northrop 

The modifications proved successful in the fourth test {September 

Manned Spacecraft Center concurred with North American in jud

emergency parachute system for the half-scale test program to be qua

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 2, p. 13; No. 3, p. 13; NA.A. Monthly pro

Letters on Phase II-A: No.7, July IS; No. 8, Aug. 1; No. 9, Sept. 1; No. 10, No

1962. 

Representatives of McDonnell, Weber Aircraft, Gemini Procureme

Life Systems Division, Gemini Project Office, and U.S. Naval Ordn-a

Station, China Lake, California., concluded plans for development te
RECOVERY PARACHLJTE 


COMPARTMENT 


STABILIZING FOR RECOvtRY FINAL RECOvtRY 


CONFIGURATION CONFIGURATION 


Figure SS.-The emergency parachute recovef"f/ 11/lltem tor 

the half-llcalc paraglider flight test vehicle tor Phase II-A 

of the development program. (North American Aviation, 

Inc., Space and ltl/ormation Sustems Division, Paraglider 

ProjectH, ".llidtcrm Progress Report, Paraglider Development Program, Phase 11, Pa.rt A, Sustem Research and 

Development," SID 62-391, Apr. 20, 1962, p. !28.) 

the spacecmft ejection seat. Requirements peculiar to the Gemini spacecraft, in 1962 

M11y particular off-the-pad a-bort capability, caused the plan to stress testing from a 

stationary tower early in the test program. The purpose of these simulated offthe-pad ejection tests W'II.S to investigate the effects of varying t.he center of 

gravity on the trajectory of the ejected seat and to optimize the timing of the 

recovery sequence. Tower tests began July 2. They were to be followed by rocket 

sled ejection tests to investigate simultaneous ejection with open hatches at 

tnaximum dynamic pressure. Sled tests actually began on November 9, before 

tower tests had been completed. 

Quarterly Status Report No. I, p. 21; Abstract of Meeting on Ejection Seat Develop­


mental Test Program, June 4, 1962. 


A list of the aerospace ground equipment required to handle and check out the 

Gemini spa.e.ec.ra:ft before flight 'vas presented at the first spacecraft operations 

coordination meeting. 

Abstract of Meeting on Spacecraft Operations, June ~. 1962. 

The Air Force School of Aviation Medicine, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, 4 

began a simulated long-duration Gemini mission. Two men were to live for 14 

days in a 100-percent-oxygen atmosphere maintained at a pressure of 5 pounds 

per square inch, the proposed spacecraft environment. 

NASA-Defense Purchase Request T-8630-G, June 21S, 1962; Life Systems Division 


Weekly ActJvity Report, June 8, 1002. 


49 

1962 

] ... 

6 

6 

20 

21-22 

Figure 8~ -The "of!-thc-pad" e1capc mode tor an aborted Gcmlttl 

mi814on. (Chart1 prc1cntcd btl K . Hecht, "Project Gemlnt 

Familiarization Briefing," Jfllll 9-10, 196!, unpaged.) 

McDonnell was authorized to procure an additional boilerplate spacec

parachute landing system tests. The original plan called for McDonnel

the boilerplate spacecraft fabricated by North American for qualificati

ing of the emergency parachute system for the paraglider drop tests. McD

estimated, however, that modifying the North American boilerplate wou

from $1'1',000 to $19,000, whereas a new boilerplate would cost from $10

$12,000. 

Abstract ot Meeting on Mechanleal Systems, June 8, 1962. 

Whirlpool Corporation Research Laboratories, St. Joseph, Michigan, r

a contract from Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) to provide the 

Gemini food and waste manageme-nt syst.em, comprising water dispense

storage, and waste storage c.omponents. Food and zero-gravity feeding 

were to be provided by the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps Food an

tainer Institute, Chicago, Illinois. MSC's Life Systems Division was resp

for directing the development program. 

Quarter'ly Status Report No. 1, p. 16; GPO Activity Report, May 28, 1962, pp. 6

letter, William D. Fowler, Whirlpool Corp .. to E. L. Michel, MSO-LSD, Su

GEMINI Feeding and Waste System-NAB 9-557, Oct. 2, 1962. 

Manned Spo.cecmft Center authorized N ort.h American to go ahead with 

II, Part B ( 1), of the Paraglider Development Program. Letter c

NAS 9-539 followed. Under this contract, North American was to design

and test an advanced two-man paraglider trainer, to init.iate a flight sim

program for pilot training, and to eoinplete t.he design of a man-rated 

paraglider wing. The final contract \Vas awarded on October 31,1962. 

Weekly Actlvity Report, June 24-30, 1002, p. 5; NAA letters, Subj: Contract N

9-539, Paragllder Development Program, Phase II, Part B ( 1), Monthly Progn

Letter No. 1, Aug. 8, 1962; Supplt>mental Proposal, Controcts NAS 9-167 

NAS 9-539, Paragllder Phase II A and Phase II B(1), June 11, 1963, p. 1. 

A paraglider full-soole test vehicle Design Engineering Inspection \vas 

North American's Space and Information Systems Division in Downey

fornia. The Manned Spacecraft Center inspecting team reviewed the de
, g, 

Gemini Project Office reported that a thorough study of the reentry tracking 

histories of the Mercury-Atlas 4, 5, 6, and 7 missions had been completed. The 

study indicated that a C-hand radar tracking beacon should be integrated into 

the spacecraft reentry section in place of the planned S-hand beacon. The 

change would improve the probability of tracking spacecraft reentry through 

the ionization zone. 

GPO Monthly Activities Report, June 25, 1962. 

After considering Gemini-related investigations that might be carried out with 27-28 

the help of Mercury, Gemini Project Office and McDonnell decided that the 

most useful would be testing heatshield materials and afterbody-shingle char­

~teristics. Samples of the Gemini heatshield were later flown satisfactorily on 

the Mercury-Atlas 8 Sigma 7 mission. 

Weekly Activity Report, June 24--30, 1962, p. 6; Quarterly Status Report No. 3, 

p. 7 ; Abstract of Meeting on Mechanical Systems, June 29, 1962. 

McDonnell and North American representatives met for the first time to ex­ 28 

change detailed technical information on the installation of the paraglider in 

the spacecraft. 

Weekly Activity Report, June 24-30, 1962, p. 5; Minutes of Paraglider Installation 


Meeting, June 28, 1962. 


Martin-Baltimore's airborne systems functional test stand went into operation 30 


at Baltimore. In this 3000-square-foot facility, all airborne systems in the Gem­


ini launch vehicle-including flight control, hydraulic, electrical, instrumenta­


tion, and malfunction detection-were assembled on tables and benches; actual 


engines, but simulated propellant tanks and guidance, were used. In addition 


to individual and combined systems tests, the facility was used to check system 


design changes and to trouble-shoot problems encountered in other test pro­


grams. 


Gcmtni-Titan JI Air Force Launch Vehicle, pp. 4-1, 4-5. 

Simulated off-the-pad ejection tests began at Naval Ordnance Test Station. Five ~~ 

ejections were completed by the first week of August. The tests revealed diffi­ 2 

culties which led to two important design changes: the incorporation of a 

drogue-gun method of deploying the personnel parachute and the installation of 

a three-point restraint-harness-release system similar to those used in military 

aircraft. August 6-7 representatives of Manned Spacecraft Center and ejection system contrnctors met to review the status of ejection seat design and the 

development test program. They decided that off-the-pad ejection tests would 

not be resumed until ejection seat hardware reflected all major anticipated design features and the personnel parachute had been fully tested. Design changes 

were checked out in a series of bench and ground firings, concluding on August 

51 
Figure 85.- Airbomc BfiBtcms functional te8t stand at Martin'B Baltimore plan

Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, Prclflf Handbook, Feb. !, 1967, p

1962 30 with a successful inflight drop test of a seat and dummy. Off-the

July ing resumed in September. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 2, p. 17 ; Abstract of Meeting on Ejection Seats, 

1962. 

Gemini Project Office met with representatives of Manned Spacecraf

Flight Operations Divisions, McDonnell, International Business M

Aerospace, Air Force Space Systems Division, Lockheed, Marti

Technology Laboratories, Inc. (Redondo Beach, California), and 

Space Flight Center to outline the work to be done before final miss

ning. A center coordinating group, with t\VO representatives from eac

was established. 

Memo, James F. Dalby to Acting Chief, FOD, Subj : Coordination of Effort o

tractors Performing Guidance and Trajectory Studies tor Project G-emini, J

1962. 

6 	 Martin prepared a plan for flight. testing the malfunction detectio

(MDS) for the Gemini launch vehicle on development flights of the 

weapon system. Gemini Project Office (GPO) had requested Martin t

such a plan at t.he Gemini design review of April 10-11, 1962. Air For

Systems Division and Aerospace approved the plan and won GPO co

early in August. This so-called "piggyback plan" required installing th

MDS in Titan II engines on six Titan II flights to demonstrate its r

before it was flown on Gemini . . 

Harris, Gemini Lavnch Vehicle Chronology, pp. 10, 11. 

52 
Abstracts ot Meetings on 'Mechanical Systems, July 14, Aug. 7, 1962. 

Representatives of Gemini Project Office (GPO), Flight Operations Division, 

Air Force Space System Division, Marshall Space Flight Center, and Lockheed 

attended an Atlas-Agena coordination meeting in Houston. GPO presented a 

list of minimum basic maneuvers of the Agena to be commanded from both the 

Gemini spacecraft and ground command stations. GPO also distributed a 

statement of preliminary Atlas-Agena basic mission objectives and requirements. A total of 10 months would be required to complete construction and 

electrical equipment checkout to modify pad 14 for the Atlas-Agena, beginning 

immediately after the last Mercury flight. 

Memo, James A. Ferrando to Chlet, FOD, Subj: Information Gathered at AtlasAgena Coordination Meeting ot July 12, 1962, July 17, 1962; Abstract ot 1\{eeting 

on Atlas-Agena, July 14, 1962. 

A technical team at t.he Air Force Missile Test Center, Cape Canaveral, 

Florida-responsible for detailed launch planning, consistency of arrangements 

with objectives, and coordination-met for the first time with official status and 

a new name. The group of representatives from all organizations supplying 

major support to the Gemini-Titan launch operations, formerly called the 

Gemini Operations Support CommitJtee, was now called the Gemini-Titan 

Launch Operations Committee. 

Minutes ot Meeting ot Gemini-Titan Launch Operations Committee (GTLOC), 

July 13, 1962; memo, George E. 'Mueller to Webb, Subj: Development ot the Gemini 

Launch Vehicle, with enc., "The Gemini Launch Vehicle," Dec. 6, 1965, p. 1. 

To ensure mechanical and electrical compatibility between the Gemini spacecraft and the Gemini-Agena target vehicle, Gemini Project Office established 

an interface working group composed of representatives from Lockheed, 

McDonnell, Air Force Space Systems Division, Marshall, and Manned Spacecraft Center. The group's main function was to smooth the flow of data on 

design and physical details between the spacecraft and target vehicle contractors. 

Message, Chamberlin to Marshall ct al., Subj: Establishment ot a Target Vehicle/ 

Spacecraft Interface Working Group, July 18, 1962. 

Gemini Project Office and North American agreed on guidelines for the design 

of the advanced paraglider trainer, the pnraglider system to be used with static 

test article No. 2, and the paraglider system for the Gemini spacecraft. The most 

important of the these guidelines was that redundancy would be provided for 

all critical operations. 

Abstract ot Meeting on Paragllder Landing System, July 21, 1962. 

NASA Administrator James E. Webb announced officially that a new mission 

control center for manned space flight \vould be established at Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) in Houston. Project Mercury flights were controlled from 

12 

12 

13 

19 

20 

53 

25 

25-26 

Corps of Engineers would supervise construction of this center as it 

major facilities at M'SC. The control center was expected to be operat

1964 for Gemini rendezvous flights and to cost about $30 million. 

NASA Press Release No. 62-172, July 20,1962. 

McDonnell reported reducing the rated thrust of the two forwar

thrusters from 100 pounds to 85 pounds to reduce disturbance torques ge

in the event of maneuvers with one engine out. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 3, p. 15; McDonnell, "Project Gemini Monthly P

ress Letter Report, 26 June 1962 thru 25 July 1962," undated, p. 17. 

A reliability review of the Titan II launch vehicle engine system was 

Sacramento, California, at Aerojct-Gcncral's Liquid Rocket Plant, 

where the engines were being developed. Gemini engines had to be more 

than did intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM') engines. This requ

meant supplementing the ICBM engine reliability program, a task be

formed by Aerojet under Air Force Space Systems Division direction. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 2, p. 26. 

Lockheed presented study findings and design recommendations on the 

D propulsion systems to representatives of Marshall, Manned Spacecr

Figure 36.-Thc emergency parachute recovery sgdem tor the 

fu'll·seale paraglider flight test vehicle. (North American 

Aviation, Inc., Space and Information Sgstcms Divifton, Paraglider Projects, "Midterm ProgrcBB Report, Paraglider Development Program, Phase II, Part A, Sgatem ReBt!fJ.rch and 

Development," SID 6!-391, Apr. !0, 196!.) 

PARACHUTE COMPAATMENT 

-STABILIZATION rAAACHVT£ 

ClUST£1 MORT M. 

STABILIZING FOR RECOVERY FINAL RECOVERY 


CMIGURATION CONFIGURATION 

ary propulsion systems and its analysis of tests on the start system of the 

multiple-restart main engine recently completed by Bell Aerosystems Company, 

Buffalo, New York, the engine subcontractor. A pressurized-start tank system 

was selected in September. 

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 2, pp. 25-26; No. 3, p. 31; Lockheed Report 

Ll\f.SC-447186-26, Medium Space Vehicles Programs Monthly Progress Report, 

August 1962, Sept. 20, 1962, pp. 9-10 (hereafter cited as Lockheed Agena Monthly 

Report); Lockheed, Ll\ISC-A766871, Gemini Agcna Target Pre8s Handbook, Feb.15, 

1966, p. 3-1. 

North American began a test program to qualify the emergency parachute 

recovery system for the full-scale test vehicle in Phase II-A of the Paraglider 

Development Program. The first test was successful. In the second test (August 

22), one of the three main parachutes 'vas lost after deployment, but no damage 

resulted. In the third test (September 7), only minor damage was sustained 

despite the loss of two parachutes. The •test series ended on November 15 when 

all recovery parachutes separated from the spacecraft immediately after deployment and the test vehicle was destroyed on impact. Manned Spacecraft Center 

decided to terminate this portion of the test program but directed McDonnell 

to supply North American with a boilerplate spacecraft for further tests at a 

later date. 

Quarterly Status Reports: No.2, p. 13; No.3, p. 13 ; NAA Monthly Progress Letters 

on Phase II-A: No. 9, Sept. 1; No. 10, Nov. 26; No. 12, Dec. 31, 1962. 

At a meeting in Los Angeles, the Air Force described to Gemini Project Office 

its plans for converting complex 14 81t Atlantic Missile Range, Cape Canaveral, 

Florida. Complex 14, the site of Mercury launches, would be modified for Project 

Gemini operations as the target vehicle launch site. The Air Force accepted 

the responsibility for funding, designing, modifying, and equipping the complex 

to an Atlas-Agena configuration. This action was scheduled as follows: preliminary design criteria by September 1 and final design criteria by October 1, 1962. 

Mercury Project Office reported that complex 14 would be available for Gemini 

on September 1, 1963. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 2, p. 27. 

Flight Control Operations Branch of Manned Spacecraft Center's Flight Operations Division outlined a program of training for Gemini flight controllers. 

This program included: (1) contractor in-plant training, a one-month course 

of instruction at McDonnell through which 'vould cycle three classes of 10-15 

persons and which would include three weeks of detailed systems training, one 

week of hardware training, and McDonnell drawing-standard familiarization; 

(2) individual training of flight controllers in systems and network operations, systems updating, and practical exercises; (3) team training, to include 

site training, for supporting personnel teams, command site teams, and remote 

site teams; and (4) network training in the control, communications, and deci

2 

9 

55 

their numbers would be augmented to meet the increased demands o

vanced program. 

Memos: Eugene F. Kranz to Chlet, FOD, Subj: Personnel Training Pla

Requit"l'ments tor Project Gt>mini, Aug. 9, 1962; Chrlstopht>r C. Kratt, Jr., to 

ager, GPO, Subj: Flight Controller Support for Project Gemini, Aug. 20, 19

14 	 North American began flight tests of the half-scale test vehicle (H

Phase II-A of the Pnrnglider De.velopment Program two months behi

ule. The instrumented HSTV with the paraglider predeployed was tow

by helicopter. Objectives of the predeployed flights were to evaluate fl

formance, longitudinal and lateral control characteristics, effectiven-es

trol, and the flare maneuver capability of the paraglider. Despite vario

mn.Jfunctions in all five test flights (August 14, 17, 23, September 17, a

ber 23, 1962), test results verified the stability of the wing;,·ehicle com

in free flight and the adequacy of control effecthreness. 

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 2, pp. 11-12; No. 3, p. 11; NAA Monthly Pro

Letters on Phase II-A: No. 9, Sept. 1 ; No. 10, Nov. 26 ; No. 12, Dec. 31, 

"Paragllder Final Report," pp. 184-188. 

1.1-16 	 Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) formally reviewed McDonnell's eng

mock-up of the Gemini spacecraft in St. T..ouis. The company had begu

ing the mock-up in January, shortly after receiving the spacecraft 

Mock-up reYiew had originally been scheduled for mid-July, but inform

inations by MSC representatives, including James A. Chamberlin an

astronauts, had produced some suggested changes. The review itself 

in McDonnell's receiving 167 requests for alterations. MSC inspected th

mock-up in November. 

Memo, James W. Bilodeau to Project Gemini, Subj : Evaluation ot Gemini Mo

July 2, 1962; MSC Minutes of Senior Staff 1\feetlng, July 6, 1962, p. 6; Qua

Status Reports: No. 2, pp. 3-5; No. 3, p. 3; "Project Gemlnll\lock-up Review

15-16, 1962," Aug. 28, 1962; McDonnell Report 9031, 'Troject Gemini Engln(

Mockup Review," Aug. 15-16, 1962; Lindley Interview. 

16 	 The Air Force and NASA agreed to use a standard Atlas space booste

Gemini program, sharing the development cost equally. Ground rule

standard Atlas spare booster (which was then being developed by the Ai

were (1) no new development program, (2) rearranging equipment in 

for standardization, (3) eliminating splices, ( 4) combining electrical 

tions, (5) minimizing differences between programs, and (6) incor

known reliability improvements. Conversion of the Atlns intercon

ballistic missile to the Atlas space booster would require (1) a fully-

engin~ up-rated from 150,000 to 165,000 pounds of thrust, (2) elimin

vernier rockets to lower use of propellants, (3) standard tank pressu

standard pneumatic pressures, (5) elimination of retrorockets, and (6

ard range safety package. The first standard vehicle was expected to b

able in September 1963. 

Absf:Tact ot Meeting on Atlas/Agena, Aug. 22. 1962. 

56 

Figure 37.-Two McDonnell technicians czamlnc the engineering mock-up of the Gemini 

spacecraft, czhi'bitcd to 1-fO industru a114 NASA representatives in St. Louis on August 

15-16, 1962. (McDonnell Photo D_fE-257884, no date.) 

The Agena status displays were revie,ved and eight were approved. These displays comprised seven green lights which, when on, indicated that various 

functions of the Agena were satisfactory. The eighth, a red light, would go on to 

indicate main engine malfunction. Gemini Project Office also approved the list 

of commands required to control certain Agena func.tions during rendezvous 

and docking maneuvers by the Gemini spacecraft. The primary mode of command transmittal was expected to be by radio. The Gemini commands to Agena 

were revie,ved on September 13-14, resulting in a list of 34 minimum commands 

to be initiated from the spa.cecraft during the Gemini rendezvous maneuver. 

Abstracts of Meetings on Atlas-Agena, Aug. 16, Sept. 24, 1962. 

Gemini Project Office initiated a program to coordinate and integrate \vork on 

developing Gemini rendezvous and long-duration missions. This program was 

handled by a mission-planning and guidance-analysis coordination group, 

assisted by three working panels. 

GPO Activity Report, Aug. 27,1962. 

At a space<:raft production evaluation meeting, Gemini Project Office and 

McDonnell revised the projected launch date of the first. Gemini flight from 

August to September 1963. Delays in the delivery of components from vendors 

caused the revision. The first manned flight (second Gemini mission), however, 

was still scheduled for November. 

Abstract of Coordination Meeting on Production Evaluation, Aug. 31, 1002. 

Gemini Project Office outlined plans for checking out the Gemini spacecraft at 

Cape Canaveral. Gemini prefli~ht checkout would follow the pattern established 

for Mercury, a series 6f end-to-end functional tests to check the spacecraft 

and its systems completely, beginning with independent modular systems tests. 

The spacecraft. would then be remated for a series of integrated tests culminating in a simu],ated flight just before it. was transferred to the launch complex. 

To implement the checkout of the Gemini spacecraft, the Hangar S complex 

at Cape Canaveral would be enlarged. Major test stations would be housed in 

57 

1962 

August 

16 

27 

28 

31 
Septembw 

1 

4 

5 

Operations, Aug. 13 and 29, 1962. 

Flgure 88.-Proposed. Z

I 

Gemtni facilities a

Canaveral. (McDonnel

ect Gemtnt Enginecrlng 

Revfeto," Aug. 15- 16, 

4 MILE' 

163.) 

3 MIL~ I ~~· .. . t:::::l . Cl --. • .• 

COMMAND 

Rocketdyne completed designing and fabricating prototype hardware f

spacecroft liquid propulsion systems and initiated te9ting of the reaction 

system. Test firing of the 25-pound-thrust chambers revealed nozzle 

causing degradation in performance after one third the specified burn tim

Quarterly Status Report No. 2, pp. 16--17; Rocketdyne mlmeo, "Gemini Propul

by Roeketdyne--A Ohronology," May 15, 1967, p. 9. 

George W. J etfs bec.ame Program Manager of the Paraglider Devel

Program at North American. He replaced N. F. Witte, who remai

Assistant Program Manager. This organizational change reflected the el

of work on parnglidcr from project to program status within North Ame

Space and Infonnation Systems Division. The paraglider program ac

operating division status three months later when Jeffs was appointe

President of Space and Infonnation Systems Division. 

NAA Monthly Progress ~ttet"S on Phase II-A: No. 9, Sept. 15, 1962; No. 

Jan. 18, 1963. 

Gemini Project Office directed McDonneH to provide spacecraft No. 

rendezvous radar capability and to provide a rendezvous evaluation po

requirement for missions 2 and 3. Four pods were required : one prototyp

flight art.icles, and one flight spare. 

Abstract of Ooordination Meeting on Ell'<.'trieal Systems, Sept. 7, 1962. 

For Gemini rendezvous missions, Manned Spacecraft Center intended to 

the Agena target. vehicle first.. If condit.ions were norm-al, the spacecraft 

be launched the following day. 

Abstract of Meeting on Trajectories and Orbits, Sept. 26, 1962. 

58 
ALTITUOE . YXJ ~\fT TAJGEl AT 150 N , M. 

d ANTENNA COVU \ II.EENUY 

£JETTISON \ MOOU.f RUNHlS -"•,, \\ TOUCHDOWN CONTIIOL 

' ST.UTS AT AP,.OXlMATEL Y 

\ 400,000 fT 

TRACKING UDIO ~ \ ~CitOGUf CMVH 

~~~~c~~~~t!;•v {r.:---......., ' ~ COMMUNICATIONS ~~~~'go \ TRACKING PARAGLIOEII \ TELEMETRY 

I ~ ~~~~~~~EHIO£ \ 50,000 fT 
 ~IPAAAGLID£1

I SfPAIArtON \ \ ~~~[:D I t • I4SS£C \ \ 
 I ALTITUDE • 190,000 H \ \ 


/ \ \ ~~:LIDO 

I 

/ \ fLAil AT G OIXI FJ /

I \ ~~~= I 

DOWN lANG£ ucovnv rtno STATIONS 

Figure 39.-Planned sequence of event$ for a Gemini mission. (McDonnell, "Project Gemini 

Engineering Mockup Review," Aug.15-16,196!, p . .!3.) 

A study group formed at the Gemini mock-up review of August 15-16 met to 1962 

September review the ejection seat development program. McDonnell reported the success­ 6 

ful completion of redesign and testing which cleared the way for resumption 

of off-the-pad developmental testing. McDonnell described the major outstanding design task as the detennination of the dynamic center of gravity of the 

seat-man combination under expected acceleration profiles. 

Abstract of Meeting on Ejection Seats, Sept. 11, 1962. 

Simulated off-the-pad tests of the redesigned Gemini escape system resumed 12 

with test No. 6. Test No. 7 followed on September 20. Though primarily successful, these tests revealed some problems. The seat-structure thrust pad 

required reanalysis and redesign. Simulated off-the-pad testing was temporarily 

halted until a final configuration rocket catapult became available. A rocket 

motor tRst on January 4, 1963, demonstrated the structural integrity of the 

thrust-pad area, and simulated pad ejection tests resumed the following month. 

QuarteTly Status Reports : No. 3, p. 18 ; No. 4 for Period Ending Feb. 28, 1963, 

p. 18 ; Abstracts of lfeetlngs on Ejection Seats, Sept. 20, Oct. 3, 1962. 

A coordination meeting on mission planning and guidance defined the first 14 

Gemini mission as a spacecraft maximum-heating-rate test. As many spacecraft 

systems as possible 'vere to be tested, to allow the second flight to be manned. 

A meeting between Manned Spacecraft Center and McDonnell on September 18 

established the ground rules for the first. mission: the trajectory was to be 

ballistic with a range of about 2200 miles; primary objective was to obtain 

thennodynamics and structures data; secondary objective was partial qualification of spacecraft systems. 

Abstract of Meetings on : Mission Planning and Guidance, Sept. 26 ; Electrical 


Systems, Sept. 26, 1962; McDonnell, "Project Gemini Mission Plnn, Spacecraft 


No.1," Sept. 14,1962. 


59 
1962 

SeptembH 

17 

19 

19 

25 

I •329,6 SEC 

SEPARATE tY SALVO FIRING 

FOUR RfTROROCKUS 

(SIMULATED AIORTJ 

IIOOSTER SHliTDOWN 

1: 328,6 SEC 

h • 82 N,M, 

; :~~.':iT PEl SEC " • 120,000 n M • 8,99 

0 liANG£· NAli!ICAL MILtS ~· 

Figure .fO.-McDonnell'B propoBed Bequcncc of cvcntB tor the ftrBt Gcm'n' mlBBlon. 

nell, "Project Gemini Mistlon Plan, Spacecraft No. 1," Sept. 14, 196!, p. 7

At the University of Houston's Cullen Auditorium, Director Robert R. 

of Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) introduced the nine men who h

selected for the MSC flight crew training program for Gemini and 

flights. Of the nine, four were from the Air Force, three were from th

and two were civilians. From the Air Force were Major Frank Borm

Captains James A. McDivitt, Edward H. White II, and Thomas P. S

The Navy volunteers were Lieutenant Commanders James A. Lovell, 

John W. Young, and Lieutenant Charles Conra.d, Jr. The two civilia

Neil A. Armstrong and Elliot M. See, Jr. 

Quarterly Status Report No.2, p. 29. 

ACF Electronics delivered an engineering prototype radar beacon to 

nell. An engineering prototype C-hand beacon had opera.ted a.t ACF Ele

under simulated reentry conditions with no degradation in performa.n

Quarterly Status Report No. 8, p. 24. 

Life Systems Division reported on continuing studies related to extra.v

operations during Gemini missions. These included evaluation of a. supe

tion coverall, worn over the pressure suit., for thermal protection; ven

system requirements and hardware; and methods of maneuvering in pr

to the spacecraft. 

Abstract of Meeting on Mechanical Systems, Sept. 21, 1962. 

A preliminary design criteria review conference for complex 14, held 

Angeles, resulted in ground rules for all contractors. Target dates est

were (1) stand avnilability, July 1, 1963; (2) estimated beneficial oc

date, November 1, 1963; and (3) vehicle on-stand date, February 

Complex 14 would be used for launching the Gemini-Agena target veh

the Mariner spacecraft, but basic modifications would be primarily 

60 
1 

Air Force Space Systems Division revised the Development Plan for the 

Gemini launch vehicle. The budget was raised to $181.3 million. Cost increases 

in work on the vertical test facility at Martin's Baltimore plant, on the conversion of pad 19 at Cape Canaveral, and on aerospace ground equipment had 

already generated a budget increase to $172.6 million during September. The 

new Development Plan also indicated that the first launch date had slipped to 

December 1963. 

Minutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting held at MSC, Nov. 13, 1962; 

letter, Col. R. C. Dineen to 1\ISC, Subj : Budget Requirements for Gemini Launch 

Vehicle, Oct. 4, 1962; Harris, Gemini Launch. Vehicle Ohronology, p. 12. 

Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) published the Gemini Program Instrumentation Requirements Document (PIRD), the basis for integrating the worldwide Manned Space Flight Network to support the Gemini program. In 

compiling PIRD, MSC had received the assistance of other NASA installations 

and Department of Defense components responsible for constructing, maintaining, and operating the network. 

Quarterly Status Reports: No.2, pp. 28-29; No.3, p. 35. 

At a mechanical systems coordination meeting, McDonnell presented its final 

evaluation of the feasibility of substituting straight tube brazed connections for 

threaded joints as the external connections on all components of the spacecraft 

propulsion syst.ems. McDonnell had begun testing the brazing process on 

June 26, 1962. Following its presentation, McDonnell was directed to make the 

change, which had the advantages of reducing leak paths and decreasing the 

total weight of propulsion systems. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 3, p. 15; Abstracts of Meetings on Mechanical Systems, 

June 29, Oct. 25, 1962; "Gemini Propulsion by Rocketdyne," pp. 8-9. 

McDonnell and Lockheed reported on radiation hazards and constraints for 

Gemini missions at a Trajectories and Orbits Coordination meeting. McDonnell's preliminary findings indicated no radiation hazard for normal Gemini 

operations with some shielding; with no shielding the only constraint was on 

the 14-day mission, which would have to be limited to an altitude of 115 nautical 

miles. Lockheed warned that solar flares would pose a problem at higher altitudes. Lockheed also recommended limiting operations to under 300 miles 

pfmcling more data on the new radiation belts created by the Atomic Energy 

Commission's ProjectDominic in July 1962. 

Abstract of Meeting on Trajectories and Orbits, Oct. 24, 1962; Loyd S. Swenson, 

Jr., James M. Grimwood, Charles C. Alexander, This New Ocea-n: A History of 

Project Mercurfl, NASA SP-4201, p. 467. 

Associate Director Walter C. Williams of Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) 

invited top-level managers from all major government and contractor organizations participating in the Gemini program to become members of a Project 

October 

3 

5 

12 

61 

19 

21 

and Air Force representatives, the panel membership included vice pre

of McDonnell, Martin, Aerospace, Aerojet-General, and Lockheed. A 

development-management structure had worked well in Project Mercury

mizing delays in communication and providing fast reactions to problem

Letter, Willtams to von Braun et al., Oct. 12, 1962; Minutes of Project Gem

Management Panel Meeting held at MSC, Nov. 13, 1962; House Subcommittee 

Manned Space Flight of the Committee on Science and AatronauUcs, Heartnp 

H.R. 9641, 1965 NAJJA Authorlzatlo" [No. lJ, Part 2, 88th Cong., 2nd Sesl!l., 19

p. 376. 

NASA awarded a contract to International Business Machines Corpora

provide the ground-based computer system for Projects Gemini and A

The contract cost was $36,200,018. The computer complex would be part 

Integrated Mission Control Center at Manned Spacecraft Center, Housto

NASA Contrast No. NAS 9-996, Oct. 1~, 1962. 

Wesley L. Hjornevik, Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) Assistant Direc

Administration, described to members of MSC's senior staf the implicati

NASA Headquarters' recent decision to cut the MSC budget for fisca

1963 from $687 million to $660 million, the entire reduction to be borne 

Gemini program. Hjornevik feared that the Gemini budget, already tight

absorb so large a cut only by dropping the paraglider, Agena, and all r

vous equipment from the program. Gemini Project Office (GPO) reporte

funding limitations had already forced Martin and McDonnell to reduc

level of activity. The first Genrini flight (unmanned) was reschedul

December 1963, with the second (manned) to follow three months late

subsequent flights at two-month intervals, with the first Agena (fifth mi

in August or September 1964. This four-month delay imposed by budget l

tions required a large-scale reprogramming of Gemini development 

reflected chiefly in drastic reduction in the scale of planned test prog

Details of the necessary reprogramming had been worked out by Decem

when GPO Manager James A. Chamberlin reported that December 196

a realistic date for the first Gemini flight. Gemini funding for fiscal yea

totaled $232.8 million. 

MSC Minutes of Senior Stafr MeeUng, Oct. 19, 1962, pp. 2, 4 ; Minutes of Proj

Gemini Management Panel Meetings held at MSC, Nov. 13, and at SSD, Dec. 

1962; Minutes of the first meeting, Gemini Program Planning Board, Feb. 8, 19

with ene., ''Gemini Launches-Master Schedule," Dee. 19, 1962. 

Manned Spacecraft Center informed Lockheed that Gemini program b

readjustments required reprogramming the Gemini-Agena program. 

sequent meetings on November 2 and November 20 worked out the ch

necessary to implement the Agena program at minimum cost. The overa

program for the Agena and its propulsion systemlil was significantly re

but in general neither the scope nor the requirements of the Agena pr

were altered. The major result of the reprogramming was a four-mont

62 

31 

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 3, p. 32 ; No. 4, p. 32; Abstracts ot Meetings on 

Reprogramming Atlas/Agena, Nov. 9 and 27, 1002; Lockheed Agetta Monthlfl 

Progreu Reporl1: Oct()bef', p. 8; November 196!, pp. 3, 9. 

The apogee of the basic spacecraft orbit model was set at 167 nautical miles, 

the perigee of the elliptical orbit at 87. The altitude of the circular orbit of the 

target vehicle was to be 161 nautical miles. 

Abstract o! Meeting on Trajectories and Orbits Panel, Nov. 1, 1962. 

Minneapolis-Honeywell delivered two engineering prototype a.ttitude control 

and maneuver electronics systems to the prime contractor. McDonnell installed 

one of these systems in the electronic systems test unit (ESTU) and conducted 

subsystems compatibility checks, using the prototype horizon scanners. The 

ESTU was a simplified spacecraft mock-up with provisions for monitoring all 

electronic components in their flight locations. Testing began on November 19. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 3, p. 19; McDonnell FiM~ Report, p. 33. 

Goddard Space Flight Center announced the award of contra.cts totaling approximately $1.2 million to modify NASA's Manned Space Flight Tracking 

Network to support long-duration and rendezvous missions. The contracts were 

with the Canoga Electronics Corporation, Van Nuys, California, for the tracking antenna acquisition aid system ($1.045 million) ; Radiation, Inc., Melbourne, 

Florida, for digital command encoders ($1.95 million); Collins Radio Company, Dallas, Texas, for the radio frequency command system ($1.725 million); 

and Electro-Mechanical Research, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, for the pulse code 

modulation system ($7,376,379). 

Goddard News Release, Nov. 5, 1962; Goddard, T'M JlGftnet! Space Flight Trockmg 

Net'UXWk, 1965, pp. 23-24, 34-36, 41-42, 44. 

B. F. Goodrich delivered a prototype partial-wear, quick-assembly, full-pressure 

suit to Manned Spacecraft (';enter (MSC) for evaluation by Life Systems 

Division. The partial-wear feature of this suit, demanded by the long-duration 

missions planned for the Gemini program, comprised detachable suit components (sleeves, legs, helmets). This wa.s the second of two partial-wear suit 

prototypes called for by the original contract; but MSC had, in the meantime, 

requested B. F. Goodrich to provide 14 more suits based on this design. The 

additional suits varied only in size; they were to follow the design of the prototype according to the specifications of October 10, 1962. The prototype. originally designated G-2G, became G-2G-1 and the remaining suits were designated 

G-2G-2 through G-2G-15. MSC requested extensive design changes after 

evaluating G-2G-1 and several other suits. The final model wa.s G-2G-8, delivered to MSC on January 21, 1963. It was later rejected in favor of a suit 

designed by David Clark Company, Inc., Worcester, Massachusetts, which 

incorporated B. F. Goodrich helmets, gloves, and additional hardware. 

No.,.,bw 

' 


63 


6 
9 

SHOUUlO IE.UIN 

VINT TUIE TO 

[)(fOG MANIFOL 

ARM 015CONNECT 

AOJUSTAilE ARM 

HINGE STAAl'S WRIST BEARING 

VENT INLET 


(POSITIVE lACK 
 ALTIMETER, REMOVABLE FLOW CHECK VALVE)---\~1''-V 

VENT EXHAUST 

NTEGRAT£0 LOOP lfLT 

BOOTS .UE AN 


INTEGRAL PAll OF THE 


LOWER LEG SECT ION 


F'lt/ure .f1.-The B. F. Goodrich partial-1Dear full-preuure 

IJuit betng developed for the Gemini program. (B. F. Goodrich AeroiJpace and Dc/cnlfc Product•, "Delff.gn, Development, and Fabrication ot Prototvpe Pre11ure Suitlf, Final 

Report," Feb. 1, 1965, p. 10.) 

Sled ejection test No.1 was conducted at Naval Ordnance Test Station

its designation, this test did not call for seats actually to be ejected. Its 

wns to provide data on the aerodynamic drag of the test vehicle and 

the test vehicle's structural soundness in preparation for future escap

tests. The test vehicle, motmted by boilerplate spacecraft No. 3 (a wel

mock-up of the Gemini spacecraft aerodynamically similar to the flight 

\vas a rocket-propelled sled running on tracks. Although test objecti

achieved, the boilerplate spacecraft was severely damaged when one of 

motors broke loose and penetrated the heatshield, causing n fire which d

much instrumentation and equipment.. Despite repairs required for t.h

plate and major modification or rebuilding of the sled, Gemini Proje

foresaw no delay in the sled test program. 

MSO Minutes of Senior Statf 1\leeting, Nov. 16, 1963, p. 3; Quarterly Status R

No. 3, p. 18; letter, Gordon P. Cress and C. E. Heimstadt, Weber Aircraft, to 

Historical Office, May 12, 1967; McDonnell Final Report, p. 26. 
launch problems. 

MSC Senior Stair Meeting, Nov. 16, 1962, pp. 3-4. 

At a mechanical systems coordination meeting, representatives of McDonnell 

and Manned Spacecraft Center decided to terminate McDonnell's subcontract 

with CTL Division of Studebaker for the backup hentshield. The decision resulted from growing confidence in the new McDonnell design as well as from 

CTL problems in fabricating heatshield No. 1. Termination of the CTL contract would save an estimated $131,000. 

Message, Chamberlin to Burke, Nov. 23, 1962; Quarterly Status Report No. 3, p. 7; 

Abstract of Meeting on Mechanical Systems, Nov. 23, 1962. 

Gemini Project Office identified the primary problem area of the spacecraft 

liquid propellant rocket systems to be the development of a 25-pound thruster 

able to perform within specification over a burn time of five minutes. Threeminute chambers for the reaction control system (RCS) had been successfully 

t.ested, but the longer-duration chambers required for the orbit attitude and 

maneuver system (OAMS) had not. Rocketdyne was three weeks behind schedule in developmental resting of RCS and OAMS components, and five weeks 

behind in systems t.esting. 

Quarterly Status Report No.3, pp. 16-17. 

Gemini Project Office report.ed revised facilities plans for implement.ing the 

preflight checkout of the Gemini spacecraft at Cape Canaveral. Project Gemini 

facilities were no longer to be wholly contained in the Hangar S complex on 

Cape Canaveral. Schedule changes and the elimination of incompa.t.ibilities between Apollo and Gemini spacecraft fuel-oxidizer and cryogenic systems made 

P{Uvre 4f.-Locatlon of .Manne~! 

8pGCeeratt Center tacilltie1 at 

(Jape Canaveral and .Merritf 

I1lantl. (NASA, ".M a"" e tJ 

Spacecraft Center Atlantic .Milrile Rafl{le Operatioft.l, 1959­

1964 Facflitie1," Apr. 15, 196~). 

21 

30 

30 
pleted in the first quarter of 1964. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 3, pp. 42-43; MSC Technical Services Branch, Man

Spacecraft Center Atlantic Missile Range Operations: 195{)...1964 Facilities, Apr

1964, pp. 3-4. 

During the first three weeks of the month, Air Force Space Systems D

and Martin-Baltimore negotiated the tenns of the contract for Phase 

Gemini launch vehicle program. The resulting cost-plus-fixed-fee cont

cluded an estimated cost of $52.5 million and n fixed fee of $3.465 millio

contract covered the development and procurement of the first launch 

and preparations for manufacturing and procuring the remaining 14 

required by the Gemini program. 

Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle Ohronoroov, p. 14; interview, George F. 

Dougall, Jr., Houston, June 2, 1967. 

North American began deployment flight testing of the half-scale test 

(HSTV) in Phase II-A of t.he Pnraglider Development Program. The 

was carried aloft slung beneath a helicopter. The main purpose of the 

ment flight tests was to investigate problem areas in the transition from 

of the rendezvous and recovery canister to glide-the ejection, inflati

deployment of the pnraglider wing. The first flight partially subst.anti

feasibility of the basic deployment sequence, but emergency recovery 

dures were necessary. In the second test (January 8, 1963), the sail 

grated, and in the third (March 11), the rendezvous and recovery caniste

to separate. In both instances, attempts to recover the vehicle with th

gency system were th\varted when the main parachute :failed to depl

both vehicles were destroyed on impact. 

Figure 43.-Gemlnt paragUder halt-soole test 1Jehlcle slung beneath a.n Armv heli

the beotnntno ot the second deplovment flight test. (NAA-811ID Photo !"1'1/4, Jan. 
ducted a Design Engineering Inspection of the full-scale test vehicle (FSTV) 

for Phase II-A of the Paraglider Development Program. As conceived during 

Phase I of the program, the FSTVs (the contract called for two) were to be a 

means of meeting a twofold objective: (1) the development of systems and 

techniques for wing deployment and (2) the evaluation of flight performance 

and control characteristics during glide. After reviewing flight test objectives, 

test vehicle hardware, and electrioal and electronic systems, -the inspecting team 

submitted 24 requests for alterations to North American. 

Quarterly Status Report No.4, pp. 10-11; NAA Monthly Progress Letter on Pbase 


II-A, No. 13, Jan. 18, 1003; "Paragllder Final Report," p. 203. 


A tO-percent fluctuating-pressure model of the Gemini spacecraft completed its 

exit configuration test program in the mach number range of 0.6 to 2.5, the 

region of maximum dynamic pressure. On January 15, 1963, a Gemini spacecraft dynamics stability model also completed its test program providing 

Figure .. u.-Th.e 10-pcrcent model of the Gemini 8pacecratt u8ed tn wind tunttcl te8ting 

at McDonnell. (McDon-nell Photo D•E-250564, undated.) 

dynamic st.ability coefficients for the spacecraft reentry at mach numbers 3.0 

to 10. These tests completed a.U the originn1ly scheduled wind tunnel testing for 

Project Gemini; however, three -additional test programs had been initiated. 

67 


14 
19 

26 

The newly formed Scientific Experiments Panel met to solicit prop

scientific experiments to be performed on Gemini and Apollo flights. T

was a Manned Spacecraft Center organiza:tion whose function wo

receive, evaluate, and implement these proposals. 

Memo, Meyer to GPO, Subj: Scientific Experiments to be Conducted on F

Gemini Missions, Dee. 20, 1962. 

Titan II flight N-11, the eighth in a series being conducted by the A

to develop the weapon system, was launched from Cape Canaveral. 

a design change intended to reduce the amplitude of longitudinal o

which had appeared during first stage operation on all seven previous 

flights. This phenomenon, which subsequently became known as POG

ated g-forces as high a.s nine in the first stage and over three at the p

the missile corresponding ·to the loc~tion of the spacecraft on the Gemi

vehicle. Fearing the potentially adverse effect on astronaut performanc

superimposed g-forces, NASA established 0.25 gat 11 cycles per seco

maximum level tolerable for Gemini flights. As a first try at solving th

problem, Titan II N-11 carried standpipes in each leg of the stage I 

feed lines to interrupt the coupling between the missile's structure an

pulsion system. This coupling was presumed to be the cause of the in

Postflight analysis, however, revealed that the POGO fix was unsu

longitudinal oscillation had actually been multiplied by a factor of two

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 2, p. 24-25; No. 3, p. 28; Aerospace, Gemini L

Vehicle, Flsenl1962--63; Harris, Gemini Launch Vehlcle Ohronol{)flfl, p. 20. (N

POGO is not an acronym.) 

Air Force Space Systems Division established the Gemini I..aunch 

Configuration Control Board to draw up and put into effect proce

approving and disapproving specifications and engineering change 

for the Gemini launch vehicle. It formally convened for the first 

March 5, 1963. 

Harris, Gemtni Launch Veh.icJe Ohronowou. p. 16. 

Air Force Space Systems Division and Aerojet-General negotiated a c

fixed-fee contract for the first phase of the Gemini launch vehicle en

gram, February 14, 1962, through June 30, 1963. The contract required 

of one set of engines, with the remaining 14 sets included for planning 

Estimated cost of the contract was $13.9 million, with n fixed fee of $91

a total of $14,817,400. 

Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle OhrotWWflfl, p. 15; MacDougall interview, J

1967. 

68 

PART II 


Development and Qualification 


PART II 

Development and Qualification 

Manned Spacecraft Center directed McDonnell to study requirements for a. 

spacecraft capable of perfonning rendezvous experiments on the second and 

third Gemini flights. The experimental package would weigh 70 pounds and 

would include an I~-band radar target, flashing light, battery power supply, and 

antenna systems. On the second flight, a one-day mission, the experiment was to 

be perfonnoed open-loop, probably optically-the astronaut would observe the 

target and maneuver the spacecraft to rendezvous with it. On the third flight, a 

seven-day mission, the experiment was t.o be perfonned closed-loop, with spacecraft maneuvers controlled automatically by the data it received from its 

instruments. 

Memo, Carl R. Hu89 to Ohlet, FOD, Subj : Comments and Notes from Project 

Gemini Mllllrion Planning and Gutdance Meeting held January 4, 1963 and January 16, 1963, Jan. 28, 1963; Abstract of Meeting on MIMion Planning and Guidance 

and Control Analysis, Jan. 9,1963. 

Representatives of Manned Spacecraft Center, NASA Headquarters, Flight 

Resea.reh Center, I ...angley Research Center, and Ames Research Center conducted a Design Engineering Inspection of the advanced trainer for the Pa.ra.­

glider Development Program, Phase II-B(l). North American received 36 

requests for alterations. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 4, p. 11; NAA Monthly Progress Letter on Phase 

II-B(l), No.7, Feb. Z1,1963. 

Manned Spacecraft Center outlined requirements for McDonnell to consider 

concerning aborts in orbit. These included onboard controlled reentry for all 

aborts, except in the event of guidance and control system failure; onboard 

selection of one of the emergency abort target areas; navigational accuracy to a 

two-mile radius error at the point of impact; and crew capability to ejeot from 

the spacecraft with the paraglider deployed. 

Abstract of Meeting on Rendezvous and Reentry Guidance, Jan. 15, 1963. 

Flight Operations Division outlined debtiled requirements for the remote stations of -the worldwide tracking network. Each station would need five consoles: 

1963 

1tlfltiiii'J 

4 

8-9 

8-9 

9 

71 

-mmmm
 ~r ~~_,.

Fi{lurc 45.-Thc jfvc consoles to l>e installed in eack tracking network remo

(NASA Photos 8--68-!2186 and 8--63-2!185, unda.tctl.) 

OO O OO C' OO ··· o 

o o •u ') 

~ E e • 

~ 

1963 

]imutlf'y 

10 

Gemini system, Agena system, command, aeromedical, and maintena

~perations. The Gemini and Agena consoles would have 42 analog 

meters a.nd 40 on/off indicators. 

Abstract ot Meeting on PCM Working Group, Jan. 16, 1963. 

Representatives of Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), McDonnell, 

Eagle-Picher Company, Joplin, Missouri, met to review plans for de

and testing the silver-zinc batteries for the Gemini spacecraft. McDon

72 
provided power to control functioning relays and solenoids. Eagle-Picher completed a test plan proposal on February 9. On February 21, MSC directed 

McDonnell to use four batteries instead of five for main bus power on spacecraft 

Nos. 2 n.nd up, after McDonnell's analysis of battery power requirements 

disclosed that a four-battery installation, if closely monitored, would be 

adequate. 

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 1, p. 30; No. 2, pp. 20-21; No. 4, p. 25; Abstraet of 

Meeting at Eagle-Pleher Coneemlng Test Program for Gemini Silver Zinc Batteries, 

J"an. 10, 1963: Abstract of Meeting on Electrieal Systems, Feb. 21, 1963; I!laglePicher, "Proposed Eagle-Picher Test Plan, Gemini Silver Oxide-Zinc Batteries," 

Feb. 9, 1963. 

To st.imul111te contractor employees to better performance, Gemini Project Office 

Manager James A. Chamberlin suggested that astronauts visit with workers at 

various contractors' plants. Donald K. Slayton, Astronaut Activities Office, 

infonned Chamberlin that such visits 'vould be made, beginning with the Martin 

Company in February 1963. 

MSO Minutes CJt. Senior Staff Meeting, Jan. 11. 1963, p. 4. 

In the opinion of Flight Operations Division's Project Gemini working group: 

"One of the biggest problem areas seems to be .the [spacecraft] on-board computer; exactly what is it going to do; what is its sequence of operation; what 

does it need from the ground computer comple.x and how often; exactly how is it 

used by astronauts; what is the job of the on-board computer for early 

missions9" 

Memo, Huse to Chief, FOD, Subj: Summary of Project Gemini FOD Working 

Group Meeting of Jan. 14, 1963, Jau. 24, 1963. 

Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) assumed complete responsibility for the 

Gemini target vehicle program from Marshall Spooe Flight Center following 

a meeting between MSC and Marshall on January 11 establishing procedures 

for the transfer. Marshall was to c<>ntinue to participate actively in an advisory 

capacity until March 1 and thereafter as technica.l consultant to MSC upon 

request. All other NASA Atlas-Agena programs were transferred to Lewis 

Resea.rch Oenter in a move aimed at freeing Mal'Shall to concentrate on Saturn 

launch vehicle development and consolidating Atlas launch vehicle technology 

at Lewis. NASA Headquarters had decided to effect the transfer on October 12, 

1962. 

T...etters: Chamberlin to Hans Hueter, Marshall, Subj : Gemini Target Vehiele Program, Jan. l!l, 1963; MSO to MSFC, Subj : Gemini Targcl Vehicle Program, Jan. 

18, 1963; MSFC Light and Medium Vehicles Oftlee. "Agena Monthly Progress 

Report for December 1002," p. 1; NASA Ninth Scmlantu1al Report tQ Cofl{lf'ell, 

Januat"ffl-,luw.e 30, 196~, p. 76. 

NASA Administrator James E. Webb and Secretary of Defense Robert S. 

McNamara signed a new agreement on Department of Defense (DOD) and 

11 

14 

14 

17 

73 

each be responsible for their o"'·n logistics and administration in their resp

areas. Specific mission functions---e.g., preparation, checkout, launch, test 

ation-would be perform~d by each agency in its own behalf, regard

location. DOD retained certain fundamental range functions, including 

uling, flight safety, search and rescue operations, and downrange airli

station operation. 

Agreement between the Department of Defense and National At-ronautlcs 

Space Administration regarding manogtoment of the Atlantic Missile Range 

DOD and the Merritt Island Launch Area of NASA, Jan. 17, 1963. 

21 	 James E. Webb, Administrator of NASA, and RobertS. McNamara, Sec

of Defense, concluded a major policy agreement defining the roles of NAS

Department of Defense (DOD) in Project Gemini. The agreement pr

for the esta!blishment of a joint NASA-DOD Gemini Program Pla

Board. The board would plan experiments, conduct flight tests, and a

and disseminate results. NASA would continue ·to manage Project G

while DOD would take part in Gemini development, pilot training, pr

checkout, launch, and flight operations, and would be specifically respo

for the Titan II launch vehide and the Atlns-Agena target vehicle. DOD 

also contribute funds toward the attainment of Gemini objectives. 

Agreement between DOD and NASA concerning the Gemini Program, Jan. 21, 19

22 	 In an electrical systems coordination meeting at Manned Spacecraft C

results of operating the first fuel cell section were reported: a fuel cel

Figure .46.-Geminl tueZ cell 

dack. (McDonnell, "Project 

ual: 

dezvou" 

Gemini 

Manned 

Oonjfguration," 

Familwrlzation 

Spacecraft 

June 

ManRen-­

1, 

196!, p. 4-6.) 
Abstract ot Meeting on Electrical Systems, Jan. 29, 1963. 

North American received a letter contract for Phase III, Part 1, of the 

Paraglider Development Program, 'to produce a Gemini paraglider landing 

system. This contract was subsequently incorporated as Change No. 6 to Contract 

NAS 9-539, Phase TI-B(l) of the Paraglider Development Program. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 4, p. 11; NAA letter 65MA3479, Subj: A Final Fee Settlement Proposal !or Contract NAS 9-1484, Mar. 18, 1965, p. V.-.{)2. 

Manned Spacecraft Center announced specialty areas for the nine new astronauts: trainers and simula;tors, Neil A. Annstrong; boosters, Frank Borman; 

cockpit layout and systems integration, Charles Conrad, Jr.; recovery systems, 

James A. Lovell, Jr.; guidance and navigation, James A. McDivitt; electrical, 

sequential, and mission planning, Elliot M. See, Jr.; communications, instrumentation, and range integration, Thomas P. Stafford; flight control systems, 

Edward H. White II; and environmental control systems, personal and survival 

equipment, John W. Young. 

MSC News Release 63-13, Jan. 26, 1963. 

At a launch guidance and control coordination mooting, Aerospace described 

three Titan II development flight failures that had been caused by problems 

in the General Electric Mod III airborne radio guidance system. Although these 

failures did not appear to be the result of inherent design faults that might react 

on the Gemini program, Aerospace felt that a tighter quality assurance program was needed: "GE has a poor MOD ill (G) quality control program, 

basically poor workmanship." 

M('mO, John C. O'Loughlln to Chief, FOD, Subj: Report on the Launch Guidance 

and Control Panel Meeting ot January 29 and 30. 1963, Feb. 13. 1963; Abstract ot 

Meetings on Launch Guidance and Control, Feb. 8, 1962. 

Gemini Project Office asked NASA Headquarters for authorization to use preflight automatic checkout equipment for Project Gemini. The Mercury program 

had been successful in everything except meeting schedules, in which lengthy 

checkout time was a major obstacle. Automatic checkout equipment could cut 

down the time required to test components in Gemini. After reviewing this 

request, George M. Low, Director of Spacecraft and Flight Missions, Office of 

l\fnnned Space Flight, asked that four automatic checkout stations be provided 

for Projeot Gemini ns quickly as possible. Initially approved, the use of automatic checkout equipment in the Gemini program was subsequently dropped as 

an economy measure. 

Memos, Chamberlin to Low, Subj: Justification for the use o! PACE (Preflight 

Automatic Checkout Equipment) on the Gemini ProgTam, Jan. 30, 196.'J; Low to 

Dire<.'tor, Integration and Checkout, Subj : Justltleation of Use of PACE In the 

Gemini Program, Feb. 15, 1963; Qua·rterly Status Report ~o. 6 for Period End· 

ing Aug. 31, 1963, p. 84. (NOTE: Use ot the acronym "PACE" was subsequently 

75 

22 

26 

29-30 

30 
6 

6 

gpp

study of requirements. Areas of study were to include (1) extent 

maneuverability with hatch closed and cabin pressurized as currently p

(2) requirements to allow the crew to stand in open hatches but not 

leave the cabin, and (3) requirements to allow a crew member to leave 

and inspect the spaceeraft's exterior. McDonnell was directed to pro

extravehicular operations for spacecraft Nos. 2 and up. 

NASA-MSC Oonsolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director, M

Space Flight, Jan. 27-Feb. 23, 1963, p. 62 (hereafter cited as Consolidated Ac

Report) ; Abstract of Meeting on Mechanical Systems, Feb. 8, 1963. 

At a Gemini Rendezvous and Reentry Panel meeting, it was repor

attempts to obtain infonnation on flight controller procedures to c

the Agena in orbit had been delayed by the Air Force Agena security p

Memo, M. P. Frank to Chief, FOD, Subj : Gemini Rendezvous and Reentry 

Meeting, Feb. 11, 1963. 

Titan II development flight N-16 was launched from Cape Canave

was the eleventh Titan II flight and the third to use increased pressu

propellant tanks of stage I to reduce longitudinal oscillations (POG

was successful in reducing POGO levels to about 0.5 g, more than sati

from the standpoint of the weapon system. The Air Force was relu

expend weapon system funds in an effort to reduce POGO still furth

0.25-g level NASA regarded as the maximum acceptable for manne

1\ISC Minutes of Senior Staft' Meeting, Mar. 22, 1968, p. 5; Consolidated Ac

Reports : Jan. 27-Feb. 23, pp. 3-4; Feb. 24-Mar. 23, 1968, p. 4 ; Quarterly S

Report No.5, p. 40. 

Astronaut trainees concluded their fonnal academic training with a c

orbital mechanics and flight dynamics. Flight crew personnel had bee

ing basic science training for two days a week over the past four 

During this period, they also received Gemini spacecraft and launch 

familiarization courses and visited several contractor facilities, i

McDonneiJ, Martin, Aerojet, and Lockheed. Among subjects studi

astronomy, physics of the upper atmosphere and space, global mete

selenology, guidance and navigation, computers, fluid mechanics, roc

pulsion systems, aerodynamics, communications, environmental control 

and medic.al aspects of space flight. Flight-crew training plans for th

the year, which were being formUlated during February, called f

science and technology seminars, celestial recognition training, monito

Mercury-Atlas 9 flight, weightless flying, pressure suit indoctrinatio

chute jumping, survival training, instruction in spacecraft systems an

support, paraglider flying, centrifuge experience, docking practice, a

with the flight simulator. 

MSC Minutes of Senior Staft' Meeting, Jan. 4, 1963, p. 7; Consolidated Ac

Report, Jan. 27-Feb. 23, 1963, p. 2; Quarterly Status Report No. 4, pp. 36-37

76 

Ffgvre .fT.-Titan II flight N-15 waa la-unched from Cape C~U~oaveral on Janva,., 10, 196!1. 

It wcu the tenth in the serleB of Titan II re1earch and devclOf)meftt fti.ghtB, and th.e 

•ccond to achieve atqniftcantlv reduced levela of longitudinal oBciZlation 1111 mean8 of 

PrOf)ellant tank prenvrizatkm. (USAF Photo !l!l-1, Jan. 10, 196!1.) 
1963 

Febru~~ry 

7 

8 

8 

Figure 48.-Proposed deployment sequence tor the ballute stabilization 

det-'lcc. (NASA Photo No. 68-Gcmtnl-12, Jan. 18, 1968.) 

Simulated off-the-pad ejection test No. 8 was conducted at Naval Or

Test Station. T'vo dummies were ejected, and for the first time the tes

porated a ballute system. The ballute (for balloon + parachute) ha

introduced as a de,•ice to stabilize the astronaut after ejection at high al

Ejection seat and dummy separated satisfactorily and the personnel pa

deployed properly; but faults in the test equipment prevented the canop

fully inflating. The ballute failed to inflate or release properly on either d

As a result, the parachute was redesigned to ensure more positive infla

very low dynamic pressures. The redesigned chute was tested in a s

five entirely successful dummy drops during March. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Feb. 24-Mar. 23, 1963, p. 3; Quarterly St

Reports: No. 4, pp. 18-19; No. 5, p. 26; letter, Cress and Heimstadt to M

Historical 011lce, May 12, 1967. 

Colonel Kenneth W. Schultz of Headquarters, Air Force Office of Devel

Planning, outlined Department of Defense objectives in the Gemini p

at the first meeting of the Gemini Program Planning Board. He define

general objectives: conducting orbital experiments related to such p

future missions as the inspection and interception of both cooperative a

sive or noncooperative objects in space under a variety of conditions, 

support of tt manned orbiting laboratory, and photo reconnaissance from 

gaining military experience and training in all aspects of manned space 

and assessing the relationship between man and machine in the areas of po

military missions. 

Minutes of the First Meeting, Gemini Program Planning Board, Feb. 8, 1963

2-3, and enc. 2, "DOD Considerations for Discussion at the Initlal Meeting of 

Gemini Program Planning Board." 

Northrop Ventura successfulJy completed the first series of 20 drop test

veloping the parachute recovery system for Project, Gemini. The first fou

during the last two weeks of August 1962, used a dummy rendezvo

recovery (Rand R) section with the 18-foot drogue parachute to determ

rate of descent of the Rand R section. Subsequent drops tested the 84-fo

78 
with drop No.7, tests were conducted through the entire sequencing of the sys

tem from an altitude of 10,000 feet. Through drop No. 13, the main problem 

was tucking; the edge of the parachute tended to tuck under, hindering full 

inflation. Drop tests Nos. 5 through 13 were conducted from September through 

November 1962. The tucking problem was resolved with drop No. 14. Remaining tests in the series demonstrated the structural integrity of the parachute 

system when deployed at maximum dynamic pressure and provided data on 

loads imposed by deployment at maximum dynamic pressure. Qualification 

drop tests were expected to begin in April. 

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 2, p. 13; No. 3, pp. 13-14; No. 4, pp. 11-12; MSC 

Space News Roundup. Jan. 23,1963, pp. 1-2; McDonnell Final Report, p. 25. 

The first biweekly Network Coordination Meeting was held. Gemini Project 

Office had established the meetings to ensure the compatabilty of ground network equipment configuration with mission requirements and airborne systems. 

At a meeting on November 20, 1962, the PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) 

Working Group had concluded that Project Gemini telemetry system presented no major compatibility problems. 

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 3, p. 35; No. 4, p. 35; Abstract of Meeting on Ground 

Network, Feb. 15, 1963. 

Agena target vehicle checkout plans were presented at a meeting of the Gemini 

Management Panel. Upon receipt at Cape Canaveral, the target vehicle would 

be inspected and certified. After this action, mechanical mate and interface 

checks with the target docking adapter would be accomplished. Agena-Gemini 

spacecraft compatibilty tests would then be conducted, and the Agena would 

undergo validation and weight checks. Subsequently, a joint checkout of the 

spacecraft and Agena would be conducted with tests on the Merritt Island radar 

tower. 

Minutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting held at Cape Canaveral, 

Fla., Feb. 15, 1963. 

In a letter transmitting copies of the Gemini Launch Vehicle Pilot Safety 

Program to Gemini contractors and other organizations engaged in Gemini 

development and operations, Air Force Space Systems Division explained that 

pilot safety philosophy and procedures would be carried over from MercuryAtlas to Gemini-Titan. 

Letter, Dineen to Chamberlln, Feb. 18, 1963. 

Gemini Project Office (GPO) decided that spacecraft separation from the 

laundh vehicle would be accomplished manually on spacecraft Nos. 2 and up. 

In addition, no second-stage cutoff signal to the spacecraft would be required. 

GPO directed McDonnell to remove pertinent hardware from the spacecraft 

and Martin to recommend necessary hardware changes to the launch vehicle. 

Abstract of Meeting on Launch Guidance and Control, Mar. 5, 1963. 

321H)22 0-69- 7 79 

18 

26-27 
28 

28 

Nleb 

1 

pgjp

spacecraft No. 3A and replaced spacecraft No.3 in the Project Orbit 

gram. A McDonneJl review of the entire static test program in Decem

had resulted in eliminating static article No. 1 and making static arti

3 and 4 the primary structural test articles. No.3 was to be subjected t

reentry, abort, landing, and parachute loads; and No. 4 to seat, ha

pressurization loads plus dynamic response tests. 

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 3, p. 5; No.4, pp. 8, 7. 

Gemini Project Office (GPO) published a bar chart depicting preflig

out of the Gemini spacecraft in the industrial area at Cape Canaveral. T

outlined tests on all sections of the spacecraft, the target docking ada

the paraglider, from initial receiving inspection through completion 

rations for movement to the launch pad. GPO expected industrial are

to take about 90 working days, based on two full shifts of testing per 

a third shift of partial testing and partial maintenance. 

Quarterly Status Report No.4, pp. 40, 44. 

Gemini Project Office reported Rocketdyne's successful ac~ievement o

270-second burn-time duration specified for steady-state opera.tion of 

attitude and maneuver system (OAMS) 25-pound thruster. This had 

primary focus of Rocketdyne's research effort, in line 'vith McDonne

tion that meeting steady-state life operations ''"ith the 25-pound OAM

chamber assembly (TCA) was the key to resolving major problems i

velopment of spacecraft liquid propulsion systems. McDonnell engi

lieved that a TCA design able to meet the steady-state life performance 

of the 25-pound OAMS TCA ""ould also be adequate t.o meet pulse

formance requirements, and that a. satisfactory 25-pound TCA would o

to be enlarged to provide a satisfactory 100-pound TCA. They were w

both counts. Rocketdyne subsequently shifted its primary TCA effo

taining life during pulse operation for 25-pound thrusters and steady-

operation for 100-pound thrusters. 

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 4, pp. 16-17; No.5, p. 24. 

The stage II oxidizer tank from Gemini launch vehicle (GI~V) 2 was 

from Martin-Denver to Martin-Baltimore to be used in GLV-1. G

pellant tank and skirt assemblies were manufactured, pressure-tested, 

brated at Martin-Denver, then shipped t.o Baltimore where the GLV 

sembled. Martin-Denver had begun major weld fabrication of GL

GLV-2 tanks in September 1962 and delivered the GLV-1 tanks to 

Baltimore October 10. After extensive testing, the tanks went through a 

inspection February 14-16, 1963, by Air Force, NASA, Aerospace, an

personnel. The inspecting team rejected the stage II oxidizer tank b

was found to be cracked. The rejected tank "'·as returned to Denver and 

by the GLV-2 stage II oxidizer tank. 

80 

ophy for the final phase of the rendezvous mission. They agreed on the following general rules: (1) when the launch was on time, the terminal maneuver 

would be initiated when the Agena came within range of the spacecraft's sensors, which would occur bebveen spacecraft insertion and first apogee; (2) automatic and optical terminal guidance techniques would always back each other 

up, one method being selected as an objective for each mission and the other 

serving as a standby; (3) during early rendezvous missions, the terminal phase 

would be initiated by the third spacecraft apogee or delayed until the twelfth 

because of range radar tracking limitations; (4) for the same reason, no midcourse corrections should be made during orbits 4 through 11; (5) in case of extreme plane or phase errors, the Agena would be maneuvered to bring it within 

the spacecraft's maneuver capability; and ( 6) after such gross Agena maneuvers, the Agena orbit \vould be recircularized and two orbits of spacecraft 

catchup would precede the initiation of terminal rendezvous plan. 

Abstract of Meeting on Trajectories and Orbits, Mar. 8, 1963. 

Figure 49 (A).-Procedure for auem'bUng fuel and OQJ£dizer tanka for atage I of the Gemini launch vehicle. 

(Martin Photo 8B65'198, undated.) 
(B) 

Flgu.rc ~9 (B).-Proceduro for a88cmbling fuel and oxidizer tattks for stage II of th.e Gemini launclt 

(Martin P1wto 8B65'19~. undated.) 

196J 

zv-.cb 

7 

The Gemini Program Planning Board, meet.ing in Washington, agreed 

establishment of an ad hoc study group to compare NASA and Departm

Defense (DOD) objectives for the Gemini program and to recommend 

experiments for inclusion in the Gemini flight program. The group 

continuous session March 25 to April 26, presenting its final report to the 

on May 6. The boa.rd then recommended tha.t a progra.m of inflight m

experiments be immedintely approved, that the Air Force esta:blish a fiel

at Manned Spacecraft Center to manage DOD participation in the Gemi

gram in general and integrntion of experiments in particular, and tha

on preventing longitudinal oscillations in stage I and combustion instab

stage II of the Gemini launch vehicle be urgently pursued. The board d

to recommend additional flights in the Gemini program, as suggested 

study group, to enoompass experiments that would not fit into the framew

82 

Co-Chairmen of the GPPB, Subj : Recommendation of the Gemini Progmm Planning Board, June 20, 1963; Webb to Co-Chairmen, same subject, June 24, 1963; 

Minutes of Gemini Program Planning Board Meetings, Mar. 12, May 6, 1963. 

A series of problems in the Paraglider Development Program culminated in the 

loss of a second half-scale test vehicle in a deployment flight test. As early as 

October 19, 1962, budget pressure had prompted some consideration of dropping paraglider from the Gemini program. Paraglider was retained but the 

Paraglider Development Plan was reoriented. On March 27-28, 1963, representatives of NASA and North American met to discuss several revised paraglider programs as a basis for potential redirection. At a Manned Spacecraft 

Center (MSC) senior staff meeting on March 29, AndreJ. Meyer, Jr., of Gemini 

Project Office (GPO) reported that GPO nmv intended to delay use of paraglider until the tenth Gemini mission, although the consensus of the Gemini 

Management Panel at a meeting on May 2 was that para.glider might yet be 

ready for spacecraft No.7 and GPO's Quarterly Status Report for the period 

ending May 31, 1963, also projected the use of paraglider from flight No. 7 on. 

In response to an inquiry from MSC, North American reported on April9 that 

funds for Contract NAS 9-167 would be exhausted by April 15, and for Contract NAS 9-539 by April 25. Paraglider was downgraded to a research and 

development program. All three earlier paraglider contracts were terminated ; 

on May 5 a new letter contract., NAS 9-1484, was issued to North American 

to cover work on what was now called the Paraglider Landing System Program. 

Messages, R. S. Maynard, Chief, Paraglider Contracts, to Kline, Apr. 9, 1963; 

R. L. Stottard, Manager, Division Contracts and Proposals, to Kline, Subj : Contracts NAS 9-167 and NAS 9-539, G-emini Paraglider Program, Apr. 10, 1963; MSO 

Minutes of Senior Staff Meetings : Oct. 29, 1962, p. 2; Mar. 29, p. 5 ; Apr. 26, 1963, 

p. 5 ; Minutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting held at Lockheed, May 

2, 1963 ; Quarterly Status Report No.5, pp. 13-14,51; NAA, A Final Fee Settlement 

Proposal for Contract NAS 9-1484, p. 1-1. 

North American let the first of three major subcontracts for the Gemini Paraglider Landing System Program to Northrop for a parachute recovery system 

in the amount of $461,312. A $1,034,003 subcontract for the paraglider control 

actuation assembly went to the Aerospace Division of Vickers, Inc., Detroit, 

Michigan, on March 25. The third major subcontract, $'708,809 for the paraglider 

electronic control system, was let to the Aeronautical Division of MinneapolisHoneywell on May 13. 

Letter, Dave W. Lang to R. L. Zimmerman, Subj : Case No. 10448-&, Dec. 18, 1964, 

p. 7. 

l\fcDonnell presented results of its study to determine the .minimum recycle 

time in the event of a mission "scrub." Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) 

needed this information to determine capability of meeting launch windows on 

successive days in the rendezvous portion of the Gemini program. According 

to the company's best estimate, recycle would require at least 24% hours. MSC, 

11 

12 

14 

83 

Senior Engineering Advisor to Robert R. Gilruth, Director of Mann

craft Center. Charles W. Mathews was reassigned from Chief, S

Technology Division, to Acting Manager of Project Gemini. 

MSC Space New1 Roundup, Apr. 3, 1963, p. 8. 

20 	 Qualification tests of the production prototype ablation heatshield 

Gemini spacecraft began. Structural and material properties speci

had already shown that the shield either satisfied or exceeded the 

design level. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 5, p. M . 

21 	 A meeting at Manned Spacecraft Center established guidelines f

vehicular operations. The current concept of the pressure suit as a si

pressure vessel was to be retained; the basic suit could be modified by s

tions as a loose thermal covering or gloves and boots. To attach the 

to the spacecraft during extravehicular operations, a tether long e

allow access to the spacecraft adapter section would be used; it woul

12 nylon-encapsulated communications wires. The tether's only purpo

attach the astronaut to the spacecraft; .maneuvering and maintaining 

would be accomplished by other means. Provisions for extravehicular o

were to be provided from spacecraft No. 4 on. One-half hour of us

outside the cabin was specified as the basis for systems design. 

Abstract of Meeting on Extravebleular Operations, May .25, 1963. 

21 	 A contract for $33,797,565, including fixed fee, was signed with Philco 

tion, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to implement the Integrated Mission 

Center. Philco would provide all the flight information and contro

equipment except the real-time computer complex, which was to be b

maintained by International Business Machines Corpora.tion. Philoo w

a.ssist Manned Spacecraft Center in maintaining and operating the e

for at least one year after acceptance. Philco had .been selected fro

qualified bidders, and final contract negotiations had begun February 

Consolidated Activity Reports: Jan. 27....Feb. 23, ·P· 29; Feb. 24-Mar. 23, 1963, 

MSC Space New• Roundup, Apr. 3, 1963, p. 8. 

April The Titan II-Ge.mini Coordination Committee was established to dire

1 to reduce longitudinal vibration (POGO) in the Titan II and to 

engine reliability. Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD) and A

had presented to NASA and the Air Force a series of briefings on th

problem that culminated in a briefing to the Gemini Program Plannin

The main problem was that POGO level satisfactory in the weapon sy

too high to meet NASA standards for the Gemini program, and furth

tion in the POGO level required a much more elaborate and extensive 

and experimental program than had so far been considered necessary. T

84 

2 

01t.ronolouv. p. 20. 

Testifying before the Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the House 

Committee on Science and Astronautics, D. Brainerd Holmes, Director of 

Manned Space Flight, sought to justify a $42.638 million increase in Gemini's 

actual 1963 budget over that previously estimated. Holmes explained: "This 

increase is identified primarily with an increase of $49.9 million in spacecraft. 

The fiscal 1963 congressional budget request was made at the suggestion of the 

contractor. The increase reflects McDonnell's six months of actual ex.perience 

in 1963." The subcommittee was perturbed that the oontraotor could so drastically underestimate Gemini costs, especially since i.t was chosen without cornpetition because of supposed competence derived from Mercury experience. 

Holmes attributed McDonnell's underestimate to unexpectedly high bids from 

subcontractors and provided for the record a statement of some of the reasons 

for the change: "These original estimates made in December 1961 by NASA 

and McDonnell were based on minimum changes from Mercury technology .... 

As detailed specifications for subsystems performance were developed . . . 

realistic cost estimates, not previously available, were obtained from subcontractors. The ,first of these ... were obtained by McDonnell in April 1962 and 

revealed significantly higher estimates than were originally used. For example : 

(a) In data transmission, it became necessary to change from a Mercurytype system to a pulse code modulation (PCM) system because of increased 

data transmission requirements, and the need to reduce weight and electrical 

power. The Gemini data transmission system will be directly applicable to 

Apollo. (b) Other subsystems have a similar history. The rendezvous radar 

was originally planned to be similar to ones used by the Bomarc Missile, but it 

was found necessary to design an interferometer type radar for low weight, 

small volume, and to provide the highest relia.bility possible. (c) The environmental control system was originally planned as two Mercury-type systems, but 

as the detail specifications became definitive it was apparent that the Mercury 

ECS was inadequate and, although extensive use of Mercury design techniques 

were utilized, major modificllltions were required." 

House Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the Committee on Science and 

Astronautics, Hearings on H.R. 5466,1964 NASA Authorizt~tion [No. 3], Part 2(a), 

88th Cong., 1st Seas., 1963, pp. 576, 581-582, 584. 

NASA announced the signing of a contract with McDonnell for the Gemini 

spacecraft. Final negotiations had been completed February 27, 1963. Estimated cost was $428,780,062 with a fixed fee of $27,870,000 for a total estimated 

cost-plus-fi;,red-fee of $456,650,062. NASA Headquarters spent two weeks on a 

detailed review of the contract before signing. Development of the spacecraft 

had begun in December 1961 under a preliminary letter contract which the 

final contract superseded. The contract called for 13 flight-rated spacecraft, 12 

to be used in space flight, one to be used for ground testing. In addition, MeDonneB would provide two mission simulwtor trainers, a docking simulator trainer, 

85 


2 
9 

22 

21-24 

nautics, 1963: Chronology on Science, Technology, and Policy, NASA SP-

p. 120. 

George M. Low, Director of Spacecraft and Flight Missions, Office of 

Space Flight, explained to the House Subcommittee on Manned Spac

why eight rendezvous missions were planned : "In developing the ren

capability, we must study a number of different possible ways of co

the rendezvous. . .. For example, we can conduct a rendezvous man

Gemini by purely visual or optical means. In this case there will be a 

light on 'the target. vehicle. The pilot in the spacecraft will look ou

window and he will rendezvous and fly the spacecraft toward the flash

and perform the docking. This is one extreme of a purely manual sys

the opposite l:!nd of t.he spectrum we have a purely automatic system i

we have a. radar, computer, and stabilized platform and, from about 20

miles out, the spacecraft and the target vehicle lock on to each other b

and all maneuvers take place automatically from that point on. We kno

our studies on the ground and our simulations that the automatic way 

ably the most efficient way of doing it. We would need the least amoun

to do it autom!lltically. On the other hand, it. is also the most complex w

need more equipment, and more equipment can fail in this maneuv

might not he the most reliable way. The completely visual method 

efficient as far as propellants are concerned, but perhaps the simp

between there are many possible combinations of these things. For exam

could use a radar for determining the distance and the relative 

between the two without determining the relative angle between the tw

craft and let the man himoolf determine the relative angle. We feel we m

actual experience in space flight of a number of these possibilities before 

perform the lunar orbit rendezvous for Apollo." 

196.f NASA Authorization, pp. 64~0. 

Representatives of Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD), Manned 

craft Center, and I...ockheed met in Sunnyvale for the first managemen

of the Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV). Patterned after similar m

regularly held between SSD, Lewis Research Center, and Lockheed on 

space vehicle satelJite and probe programs, the Gemini Target Man

Review Meetings encompassed a comprehensive monthly review of th

of the GATV program. 

Memo, H. J. Ballard to Distribution, Subj: Minutes ot G~>mlni Target Man

ment Review Meeting, Apr. 23, 1963; Lockheed Aqena Monthly Repo.-t, April 

p. 2-3. 

The Gemini Ahort Panel met. Martin-Baltimore's analysis of the la

Titan II flight tests tended to show that successful crew escape wou

been possible. MeDonneU presented data on spacecraft structural capa

but lack of data on what to expect from a Titan II catastrophic failur

86 
evidence that recontact would occur. 

Mt>mo, James E. Hannigan to Chtet. FOD, Subj : G('minl Abort Panel M('('tlng ot 

April 23 and 24, 1963, May 15, 1963 ; Abstract of Meeting of Gemini Abort Panel, 

Apr. 29, 1963. 

Final design review of complex 14 modifications and activation of facilities was 

held under the aegis of Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD) in Los 

Angeles. All drawings and specifications were accepted. SSD's activation of 

the complex was scheduled •to begin January 1, 1964, with an estimated 10 

months required to prepare complex 14 for Project Gemini Atlas-Agena 

launches. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 5, p. 45. 

NASA Headquarters approved rescheduling of the Gemini flight program as 

proposed by Gemini Project Office (GPO). Late delivery of the spacecraft. 

systems coupled with the unexpectedly small number of Mercury systems 

incorporated in the Gemini spacecraft had forced GPO to review the flight 

program critically. In the revised program, the first flight was still set for 

December 1963 and was still to be unmanned, but it '~as now to be orbital rather 

than suborbital to flight-qualify launch vehicle subsystems and demonstrate the 

compatibility of the launch vehicle and spacecraft; no separation or recovery 

was planned. The second mission, originally a manned orbital flight, now 

became an unmanned suborbital ballistic flight scheduled for July 1964. Its 

primary objective was to test spacecraft reentry under maximum heating-rate 

reentry conditions; it would also qualify the launch vehicle and all spacecraft 

systems required for manned orbital flight. The third flight, formerly planned 

as a manned orbital rendezvous mission, became the first manned flight, a 

short-duration (probably three-orbit) systems evaluation flight scheduled for 

October 1964. Subsequent flights were to follow rut three-month intervals, ending 

in January 1967. Rendezvous terminal maneuvers were planned for missions 3 

(if flight duration permitted) and 4, a seven-day mission using a rendezvous 

pod. The sixth flight was to be a 14-dny long-duration mission identical to 4 

except that no rendezvous maneuver exercises were planned. Flights 5 and 7 

through 12 were to be rendezvous missions with the Atlas-launched Agena D 

target vehicle. Water landing by parachute was planned for the first six flights 

and land landing by paraglider from flight 7 on. 

MSC Minutes ot Senior Statr Meetings: Apr. 12, p. 4 ; Apr. 26, p. 5; May 3, 1963, 

p. 4; Minutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting held at Lockheed, 

May 2, 1963; Quarterly Status Report No. 5, pp. 50-01, 58; Mlnut(':<, GPO Statr 

Meeting, Apr. 25, 1963. 

In a NASA position paper, stimulated by Secretary of Defense McNamara's 

testimony on the fiscal year 1964 budget and an article in Missiles and Rockets 

interpreting his statements, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA Associate Administrator, stressed NASA's primary management responsibility in the Gemini 

27 

29 

30 

87 

1963; Frank McGuire, "McNamara Spells Out A.F. Gemini Role," MutHe• 

Rocket•, Apr. 1, 1963, p. 15. 

Bell Aerosystems successfully completed initial firing of the Gemin

Model 8247 engine at its Buffalo plant early in the month. The Mo

engine for the Gemini Agena's primary propulsion system was develop

the Model 8096 currently being flown in satellite and probe programs fo

and the Air Force. Unlike the operational engine, the new engine was 

of being restarted several times in orbit, a Gemini progn.m requirem

During 

th• 

month 

OXIDIZEl -·--:X~~::-·_; ~ START TANK~ .,1 	 POOPULANT I ISOLATION l...-il, VALVES ~ 

I lvALVE 

B fiLTER J ,-..gj--~-:1 

/ DU~ CKI 

----- VALVE I

I I 

I VENTURI .-It GAS I ~ GENE~ATIONI I 

I I 

____ I.______JI 

I 

I 

I 

--joMPSI a--a 

lOX VALVE _________ ! LEGEND ' --HELIUM 

--- OXIDIZER 

--FUEL 

COMIUSTION 

CHI.MIE~ 

Figure 50.-Sohetn4tio 

lft.U of the prfnwrtl p

•vstem of the Gem.u

target vehicle. (Lockh

tni Agena Target Pr

book, LMSC-A766871

1966, pp. 4-19, 4-!0.) 

TUUOI'\JMPS FUfl & OXIOIZEll 

START TANKS 
test cell arrangements were completed April12, with testing scheduled to begin 

in May. 

Lockheed AgeM Monthl11 Report, Aprll196S, pp. 2-5, 2-6. 

McDonnell began tests to qualify the attitude control and maneuver electronics 

(ACME) system for the Gemini spacecraft, after completing development 

testing. Subject of the qualification tests was the first production prototype 

ACME unit received from Minneapolis-Honeywell. 

Quarterly Status Report No.5, p. 17. 

Charles W. Mathews, new Acting Manager of Project Gemini, reviewed the 

current status of the spacecraft, launch vehicles, and ground facilities for the 

Gemini Management Panel. Modifications of launch complexes 19 and 14, of 

the tracking network, and of Atlantic Missile Range checkout facilities were 

all on schedule, although no margin remained for complex 19 work. The Atlas 

and Agena presented no problems, but the Gemini launch vehicle schedule was 

tight; technical problems, notably stage I longitudinal oscillation and stage II 

engine instability, were compounded by funding difficulties. The Gemini spacecraft, suffering from late deliveries by subcontractors, was being reprogTammed. 

Minutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting, May 2, 1963. 

Development testing of the Gemini Agena Model 8247 main engine at Arnold 

Engineering Development Center (AEDC) began with an instrumentation run. 

After oxidizer contamination resulted in a scrubbed test on May 7, test firing 

began on May 13. The major objective of AEDC testing was to verify the 

engine's ability to start at least five times. The AEDC rocket test facility 

pennitted firing of the engine in an environment simulating orbital temperature nnd pressure. During the course of the tests, two major problems emerged: 

turbine overspeed and gas generator valve high temperature operations. At the 

Atlas/Agena coordination meeting of July 2, Air Force Space Systems Division 

reported that a turbine overspeed sensing and shutdown circuit had been 

proposed to resolve the first problem and that solutions to the gas generator 

problem were being intensively investigated. 

Quarterly Status Report No.5, p. 43; Abstract of Meeting on Atlas/Agena, July 8, 

1963; Lockheed Auena Monthl11 Report, Maf1196S, pp. 2-1,2-2. 

NASA awarded Letter Contract NAS 9-1484 to North American for the Paraglider Landing System Program. Work under the contract was to be completed 

by May 1, 1964, and initial funding 'vas $6.7 million. This contract reflected 

a reorientation of the paraglider program. Its primary purpose was to develop 

a complete paraglider landing system and to define all the components of such a 

system. Among the major tasks this entailed were: {1) completing the design, 

development, and testing of paraglider subsystems and building and maintaining mock-ups of the vehicle and its subsystems; (2) modifying the 

M..,. 

1 

2 

' 


89 

NAS 9539 to a tm test vehicJe, and fabricating n new, second tow test 

and (4) conducting a flight test program including half-scale tow tes

scale boilerplate parachute tests, full-scale deployment tests, and tow test 

flight tests. Contract negotiations were completed on July 12, and t

contract was dated September 25, 1963. 

Consolidated Activity Rt>port, Apr. ~May 18, 1963, p. 33; ~AA, A Final l<'ee Se

ment Pl'0p08111 for Contrnet NAS 9-1484, pp, V-26 to V-51; NAA letter, S

Oootract NAS 9-1484, Paragllder Landing Systt'm Program. llonthly PJ'()

Report No. 3, Aug. 15, 1963. 

6 	 The Gemini Program Planning Board approved the Air Force System

mand development plan for the Gemini/Titan II improvement progra

pJ.an covered the development. work required to man-r01te the Titan II 

the requirements of the Titan II 'venpon system and included three 

areas: (1) reducing longitudinal oscillation levels to NASA requir

(2) reducing the incidence of stage II engine combustion instability, a

cleaning up the design of stage I and II engines and augmenting the con

engine improvement program to enhance engine reliability. The work w

funded by the Titan Program Office of Air Force Ballistics Systems D

and managed by the Titan II/Gemini Coordination Committee, which h

est-ablished April 1. NASA found the plan satisfactory. 

Letter, Holmes to SchriE>ver, June 14, 1963: AFSC, "Joint Titan 11/Ge

Development Plan on :\fissile OIK>Illntlon Rt>tludlon and Engine &llablllty 

Improvement,'' Apr. 5, 1963 (rev. May 7, 1963) ; Minutes ot Gemini Prog

Planning Board Meeting, May 6, 1963. 

7-17 	 Aerojet-General deliYered the first flight. engines for Gemini launch veh

1 to Martin-Baltimore. Aerojet-Genernl had provided a set of Type "E" 

engines March 18. These were installed and used to lay out tubing and 

while the launch nhicle was being assembled. They were later remov

flight engines installed in stage II, May 7, and stage I, May 17. Some 

\Vas required because of differences in configuration between the dumm

flight engines, and engine installation was completed May 21. Wiring a

tinuity cheeks followed (May 22-25), and final horizontal tests were com

May27. 

lllssfon Re-port 	tor GT-1, p. 12-6; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launcl~ Veh

p. D-1; Harris, Gemini T,a11nrh Vehicle Chronoloufl, p. 23. 

9 	 Qualification testing of t.he Gen1ini parachute recovery system began 

C-entro, California. Boilerplate spacecraft No.5, a welded steel mock-up 

spacecraft reentry section, 'vas dropped from a C-130 aircraft at 20,0

to duplicate dynamic pressure and nltit.ude at which llctunl spnrerraft re

would be initiated. Four more land-impact tests followed, the last on Ju

all test objectives were successfully accomplished. The main parachute t

problem, which had appeared and been resolved during developmen

recurred in drops 4 nnd 5 (June 17, 28). Although this problem did no

90 
testing resumed August 8. 

Weekly Activity Reports: June 16--22, p, 3; June 23-29, p. 2; July 21-27, p. 2; 

July 28--Aug. 3, p. 1 ; Aug. 4-10, 1963, p. 1 ; Con~olldated ActiYity Reports: Apr. 28-­

May 18, p. 69; June 16--July 20, 1963, p. 85; Quarterly Status Reports : No. 5, p. 15; 

No.6, p. 17. 

Simulated off-the-pad ejection seat testing resumed with test. No.9. McDonnell 

and Weber Aircraft had completely redesigned the backboard and mechanism 

linkage t.o obtain more reliable load paths and mechanism actuation, and to eliminate the "add-on" character of the many features and capabilities introduced 

during seat development which eontributed to the unsuccessful test in February. 

The new design was proved in a series of tests culminating in a preliminary 

ejection test on April22. Test. No.9 was followed by test No. 9a on May 25. Both 

tests were completely successful. Tests Nos. 10 and 11 (July 2, 16) completed the 

development phase of pad ejection testing. Both were dual ejection tests. No. 

10 'vas completely successful, but No. 11 was marred by the failure of a see..t 

recovery chute (not part of the spacecraft ejec:tion system), resulting in major 

damage to the seat when it hit the ground. 

Weekly Activity Report, June 30-July 6, 1963, p. 1: Consolidated Activity Reports: 

Apr. 28--1\-Iay 18, p. 69; May 1~June 15, pp. 74-75; June 16--July 20, 1963, pp. 85, 

8S-89; Quart~.>rly Status Reports: No.5, pp. 6, 26; ~o. 6, p. 41. 

Rocketdyne successfully tested a 25-pound thmst chamber assembly (TCA) for 

the reentry control system (RCS) in pulse operation. Earlier efforts had aimed 

primarily at aehieving steady·stlllte performance, until tests revealed that such 

perfonnance was no guarantee of adequate pulse performance. Char rate on 

pulse-cycled, 25-pound RCS TCAs proved t.o be approximately 1.5 times greater 

than identical TCAs tested in continuous runs. Several TCAs failed when the 

ablwtive material in the combustion chamber was exhausted nnd the casing 

charred through. To correct this problem, the ratio of oxidizer to fuel was 

reduced from 2.05: 1 to 1.3: 1, significantly deereasing chamber temperature; 

the mission duty cycle was revised, with required firing time reduced from 142 

seconds of specification performa.nee t.o 101 seconds, without OOJt.astrophic failure 

before 136 seconds; and the thic.knes of the ablative c.hamber wall was increased, 

raising motor diameter from 2.54 to 3.75 inches. The development of a suitable 

ablative thmst chamber, however, remained a major problem. No RCS TCA 

design was yet complete, and no 25-pound orbit nttitude and maneuver system 

TCAs had yet been tested on a pulse-duty cycle. Rockeklyne was already three 

months late in delivering TCA hardware to McDonnell, and all other components had been rescheduled for later delivery. Completion of development 

testing of components had also been slipped three months. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Apr. 28--May 18, 1963, p. 71; Quarterly Status Report No.~. pp.1~20. 24. 

Flight Crew Operations Division reported that the nine new flight crew members had completed a ~ro-gravit.y indoctrination program at Wright.-P1ttterson 

91 


18 

20 
21 

23 

27 

Manned Spacecraft Center began a Gemini atmospheric reentry si

study. The fixed-base simulator contained a handcontroller and pilot 

to represent the Gemini reentry vehicle. Purpose of the study was to 

manual control of the Gemini spacecraft during reentry, before begin

centrifuge program to be conducted at Naval Air Development Cen

reentry simulation study was completed June 20. 

Quarterly Status Report No.6, p. 77. 

As part of the general revision of the Gemini flight program that NAS

quarters had approved April 29, representatives of NASA, Air Forc

Systems Division, and Lockheed met to establish basic ground rules for 

Agena development and delivery schedules. The first rendezvous missi

the Agena target vehicle was now planned for April 1965, some seven 

half months lwter than had been anticipated in October 1962. Six month

separate the second Agena launch from the first, and subsequent fligh

be at three-month, rather than two-month, intervals. The revised sche

agreed on at the Atlas/Agena coordination meeting of June 6-7, 1963

the major features of the new schedule: Agena communications and 

subsystem development was to be completed by December 1963 (back six 

other Lockheed development work was to be completed by January 19

three and one-half months); assembly and modification of the firs

vehicle was to start April 2, 1964, with the vehicle to be accepted and d

in January 1965; the first Atlas target launch vehicle was to be deli

December 1964; the schedule for component manufacturing and delive

to be so arranged that the sec,ond target vehicle could back up the fir

about nine months' notice. 

Weekly Activity Report, June 2--8, 1963, p. 3; Quarterly Status Report No. 

43; Abstract ot Meeting on Atlas/Agena, June 12, 1963; Lockheed AgenG MO

Report1: Ma.g, p. 2-12; July 1963, p. 2-1. 

The first engineering prototype of the onboard computer completed int

testing with the inertial platform at International Business Machines C

tion (IBM) and was delivered to McDonnell. At McDonnell, the c

underwent further tests. Some trouble developed during the initial t

IBM technicians correctoo the condition and the computer successfully 

diagnostic test checks. · 

Quarterly St-atus Report No. 5, p. 18. 

North American began testing the half-scale tow test vehicle (HSTT

the Paraglider Landing System Program. The first series of tests, 121 

tows, ended on July 29. Various wing angle settings and attach poin

used to provide preliminary data for rigging analysis and dynamic tow 

teristics. The HSTTV ·was then delivered to Edwards Air Force Base on 

19, where Flight Research Center began its own series of ground tows 

gust 20. This series of 133 runs was concluded in September and was foll

92 
29 

g ygy gp

Aug. 15; ~o. 4, Sept. 13; No. 5, Oct. 16; No. 6, Nov. 15, 1963. 

Titan II flight N-20, the 19th in the series of Air Force research and development flights, \Vas Iaunc.hed from Cape Canaveral. It carried oxidizer standpipes 

and fuel accumulators to suppress longitudinal oscillations (POGO). During 

the spring of 1963, static firings of this configuration had been successful enough 

to confirm the hypothesis ·that POGO was caused by coupling •between the missile structure and its propulsion system, resulting in an unstable closed loop 

system. Standpipes and accumulators, by interrupting the coupling, reduced 

Figure 51.-POGO auppre111ion equipment proved out in the Titan II development program. (Martin Photo 

8865766, undated.) 

FUEL LINE SUitGE CHAAAIER 

the source of instability. Flight N-20 failed 55 seconds after launch and yielded 

no POGO data. Although the failure was not. attributed to the installed POGO 

fix, Air Force Ballistics Systems Division decided officially t.hat no further 

Titan II development flights \Vould carry the POGO fix because so few test 

flights remained to qualify the weapon system operationally. This decision did 

not stand, ho,vever, and the POGO fix 'vas flown again on N-25 (No~.mber 

1), as well as on two later flights. 

Quarterly Status Reports: Xo. 5, p. 40; ~o. 7, p. 64; No. 8 for Period Ending 

Feb. 29, 1964, 11. :i2; Af1stral't of 'l:leetlng on Titan II, July 2, 196.1; Aerospace, 

Gemini Launch Vehlcll', FiNcal 1002-63; Harris, Gc·mini Launch l"ellicle Chronology, p. 20. 

The vertical test facility (VTF) at Martin-Baltimore was activated. The 

VTF comprised a 165-foot tower and an adjacent three-story blockhouse with 

ground equipment similar to that used ut complex 19. In it., the completely 

assembled Gemini launeh vehicle was tested to provide a basis for comparison 

93 


29 
4-5 

8 

1005, p. 121; GeminiTitan II Air Force Lmutch Vehicle, p. 45; Aerosp

- Ftnal Reporl, p. II.F-1; Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle ChrorwlOf!V, p. 25. 

Rocketdyne reactivated the test program on the 100-pound thrust ch

assembly (TCA) for the orbit attitude and maneuver system. Through M

testing had been at a very low level as Rocketdyne concentrated on t

pound TCAs. Testing hnd ceased altogether in April because hardwar

unavailable. Tests .had shown, however, that a satisfactory 100-pound 

design could not be derived from an enlarged 25--pound TCA design

major objective of the reactivated test program was to achieve steady-stat

Two tests late in May were encouraging: one achieved 575 seconds of ope

with no decay in chamber pressure and a performance efficiency of 92 pe

the other operated for 600 seconds with 10 percent decay in chamber pr

and 91.9 percent performance efficiency. Specification performance was 53

onds with less than 3 percent chamber pressure decay and 98 percent per

an<'e efficiency. 

Quarterly Status Report No.5, pp. 24, 25. 

Stage I of Gemini launch vehicle 1 was erected in Martin-Baltimore's ve

test. facility. Stage II was erected June 9, and posterection inspection was 

pleted June 12. Subsystem Functional Verification Tests began June 10. 

Mission Report for GT-1, p. 12-6; Gemini-Titan II Air Force LtJttt~ch Vehicle, 

D-1. 

At a Gemini Abort Panel meeting, McDonnell reported the possibil

dropping the mode 2 lower abort limit to 35,000 to 40,000 feet. McDonnel

presented computer data on studies using a combination of mode 2 and 

1 for launch to T + tO-second aborts; during this period, mode 1 abort 

not. be adequ&te. Current Gemini abort modes: mode 1, ejection seats-from 

to 70,000 feet; mode 2, booster shutdownjretrosalvo-from 70,000 to app

mately 522,000 feet; mode 3, booster shutdownjnormal separation-

approximately 522,000 feet until last few seconds of powered flight. 

Memo, David B. Pendley to Chief, FOD, Sobj : Gemini Launch Abort Mod

June 20, 1963. 

Representatives of NASA, Air Force Space Systems Division, Aerospa-ce

Donnell, and Martin met to initiate an investigation of the structural inte

and compatibility of the spacecraft and launch vehicle during the powered 

of the mission. This had been a problem in the first Mercury-Atlas flight. 

tractors were instructed to furnish NASA and Space Systems Division w

available structural da,ta by July 15, 1963. 

Weekly Activity Report, June 2~. 1963, p. 2. 

Instructors from McDonnell's training department began conducting two 

of courses on Gemini spacecraft systems for flight controllers at Manned S

94 

10 
J.'ioure S:l.-Gemlnt laufi.Ch vcl1icle 1 undergoing test11 in the vertical teat tactlitrt at Martin'11 Baltimore 

pla.nt. (Martm Photo B-588!1!, tmdatetl.) 

328-022 0-69--8 
12 

The editorial committee formed to compile Gemini Network Operation

tive 63-1 met at Goddard Space Flight Center to plan the writing of th

tive. The purpose of this directive was to establish the overall concep

tracking and instrumentation network for the Gemini progra,m; it 

outgrowth of Mercury Network Operations Directive 61-1, then in fo

lfemo, Capt. H. E. May, H. W. Wood, and Capt. H. E. Clements for Record, S

Plan for Writing the Gemini Network Operations Directive 63-1, June 17, 

McDonnell's Project Mercury contract was terminwted; McDonnell had 

essentially concluded its Mercury activities and spacecraft 15-B h

delivered to Cape Canaveral. A termination meeting held at.the Manne

craft Center on June 14 settled the disposition of Mercury property and 

nel. McDonnell was to screen all Mercury property for possible us

Gemini program; any property McDonnell claimed would be transf

Gemini by authority of the contracting officer at St. Louis or the Ca

Donnell was directed to furnish Gemini Project Office with a list of key M

personnel who might be reassigned to Gemini. 

Consolidated Activity Report, June 16-July 20, 1963, p. 38; Procurement and 

tracts Division Con90lldated Activity Report, June 17-July 22, 1963. 

Rocketdyne completed i,ts initial design of the 25-pound thrust cham

sembly (TCA) for both the reentry control system (RCS) and orbit 

and maneuver system. Less than a month later, Rocketdyne recomme

entirely new design, which McDonnell approved on July 5. The red

TCA was planned for installation in spacecraft Nos. 5 and up. Me

however, Rocketdyne had established a thrust chamber working group 

prove TCA performance. This group designed, built, and successfully t

pulse operation two 25-pound RCS thrusters much more quickly than 

dyne had anticipated; thus the ne"' design configuration was incorporate

manufacturing plan for spacecraft Nos. 2 and up. The design of all TC

85-, and 100-pound, were now identicaL In reporting these develo

Gemini Project Office attributed the success of the new design to 

test requirements rather than to any breakthrough in design or mllit

addition to reduced oxidizer-to-fuel ratios and less required firing time

performance requirements were also lowered to 22.5 pounds for the 2

thrusters, 77.5 for the 85-pound thrusters, and 91.2 for the 100-pound th

Weekly Acth'ity Repo:rt, June 16-22, 1963, p. 2; Consolidated Activity Re

June 16-July 20, 1963, p. 90; Quarterly Ststus Report No. 6, pp. 29-31 ; "Ge

Propulsion by Rockt>tdyne," pp. 6-7. 

:Manned Spacecraft Center-Atlantic Missile Range Opemt.ions Office r

that the malfunction detection system would be flO\rn on Titan II l

N-24, N-25, N-29, N-31, and N-32. The first launch in t.hisso-ca.lled "pig

program" was scheduled for June 21. All preparations for this flight, in

96 

MAI.FUNCIION D£ltCTION SlNSED 


'AitAM£TUS SYSTtM 


lOTH STAGES: ENGINE UND£RI'tfSSURf & 
 S'ACEClA£T NOI'fli.ANT TANK I'Rt:SSUII( INSTIIUMENTS STAGING 

OVlRRATfS 

I'HVSIOLOGICAL 

CUES 

TUEMfTlY & 

TRACKING EJECT DATA liNK 

(A) 

Figure 58.-(A) Malfunction detection lflltem (MD8) block diagrGm; {B) MD8 duplau o~ Geml~l 1pacecratt imtru~t panel. 

(Martin Photo1 8B--tJ1541 and 8B--tJ5181, undated.) 

· SPIQCIIn/UU•CM miCU tmlfla 

CQIWAIID ASTRIJIAIII'S MAIN PANn 

1963 

installation and checkout of all malfunction detection system components, were 1~

reported complete at a Titan II coordination meeting on June 14. 

Memo, Peodley to Chief, FOD, ·Subj : Titan II Coordination Meeting ot June 14, 

1963, June 17, 1963; Consolidated Activity Report, May 19-June 15, 1963, p. 27. 

The definitive contract for the Gemini space suit was signed with the David 

Clark Company. Negotiations had been completed May 28. The estimated cost 

was $788,594.80, with fixed fee of $41,000 for a total cost-plus-fixed-fee contract 

of $829,594.80. 

Consolidated Activity Report, May 19-June 15, 1963, pp. 38, 43. 
17 

18 

19 

20 

to conduct a useful experiment. GPO had directed McDonnell to s

problem. 

Weekly Activtty Report, June 2-8, 1963, p, 2; Consolidated Activity Report, 

19-June 15, 1963, p. 72. 

AiResearch installed the environmental control system (ECS) develo

test unit in a boilerplate spacecraft and began system development testin

were conducted with gaseous rather than cryogenic oxygen until c

tanks became available. AiResearch system development tests ended in 

ber. Early in June, AiR.esearch shipped an ECS unit to McDonnell, 

was installed in boilerplate spacecraft No. 2 for manned testing whic

July 11. 

Weekly Activity Report, June 16-22, 1963, p. 2; Consolidated Activity Re

June 16--July 20, 1963, pp. 89-90; Quarterly Status Reports: No. 5, p. 16; N

p. 22; No. 7, p. 85. 

A flight evaluation test was conducted on the prototype recovery beaco

Gemini spacecraft in Galveston Bay. A boilerplate spacecraft was place

Bay, and ranging runs were flown on the be.a.con by airplanes equipp

receivers. The maximum receiving range at 10,000-foot altitude was 12

Quarterly Status Report No.6, p. 56. 

The Cape Gemini/ Agena Test Integration Working Group met to defin

X" test procedures and responsibilities. The purpose of Plan X was t

the Gemini spacecraft's ability to command the Agena target vehicle 

radio and hardline; to exercise all command, data, and communicati

between the spacecraft, target vehicle, and mission control in all practic

binations, first with the t.wo vehicles about six feet apart, then with the 

docked and latched but not rigidized; and to familiarize the astronau

operating the spacecraft/target vehicle combination in a simulated ren

mission. Site of the test was to be the Merritt Island Launch Area 

Range Boresight Tower ("Timber Tower"), a 65X25X50-foot 

structure. 

Minutes, Cape Gemini/Agena Test Integration Working Group Meeting, Jun

1963, with attached "General Description of Gemini/Agentl RF Compatlblllty 

Functional Compatlblllty Test on the Merritt Island Radar Range (Plan X

Lockheed Agena MonthZtl Report, June 1963, p. 2-2; Aerospace Final Re

p, III.F-4. 

Sled test No.2, the first dynamic dual-ejection test of the Gemini escape 

was run at China Lake. Both seats ejected and all systems functioned p

The test was scheduled to be rerun, ho\vever, because the sled failed t

high enough velocity. The purpose of sled tests in the ejection seat deve

program was to simulate various high-altitude abort situations. Sled te

was successfully run on August 9. Further tests were delayed while the 

98 
functioned normally. Test No. 5, the planned repetition of test No. 2, brought 

developmental sled testing to an end on February 7. 

Weekly Activity Rf'ports: Aug. 4-10, p. 2; Dec. 8-14, 1963, p. 1; Consolidated 

Activity Reports: June 16-July 20, 1963, p. 88; Dec. 22, 1963-Jan. 18, 1964, p. 18; 

.Jan. 19-Feb. 15, 1964, p. 17; Quarterly Status Reports: No. 6, p. 41; No. 7, pp. 42, 

44; No. 8, pp. 29-80. 

Figtwe 54.-IMtrummted matmequin being lowered into a boilerplate Gcmmt spacecra.ft itt 

prcparatf~ tor a dunamtc sled test of the Gemini ejection Bl/8tcm. Notice the rocket 

motors at the rear of the '$led that propelled it along the tracT.\ (NASA Photo 63­

Gcmtn~o. released Sept. 30, 1963. ) 

A design review meeting was held at McDonnell to obtain comments and 20...21 

recommendations on the design of the Gemini spaceeraft from experienced 

NASA personnel, including those who were active in the Mercury program. 

The meeting produced 76 requests for review, which NASA tmd McDonnell 

studied for possible ohanges in the spacecraft. A crew st.ation mock-up review 

was held in conjunction with the design review. 

Quarterly Status Report No.6, pp. 6, 42. 

Arnold Engineering Development Center conducted a retrorooket abort test .. 24 

Although test objectives were met, failures in the nozzle assembly and cone of 

99 
25 

27 

hicle, to qualify the parachute recovery system for the full-scale test 

the Paraglider Landing System Program. The reoriented parnglider 

had begun with two successful bomb-drop tests of the parachute rec

tem on May 22 and June 3. The first boilerplate drop test saw both 

parachute and the boilerplate suffer minor damage; but boilerplate dr

(July 2), No.3 (July 12), and No.4 (July 18) were successful. A serie

functions in the fifth drop test on July 30 produced a complete failu

recovery system, and the test vehicle was destroyed on impact. North 

considered the objectives of the flight qualification program on the 

system to have been met, despite this failure, and requested, since the b

vehicle had been damaged beyond repair, that the parachute program 

sidered complete. Manned Spacecraft C-enter denied this request and, i

Notice No.3 to Contrnd NAS 9-1484, directed North American to sup

Donnell in conducting two further drop tests. Wind tunnel tests on a 

spacecraft model isolated the source of trouble, and the modified para

covery system was successfuJly tested with a new boilerplate test '

November 12. Results from this test were confirmed by a second dro

December 3, and the parachute recovery system for the fuJI-scale te

was judged fully qualified. 

WPekly Activity Reports: June 2--8, p. 2; June 23-29, pp. 1- 2; June 30-July 6

Jul. 2~Aug. 3, pp. 1-2; Dec. 1-7, 1963, p. 1; Oonsolidat@d Activity Reports

16-July 20, pp. 87-88; Aug. 18-Sept. 21, p. 79; Oct. 20-Nov. 16, 1963, pp. 

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 7, p. 32; No. 8, p. 25; Paragllder Landing S

Program, Monthly Progress Reports : No. 1, June 15; No. 2, July 19; No. 3, Au

No. 4, Sept. 13; No. 6, Nov. 15 ; No. 7, Dec. 13, 1963; No. 8, J'an. 13, 1964. 

Martin-Baltimore received the stage II fuel tank for Gemini launch 

from Martin-Denver. This was a new ta.nk, replacing a tank rejected 

treatment cracks. Stage II oxidizer tank and stage I fuel and oxidi

were received July 12 after a roll-out inspection at Martin-Denver Ju

Gemini Program Mission Report tor GT-2, Gemini 2, February 1965, p. 

Aerospaet> Final Report, p. IJ.G-3; Gemini-Titan II Aw FOf'Ce Launch V

p. D-3. 

Charles W. Mathews, Act.ing Manager of Gemini Project Office, repor

Gemini Management Panel that the launching azimuth of the first Ge

sion had been changed from 90 to 72.5 degrees (the same as the Mercur

launches) to obtain better tracking network coverage. The spacecra

be a complete production shell, including shingles and heatshield, equip

a simulated computer, inert.ial measuring unit, and environmental con

tem in the reentry module. Simulated equipment would also be carri

adapter section. The spacecraft would carry instruments w record p

vibrations, temperatures, and accelerations. 

Minutes ot Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting held at Martin-Balti

June 27, 1963. 

100 

for a trouble-free recycle. Gemini Project Office wanted the recycle time reduced 

to 24 hours and ultimately to something less than 19 hours to meet successive 

launch windows, possibly by replacing fuel cells with batteries for rendezvous 

missions only. 

Abstract of Meeting on Spacecraft Operations, July 5, 1963. 

McDonnell began the first phase of Spacecraft Systems Tests (SST) on the July 

instrumentation pallets to be installed in spacecraft No. 1. Numerous troubles 1 

brought a halt to SST on July 21 for two weeks of corrective action, including 

the return of one telemetry transmitter and the C-hand beacon ·to the vendors 

for out-of-specification performance. Phase I of SST resumed August 5 and 

was completed well within test specifications August 21. 

Weekly Activity Reports: July 21-27, p. 3; Aug. 4-10, 1963, p. 1 ; Quarterly Status 


Report No.6, p. 85; Mission Report for GT-1, p. 12-21. 


Fig11re 55.-The reentrt1 control It/Item unit for Geminl apacecratt No. 1 at the McDonnell 

pl.an.t. (NASA Photo #1!4, June 196!.) 
8 	 McDonnell warned Gemini Project Office that the capacity of the sp

computer wus in danger of being exceeded. The original iunction of 

puter had been limited to providing rendezvous and reentry guidanc

functions 'vere subsequently added, and the computer's spare cap

longer appeared adequate to handle all of them. McDonnell requ

immediate review of computer requirements. In the meantime, it advise

national Business Machines to delete one of the added functions, 

navigation, from computers for spacecraft Nos. 2 and 3. 

Message, Lindley to MSC, Attn : Charles W. 1\Iathew~. July 8, 1063. 

9 	 The Gemini Phase I Centrifuge Program began at Naval Air Deve

Center, using the Aviation Medical Acceleration Labortory ce

equipped to simulate the command pilot's position in the Gemini sp

The program had two parts: an engineering evaluation of comma

controls and displays required for the launch and reentry phases of the 

mission, including evaluation of prototype Gemini seat contours, press

Figure 56.-Dr. Howard .!. Afinn.rrll olMerVcR Astronaut Donald K . Slayton bein

for a run in the centrifuge at Aviation Medical Acceleration Laboratorv, J

Pennlfllvanla. (NASA Photo 8-68-11195, July 1963.) 

"""""" 

~ -...;..r.,; ,­

-~;. :ill,;\ 
t.hough they recommended some minor operational changes. They were able to 

cope with the reentry tasks without undue difficulty, even under the high 

acceleration of extreme Rhort conditions. 

Consolidated Activity Reports: June 16--July 20, p. 2; July 21-Aug. 17, 1963, p. 22; 

Quarterly Status Report No. 6, pp. 77-78; Interview, Jamel! B. Thomas, Houston, 

Sept. 13, 1967. 

During evaluation of the G2C Gemini pressure suit in •the engineering mock-up 

of the Gemini spacecraft at McDonnell, the suit torso was found to have been 

stretched out of shape, making it an unsatisfactory fit. David Clark Company 

had delivered the suit to McDonnell earlier in Juiy. Evaluation in the mock-up 

also revealed that the helmet visor guard, by increasing the height of the helmet, 

compounded the problem of interference between the helmet and the spacecraft 

hatch. After preliminary evaluation, McDonnell returned the suit to David 

Clark with instructions to modify the helmet design to eliminatte the fixed visor 

guard and to correct the torso fit problem. Final evaluation and start of production was delayed for about 6 weeks while the prototype suit was being 

reworked. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 6, pp. 23-24, 42--43. 

Walter C. Williams, Deputy Director for Mission Requirements and Flight 

Operwtions, Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), and NASA Director of Flight 

Operations, wrote to Major General Leighton I. Davis, DOD Representative 

for Project Gemini Operations, summarizing the range sdety problems 

inherent. in the Gemini program which had been identified jointly by representatives of Range Safety Office, MSC, and oontra.ct.ors. The major unresolved 

problems concerned the effects of a catastrophic failure of the launch vehicle. 

In September Aerojet-General began a test program comparing cryogenic and 

hypergolic propellants, which showed that hypergolic propellants burn rather 

than expJode if tanks rupture. 

Letter, Wll11ams tn Davis, July 11, 1963; Abstract of Meeting on Gemini Launeh 

Vehicle, July 18, 1963; interviews, Lou Wilson and Ray C. Stiff, Sacramento, 

June 30, 1966. 

Gemini Project Office (GPO) completed a test program on the centrifuge at 

Ames Research Cenrter rto evaluate the effects on pilot perfonnance of longitudinal ~illations (POGO) of t.he Gemini launch vehicle. When subjected to 

oscillatory g-loads ranging from 0 to ± 3g superimposed on a steady-state load 

of 3.5g, pilot perception and perfonnance decreased markedly above ± 0.25g. 

Primary effects were impaired pilot vision, reduced eye scan rate, masked 

sensory perception and kinesthetic cues, and degraded speech. GPO reoonfinned 

the need to reduce POGO to a maximum of 0.25g. 

Weekly Activity Report, July 28--Aug. 3, 1963, pp. 2-3; Quarterly Status Report 

No. 6, p. 78; memo, Adm. Walter F. Boone to Seamans, Subj : August 1, 1963, 

Meeting on the Gemini Launch Vehicle Specifications, Aug. 2, 1963. 

9 

1l 

12 

103 

18 

20 

Gemini-Titan (GT) lA. Estimated cost was $1.5 to $2 million. The b

to be used was originally planned for flotation tests at MSC. It was 

tured by loca.l contractors and modified by MSC after it was deliver

tember. The adapter, identical in configuration and instrumentation 

used for spacecraft No. 1, '\"!1.5 to be shipped directly from McDonne

Canaveral, along with telemetry equipment and wiring harnesses to b

in the boilerplate a.t the Cape. The GT-1A mission, if it were flown, 

identical to GT-1, but it would be flown only if GT-1 failed to a

objectives. Boilerplate flight article 1A left for the Cape on Decembe

Message, Mathews to Dineen, St>pt. 6, 1963; MSC Minutes ot Senior Statl' Me

July 12, p. 6; Aug. 9, p. 4; Sept. 13, 1963. 1,· 11; Weekly Activity Reports : J

Aug. 3, p. 3; Dec. S-14, 1963, p. 1; Quarterly Status Reports: No. 6, pp. 1

No. 7, p. 3; Minute~~ ot GPO Staff Meeting, Sept. 4, 1003. 

Development tests of the Agena Model 8247 main engine at Arnold En

Development. Center ended when the latch-type gas generator valve 

testing, making n.n emergency shutdown of the engine necessary. T

choice of emergency shutdown procedures ca.used turbine overspeecl 

failure of the engine's turbine pump assembly. As a result of this fa

valve was redesigned. Because success of the new design was doubtful, 

program was initiated to design a.nd develop an alternative valve conf

solenoid-operated rather than latch-type. Intensive development te

lowed; and in a meeting at Bell Aerosystems on November 15, the sole

was selec.ted for use in the first flight system of the Agena target ve

new valve allowed significant reductions in engine complexity and 

reliability, but the development effort imposed a serious delay in Pr

Flight Rating Tests, which had been scheduled to begin in Septem

W.t>ekly A<'tlvity Report, Aug. 4-10, 1963, p. 2; Consolidated Activity R

Nov. 17-Dec. 21, 1003, p. 21; Quarterly Status Reports: No. 6, p. 73; No.7, 

Lockheed Agena. Monthly Reports: April, f). 2-6 ; July, pp. 2-1, 2-2; Augus

p. 2-1. 

In support of the Paraglider Landing System Program, Ames Resear

began wind tunnel tests of a half-scale parn.glider test vehicle. Princi

tives of these tests were to obtain data on the longitudinal aerodynam

teristics, lateral aerodynamic stability characteristics, and static de

characteristics of the new low-lobe wing which North American and N

jointly agreed on. The new configuration was expected to presen

stability problems. This series of tests ended August 8. 

Consolidated Activity Reoport, Junt> 16-,.July 20, 1003, p. 811; Paraglider L

Systt>m Program, Monthly Progres.o; Reports: No. 3, Aug. 15; No. 4, Sept. 13

"Paraglidt>r Final Report," pp. 1115-157, 276-277. 

Gemini Project Office reported that the fuel cell development had 

although the amount of slippage had not been completely estimated. 

104 

(GLV) 1 began in the vertical test facility at MartinBaltimore, following a 

review by Air Force Space Systems Division and Aerospace of data from Subsystem Verification Tests. Purpose of EEl was to uncover any interference between GLV electrical and electronic systems. In the second EEl (August 2), 

five systems were found to produce unaccepta-ble interference. Two systems still 

did not meet specification in the third EEl (August 10), but all interference 

problems were eliminated in the fourth (August 20). After modification of the 

flight control system, a fifth EEl revealed minor interference (September 3), 

all of which was cleared up in the final test on September 5. Problems were 

resolved by adding filters and grounds to aerospace ground equipment and airborne circuits. EEl tests were performed in conjunction with Combined Systems 

Tests, which began August 2. 

Mission Report for GT-1, p. 12-7; Gemtm-TitaJJ II Aw Force Lau"ch VeMcle, p. 

D-2. 

A Design Engineering Inspection of the full-scale test vehicle (FSTV), with 

associated wing and hardware, for the Paraglider Landing System Program was 

held at North American's Space and Informa.tion Systems Division. This was 

the first such inspection under the new para.glider contract, NAS 9-1484. Under 

this contract, the two FSTVs were to be used solely to develop systems and 

F~gure 57.-The parag"der fulZ.ecole teet tJeMcle lft the De•(flfl EJI,ftJ&eerl"fl I"'pectioft 

brlej&tq room at North Am.erloaft. (NASA Photo 8--$~-!0931, tu14ated.) 

techniques for wing deployment. As originally conceived, they were also to 

provide the means of evaluating flight performance and control characteristics 

during glide; but this objective was dropped to minimize cost and to simplify 

105 

Figure 58.-Astronauts after a trotntng seaalon tn th-e desert near Stead Air Fo

Net,ada, Front row, left to right: Frank Borman, James A. Lovell, Jr., 

Y011ng, Charles Conrad, Jr., James A. McDtvitt, Edward H. White II. Back ro

right: Raymond G. Zcdckar (Astronaut Training 0/flrrr), Thomas P. Sta1Jor

K. Slayton, Neil A. Arm11trong, and Elliot M. Srr, Jr. (;Y.-tS.-t Photo No. 63-AII

185, released .-tug. 16, 1963.) 

' The new flight crew members and two of the Mercury astronauts bega

day desert survival course at Stead Air Force Base, Nevada. The course, 

toward Gemini missions, was divided into three phases: (1} one and 

days of academic presentations on characteristics of world desert ar

survival techniques; (2) one day of .field demonstrations on use and 

survival equipment and use of the parachute in construction of clothing, 

and signals; and (3) two days of remote site training, when two-man tea

left alone in the desert to apply what they had learned from the acade

demonstration phases of the program. 

C-onsolidated Activity Report, July 21- Aug. 17, 1963, p. 21. 

Qualification testing of the Gemini parachute recovery system resum

the Salton Sea Range, California, following a month's delay occasi

resolving the parachute tucking problem. This test, the sixth in the q

tion series, and the seventh (August 20) differed from the first five 

106 


8 
Figure 59.-Water impact te1t of the Gemim parachute recover11 1111tem In the Salton Sea, 


California. (Northrop Ventura Photo 07~8--6.5-33S!8, 11ndatcd.) 


being water-impact rather than land-impact tests. They successfully demonstrated water-impact accelerations low enough to make water landing safe. 

Further qualification testing was suspended on September 3 by the decision to 

incorporate a high-altitude stabilization parachute in the recovery system. 

Weekly Activity Reports: Aug. 4-10, p. 1; Aug. 18-J.24, p. 2; Sept. 8-14, 1963, p. 1 ; 

Quarterly Status Reports : No.6, p. 17; No.7, p. 31. 

107 
20 

21 

21 

py y gjg 

ing the retrorocket nozzle throat and exit cones. MSC and McDonn

to terminate development testing of the current nozzle assembly an

redesign effort. Thiokol ran preliminary tests on tl1e redesigned nozz

on September 18-20. Full-scale tests at Arnold on October 4 then 

structural integrity of the redesigned assembly, which oper111

malfunction. 

Weekly Activity Reports: July 21-27, pp. 2-3; Sept. 29--0ct. 5, 1968, p. 3; Q

Status Report No. 7, p. 10; Abstract of Meeting on Retrorocket Failure 

Aug. 13, 1963. 

Rocketdyne began a series of tests to verify its new thrust chambe

(TCA) design for the reentry control system (RCS) and the orbit a

maneuver system (OAMS). The test plan called for each type TCA

RCS, 25-, 85-, and 100-pound OAMS, to be tested to mission duty cy

state life, limited environmental exposure, and performance. Rock

mitted its design verification test schedule to McDonnell and Gem

Office on August 27, with seven of the 16 tests already completed. T

ing nine tests were to be finished by September 10. This proved an 

estimate; design verification testing was not completed until Octob

Weekly Activity Report, Sept. 8-14, 1963, pp. 2-3; Quarterly Status Repo

6, pp. 31-33; :So. 7, pp. 15-10. 

Titan II development flight N-24 was launehed from the Atlan

Range. This was the first of five flight tests in the Gemini malfunctio

system (MDS) piggyback series. All MDS parameters were lost 81 se

liftoff because of a short circuit in the MDS. Operation in the se

(N-25 on November 1) was normal except for two minor instru

problems. Three more test flights (N-29 on December 12, 1963; N-3

ary 15, 1964; and N-33 on March 23, 1964) verified the performa

Gemini MDS under actual conditions of flight environment a

operation. 

Memos, Pendley to Cblef, FOD, Subj: N-24 Malfunction Detection Syst~m 

Titan II Piggyback Test, Sept. 5, 1963 ; Pendley to Asst. Dlr., FOD, Sub

Titan II Piggyback Malfunction Detection System (MDS) Il'ligbt, Nov.· 

Pendley to As.'!t. Dir., FOD, Subj : Titan II Malfunction D~tection System 

Piggyback Mission No. N-29, Dec. 19, 1963; Weekly Activity R~ports: Au

p. 2; Oct. 27-Nov. 2, p. 2; Dec. 8-14, 1963, p. 2; Mar. 29-Apr. 4, 1964, ·p. 2; 

Gemini Launch Vehicle Chr0ft.olog1/, p. 40. 

Manned Spacecraft Center released a work statement for the proc

eight Atlas launch vehicles £or the Gemini program. A defense purch

followed on August 28 with an initial obligntion of $1.4 million a

mated final cost of $40 million. The Atlas, like the other launch ve

in the Gemini program, was procured through Air Force Spac

Division. 

Weekly Activity Report, Aug. 18-24, 1963, p. 2; Consolidated Activity 

Aug. 18-Sept. 21, 1963, p. 34. 

108 

neering Inspection of the spacecraft was scheduled for October 1963, but further 

delays postponed it until Febroary 12-13, 1964. 

Weekly Activity Report, Aug. 18-24, 1963, pp. 1-2; Quarterly Status Report No. 7, 

p. 1; Consolidated Activity Report, Jan. 14-Feb. Hi, 1964, p. 18. 

McDonnell completed the fabrication and assembly of spacecraft No. 1 with 

the mating of the spacecraft's major modules. Phase II of Spacecraft Systems 

Tests (SST) on the complete launch configuration, including adapter, began 

August 27. Tests alternated with final manufacturing cleanup over the next 

three weeks. Vibration testing was conducted September 17-20; Altitude Chamber Thsts, September 21-23; and SST concluded September 30 with an Integrated Systems Test. The spacecraf,t passed its final roll-out inspection on 

October 1 and was shipped to Atlantic Missile Range October 4. 

Weekly Activity Report, Sept. 1-7, 1963, p. 2; Quarterly ·Status Reports: No. 6, p. 

85; No. 7, p. 1; Mission Report for GT-1, p. 12-21; Abstract of Meeting on Spacecraft No. 1 Roll-out Inspection, Oct. 7, 1963. 

Gemini Project Office (GPO) reported that it was investigating the use of a. 

parasail and landing rocket system to enable the Gemini spacecraft to ma.ke 

land landings. Major system components were the parasail, drogue parachute, 

retrorocket, control system, and landing rocket. Unlike the conventional parachute, the parasail was capable of controlled gliding and turning. Landing 

rockets, fired just before touchdown, reduced the spacecraft terminal rate of 

descent to between 8 and 11 feet per second. Research and development testing 

was being conducted by the Landing and Impact System Section of Systems 

Evaluation and Development Division at Manned Spacecraft Center, while 

McDonnell had just completed a limited study of the advantages and disadvantages, including time required, of incorporating the new landing system on the 

spacecraft. GPO briefed NASA Headquarters on the system September 6, 

when it was decided that no further action would be taken on the parasail. 

31 

Quarterly Status Report No.6, pp. 21-22. 

Gemini Project Office reported that systems testing of the orbit attitude and 

maneuver system (OAMS) and reentry control system (RCS) was scheduled 

to be resumed early in October. Systems tests had begun in August 1962 but 

had been brought to a halt by the unavailability of thrust chambers. Three 

categories of systems tests were planned: (1) Research and Development Tests, 

comprising gas calibrations, aerospace ground equipment, evaluation, surge 

pressure evaluations, pulse interactions, steady-state evaluations, and vacuum 

soak tests; (2) Design Information Tests, comprising extreme operating condition evaluations, a group of fill-drain-decontamination-storage tests, pulse 

performance, skin heating, expulsion efficiency, liquid calibration, manual regulation, and propellant gauging; and (3) Design Approval Tests, comprising 

acceleration testing, RCS mission duty cycle tests at ambient temperature, 

OAMS two-day mission duty cycle tests at ambient temperature, and OAMS 

31 

109 

Maximum L/0::::::1.0 

1963 

August 

31 

Figure 60.-.';krkh of the para11ail lunding lf l/~tlcm propoacd tor tile Gemini 

(NAS.-t Photo S-{j4-48l, undated. ) 

14-day mission duty cycle tests at ambient temperature. Systems testin

actually resume until May 1964. 

Quarterly Status Reports : No.6, p. 38 ; No.9 tor Period Ending May Sl, 196

Gemini Project Office reported that the first production computer 

final factory testing phase and would be ready for inertial guidan

integration testing on September 6, 1963. 

Quarterly Status Report No.6, p. 26. 

The Gemini Pyrotechnic Ad Hoc Committee submitted its final rep

result of the spacecraft design review of June 20-21, Acting Manage

W. Mathews of Gemini Project Office (GPO) had requested Mercur

Office (MPO) to organize an ad hoc committee to review the Gem

110 
Gemini Pyrotechnic Ad Hoc Committee, Report to Gemini Project Manager, 

August 1963; memo, Chief, TSD, to PAO, Subj: Comment Draft of "Project 

Gemini Te<'hnology and Operations: A Chrunology," May 31, 1967. 

A Mission Planning Coordination Group was established at the request of the 

Gemini Project Office to review monthly activities in operations, network, 

guidance and control, and trajectories and orbits; and to ensure the coordination of various Manned Spacecraft Center elements actively concerned 'vith 

Gemini mission planning. Its first meeting was scheduled for September 9 to 

discuss Gemini mission planning documentation, Gemini-Titan (GT) 1 mission 

plan, MISTRAM (missile tracking and measurement system) requirements 

and use of the J-1 computer, and mission objectives and tests for GT-2 and 

GT-3. 

Memo, Kraft for Distribution, Subj : Formulation of Gemini Mission Planning 

Coordination Group, Sept. 3, 1963. 

Gemini Project Office (GPO) suspended qualification testing of the parachute 

recovery system to permit incorporating a drogue parachute in the system as a 

means of stabilizing the spacecraft during the last phase of reentry, at altitudes 

between 50,000 and 10,000 feet. This function had originally been intended for 

the reentry control system (RCS), currently suffering from serious development problems. The revised design would also permit RCS propellants to be 

dumped before deploying the main recovery parachute. GPO outlined a threephase drop test program to de,·elop the drogue chute and qualify the revised 

recovery system. Phase I, scheduled for January and February 1964 and using 

boilerplate No. 5 as a test vehicle, would develop the technique of deploying 

the pilot parachute by the stabilization chute. The deployment sequence was 

planned to begin with deployment of the stabilization chute at 50,000 feet. At 

10,600 feet., the astronaut would release the stabilization chute. A lanyard 

connecting the stabilization and pilot chutes would then deploy the pilot chute. 

Two and one-half seconds later, the rendez,·ous and recovery (R a.nd R) section 

would separate from the spacecraft, allowing the main chute to deploy. Phase II 

of the drop test program, scheduled for 1\farch through August 1964 and using 

a parachute test vehicle (an instrumented weight bomb), would complete development of the stabilization chute. From June through October 1964, Phase III 

tests would qualify the recovery system, using static article No. 7, a boilerplate 

preSsure vessel and heatshield equipped with production RCS and R and R 

sections. Since this program was not expected to be finished before the third 

Gemini mission, qualificn.tion of the e~sting system was to be completed with 

three more drops in February and March 1964. Static article No.7 would serve 

as the test vehicle before being diverted to Phase III testing. 

Weekly Activity Report, Sept. 8-14, 1963, p. 1; Consolidated Actlvlty Report, 

Sept. 2Z-Oct. 19, 1963, 'P· 94; Quarterly Status Report No. 7, pp. 31-32; Ab>"ltract 

ot Meeting on Parachute Landing System, Oct. 9, 1963. 

328-022 o-oo ~ 111 
Flgure 61.-The 1equenoe of etxm.tl 1ft the operatt~m of the Gemm' parach

1111Btem lftCOf'"porating the drogur ell 1ttc. (Northrop Vcnt11ra Photo 07~8-94.....,824

1963 Representatives of Manned Spacecraft Center's Instrumentation 

s~pt~mbw tronics Systems Division and McDonnell met to coordinate the Ge

4 program. Gemini Project Office had requested an increased effort 

rendezvous radar system in operational status. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Aug. 18-Sept. 21, 1963, p. 59. 

Lockheed's contract for the Gemini A gena target vehicle ( G A TV) wa

' 	 As a result of the seven-and-one-half-month relaxation of the requ

date for the first GA TV, IA>Ckheed was directed to use the improv

of the stnndn.rd Agena, the A.D-62 block of vehides, instead of AD-1

62 hlock originally included the multistart engine, subsequently sli

AD-71 block. Lockheed accordingly was directed in January 1964 to 

the AD-71 for AD-62. The <'ombined effect of these changes was to u

of the seven-and-one-half-month leeway. The change to AD-62 cau

month slip, nnd changing to AD-71 ~~dded a five-week slip. With m

contingency time gone, the Agena schedule was now tight, and furth

threatened to cause lnunch delays. 

Minutes of Projeet Gemini Management Panel Mt"t'tlng held at SSD, Fel»

p. 8; Consolidated Activity Re()()rt, Feb. 16--llar. 21, 1964, p. 21 ; Quarterl

Rt>port No.6, p. 73; Lockheed AgNW Jlonth.lv Reports: September, p. 2-6; 

1964, p. 3-1 ; JaJt.uarvt965, p. 3-7. 

6 	 Department of Defense approved the Titan II Augmented Engin

ment Progrnm. On November 15, Aerojet-General received an 

112 
pppy gwv, pg

did yield several side benefits, including the correction of several minor design 

deficiencies, the improvement of welding techniques, and the development of 

better assembly procedures. 

LE-tters, Lt. Gen. Howell M. Estt-s, Jr., to Seamans, Subj: Titan II/Gt-mfnf Program 


Statu!! Summary, Sept. 18, Oct. IS, 1963; "Statt-mt-ut of Work: Titan II AugntE>nted 


Engine Improvemt-nt Program," Oct. 3, 1963; Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle 


Chronology, p. 30. 


The formal Oombined Systems Acceptance Test (CSAT) of Gemini launch 6 


vehicle No. 1 was conducted in the vertical test facility at Martin-Baltimore. 


Two preliminary CSAT dry runs had been conducted on August 2 and 17, in 


conjunction with Electronic-Electrical Interference (EEl) Tests. A third 


CSAT with EEl monitoring had been run on September 3 to clarify checkout 


procedures and recheck EEl results. CSAT induded a complete launch count­


down, simulated engine start, liftoff, and flight through stage II engine shut­


do'Wll, ending with the simulated injection of the spacecraft into Eart.h orbit. 


Both primary and secondary guidance and control combinations were tested. 


Martin engineers reviewed the test data collected by aerospfl.('~ ground equip­


ment recorders and telemetry and presented the vehicle for final acceptance ·to 


the Air Force Space Systems Division/Aerospace Vehicle Aceeptance Team 


on September 11. 


l\lls.'lfon Rt>port for GT-1, p. 12-7; At>ro~pn('(' Final Rrport, pp. II.F-1, II.F-2; 


Gembti·Titan II Air Force I,armch rehirlc, p. D-2. 


The 16 astronauts began training in water and land parachute landing tech­ B 

niques. This training was necessary because in low level a:bort (under 70,000 

feet) the pilot 'vould be ejected from the spacecraft and would deseend by personnel parachute. A towed 24-foot diameter parasail carried the astronauts to 

nltitudes as high as 400 feet before the towline was released and the astronaut 

glided to a landing. 

Consolidated Activity &port, Aug. IS-Sept. 21, 1963, p. 47; MSC Space New1 


Roundlip, Sept. 18, 1963, pp. 1, 3. 


Following up Gemini Project Office's request to bring the Gemini rendezvous 11-12 

radar system to operational status, Manned Spacecraft Center Instntmentation 

and Electronics System Division personnel met wit.h ,\,.estinghouse at Baltimore to review the test program. "restinghouse had completed its radio frequency aneehoic chamber test, but test anomalies could not be pinpointed to 

the radar system, since chamber reflections might have been responsible. An 

outdoor range test was planned to determine whether the clmmber was suitable 

for testing the radar. 

Consolidated Activity llt>port, Aug. IS-Sept. 2I, 1963, p. 50. 

The vehicle acceptance team for Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 1 inspected the 11-20 

vehicle and revie,ved its manufacturing and testing history, focusing on the 

113 

14 

23 

27 

27 

contamination und found 180 requiring cleaning or replacement. All e

connectors on GLV-2 were also reinspected 1tnd cleaned or replaced as 

This extensive inspection invalidated much previous testing, requiri

system tests and CSAT to be rerun. Preliminary CSAT was complete

ber 2, final CSAT October 4. 

Mission Reports : for GT-1, p. 12-7; for G-T-2, p. 12-10; Aerospace Final Re

p. II.G-3; Gcmfnf...Titan II Air Frwce Launch Vehicle, p. D--2; Harris, Ge

La11nch Vehicle Chr!)MWUI/, p. 28. 

Gemini Project Office reported a delay of 1tbout three weeks in the batter

fication program. McDormeil had sent a team to investigate the problem 

porosity welds in titanium battery cases. A.not.her problem had turned 

the batteries in prequalificntion vihration test .. The b1ttteries vibrated 

sively, although they did not fail electrically; the vibration's ampli

factor was apparently low enough to be remedied by potting. 

Weekly Ac·tivity Report, Sept. 8-14, 1963, p. 2. 

A technical development plan for Department of Defense experimen

carried on Gemini missions was issued. The plan described 13 Air Force 

ments and nine Navy experiments costing as estimated $22 million. M

Spacecraft Center reviewed the experiments for fensibility while the p

being prepared, but their inclusion on Gemini flights was tentative, p

further technical definition of t.he experiments themselves and clarifica

spacecraft weigl1t and volume const.t·aints. 

Letters, Me Millan to Seamans, Oct 28, 1963 ; Seamans to McMillan, Dec. 23, 1

memo, McMillan to Dir., Defense Research and Engineering, Subj : DOD/NA

Gemini Experiments, Technical Development Plan ('l'DP) for Program 6

Oct.14, 1963. 

Electro-Mechanical Research successfully tested the compatibility of a

and ground station PCM (pulse code modulated) telemetry equipmen

tests demonstrated that Gemini spacecraft and Agena telemeter and r

formats were compatible with NASA ground stations. 

Weekly Activity Report, Sept. 22-28, 1963, p. 1; Consolidated Activity Rep

Sept. 22-0ct. 19, 1963, p. 93; Lockheed AueM Monthly Report, September 1

p. 2-l'i. 

A Development Engineering Inspection of the tow test vehicle (TT

associated wings, hardware, and mo(•k-up, for the Paraglider Landing 

Program was held at North American's Spnce and Information Syste

vision. The TTVs (the contract called for two) were manned vehicle

flown with the wing pre.deployed to evaluate flight performance and 

with particular emphasis on the landing maneuvers. The inspection r

in 33 requests for alteration, 24 of them mandatory. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 7, p. 33; Paragllder Landing System Progr

}fonthly Progress Report No. 5, Oct. 16, 1963; "PantglldP.r Final Report," p. 

114 

was made at a conference between North American and NASA on September 

26; retrofit was deleted as a contract requirement on November 7 by Change 

Notice No.5 to Contract NAS 9-1484. 

NAA, A Final Fee Settlement Propo!;al for Contract NA.S 9-1484, pp. 111-1, V-36. 

Manned Spacecraft Center awarded its first incentive-type contract to LingTemco-Vought, Inc., Dallas, Texas, for the fabrication of a trainer to be used 

in the Gemini launch ,•ehicle training program. The fixed-price-incentive-fee 

contract had a target cost of $90,000, a target profit of $9,000, and a ceiling of 

Figut·c 62.- fliagram of the Gemini launch t'Citiclc 11tagc 11 engine. (.1/artin Plwto BB-66~61, 

tmdatcd.) 

START FUEL OXIDIZER 

CARTRIDGE SUCTION PREVALVES SUCTION 

LINE ""-.. LINE LV 

-- --INTERFACE BURST DIAPHRAGM ­ TURBOPUMP ENGINE 


CONTROL 

SONIC FLOW 


NOZZLE 	 ~It~ LUBE OIL 

HEAT 

EXOiANGER 

LUBE 

OIL 

PUMP & 

RESER· FUEL VOIR CHECK 

ROLL 

VALVE ~---~· ~~~~~~~ CONTROL 

NOZZLE 

r\h CAVITATING 

11\1 VENTUR I 

0 ORIFICE 

IV! FILTER PRESSURE ~~ ASSEMBLY SEQUENCING 


VALVE 


OVERBOARD · 


CHECK VALVE 


·- THRUST ~FUEL

CHAMBER / ········:·: OXIDIZER 

OVERBOARD 

DRAIN ABLATIVE HOT GAS 

SKIRT 

LUBE OIL 

JO 
exceeded $105,000. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Sept. 22-0ct. 19, 1963, p. 40; Procurem

Oontracts Division ReiJOrt for Sept. 24-0~:t. 18, 1963; memo, Bemha

Dorman to Asst. Adm. for Policy Analysts, Subj: Gemini Program Chr

July 20, 1967. 

30 	 Air Force Space Systems Division contracted with Aerojet;..General 

gram to develop a backup for the injectors of the second stage eng

Gemini launch vehicle. Titan II development flights had shown th

engine tended toward incipient combustion instability. The Gemin

Improvement Program, begun as a backup, became a program aime

mum probability of success on December 24, 1963. The 18-month 

produced a completely redesigned stage II engine injector. 

Letters, Estes to Seamans, Subj: Titan II/Geminl Program Status Su

Oct. 8, Oct. 16, Nov. 29, Dec. 26, 1963; Harris, Gentf.n.i Launch VehlcZe Ohr

p. 29. 

Octobw Gemini Project Office (GPO) requested McDonnell to do a design 

1 	 t.he requirements and configuration necessary for using batteries 

fuel cells in all spacecraft scheduled for two-day rendezvous mission

nel from GPO had visited General Electric to review the results of ex

Figure 63(A ).-Inatrumrntatinn palkt for Gemini spacecraft No. 1: left pallet

8-$~-3069, undated.) 

AMMETER SHUNT 

DC TO DC CONVERTEI NO, 1 

IELAY 

PANEL 

SWITCH A"-'J CIRCUIT 


IREAK£R 'ANEL 

life of the fuel cell could be achieved, the development program would remain 

a problem. 

Message, llatbews to Burke, Subj: Contract NAS 9-170, Power System Design 


Study, Oct. 1, 1963; Weekly Acth-lty Report, Sept. 29-0ct. ~. 1963, pp. 2-3. 


Gemini Project Office prepared an abstract of flight qualifica.tion requirements 1 

for experimental equipment to be carried on G('mini missions. The document presented a brief synopsis of the important environmental criteria. which would 

affoot the design, fabrication, and mounting of exp('rimental equipment to be 

carried in the spacecraft. 

Abstract ot Flight QuallfknUon lk>qulrementi! for Experimental Equipment to be 


carried on Geminll\llsstons, prepared Oct 1, 1963. 


~l'fCTRUM ANAlVZIR 

(SYSTEM NO, I) 

INilRUMENTATION 


ASSEMILY NO. 3 


SIGNAl CONDITIONER THERMOCOUPLE REFERENCE 

PACKAGE JUNCTION lOX 

(I) 

Fivurc 6J(B).-Instrumcntfltion pallet tor Gl·mfnlllpacccr·att No.1: right 


pallet. (NASA 8~~-3066, unda.ted.) 


Gemini spa.eecrnft No. 1 anived at Atla.ntic Missile Range and was transfen-ed 

to Hangar AF. After a receiving inspection (Octo.ber 7) and Voltage Standing 

Wave Ratio Test (October 8), its instrument pallets were removed for laboratory test and checkout (October 9) while the spacecraft was being checked out, 

weighed, and balanced. Instrument pallets 'l'ere reinstalled November 26. Individual and integrated communicwtions, instrumentation, and environmental 

117 


4 
Figvre 64.-InBtaJlotion of right ballalt ~teat a11tl inBtrument pallet itt Gemitd Bp

No. 1. (NAR.4.-UBAF Plloto 63-13025, Dec. 7, 1963.) 

control systems tests were then performed. Final industrial area testing 

spacecraft concluded with a confidence level test on February 12, 1964. 

Mission Report tor GT-1, pp. 12-1, 12-22; Quarterly Status Report No. 7, p. 

Martin-Baltimore completed its evaluation of data from the second 

bined Systems Aeceptance Test of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 1, fo

acceptable, and presented it to the GLV-1 vehicle acceptance team (

VAT inspection resulted in the decision, on October 12, to ship GL

Atlantic Missile Range (AMR). Although the vehicle still lacked flight

fied components, the VAT critique noted that having the GLV a.t AMR

with non-flight equipment, would expedite the Gemini program by pen

early checkout of launch vehicle and complex compatibility and final acce

of complex 19. GIN-1 wa.s removed from the vertical test facility on Octo

tested for tank leaks, painted, weighed, inspected, and prepared for shi

Air Force Space Systems Division fonnally accepted GLV-1 on Octob

the vehicle was airlifted to AMR the following day. 

}lfs..<>lon Report tor GT-1, p. 12-7 ; APro!<pace Final Rt'port, p. II.G-3; Gem

Ti taK 11 Air Force LauKCh Vehicle, pp. D-2, D-3; Harris, GemtKi LavKCh Veh

OhrotWW01/, p. 29. 

North American completed work on the first full-scale prototype para

wing for the Parag1ider Landing System Program and shipped it to Am

118 

14 
Weekly Activity Reports: Oct. 21-Nol'. 2, p. 1; Dec. 1-7, 1963, pp. 1-2; Quartl'rly 

StatuM &port ~o. 7, p. 68; Paragllder Landing Systl'm Program, 1\!CJnthly Prog· 

ress Rl'portH: No. 6, Nov. Hi, 1963; No. 8, Jan. 13, 1964; "Paragli<lPr Final RPport," 

pp. 164-171. 

The Mission Planning Coordination Group discussed the feasibility of rendezvous at first apogee, as proposed by Richnrd R. Carley of the Gemini Project 

Office. The group conc.luded that developing the ability to rendezvous at first 

apogee was a test objective and that cn.pability for performing the maneuver 

should be provided in the mission plan for all rendezvous flights. 

Ml'mo, Kratt to Distribution, Subj : Second lleeting of :\fission Planning Coordi· 

nation Group, Oct. 22, 1963; intervii'W, Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., Houston, Junl' 20, 1967. 

Personnel from Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD), Air Force Bnllistic 

Systems Division (BSD), and Titan II c.ontractors met in Los Angeles to 

reconsider flying Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) fixes on Tittan II development 

flights. BSD, which was responsible for the weapon system development program, had halted the installation of GIN fixes on the Titan II flights because 

of the limi·ted number of flights remaining to qualify the missile. General Bernard A. Schriever, Commander of Air Force Systems Command (of which 

BSD and SSD were subordinate divisions), intervened in support of an active 

program to clean up launch vehicle problem areas. The incorporation of GLV 

fixes on Titan II flights resumed on November 1 "ith the flight of Titan II N-25. 

Minute~~ ot Projl'ct Gemini l\Innagl'ml'nt Pant>l :\Il't'ting held at Patrick AFB, na., 

Nov. 13, 1963; interviews: Dineen, Huntingtun Bl'a<"h, Calif., 'May 1:1, 1967; ~laj. 

Gen. Bl'n I. Funk, Sunnyvale, Calif., 1\fay 12, 1007. 

Fourteen new astronauts were introduced by officials of the Manned Spacecraft 

Center (MSC) Itt a press conference in Houston, bringing ·to 30 the total number 

n.ssigned toNASA's astronaut training center. The new group of astronauts was 

composed of seven volunteers from the Air Force, four from the Navy, one from 

the Marine Corps, and two civilians. From the Air Force: Major Ed,l"in E. 

Aldrin, Jr.; Captains William A. Anders, Donn F. Eisele, Charles A. Bassett II, 

Theodore C. Freeman, David R. Scott, and Michael Collins. The Navy volunteers were Lieutenant Commander Richard F. Gordon, .Tr., and Lieutenants 

Eugene A. Cernan, Alan L. Bean, and Roger n. Chaffee; the :Marine :was 

Captain Clifton C. Williams, .Tr. The two civilhms were R. Walter Cunningham and Russell L. Schweickat1. The group was selected from approximately 

500 military and 225 civilian applicant.., who had responded to NASA's request 

for volunteers early in May 1963. The ne'v astronauts reported to MSC to begin 

t.raining February 2, 1964. 

}ISC Spa<"<' :V('w., Roundup: ,Junt- 12, pJI. 1-2; Oct. 30, 100.'3, pp, 1-4; }ISC Xl.'ws 

Rl'le&~ 64-24, Feb. 5, 1964. 

Rocketdyne test-fired an orbit attitude and maneuver system (OAMS) 85­

ponnd thntster to a new mission duty cycle rNJuiring 550 seconds of nonnnl 

119 

14 

18 

21 
2' 

26 

30 

tion conditions on the 25-pound and 100-pound TCAs. During the 

months, Rocketdyne stopped testing and concentrated on analyzing 

formance characteristics of small a.blati ve rocket engines, while li

completed revising of duty cycles. Representatives of NASA, M

and Rocketdyne met in January 1964 to clarify the new life require

OAMS engines, which were significantly higher: required life of the 

OA.lfS thruster in pulse operation was raised from 232.5 seconds to 557 

that ofthe 85- and 100-pound thrusters, from 288.5 to 757 seconds. 

Weekly Activity Report, Od. 20-26, 1963, p. 2 ; Quarterly Status Report No

17,27-28; "Gt>mfni Propulsion by Ro<·ktotdynt>," p. fl. 

North American finished modifying the Advanced Paraglider Trainer 

scale tow test vehicle (TTV), as required by t.he Pnraglider Landin

Program. The vehicle was then shipped to Edwards Air Force Ba

ground tow tests began on December 28. Preliminary ground tow te

completed on January 14, 1964. The second TTV \vas completed on Ja

and shipped to Ed,vards on February 14. Further ground tow tests 

ducted through June. Installation of flightworthy control system 

began in April. 

NAA, A Final Ft>e St>ttlemt>nt Proposal for Contract NAS 9-1484, p. V-32; 

glider Landing Systt>m Program, ::\lontbly Progress Reports: No. 7, Dec. 13

No. 8, Jan. 13, 1964 ; No. 0, Feb. 13; No. 10, 1\-Iar. 11; No. 12, May 18 ; N

July 13, 1964. 

Gemini launch vchic.le 1 arrived at Atlantic Missile Range and w

ferred to complex 19. Stage I was erected in the complete vehicle erec

ber 28, stage II in the second stage erector Ol.'tober 29. The two sta

cabled together in the side-by-side configuration required for the 

Compatibility Firing scheduled for mid-Deeember. A limited E

Electrical Interference Test was completed November 7, and power wa

to the vehicle November 13. 

Mission Report for GT-1, pp. 12-8, 12-23. 

A meeting was held to discuss ejection seat system problems. Of majo

was the ejection seat hnllute that was planned to stabilize the astronau

ejected and sepnmted from the sent. Wind tunnel test dnta had sugge

problem areas: the bnllute was failing 1~t supersonic speeds and 

opening at subsonic speeds. Increasing the diameter and lengthening 

lines improved performance considerably. A major system chang

mended at the meeting was the incorporation of provisions for a

separation of the seat backboard and egress kit before touchdown; Gem

ect Offiee direded McDonnelJ to study the feasibility of this recomm

Weekly Activity Re>110rt, Oct. 27-Nov. 2, 1963, p. 1; Abstract of "Meeting on Ej

Seat Systt>m, Nov. 5, 1963. 

120 

able limits. Al·though the kit had been tested on only one flight, Gemini Projeot 

Office had sufficient confidence in it to decide, on November 6, to procure several 

more such kits for subsequent installation in Gemini launch vehicles. Two later 

Titan II development flights (N-29 on December 12, 1963, and ~-31 on January 15, 1964) and the flight of Gemini-Titan 1 confirmed the vn1idity of this 

decision. The required kits :for the remaining Gemini launch vehic1es were then 

procured. 

ME.'mos, Pendley to Asst. Dlr. for Fit. Ops., Nov. 7 and Dec. 19, 1963; WE'E.'kly Activity Report.<J: Oct. 27-Nov. 2, p. 2; Dec. 8-14, 1963, p. 2; Harris, Gemini Launch 

l'chicle Chronologv, pp. 29-30. 

McDonnell reviewed work on the beryllium shingles to protect the reentry control system and rendezvous and recovery structures of the spacecraft from reentry heat. A strike earlier in the year, as well as manufacturing difficulties, 

hnd delayed shingle tests. Problems in manufacturing the cross-roll berylliwn 

shingles for Gemini included flaking, lamination, and cracking flaws in the 

finished shingles. At a meeting to discuss these problems, held at Pioneer 

Astro Industries, Chicago, Illinois, November 14, 1963, the decision was made to 

substitute chemical etching for machine tooling wherever possible and to use 

lighter cuts where machine tooling was unavoidable. 

Quartf'rly Status RE.'port No. 7, p. 9. 

Major General Leighton I. Davis, Department. of Defense (DOD) Representative for Project Gemini Support Operations, issued DOD's plan for carrying 

out Gemini operations. The DOD representative, noting as the single point of 

contact between DOD and NASA, was responsible for meeting NASA's needs 

for DOD support in the areas of launch, tracking network, planned and contingency recovery, communications, public affairs, and medical assistance. 

DOD, Overall Plan, Department of Defense Support for Project GE.'mini Operations, 

Nov. 7, 1963; DOD 1\lanagf.'r tor ~fanned Space !<~light Support Operations, Summary Report: DOD Support of Project Gemi~ti, Jan. 196S-NM1. 1966, Mar. 6, 1967, 

p. 4. 

Delays in the fuel cell development program prompted Gemini Project Office 

to direct McDonnell to modify the electrical system for spacecraft No. 3 so that 

either fuel cells or a. silver-zinc battery power system could be installed after 

the spacecraft had been delivered to the Cape . ..:\ contract change incorporating 

this directive was issued January 20, 1964. 

1\IE'Ssage, 1\fathews to BurkE.', Nov. 12, 1003; WE'E.'kly Activity R(•port, Xov. 17-23, 

1963, p. 1; Procuremf'nt and C<Ontracts Division changP notlCP, CoutraC't XAS 

9-170, Contract Change Proposal No.16, Jan. 20,1964. 

The Gemini Management Panel, after reviewing the status of spacecraft a.nd 

launch vehicle, decided that. Gemini launch schedules needed reexamination, 

especially the amount of testing at Cape Canaveral necessary to establish 

7 

12 

121 

14 

16 

Force, and industry program managers met at the Cape to lay out stud

and then met at 10-day intervals to develop ground rules, review p

and coordinate their efforts. Mathews reported the results of the study 

next panel meeting, December 13, and described the ground rules tha

bring Gemini-Titan (GT) 3, the first manned flight, to a 1964 launc

primary factor affecting the spacecraft would be reducing Cape dup

of tests already accomplished at McDonnell and integrating the ent

effort. Although integration of launch vehicle testing at the Cape and 

was already fairly good, there was still room for improvement. The 

schedule that emerged from this study showed the following launches

March 17, 1964; GT-2, August 11; and GT-.\ November 6. GT- 1A was 

a backup, to be flown only if GT-1 failed. 

Minutes of Project Gemini Manag(>ment Panel Meetings: b(>ld at Patrick A

Fla., Nov. 13, pp. 3-4; at MSC, Dec. 13, 1963, p. 2; Weekly Activity Report, De

7, 1963, p. 2. 

Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) began a drop-t.est program over Ga

Bay using a he1icopter-towed paraglider half-scale tow test vehicle to 

tigate trim conditions and stability characteristics in different depl

configurations. The first drop successfully tested the U-shaped depl

configuration. The second test (No,rember 19) was abortive, but dama

slight. The third test (November 26) was also abortive, and the wi

damaged beyond repair on impact. MSC procured another wing from 

American and conducted a fourth test, partially successful, on Decem

No further tests were conducted. 

Weekly Activity Reports: Nov. 17-23. p. 2; Nov. 24-.'30, 1963, p. 2; Consolld

Activity Report, Nov. 17-Dec. 21, 1963, p. 19; Paragllder Landing System Prog

Monthly Progress Re}JOrts: No.7, Dec. 13,1963; No.8, J'an. 13,1964. 

The first production version of the inertial guidance system develop

Gemini was delivered to McDonnell. Special tests on the configurati

unit, using spacecraft No. 2 guidance and control equipment, were e

to be completed in January 1964. 

Consolldated Activity Report, Nov. 17-Dec. 21, 1963, p. 18 ; ~ASA Tenth S

annual Report to Congre11a, JulyJ-December SJ, 1964, p. 28. 

Flight Crew Support Division reported an agreement with Flight Ope

Division on a flight profile and rendezvous evaluation experiment 

Gemini-Titan 4 mission. Objective of the experiment was to simulate 

AgenajGemini rendezvous and to repeat part of the maneuver using 

signal/manual technique. Basically, the mission would use circular p

and catch-up orbit us proposed by the Flight Crew Support Division

fuel requirements and ground tracking requirements were under st

Flight Operations Division. 

Consolldated Activity Report, Oct. 20-Nov. 16, 1963,(). 80. 

122 
and adequate clearance between shroud and TDA during separation. Successfully concluded on November 21, the tests demonstrat~d the compatibility 

of the TDA with the shroud system during operational performance, with no 

indication of damage or failure of the TDA structure. 

Weekly Activity Report, Nov. 24--30, 1003, p. 1; Consolidated Activity Report, 

Nov. 17-Dec. 21, 1963, pp. 21-22 ; Quarterly Status Rf."port No. 7, p. 00; Lockheed 

.tlgena Monthly Report, November 1963, p. 3-1. 

A series of 24 test drops to develop the ballute stabilization system for the 

Gemini esca.pe system began with a live jump over El Centro. Five more live 

jumps and four dummy drops, the last t.wo on January 9, 1964, all used a ballute 

three feet in diameter. Excessive rates of rotation dictn:ted increasing ballute 

diameter and substituting two-point for single-point suspension. Between J anuary 14 and February 5, 14 more tests (12 human and two dummy) were conducted at altitudes from 12,500 to 35,000 feet using bnllutes 42 and 48 inches 

in diameter. These tests established a 48-inch diameter as the optimum configuration for the Gemini ballute, and Gemini Project Office directed McDonnell to use this size in the coming qualification drop test program. 

Qualification of the ballute 'vas also to include a structural test program to 

be conducted in the wind tunnel at Arnold Engineering Development Center. 

Weekly Activity Reports: Nov. 17-23, p. 1; Dec. 1-7, 1963, p. 1; Jan. 5-11, 1964, 

p. 7; Con90lidated Activity Reports : Nov. 17-Dec. 21, 1963. p. HI; Dec. 22, 1963­

Jan. 18, 1964, p. 18; Jan. 19-Feb. 15, 1964, pp. 16-17, 19; Quarterly Status Reports : 

No. 7, p. 44; No. 8, p. 30. 

Manned Spacecraft Center· received proposals for the Gemini extravehicular 

life support package and expected to complete evaluation by the end of December. Requests for proposals had gone out in October. The system would include 

a high-pressure gaseous oxygen supply bottle plus suitable regulators and 

valves for control of oxygen flow, which would be in an open loop. It would 

provide necessary 1ife support for initial extravehicular operations, using a 

hardline tether, of 10 to 15 minutes. A contract was awarded to the Garrett. 

Corporation in January 1!)64. 

Quarterly Status Reports: ~o. 7, p. 46; ~o. 8, p. 33. 

Gemini Project Office (GPO) reported the results of a survey o£ testing being 

done at Rocketdyne on the orbit attitude and maneuver system (OA~fS). The 

research and development phase of testing OAl\JS components appeared likely 

to extend well into 1964, with the development of an adequate thrust chamber 

assembly (TCA) continuing as the major problem. Hardware availability remained uncertain, no definite method of resolving the TCA life problem had 

yet been selected, and McDonnell's current. revision of mission duty cycles compounded the problem. Laek of hardware was also delaying system testing, 

which would be completed no sooner than the second quarter of 1964. Persistent delays in the research and development test program '~ere in turn responsible for serious deluys in t.he qualification test program. To meet the manned 

22 

25 

30 

123 

F'igurc 65.-Jump tc11t of the 36-inch hu/lutc 1(,' it11 dual 81l1Jle11Bion at tile Naval P

Facility, El Centro, Cali/orilla. Tlu: sccoml f#gllre fl a free-falling plwtogra111

a camera mounted in lri-~ llclmet. A B<'Cond obiiCTt:'('r jumped luter and took tllfR 

(NASA Photo 64-Gemini-120, relcaacd Dec. 18,1963.) 

124 
(GATV) in its monthly progress report for the first time since January 1963. 

The new schedule reflected the revised Gemini flight program of April 29 

and the corresponding revision of the Agenn program which followed. It displayed key events in the progress of the first GATV taking place between five 

and six months later than the January schedule. Engineering development 

was now scheduled to be completed by May 15, 1964, rather than by December 11, 1963. Completion of modification and final assembly was now planned 

for June 12 mther than January 10, 1964; preliminary vehicle systems testing 

was rescheduled from April 10 to September 11, 1964. Special tests, including 

a Radio Frequency Int~rference Test in the later schedule in addition to the 

hot-firing scheduled earlier, were to end November 20 instead of May 22, 1964. 

Final Vehicle Systems Tests were to be completed December 18 instead of 

June 19, 1964, with shipment to follow on January 6, 1965, rather than June 30, 

1964. Launch was now expected on April 15, 1965, seven and one-half months 

Inter than the September 1, 1964, date that had been planned in January 1963. 

Lockheed AgeM Monthly Reporla: January, p. 23; November 196~. p. 5-9. 

The Gemini Program Planning Board issued a memorandum of understanding 

on the correction of Titan II deficiencies for the Gemini program. This agreement formalized NASA specifications and Air Force plans to clean up problems related to longitudinal oscillations (POGO), combustion instability, and 

engine improvement. The program to alleviate the POGO effect included 

ground proof tests of all subsystems modified to control oscillations. Flight 

tests of the solutions would be flown on Titan II missiles before application 

to the Gemini launch vehicle. For the combustion stability program, dynamic 

stability would be demonstrated through the use of artificially produced disturbances, with the engines being flig11t. tested on unmanned vehicles as final 

proof of man-rating. Engine impMvement was a program to corred all design 

deficiencies that had cropped up during the Titan II development flights. 

Minutes of the Tenth Meeting, Gemini Program Planning Board, Dec. 3, 1963; 

NASA, Office of Manned Space Flight, "GE'mini Launch VE'hide Suppll'mental 

Specifications," Nov. 15, 1963; "Memorandum of Understanding on Cl'rtain Design 

Requirements for the Gemini Launch Vehicle," signed by Seamans and McMillan, 

Dec. 3, 1963. 

McDonnell delivered Gemini boilerplate No. 201, an egress trainer, to Houston. 

Preparations began for egress tests in a water tank at Ellington Air Force Base, 

Texas, in January 1964. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Nov.17-Dec. 21, 1963, p. 36. 

Aerojet-General delivered the stage II engine for Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 

2 to Martin-Baltimore. The engine was installed December 31. An interim stage 

I engine was received December 29 and installed January 9, 1964. This engine 

was to be used only for tests at the Martin plant, after which it was to be replaced by a flight engine before GLV-2 was shipped to the Cape. Horizontal 

December 

' 


9 

10 

125 

g

Mlaston Report for GT-2, pp. 12-11, 12-12; Aerospace .Fift.CJJ Report, p. I

Gemfft.£.7'ltan IIAlr Force !Mlnc1t. Vehicle, pp. D-8, D-4. 

Martin-Baltimore received the propellant tanks for Gemini launc

(GLV) 3 from Martin-Denver, which had 'begun fabricating them 

Splicing the oxidizer and fuel tanks for each stage was completed 

1964. Flight engines arrived from Aerojet-General on May 10, and in

was completed June 6. Final horizontal tests of the assembled launc

began June 1 and were concluded on June 17 with an Air Force insp

GLV-3 before the vehicle was erected in the vertical test facility. 

Gemini Program Mission Report for GT-3, Gemini 3, April :19615, p. 12-2C5 ; 

space Fl'Ml Re1ort, p. II.G-3; Gemtni-Tilaft. II Air Force Lautt.eh Vehicle, p

17-18 	 The G2C training and qualification pressure suit underwent furthe

tion in conjunction with a mock-up review of the spacecraft crew s

McDonnell. In general, the suit was found to be acceptable to the crew 

patible with the spacecraft. The helmet design had been corrected sati

and no new design problems were encountered. Eleven G2C suits, i

five astronaut suits, would be delivered by the end of February 1

remaining 23 suits were scheduled for a March 1964 delivery date, wh

fic~tion and reliability testing would begin. The qualification progra

be managed by the Crew Systems Division of Manned Spacecraf

Consolidated Activity Report, Dec. 22, 1963--.Tan. 18, 1964, p. 38; Quarterly 

Beport NO. 8, p. 82. 

20 	 McDonnell shipped its portion of Gemini mission simulator No. 1 

Kennedy. The computers for the training device were expected 

January 1964. 

Consolidated Activity Beport, Nov. 17-Dec. 21,1963, p. 19. 

21 	 Gemini Project Office (GPO) reported that a silver-zinc battery pow

would be flown in spacecraft No.3 instead of a fuel cell system, which 

be quaUfied in time for the mission. Late in January, 1964, McDonnell 

:Cor GPO the status of the fuel cell program and discussed the des

improved fuel cell. Early in February, GPO directed McDonnell to in

the improved fuel cell into spacecraft No. 5 and to delete fuel cells fro

craft Nos. 3 and 4, substituting the battery power system. 

Weekly Activity Report, Feb. 2-8, 1964, p. 11; Consolidated Activity Repor

17-Dec. 21, 1968, p. 18. 

21 	 Gemini Project Office reported that McDonnell, as a result of a flam

test that it had conducted, would incorporate teflon-insulated wiring 

out the spacecraft. This modification would be initiated as earJy as 

Consolidated Activity Report, Nov. 17-Dec. 21,1968, p. 18. 

126 

g 

gg 

be investigated. Lowering this ratio would reduce operating temperatures and 

enhance engine life. Another investigation was to be conducted to determine 

the feasibility of realigning the lateral-firing thrusters more closely with the 

spacecraft center of gravity. Such a realignment would reduce the demand 

placed on the 25-pound thrusters (which had yet to demonstrate a complete 

mission duty cycle operation without failure) in maintaining spacecraft attitude during lateral maneuvers. The third decision was to build 11.n engine billet 

with ablation material laminates oriented approximately parallel to the motor 

housing. A recently developed paralJel laminate material in its initial tests 

promised to resolve the problem of obtaining the thrusters' full operational 

dutycyde. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Dec. 22, 196.'hlan. 18, 1964, pp. 15-16. 

The two stages of Gemini launch vehicle 1, standing side by side on complex 

19, completed the Combined Systems Test (CST) in preparation for Sequence 

Compatibility Firing (SCF). CST had been scheduled for December 13 but 

was delayed by late completion of the complex support systems for operational compatibility with the launch vehicle. The Wet Mock Simulated Flight 

for SCF was successfully completed January 7, 1964. The SCF scheduled 

for January 10 was discontinued at T-20 and rescheduled for January 14, 

when cold weather forced cancellation of the test. The SCF, a static firing of 

the stage I and stage II engines, was successfully conducted on January 21. 

Stage II erection in tandem followed on January 31. 

Mission Report for GT-1, pp. 12-8, 12-9, 12-23; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.F-3 ; 

Gcmi11.i-Titan Air Force Laun.ch Vehicle, p. D-3; Harris, Gcmi11.t Launch Vehicle 

Chronology, pp. 31, 32. 

NASA Headquarters directed Gemini Project Office to take the radar and 

rendezvous evaluation pod out of Gemini-Titan (GT) missions 3 and 4. GT-4 

would be a battery-powered long-duration flight. The pod would go on GT-5, 

and thus the first planned Agena flight would probably slip in the schedule. 

Minutes, GPO Staff Meeting, Jan. 2, 1964. 

Representatives of Crew Systems Division (CSD) and David Clark Company 

met to review the design of the G2C training and qualification pressure suit. 

Several components needed approval before being incorporated into the G3C 

flight suit configuration; CSD completed a statement of work for procuring 

the flight suits January 17; G3C suit procurement was expected to begin in 

March. Qualification and reliability tests of the G2C suit were also expected 

to begin in March. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Dec. 22, 1963-Jan. 18, 1964, p. 46 ; Quarterly Status 

Report No.8, p. 32. 

328-G22 O- $l- 10 127 

9-10 

31 
Figure 66.-Scqllcllcc Compa.tibilitu Firlttg of tlw ttco stages of Gemini launch vc11icle 1 at pad 19

196~. (KBC Photo 64P-7, Jan. 21, 1964.) 

128 
pp y 

MSC Florida Operations Assistant Manager for Gemini. The group, which 

included both McDonnell and NASA operators and quality control personnel 

from Cape Kennedy, was temporarily located in St. Louis to review and approve test procedures and to perform the various tests on spacecraft Nos. 

2 and 3. The St. Louis crew originally assigned to perform this function worked 

with the LPG through SST on these two spacecraft, then took over SST 

operations when spacecraft No. 4 entered SST. Primary purpose of the change 

was to improve scheduling by eliminating redundant testing. Once module 

testing was completed, modules would be permanently mated and only mated 

checks would be performed on the spacecraft through the remainder of SST 

and throughout its checkout at the Cape. Numerous problems encountered in 

the modular SST of spacecraft No. 2 required troubleshooting, equipment 

and structural changes, and retesting, delaying the beginning of Phase IT 

mated SST until July. 

Mission Report tor GT-2, pp., 12-1 to 12-3, 12-45; Quarterly Status Reports: 

No.8, pp. 1, 79-80; No.9, p. 1. 

Phase I of the program to develop a drogue stabilization parachute for the 

~mini parachute recovery system began with a successful test drop of boilerplate spacecraft No. 5 at El Centro. Phase I was aimed at determining the 

effects of deploying the pilot chute by a lanyard attached to the drogue chute. 

The second drop test, on January 28, was also successful, but in the third test, 

on February 6, the cables connecting the drogue-and-pilot-chute combination 

to the rendezvous and recovery (R and R) section of the boilerplate failed 

during pilot-chute deployment. Although the main chute deployed adequately 

to achieve a normal boilerplate landing, the R and R section was badly damaged when it hit the ground. Testing was temporarily suspended while 

McDonnell analyzed the cause of failure. Testing resumed on April10 with the 

fourth drop test, and Phase I was successfully concluded on April 21 with 

the fifth and final drop. Boilerplate No. 5 then returned to McDonnell, where 

it was converted into static article No. 4A by September 18 for use in Phase 

III tests. 

Weekly Activity Report, Apr. 5-11, 1964, p. 4; Consolidated Activity Reports: 

Dec. 22, loo:hTan. 18, 1004, p. 18; Jan. 1!}-Feb. 15, p. 15; Mar. 22-Apr. 18, p. 21; 

Apr. 19-llay 16, 1964, p. 15; Quarterly Status Reports: No. 8, p. 25; No. 9, p. 12; 

McDonnell Final Rcpor't, p. 28. 

Martin-Baltimore conducted a static test-to-failure of the spn.cecraft/launch 

vehicle interface structure. Test results demonstrated a very satisfactory minimum structural margin of 23 percent above ultimate conditions expected to 

be met in the transonic buffet conditions of launch. Pltms were made to hold 

a structures meeting in Houston on March 17-19, 1964, for flnnl review of all 

load conditions, stress distribution, and margins, in ren.diness for the GeminiTitan 1 mission. 

Weekly Activity Report, Jan. 19--25, 1964, p. 8; Quarterly Status Rt>port No. 8, p. 5. 

129 


20 
SKIRT 

Fig11rc 6'1.-The intet·facc between 

Gemini launch vehicle and apacecraft. (NASA Photo S-61,-3065, 

undated.) 

1964 North American began deployment flights of the fnl1-scale test ve-hicle 

] lltJUIIry Paraglider Landing System Program. The contract called for 20 tests to d

22 

strate deployment of the full-scale wing from the rendezvous and re

can, followed by glide and radio-controlled maneuvering; each test wa

tenninated by release of the wing and recovery hy the emergency par

system (which had been qunlified on December 3, 1963). Twenty-five d

ment flight tests were n,ct.ually conductoo. The first fi,·e flights (Janua

February 18, March 6, April 10, and April 22) achieved some succe

flight. No. 6 (April30) was the first to complete the entire sequence succes

Flight No. 7 (~fay 28) was also successful. The ne.xt four flights (.Tu

June 29, July 15, and July 23) a.gain rnn intQ trouble. A successful flig

12 (July 29) wns followed by a series of problem flights (August 1, Au

August 13, August 17, August 25, September 1, September 11, Septem

October 12, and October 16); the deployment sequence in these fligh

generally satisfactory, but achieving a stable glide remained elusive. Th

three flights (October 23, November 6, and December 1), however, succe

demonstrated the complete test sequence with no problems. 

Weekly Activity Re-ports: .Jan. 19-25, p. 7; Feb. 16-22, p. 4; Mar. 1- 7, p. 1; A

~11. p. 5; Apr. 19-2a, p. 2; A1or. 26-l\lay 2. pp. 2-3; May 23-30, p, 1; June 7-

p. 1; June 28--July 4, p. 1; July 19-25, p. 1; July 26-Aug. 1, pp. 1-2; Aug. 2

pp. 1-2; Aug. 1&-22, J). 1; Aug. 23-29, p. 2; Aug. 30-Sept. 5, pp. 1-2; Sept. 6-

1964, p. 2; NAA, A Final Fee Settlement Proposal tor Contract NAS 9-14

p. Y-113; Paragllder Landing System Program, Monthly Progre~~ Rt-ports : No

Feb. 13; No. 10, Mnr. 11; No. 11, Apr. 13; No. 12, lfay 18 ; No. 13, June 10; No. 

July 13; No.15, Aug. 7; No.16, Sept. 16; No.17, Oct.19; No. 18, Nov.11; No. 

Dec. 11, 1964 ; No. 20, Jan. 15, 1965. 

25 	 Rocketdyne tested an orbit attitude and maneuver system (OXMS) 100

thrust chamber assembly (TCA) to the 757-se~ond mission duty cycle w

failure. The TCA incorporated a modified injector which sprayed ab

130 

this engine configuration provided an ample margin for meeting mission re

quirements. These test results encouraged Gemini Project Office (GPO) to 

believe that boundary-layer cooling answered the problem of obtaining life 

requirements for the OAMS 100-pound TCAs. The same technique was also 

tried with the 25-pound TCA, but boundary-layer cooling wns much less sueoossful in the smaller engine; a modified rounded-edge, splash-plate injector 

yielded better results. This configuration was tested to t.he 570-seeond mission 

duty cycle using a mixture ratio of 0.7: 1; at the end of the test, 0.18 inch un­

~harred material was left. Earlier TCAs using the same mixt.ure ratio had 

failed after a maximum of 380 seconds. GPO now expected bot.h 25- and 100­

pound TCAs to be ready for installation in spacecraft 5 and up. 

W~kly Activity Reports: Jan. 26-Feb. 1, p. 12; Feb. 23-29, 1964, pp. ~7; Quarterly 

Status Report No. 8, pp. 19-20. 

Gemini Project Office reported that Ames Research Center had conducted a 

visual reentry control simulator program to evaluate the feasibility of controlling the spacecraft attitude during reentry by using the horizon as the only 

visual reference. Simulation confirmed previous analytical studies and showed 

that the reentry attitude control, using the horizon view alone, was well within 

astronaut capabilities. 

Weekly Activity Report, Jan. 19-25, 1964, p. 8; Quarterly Status Report No. 8, p. 35. 

The program plan for Gemini extravehicular operations was published. Objectives of the operations were to evaluate man's capabilities to perform useful 

tasks in a space environment, to employ extravehicular operations to augment 

the basic capability of the spMecraft, and to provide the capability to evaluate 

advanced extravehicular equipment in support of manned spaee flight and 

other national space programs. Flight Crew Operations Directorate had initiated flight activities planning based on a schedule calling for: on GeminiTitan (GT) 4, depressurizing the cabin, opening the hatch, and standing up; 

on GT-5, performing complete egress and ingress maneuvers; on GT-6, 

egressing and proceeding to the interior of the equipment adapter and retrieving data packages; on GT-7 and GT-8, evaluating maneuvering capabilities 

along the spacecraft exterior by using tether and hnndholds; on GT-9, evn.luating astronaut maneuvering unit; and on GT-10 through GT-12, evaluating 

other a.dvaneed extravehicular equipment and procedures. Crew Systems Division, responsible for ground test of extravehicular equipment, had initiated 

egress and ingress exercises in a simulated zero-gravity environment. 

Oon!IOlidated Activity Re-port, Dec. 22, 1963-Jan. 18, 1964, p. 47; Quarterly Status 

Rt>port No. 8, pp. 32-33; Interview, William C. Schneider, Washington, Jan. 23, 

1967. 

McDonnell began spacecraft pyrotechnic hatch firing tests, using boilerplate 

No. 3A, with a single-hatch firing test. The hatch opened and locked, but open­

Pebr~ 

131 


25 

I 
19-Feb. 15, 1964, p. 19; Quarterly Status Report No. 8, p. 6. 

F'l{lure 68.-Gemlnl boilerplate 3A. ln the production area at the McDonnell pl

being shipped to Weber Aircraft. (NASA. Photo 1058, Feb. 18, 1964.) 

2 	 Manufacture of the hentshield for spacecrn.ft No.3 wns completed. Th

was the first production article with the full thickness of 1.0 inch; sh

spacecraft Nos. 1 and 2 were about half as thick. 

Weekly Activity Report, Feb. 2-8, 1964, p. 11. 

3 	 A cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for $133,358 was awarded to the 

Corporation's AiResearch Manufacturing Division for the extrav

pressurization and ventilation system. Initial phase of the contract was 

to define detailed systems configuration. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Jan. 19-Feb. 15, 1964, p. 39: Quarterly Status R

No.8. p. 33. 

Gemini launch vehicle 2 stage I and interstage were erected in the ver

facility at Martin-Baltimore. Stage II was erected February '7. Sub

Functional Verification Tests began February 21. 

132 

pleted April 24 but were not actually concluded until late June. Testing pro

ceeded with only minor problems through the first week of April. But in the 

following week PPS testing encountered what proved to be a. six-week delay 

when the test unit's fuel and oxidizer start tanks failed. The two start tanks, 

stainless steel canisters with an internal bellows arrangement, supplied the 

propellants required to initiate the main engine start sequence. Visible longitudinal cracks in the outer shell allowed the gas which forced the propellants 

out of the tank to escape. Investigation revealed that the cracks had resulted 

from intergranular corrosion of the stainless steel tanks. The defective tanks 

were replaced by start tanks with a new heat-treated shell (delivered April24), 

and PFRT resumed early in May. 

Weekly Activity Reports: Mar. 22-28, pp. 1-2; Mar. 29--Apr. 4, p. 3; Apr. 5-11, p. 

3; Apr. 26-May 2, p. 1 ; June 21-27, 1964, p. 1; Qlllllrterly Statue Reports: No. 8, 

p. 63; No.9, pp. 42-43; Abstracts of Meetings on A.ttas/Agena Coordination: Apr. 

16, May 18, June 19, 1964. 

Bernhard A. Hohmann of Aerospace expressed concern at a Gemini Management Panel meeting over spacecraft weight growth. His position was supported 

by Major General Ben I. Funk of Air Force Space Systems Division, \vho 

feared that mounting weight would squeeze out the Department of Defense 

experiments program. Funk wanted a detailed study made of the problem, 

with possible solutions to be discussed at a subsequent meeting of the pa.nel. 

The growth of spacecraft weight was a. persistent problem. At the management 

panel meeting of September 29, George M. Low, NASA Deputy Associa.te 

Administrator for Manned Space Flight, pointed out that spa.cercra.ft No. 8 

had increased a.n average of 35 pounds per month since early 1963. 

Minn!ftl of Project Gemini Management Panel Meetings : held at SSD, Feb. 7, 

1964 ; at Patrick AFB, Fla., Sept. 29, 1964. 

Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) reported a decision to use MSC f8.('.ilities to 

reduce and process data for postlaunch a.na.Jysis. The center. had investigated 

the possibility of using Lockheed facilities for this purpose, but the use of center 

facilities would save a.n estimated $300,000. 

Weekly Activity Report, Feb. 2-8, 1964, p. 13. 

Gemini Project Office reported that the developmental test program for the 

Gemini spacecraft retrorockets ha.d been essentially completed at Thiokol. Qualification tests for the retrorockets would begin in March 1964. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Jan. 19-Feb. 15, 1004, p. 17. 

Manned Spacecraft Center's Flight Operations Division reported the completion of a. series of simulated Gemini rendezvous missions to assess the adequacy and sequential usage of currently planned trajectory a.nd real-time control displays. 

Consolidated Activity Report, .Tan. 19-Feb. 15, 1964, p. 24. 

7 

8 

133 

17 

14. Instn1lation was completed and the PTVA delivered to San~ Cru

Base on March 26. 

Wtoekly Activity RE.'})Orts: Mar. 22-28, p. 2; Mar. 29-Apr. 4, 1004, p. 3; Qoort

Status Reports: No. 8, p. 63; No. 9, p. 43; Lockheed Agena M01lthrJI Repcwta: F

ruary, p. 3--5; March.1964, p. 3-4. 

Figure 69.-The Agena Becond6rJ1 

propulaion aystem. (Lockheea, 

"Gcmin£ Agcna Target Vehicle 

Familiarization Handbook," LMSO 

A60t5U, Apr.1,196,f, pp. 4-1, 4-,8.) ELECTRICAL 

POWER PRE55Ul1ZATION 

AND 

PROPELLANT FEED 

SYSTEM 

ELECTRICAL PRESSURIZATION POWER AND 


PROPILLANT FEED 


SYSTEM 


INSTRUMENTAT ION L:::==:=:::::::::::===..Ql!!.Pill:C::::::::

+Y MODULE 

SIMPLIFIED BLOCK DIAGRAM OF THE 

SECONDARY PROPULSION SYSTEM 

Bell Aerosystems began Preliminary Flight Rating Tests (PFRT) 

Agena secondary propulsion system (SPS). After proceeding through 

celeration and vibration test phases of PFRT without incident, the SPS 

calibration firings early in April. The failure of a propellant valve in 

(the 16-pound thrust chamber fired prior to starting the main engine in o

orient propellant) of the SPS imposed a minor delay, but a more seriou

lem emerged late in April during high-temperntnre firings. The wall 

Unit II 200-ponnd thrust chamber burned through near the injector fac

an a.ccumulat.ed PFRT firing time of 354 seconds, below the specificatio

of 400 seconds although well in excess of the maximum orbitn.l useful 

200 seconds. The thrust. chamber was replaced nnd testing continued, but. P

origina.lly scheduled to end June 19, was first slipped to July 8, n.nd 

completed in mid-August. To resolve the burn-through problem, Bell 

a test program in September to detennine the cause of failure. 

Wet>kly Activity Reports: Mar. 22-28, pp. 1-2 ; Mar. 29-Apr. 4, p. 3; Apr. 1

p. 3; Apr. 19-25, 1004, p. 1; Quarterly Status Report No. 8, p. 63; Abstract

:\Ieetings on Atlns/Agena Coordination : Apr. 16, May 18, June 19, Aug. 27, 1

134 

to its launch vehicle, and none appeared to indicate a delay in launch. The 

spacecraft was transferred to complex 19 on March 3 and placed in the spacecraft erector support assembly in the erector white room. The premate Spacecraft Systems Test was successfully perfonned March 4. 

Mission Re-port for GT-1, pp. 12-1, 12-11, 12-22; Quarterly Status Report No. 8, 

p. 79. 

George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, 

infonned the staff of the Gemini Project Office (GPO) that all12 Gemini flights 

would end in water landings, although Project Gemini Quarterly Report No.8 

for the period ending February 29, 1964, still listed the paraglider for the last 

three Gemini missions. At the GPO staff meeting of April 29, it was decided 

to reduce the level of activity on the paraglider program and begin to phase 

it out of the Gemini program. Representatives of NASA and North American 

met on May 4 and agreed to continue concentrating primarily on the flight test 

portion of the program. But paraglider was dead as far as Gemini was concerned. On June 12, Gemini Project Manager Charles W. Mathews notified 

the Gemini Procurement Office that GPO had deleted the requirement for a 

paraglider recovery system from the Gemini program and requested that the 

appropriate change in the McDonnell contract be expedited. The public announcement that the paraglider had definitely been canceled from the Gemini 

program came on August 10, 1964. 

Memo, Mathews to Stephen D. Armstrong, Subj: Contract NAS 9-170, Paraglider 

Recovery System, CCP No. 5, J'une 12, 1964; Quarterly Status Report No. 8, p. 

58; Minutes, GPO Sta.r Meetings: Feb. 20, Apr. 29, May 7, 1964; NAA, A Final 

Fee Settlement Proposal for Contract NAS 9-1484, Sect. III; A.8tronautic1 and Aeronautics, 1964: Ohrottologll on Science, Technologv, aftd PoZicrl, NASA SP-4005, 

p. 280. 

Gemini launch vehicle 1 Subsystems Functional Verification Tests (SSFVT) 

began on complex 19. These repeated the SSFVT performed at MartinBaltimore in the vertical test facility. Their purpose was to verify the vehicle's 

readiness to begin systems tests. SSFVT were completed on March 3. 

lflll8ion R~>port for GT-1, pp. 12-!1, 12-23; Aerospace Fin.al Report, p, II.F-2; 

Gem~ni-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. 4-14. 

George M. Low, NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned Space 

Flight, informed Gemini Project Manager Charles W. Mathews of experiments 

approved for the first five Gemini missions. NASA Associate Administrator 

Robert C. Seamans, Jr., had approved the recommendations of the Manned 

Space Flight Experiments Board, subject to completion of Gemini Project 

Office (GPO) feasibility studies. The approved list of experiments did not include experiments required to secure design information for Gemini and Apollo, 

which GPO was authorized to add as first priority items. All experiments were 

20 

21 

26 

135 

28 	 Gemini Project Manager Charles W. Mathews informed Manned S

Center senior staft' of efforts to control Gemini spacecraft weight and c

tion more tightly. Mathews had assigned Lewis R. Fisher of his offic

a Systems Integration Office within Gemini Project Office to over

eft'orts by keeping very precise accounts of spacecraft weight, interfac

between the spacecraft and launch vehicle, and interface actions bet

spacecraft and the Agena target vehicle. 

MSC Minutes of Senior Staff Meeting, Feb. 28, 1964, p. 6; luterview, F

Houston, Mar. 24, 1966. 

29 	 Gemini Project Office reported the initiation of backup engine program

current eft'orts to solve development problems with the orbit atti

maneuver system thrusters be unsuccessful or additional requiremen

posed on the spacecraft. Marshall Space Flight Center was to devel

pound engine, with possible application to the Saturn S-IVB launch 

well as the Gemini spacecraft. Manned Spacecraft Center was dev

25-pound radiation-cooled engine. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 8, p. 20. 

29 	 Gemini Project Office (GPO) reported the results of a test program 

mine the possible effects of cracked throats or liners on the orbit atti

maneuver system thrusters. Because of the manufacturing process, a

thrust chamber assemblies (TCA) had such cracks and consequently 

be delivered. The tests showed no apparent degradation of engine li

by cracks, and Rocketdyne claimed that no TCA in any of their f

engine programs had failed because of a cracked throat. With certai

tions, cracked throats were to be accepted. GPO expected this probl

reduced or eliminated in the new boundary-layer cooled TCAs, the t

which had appeared in good condition after testing. 

Quarterly Status :Report No. 8, p. 20. 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 1 and spacecraft No.1 were mechanica

at complex 19. Before GLV and spacecraft were electrically mated, th

vehicle's status was reverified with a Combined Systems Test (CST) p

on March 10. A special series of Electronic-Electrical Interference (EE

began March 12 and ended March 25. Evaluation of test results confir

the intent of EEl testing had been accomplished, despite some persisten

lies. A successful post-EElsystems reverification CST was performed M

Mission Report for GT-1, pp. 12-9, 12-23; Aerospace Final Report, p. II

Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehlcle, p. 4-14; Harris, Gemlnl LIJunch V

Chro1tOlOf1fl, pp. 34-35. 

6 	 Martin-Baltimore received the propellant tanks for Gemini launch 

from Martin-Denver, which had begun fabricating them in Novem

136 

Tank 

Figure 

splicing 

'10.-Gcmlnl-Titan 

vcllicle 

was completed 

erector 

1 d11ring 

lowered. 

Electronic-Electrical 

July 

(NASA 

21. Aerojet-General 

Photo No

Interfcrettcc 

. 64-Gcmini 

delivered 

1-44

Testa 

.) 

with 

the 

the 

stage 

launchII 

flight engine June 26, the stage I engine July 28. Engine installation was completed September 4. Final horizontal tests were completed and reviewed October 26, with Martin authorized to erect the vehicle in the vertical test facility. 

Gemini Program M1sston Report, Gemini IV, July 1965, p. 12-26; Aerospace Final 


Report, p. II.G-5; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-8. 


The structures panel met to review and clear up all open items concerning the 17-19 

structural integrity of the interface between the spacecraft adapter section and 

the launch Yehicle upper skirt. An unexpected snag developed when an analysis 

by Aerospace indicated load factors about 10 times greater than McDonnell had 

predicted. Further analysis by McDonnell confirmed its original estimate. 

MSC Minutes of Senior Statr Meeting, 1\lar. 20, 1964, p. 6; Consolidated Activity 


Report, Feb. 16-Mar. 21, 1964, p. 21; Yardley interview. 


The Air Force Systems Command weekly report (inaugurated in September 19 

1963) summarizing actions taken to resolve Titan II development problems 

would no longer be issued. George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator 

for Manned Space Flight, informed Associate Administrator Robert C. 

Seamans, Jr., that the launch vehicle "no longer appears to be the pacing item 

in the Gemini program." 

Memo, Mueller to Seamans, Subj: Gemini Launch Vehicle Weekly TWX, Mar. 17, 


1964,wltb Seamans' concurrence. 


Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) approved Air Force Space Systems Divi­ 20 

sion's (SSD) recommendations for a test program to increase confidence in 

16 critical electronic and electrical components of the Gemini Agena target 

137 
25 

26 

26 

September 1, 1964. 

Minutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting held at Martin-Baltim

Apr. 15, 1964, Fig. B-3-1; GATV Pt·ogress Report, December 1964, pp. 2-7, 

2--12, 2--13. 

At a me-eting of the Gemini Project Office's Trajectories and Orbits Pane

bers of Flight Operations Division described two mission plans currentl

consideration for the first Age.na rendezvous flight. One was based 

concept of tnngentia.l Agenn and spacecraft orbits, as proposed by How

Tindall, Jr., and James T. Rose when they were members of Space Task 

The second plan, based on a proposal by Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., then 

Force Space Systems Division, involved orbits which \vere concentric rath

tangential. The most significant advantage of the second plan was tha

vided the greatest. utilization of onboard backup techniques; that is

specifically designed to make optimum use of remaining onboard 

in the event of failures in the inertial guidance system platform, comp

radar. 

Abstract of Meeting on Trajectories and Orbits, Mar. 27, 1964 ; Aldrin inter

Boilerplate spacecraft No. 4 was subjected to its first drop from a test 

boilerplate achieved a horizontal velocity of 60 feet per second and a 

velocity of about 40 feet per second at tl1e time of impact with the wa

test was conducted to obtain data on landing accelerations for variou

and attitudes of the spacecraft. 

Weekly Activity Report, Mar. 22-28, 1964, p. 3. 

The propulsion test vehicle assembly (PTVA) arrived at Santa Cruz Te

It consisted of n basic Agena structure with propellant pressurization, fe

load system, the primary propulsion system (PPS), and two secondary 

sion system (SPS) modules attached to the aft rack. The test program 

for loading operations and hot firings of both propulsion systems to e

the adequacy of PPS and SPS propellant loading systems and associated 

equipment, to demonstrate proper overall system operation, and to pro

gineering data on systems operation and the resulting environment. S

testing was delayed by the PPS start tank problems which showed up 

Preliminary Flight Rating Tests at Bell Aerosystems during April. L

returned the PTVA. main engine start tanks to Bell, where they were in

and found to be defective. New tanks were ready by mid-May, but ad

minor problems delayed the initiation of hot-firing until June 16. 

Weekly Activity Reports: Apr. 1~25, p. 1 ; Apr. 26-May 2, 1964, p. 1; Lock

Agena Monthly Reports: March., p. 3-4; Ju.ne 196.f, p. 3-6; Aerospace F

Reporl, p. III. F-2. 

Gemini Project Office reported the results of the potability tests o

138 


28 
pp

would be headed by G. Merritt Preston, who had been in charge of MSC activities at the Cape since 1961. Responsibilities of the reorganized MSC-Florida 

Operations were simi1ar to those performed and conducted during Project Mercury, 'vith one major exception: Florida personnel would participate in spacecraft testing at McDonnell, thus eliminating the need for so much duplicate 

testing at the Cape by ensuring the delivery of a flight-ready spacecraft to the 

Cape. 

MSO Space Netca Roundup, Apr. 15, 1964, p. 8; interviews: Preston and John J. 

Williams, Kennedy Space Center, Fla., May 24, 1967. 

Electrical and mechanical modification of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 1 

airborne components was completed. GLV- 1 had been shipped to the Cape 

equipped with several items to be used only for ground tests. These were replaced with flight units, beginning January 31. The GLV-1 Wet Mock Simulated Launch, a complete countdown exercise including propellant loading, 

was successfully completed April 2. Testing concluded on April 5 with a 

Simulated FlightTest. 

Mls91on Report for GT-1, pp. 12-0, 12-10, 12-23; Aerospace Fin.al Report, p. 

II.F-3; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, pp. 4--18, D-S ; Harris, Gcmfnt 

LGtmch Vehlcle ChrOfWlOUfl, p. 36. 

Astronauts visited St. Louis to conduct an operational evaluation of the translation and docking trainer. They noted minor discrepancies which McDonnell 

corrected. The company completed engineering evaluation tests on April 6. 

The trainer was then disassembled for shipment to Manned Spacecraft Center, 

Houston. 

Oonsolidated Activity Report, Mar. 22.-Apr. 18, 1964, p. S8; Qtarterly Status Report 

No.9,p.56. 

A 36-hour open-sea qualification test, using static article No. 5, began in 

Galveston Bay. The test ended after two hours when the test subjects became 

seasick. Among the technical problems encountered during this two-hour 

exposure were the failure of one of the suit ventilation fans and structural 

failure of the high-frequency whip antenna. 

Weekly Activity Report, Mar. 29-Apr. 4, 1964, pp. 3-4. 

The first mission in the Gemini program, designated Gemini-Titan 1 (GT-1), 

was successfully launched from complex 19 at Cape Kennedy at 11: 00 a.m., 

e.s.t. GT-1 was an unmanned mission using the first production Gemini spacecraft and launch vehicle ( GLV). Its primary purpose was to verify the structural integrity of the GLV and spacecraft, as well as to demonstrate the GLV's 

ability to place the spacecraft into a prescribed Earth orbit. Mission plans did 

not include separation of the spacecraft from stage II of the GLV, and both 

were inserted into orbit as a unit six minutes after launch. The pla.nned mission 

31 

2 

8 

139 

Mission Report for GT-1, pp. 2-1, 2-2 ; MSC Fact Sheet 291, Gemini Pro

February 100!'1, p. 4; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G-3. 

9 	 The 33rd and lnst Titan II research and de,·elopment flight was launch

Cape Kennedy. This Air Force-condm_,ted test program contribute

cantly to the development of the Gemini launch vehicle; the Gemini mal

detection system was tested on five flights, Gemini guidance compo

three, and the longitudinal oscillation fix on four. In addition to fligh

these (and other) critical component.s, these flights also enhanced c

in the use of the Titan II as a launch vehicle. Thirty-two Titan II te

''ere analyzed to determine whether any characteristic of the flight wo

demanded a Gemini abort; 22 were adjudged succes.<;ful from the st

of a Gemini mission, nine would have required Gemini to abort, and one 

in a prelaunch shutdown. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 9, p. 33; memo, Rosen to Boone, Subj: Gemini L

Vehicle Man-rating, Oct. 8, 1965. 

9 	 Phase II of the program to incorporate a drogue stabilization chute in 

chute recovery system began at El Centro. The purpose of Phase I

develop t.he stabilization chute and determine its reefing parameters. 

Figure 71.-Paracltr~tc test vc11iclc after drop test on July16, 1964. (NASA Photo 

2451, July16, 1964.) 

test in the series, which used a weighted, instrumented, bomb-shap

chute test vehicle (PTV), experienced several malfunctions culmin

the loss of all parachutes and the destruction of the PTV when i

140 
ppg py y

drogue configuration; qualification tests began December 17. 

Wet>kly Activity Reports: May 17-23, p. 1; June 2S-July 4, 1964, p. 1; Consolidated Activity Reports: Mar. 22-Apr. 18, p. 21; Apr. 19-May 16, p. 17; May 17­

June 20, pp. 18-19; June 21-July 18, p. 17; July 19-Aug. 22, p. 17; Aug. 23-Sept. 

19, p. 18; Sept. 20-0ct. 17, pp. 18-19; Oct. 18-Nov. 30, 1964, p. 17; Quarterly 

status Reports: No. 9, p. 12; No. 10 tor Period Ending Aug. S1, 1964, p. 21; 

No.ll tor Period Ending Nov. 30,1964, pp.17-18. 

Structural qualification testing of the ballute stabilization system was oom­ 9 

pleted in the wind tunnel at Arnold Engineering Development Center. Two 

subsonic and four supersonic runs at design conditions and two ultimate runs 

at 150 percent of design maximum dynamic pressure showed the four-foot 

ballute to be fully satisfactory as a stabilization device. Final qualification 

of the ballute was completed as part of a personnel parachute, high-altitude, 

drop test program which began in January 1965. 

Weekly Activity Report, Apr. IS-11, 1964, p. 4; Quarterly Status Report No.9, pp. 


14-15. 


Members of the Flight Crew Support Division (FCSD) visited McDonnell to 9 

review and discuss Gemini coc.kpit stowage problems. To aid in detennining 

stowage requirements, they carried with them a mock-up of the 16-millimeter 

camera window mount, the flight medical kit, defecation gloves, and the star 

chart and holder. FCSD felt that stowage might become critical during the 

fourth Gemini mission, mainly because of the large volume of camera 

equipment. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Mar. 22-Apr. 18, 1964, p. 39. 

Arnold Engineering Development Center conducted a test program to deter­ 9 

mine the heat level on the base of the Gemini spacecraft during firing of the 

retrorockets under abort. conditions from altitudes of 150,000 feet and up. 

Preliminary evaluation indicated that no base heating problem existed. 

We(!kJy Activity Report, Apr.IS-11, 1964, p. 4. 

Crew Systems Division held a design review of Gemini food, water, and waste 9-10 

management systems. Production prototypes of the urine transport system, 

water dispenser, feeder bag, first day urine collection bag, and sampling device 

were re·dewed. The urine transport system and water dispenser designs were 

approved. Remaining items were approved in concept but required further 

work. 

Consolldak>d Activity Report, Mar. 22-Apr. 18, 1964, p. 66. 

Director Robert R. Gilruth, Manned Spacecraft Center, announced Astronauts 

Virgil I. Grissom and John W. Young as the prime crew for the first manned 

141 

14 

22 

performance before undertaking a rendezvous mission. Gemini Proje

(GPO) rejected this plan, regarding it as impractical within current s

launch sequence, and cost restraints. GPO accepted, however, SSD's a

recommendation that one target vehicle be designated a developm

vehicJe (DTV) to permit more extensive subsystems and systems 

malfunction studies, and modifications at the Lockheed plant. Gemin

target vehicle (GATV) 5001 was designated the DTV, but GPO insis

it be maintained in flight status until the program office authorized its r

All previously planned tests were still necessary to demonstrate sati

performance of GATV 5001 as a flight vehicle. GATV 5001 was the firs

for the Gemini program. 

Minutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting beld at Martin-Balti

Apr. 15, 1964, Fig. B-3-4; Qllftrterly Status Report No.9, p. 41; Abstract of Me

on Atlas/Agena Coordination, July 16, 1964. 

Electrical-Electronic Interference Tests began on Gemini launch 

(GLV) 2 in the vertical test facility at Martin-Baltimore. Oscillograph 

ers monitored 20 GLV and aerospace ground equipment (AGE) 

five of which displayed anomalies. Two hydrn.uJic switchover circuits 

voltage transients exceeding failure criteria, but a special test fixed this 

in the AGE rather than the GLV. 

Mission Report tor GT-2, pp. 12-12, 12-13; Gemlni-Titan II Air Force lA

Vehicle, p. D-4. 

After reviewing the results of Gemini-Titan (GT) 1, the Gemini 

ment Panel remained optimistic that manned flight could be accom

in 1964. According to the work schedule, GT-2 could fly on August 24 an

on November 16, wit.h comfortable allowances for four-week slips f

mission. Some special attention was devoted to GT-2, where the sp

had become the pacing item, a position held by the launch vehicle o

Spacecraft No. 2 systems tests had started one month late but were pro

well. In addition, the schedule looked tight for starting spacecraf

systems tests on June 1. 

Jrllnutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting held at Martin-Balti

Apr. 15, 1964. 

The formal Combined Systems Acceptance Test (CSAT) of Gemin

vehicle (GLV) 2 was satisfactorily completed in the vertical test 

at Martin-Baltimore. Three preliminary CSATs (April 17-20) h

completed and all anomalies resolved. Three additional nonschedul

were conducted on GLV-2 before it 'vas removed from the test fac

Radio Frequency Susceptibility Test was required to demonstrate th

of GLV-2 ordnance to withstand an electromagnetic field strengt

100 watts per square meter with live ordnance items connected in fli

142 

The 

nology, 

vehicle 

p. 

acceptance 

37. 

team (VAT) for Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 2 con· 

vened at Martin-Baltimore. The VAT inspection was completed May 1 with 

GLV-2 found acceptable. GLV-2 was deerected the next day (May 2) and 

transferred to the assembly area where the interim stage I engine was removed 

and the new flight engine installed (May 11-Junc 13). Representatives of Air 

Force Space Systems Division (SSD), Aerospace, and NASA conducted the 

official roll-out inspection of GLV-2 June 17-18, and SSD formally accepted 

the vehicle June 22. GLV-2 delivery to Eastern Test Range (ETR), formerly 

Atlantic Missile Range, was rescheduled from June 22 to July 10. The time was 

used to complete modifications that had been scheduled at ETR. GLV-2 was 

airlifted to ETR on July 11. 

Mission Report for GT-2, pp. 12-14, 12-15; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G-3; 

Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-4; Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle 

Chronology, p, 37. 

AiResearch completed tests of the G2C suit to determine carbon dioxide washout efficiency, suit pressure drop, and outlet dew point of various metabolism 

rates. Crew Systems Division began qualification and reliability testing of the 

suit during April. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Apr. 19-May 16, 1964, p. 57; Quarterly Status Report 

No.9, pp. 16-17. 

Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD) accepted the first Agena D (AD-71) 

for the Gemini program. The Agena D was a production-line vehicle procured 

from Lockheed by SSD for NASA through routine procedures. Following 

minor retrofit operations, the vehicle, now designated Gemini Agena target 

vehicle 5001, entered the manufacturing final assembly area at the Lockheed 

plant on May 14. There began the conversion of the Agena D into a target vehicle 

for Gemini rendezvous missions. Major modifications were installation of a 

target docking adapter (supplied by McDonnell), an auxiliary equipment rack, 

external status displays, a secondary propulsion system, and an L-band tracking 

radar. 

Consolidated ActiYity Report, Apr. 19-May 16, 1964, p. 17; Lockheed Agena 


Monthly Report, Ma.y, 1964, p. ~; Aerospace Final Report, pp. III.F-1, III.G-3. 


The spa~craft computer formal qualification unit completed Predelivery Acceptance Tests (PDA) and was delivered to McDonnell. The flight unit for 

spacecraft No.2 was delivered during the first week in May. Later in the month, 

a complete inertial guidance system fonnal integration PDA was completed on 

.spacecraft No.2 (May 22). The spacecraft No. 3 flight unit completed PDA on 

June 6. 

Quarterly Status Report No.9, p. 19. 

328-022 ~9-11 143 

27 

30 

30 

MII'Y 

1 
N) SCON 

...

* 	 ADAPTER 

y 

+X 
 +Z 


Figure 7!.-CJcm,jfguratiOft of the Gemint Agena target vehicle

(J,ockheed, "Gemini AgCfUJ Target Vehicle Famil-iarization Hand

book," LM8(J A60!521, Apr. 1, 1964, p. 1-6.) 

1964 The first of a series of three tests, using static article No. 7, to co

May qualification of the Gemini parachute recovery system for spacecraf

' 	 conducted at El Centro. This configuration did not include the drog

zation chute being developed for spacecraft Nos. 3 and up. Sever

marred the first test drop, requiring McDonnell to redesign and stre

brackets tl1at attached the parachute container to the rendezvous an

section and to redesign the sequencing circuit. Further work on the br

nee.ded after the second test., on May 28, when the brackets buckled, th

did not fail. The third and final test, on June 18, successfully com

qualification of the parachute system. Static art.ide No. 7 was the

for use in Phase III testing to qualify the revised parachute system i

ing the drogue chute. Phase III began December 17. 

Consolidated ActiYity Reports: Apr. 19-May 16, p. 16; May 17-June 20, 

19; Quarterly Status Reports: No.9, pp. 12-13; No. 10, p. 21. 

5-7 Manned Spacecraft Center's Landing and Recovery Division condu

water suitability .tests with Gemini boilerplate spacecraft in the Gulf 

Sea conditions during the tests were 4- to 8-foot waves and 20- to 2

face winds. Tests were conducted with the flotation collar which ha

dropped. Egress from the spacecraft on the water was carried o

survival kit recovery beacon was exercised. The tests of the dye m

duced a water pa.t.tern that was not completely satisfactory. The flota

endured the rough seas quite well. 

Weekly Activity Report, May 3-9, 1004, p. 2. 

8 	 T~nngley Research Center completed tests on a model of the Gem

vehicle to determine the static and dynamic loads imposed on the v

the launch vehicle erector by ground winds. Simula.ted wind veloci

52 miles per hour did not produce loads great enough to be of con

had begun on April15. 

144 
systems were simulated by an instrumented Lockheed Super Constellation 

aircraft. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 9, p. 51; AstronauUcs and Aeronautic&, 196,#, p. 197. 

Primary and backup crews for Gemini-Titan 3 inspected a spacecraft No. 3 11-12 

crew station mock-up at McDonnell. They found all major aspects of the crew 

station acceptable. A few items remained to be corrected but would not affect 

the launch schedule. 

Quarterly Status Report No.9, p.15. 

Flight Operations Division presented the Gemini Program Office's proposed 

mission plan No. 3 for the first Agena rendezvous flight to the Trajectories 

and Orbits Panel. Plan No. 3, as yet incomplete, provided for rendezvous at 

first apogee on a perfectly nominal mission. 

Abstract of Meeting on Trajectories and Orbits, May 19, 1964. 

Manned Spacecraft Center requested that McDonnell submit a proposal to 19 

convert the Gemini spacecraft contract to a cost-plus-incentive-fee type. During the week of April 6, 1964, Gemini Program Manager Charles W. Mathews 

appointed a committee, headed by Deputy Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, 

to prepare the request for proposal. The Gemini Program Office completed 

and reviewed the performance and scheduled criteria, upon which the request 

would be based, during the week of April 19. NASA Headquarters approved 

the request for proposal during the week of May 3. 

Weekly Activity Reports: Apr. 1}-11, pp. 4-5; Apr. 19-25, p. 2; May 3-9, p. 3; 


May 17-23, 1964, p. 1; Consolidated Activity Report, Apr. 19-May 16, 1964, p. 


46; Oldeg Interview. 


Gemini spacecraft No. 3 began Phase I modular Spacecraft Systems Tests 29 

(SST) at McDonnell under the direction of the Launch Preparation Group. 

The Development Engineering Inspection of the spacecraft was held June 

9-10. The new rendezvous and recovery section, incorporating the high-altitude 

drogue parachute, was installed and checked out during July and August. 

Modular SST and preparations for Phase II mated SST were completed 

September 12. 

Ml811ion Report for GT-3, pp. 12-21, 12-22; Weekly Activity Report, June 7-13, 


1964, p. 1; Quarterly Status Report No.9, p. 47. 


Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) reported that several devices to familiarize 31 

the flight crews with the scheduled extravehicular tests were being developed. 

The crews would receive training on a device called a "data simulator," which 

simulated the mechanical effects of zero-g environment. Gemini boilerplate 

No. 2 would be used in the vacuum chamber. A KC-135 aircraft flying zero-g 

parabolas would be used for ingress and egress training, and the Gemini 

145 

31 

]llrl# 

J 

Quarterly Status Report No.9, p. 54. 

Gemini Program Office (GPO), encouraged by several highly suc.ces

reported that all orbit attitude and maneuver system thrust chamber 

(TCA) designs had been frozen. A 25-pound TCA tested to the 5

mission duty cycle wns still performing within specification requirem

more thnn 2100 seconds with a maximum skin temperature of 37

85-pound TCA accumulated 3050 seconds of mission duty cycle 

with skin temperatures no higher than 320°F. Maximum allowable 

TCA was 600°F. Two tests of the 100-pound TCA were equally s

The first was terminated after 757 seconds of mission duty cycle 

with n maximum skin temperature of 230° to 250°F. The second en

fuel was exhausted after 1950 seconds of mission duty cycle opera

a maximum skin temperature of 600°F. GPO attributed the succes

tests to proper injector screening techniques and reorienting the abl

terial laminates from vertical to the motor housing (90°) to appro

parallel (6°), both GPO suggestions, and to the boundary-layer coo

nique suggested by Rocketdyne. In l\fay, Rocketdyne released to produ

design for the long-duration TCAs. Installation of the new long-l

was planned for spacecraft No. 5, to include the 100-pound aft-firing 

and all 25-pound thrusters. A full complement of long-life TCAs wa

for spacecraft No. 6. 

Weekly Activity RPport, Mar. 29--Apr. 4, 1964, p. 4; Consolidated At"tlvlty R

Mar. 22-Apr. 18, 1964, pp. 24-25; Quarterly Status Report No. 9, p. 9; "G

Propulsion by Rocketdyne," p. IS. 

In cooperation with Air Force and NASA, Lockheed inaugurated th

Extra Care Program to reduce the incidence of equipment failures 

crepancies resulting from poor or careless workmanship during th

cation and assembly of the Agena target vehicle. The program 

increased inspection, exhortation, morale boosters, special awards, a

activities aimed at fostering and maintaining a strong team spirit at 

Results of the program were evidenced in a drastic decline in th

of FEDRs (Failed Equipment and Discrepancy Reports) recorde

Gemini final manufacturing area on successive vehicles. 

Lockhfc'ed Agcna. Jfontltly Report, June 1964, p. 3-11; GATV Progren Repor

1966, pp. 4-2 through 4-10; Aerospace Ff.11al Report, p. III.B-6. 

Dynamic qualification testing of the Gemini ejection seat began with 

No. 6 at China Lake. This was a preliminary test to prove that ha

hatch actuators would function properly under abort conditions; no 

was attempted. The test '"as successful, and qualification testing prop

on July 1 with test No.7. The test simulated conditions of maximum 

pressure following an abort from the powered phase of Gemini fligh

hicle being positioned heatshield forward as in reentry. Both seats ej

146 


4 
qg 

jy, y vp; 

both seat and dummy were destroyed when they hit the ground. Representati\'es of Manned Spacecraft Center and McDonnell met during the week of 

November 15 to consider revising the test program as a result of this failure. 

They decided to conduct test No. 9 under conditions approximating the most 

serere for which the ejection system was designed, in order to demonstrate 

the adequacy of the reworked seat structure. Test No.9 was run on December 

11, successfully demonstrating the entire ejection sequence and confirming 

the structural redesign. This brought the qualification sled test program to 

an end. 

Weekly Activity Reports : June 28-July 4, p. 1; Nov. 1-7, p. 2; Nov. 15-21, p. 3; 

Dec. 13-19, 1964, p. 2; Consolidated Activity Reports: June 21-July 18, p. 16; 

Oct. 18-Nov. 30, 1964, p. 18; Quarterly Status Reports : No. 10, pp. 24-25; No. 11, 

p. 18; No. 12 for Period Ending Feb. 28, 1965, p. 9. 

The entire complement of astronauts began launch abort training on the LingTemco-Vought simulator. Group 1 (selected April 1959) and Group 2 (September 1962) astronauts averaged approximately 100 runs each whereas Group 

3 (October 1963) astronauts completed 32 runs apiece. The Gemini-Titan 3 

launch profile was simulated in detail, including such cues as noise, vibration, 

pitch and roll programming, and other motion cues which results from various 

launch anomalies. The training was completed July 30. 

Consolidated Activity Report, 1\lay 17-June 20, 1964, p. 30; Quarterly Status Report No. 10, p.IS6. 

Air Force Space Systems Division's cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with Martin 

for 15 Gemini launch vehicles ( GLV) and associated aerospace ground equipment was replaced by a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract. Contract negotiations 

had been conducted between March 15 and April 30, 1964. The final contract 

contained cost, performance, and schedule incentives. Target cost was $111 

million and target fee was $8.88 million. The maximum fee possible under the 

contract was $16.65 million as against a minimum of $3.33 million. The period 

of performance under the contract was July 1,1963, through December 31, 1967, 

and covered the delivery of 14 GLVs (one GLV had already been delivered) 

and associated equipment and services, including checkout and launch. 

Harri!'l, Gemini Launch Vehicle ChronolOfiJI, pp. 39, E-2. 

Representatives of NASA, McDonnell, Weber Aircraft, and Air Force 6511th 

Test Group met. to define the basic objectives of a program to demonstrate 

the functional reliability of the Gemini personnel recovery system under simulated operational conditions. Such a program had been suggested at a coordination meeting on the ejection seat system on October 30, 1963. The planned 

program called for the recovery system to be ejected from an F- 106 aircraft, 

beginning with n static ground test in September, to demonstrate compatibility 

between the recovery system and the aircraft. Two full system tests, using a 

8 

10 

12 

147 

12 

16 

certain items required for full system tests. Full system testing ac

did not begin until January 28, 1965. 

Wet>kly Activity Report, Sept. 27-0ct. 3, 1964, p. 2; Quarterly Status R

No. 10, pp. 25-26; No. 11, p. 19; Abstract ot Meeting on Ejection Seat 

Nov. 15, 1963. 

Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Assistant Director for Flight Operation

Spncecrnlt Center, reported that three basic plans were under study f

vous missions. Rendez,rous at first apogee would probably be rejecte

of possible dispersions which might necessitate plane changes. R

T.NGfNTIAI. PLAN CO£UI"ICA.l f\AN FlltST APOGft

Fig11rc 7ff.-Thc three basic rcndt!ZVOIIIJ plan11 being considered for the f

rcndezoou11 mlulon. (M8C, Gemini Mldprogram Conterence, Including 

Results, NA8A SP-1!1,1966, p. Z77.) 

from concentric orbits seemed to be desirable because of the freed

lection of the geographic position of rendezvous. Major work thus 

e,·er, had been expended on the tangential rendezvous. Subsequ

concentric orbit plan was chosen for Gemini-Titan 6, the fir&t r

mission. 

MSC Minutes ot Senior Stafr Meeting, June 12, 1964, p. 3; Quarterly 

Report No. 10, p. 60. 

Lockheed began test-firing the propulsion test vehicle assembly at 

Cruz Test Base, after a delay caused primarily by problems with 

main engine start tanks. The program, undertaken because of extensiv

in the propulsion system required t.o adapt the standard Agena 

in Gemini missions, comprised three series of static-firing tests. 

series, in addition to providing base line performance for both pri

secondary propulsion systems (PPS and SPS), also subjected one SP

to the dynamic and acoustic environment created by 55 seconds of P

The second series, successfully completed July 16, simulated a poss

ini mission profile, including multiple firings and various coast 

times on both PPS and SPS units. The third series, which conc

148 
seconds. Post-test disassembly revealed no physical damage to any equipment. 

Weekly Activity Reports: June 21-27, p. 1; Aug. 2-8, 1964, p. 1; Consolidated 


Activity Report, July 19-Aug. 22, 1964, p. 16; Quarterly Status Report No. 10, 


p. 49; I..ockheed Agcna Monthly Reports: June, p. 34J; July 1964, p. 3--6; Aero­


space Final Report, p. III.F-2. 


Air Force Space Systems Division's cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with Aero­ 17 

jet-General for engines and related aerospace ground equipment for the Gemini launch vehicle was replticed by a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract. Contract 

negotiations had been conducted between May 25 and June 17, 1964. The 

final contract covered the procurement of 14 sets of engines (one set had 

already been delivered) and associated equipment during the period from 

July 1, 1963, through Deeember 31, 1967. Cost., performance, and schedule 

incentives made possible a maximum fee of $5,885,250 versus a minimum 

fee of $1,177,050. The initial target cost was $39,235,000 with a target fee of 

$3,138,800. . 

Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle Chronology, pp. 89-40, E-3. 

Stage I of Gemini launch vehicle 3 was erected in the vertical test facility at 19 

Martin-Baltimore. Stage II was erected June 22. Power was first applied 

June 29, and subsystems functional verification testing concluded July 31. 

Mission Report for GT-3, p. 12-25; Aerospace Final Report, p, II.G-3 ; Gemlnf,. 


Titan II Air Force Launch Vellicle, p. D-6. 


A Gemini Recovery School began operations at Kindley Air Force Base, 22 


Bermuda. Conducted by the Landing and Recovery Division of Flight Oper­


ations Directorate, this was the first such training course for Gemini offered to 


recovery personnel. The group included pararescue crews, Air Force navi­


gators, and maintenance personnel. 


MSC Space NewB Roundu.p, June 24, 1964, p. 8. 

Construction of Gemini-Agena facilities at complex 14 was completed. General 24 


Dynamics finished the installation and checkout of equipment in the Launch 


Operations Building on July 20. Lockheed equipment in the Launch Opera­


tions Building was installed and checked out by July 31. 


Quarterly Status Report No. 10, p. IS2. 

Martin-Baltimore received the propelient tanks for Gemini launch vehicle 25 

(GIN) 5 from Martin-Denver, which had begun fabrication in October 1963. 

Aerojet-General delivered the flight engines for GLV-5 November 5. Tank 

splicing was completed December 5 ; engine installation December 9. Final 

horizontal tests were completed January 7, 1965. 

Gemini Program Mission Report, Gemini V, October 1965, p. 12-6; Aerospace 


Final Report, p. II.G-5; Gemini-Titan II Air Force La1mch Vckicle, p. D-9. 


149 

water for two weeks and took on a pint of water, meeting qualifi

quirements. 

Weekly Actlvlty Report, June 28--July 4, 1964, p. 1; Quarterly Status Report 

p.7. 

Following the successful mating of its modules, Gemini spacecraft N

the second phase of Spacecraft Systems Tests (SST) at McDonnell. 

tinued through September. During August and September, test o

alternated with the receipt and installation of a number of flight ite

spacecraft. Vibration testing of the spacecraft and systems was su

conducted August 20-24. No altitude chamber tests were performed 

cra.ft No.2 because the Gemini-Titan 2 mission was to be unmanned. 

LONGITUDINAl 

.o.ccnno•mn cz1 

]lily 

3 

Figure 14.-Special inltrumentation pallets to be installed in. Gemini 

1pacecraft No. ! in. the 1ame position• that a8tron.aut1 tcovld 

occupy in la tcr ftightl. {NASA Photo 8-65-!!63, undated.) 

mated SST concluded with the Simulated Flight Test September 3

spacecraft acceptance review was held September 17-18, after whic

flown to Cape Kennedy September 21. 

Mission Report for GT-2, pp. 12r-3, 12-4, 12-45; Consolidated Actlvlty R

Aug. 23-Sept.19,1964, p.17; Quarterly Status Report No.10, p. 60. 

150 
McDonnell delivered its proposal for conversion of the Gemini spacecraft contract to a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract. Manned Spacecraft Center began 

analysis and evalution of the proposal. 

Consolidated Activity Report, June 21-July 18, 1964, p. 38; Quarterly Status 

Report No. 10, p. 64; Oldeg interview. 

Manager Charles W. Mathews reported that the Gemini Program Office had 

been reviewing and evaluating plans for Gemini-Titan (GT) missions 4 

through 7. GT--4 would be a four-day mission using battery power. GT-5 

would include radar and a rendezvous evaluation pod for rendezvous exercises 

early in the flight. The duration of this mission would be open-ended for a 

period of seven days, contingent upon the availability of fuE>l cells. GT-6 would 

be a standard rendezvous mission of perhaps hvo days' duration. GT-7 would 

be a long-duration mission with an open-ended potential of 14 days. George 

E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator, Office of Manned Space Flight, 

was currently reviewing these plans. 

MSC Minutes of Senior Staft' Meeting, July 10, 1964, p. 4. 

Gemini launch vehicle 2 arrived at Eastern Test Range. Stage I was erected 

at complex: 19 on July 13, stage II on July 14. Electrical power was applied 

to the vehicle on July 20 in preparation for SuhsystE>ms Functional VerificationTests, which began July 21. 

Mission Report tor GT-2, pp. 12-15, 12-48. 

Flight Crew Support Division objected to McDonnell procedures for conducting ejection seat sled tests because they were not adequate to give confidence 

in manned use of the seat.s. The dummies were being rigged with extreme 

restraint-harness tensions and highly torqued joints which could not be achieved 

with human subjects. McDonnell \vas requested to review the situation and 

prepare a report for Gemini Program Office. 

Abstract ot Meeting ot the GLV Panels and Coordination Committee, July 24, 1964. 

Gemini Program Office rE>.ported that tests had been conducted on section I 

of the fuel cells planned for the long-duration Gemini-Titan 5 mission. These 

tests had resulted in a failure charaderizE'd by output decay. A complete 

invest.igation was in process to determine the cause of the failure. 

Weekly Activity Report, July 19-25, 1964, p. 1. 

Astronauts James A. McDivitt and Edward H. White II were named as command pilot and pilot, respectively, for the Gemini-Titan (GT) 4 mission 

scheduled for the first quarter of 1965. The backup erew for t.he mission would 

be Frank Borman, command pilot, and James A. Lovell, Jr., pilot. The mission was scheduled for up to four dn.ys' duration, with 10 or 11 experiments 

to be performed. At a press conference on ,July 20 Itt Manned Spacecraft. Center, Deputy Gemini Program Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht said that on 

7 

10 

11 

16-17 

19-25 

27 

151 

Figure '15.-The flrlt dage ot Gemlftt launch vehicle Z belftQ unloa.ded from. 

C-133 at Cape KNtncdy. (KSC 64-14608, JultJ 11, 1964.) 

1964 the second manned space flight an astronaut would first be exp

July hazards of outer space without full spacecraft protection. Althou

said that the experiment 'vould involve "stepping into space," he 

fied this by saying that it might involve nothing more than open

and standing up. Other scientific experiments assigned to the G

would include medical tests, radiation measurements, and meas

Earth's magnetic field. 

MSC Space News Rottnd11p, Aug. 5, 1964, p. 1; Astronautics and Aeronau

p. 265. 

27 	 The first meeting of the Gemini Configuration Control Board wa

meetings were scheduled for each Monday thereafter. McDonnel

for implementation of the spacecraft configuration management 

been received by t.he program office and was being reviewed. Initi

oC the system were being implemented. 

Weekly Activity Report, July 26-Aug. 1, 1964, p. 1. 

29 	 Flight Crew Support Division personnel visited Langley Research 

a simulation of the Gemini optical rendezvous maneuver. The sim

jected a flashing target against a background of stars inside a 40-fo

rndome, representing the view from the command pilot station a

152 
test required by the Paraglider Landing System Program. A helicopter towed 

the TTV to 2600 feet. After about 20 minutes of total flight time, the test pilot 

brought the TTV to a smooth three-point landing. The tow cable was released 

immediately after touchdown, the wing about four seconds later. This highly 

successful flight was followed on August 7 by a free-flight test that was much 

less successful. After the TTV was towed by helicopter to 15,500 feet and released, it went into a series of uncontrolled turns, and the pilot was forced 

to bail out. North American then undertook a test program to isolate the malfunction and correct it, including 14 radio-controlled, half-scale TTV test 

flights between August 24 and December 13. T'vo highly successful radiocontrolled, full-scale TTV free flights on December 15 and 17 justified another 

attempted pilot-controlled flight on December 19, with excellent results. 

NAA, A Final Fee Settlement Proposal tor Contract NAS 9-1484, p. V-49; NAA, 

Paraglider Landing System Program, Monthly ProgTess Reports: No. 15, Aug. 7; 

No. 16, Sept 16, 1964; No. 20, Jan. 15, 1965. 

In response to a request from NASA Headquarters, Gemini Program Office 

(GPO) provided a study for Gemini missions beyond the 12 originally planned. 

"The Advanced Gemini 'Missions Conceptual Study" described 16 further 

missions, including a space station experiment, a satellite chaser mission, a 

lifeboat rescue mission, and both a circumlunar and lunar orbiting mission. 

On February 28, 1965, GPO reported that a preliminary propoaal for Gemini 

follmv-on missions to test the land landing system had not been approved. 

Spare Gemini launch vehicles 13, 14, and 15 were canceled, and there were 

no current plans for Gemini missions beyond the approved 12-flight program. 

l\lemo, 1\fnnager, Gemini Program, to NASA Hq., Attn: W. C. Schneider, Subj: 

Advanced Gemini Missions, with enc., Sept. 18, 1964; Quarterly Status Report 

No. 12, p. 40. 

Manned Spacecraft Center Propulsion and Power Division conducted a test 

of the Gemini fuel cell. The system was imidvertently operated for 15 minutes 

during a short circuit prior to the scheduled test. System performance was 

poor, and two of the cells would not carry loads of six amperes. The test was 

tenninated. The product water sample obtained from the test 'vas extremely 

acidic, indicating a potential membrane failure. 

Consolidated Activity Report, July 19-Aug. 22, 1964, p. 77. 

The formal Combined Systems Acceptance Test (CSAT) of Gemini launch 

vehicle (GLV) 3 was successfully performed. The vehicle acceptance team 

(VAT) met August 17 to review CSAT and other test and manufacturing 

data. Because GLV-3 was not yet needed at the Cape, Manned Sparecraft 

Center, in line with Aerospace recommendations, decided to have all engineering changes installed at Baltimore instead of at the Cape. After reviewing 

these modifications, the VAT directed Martin to conduct a second CSAT when 

30 

7 

153 

14 

16 

17 

22 

p; Qy p, p; , 

Grimwood, Aug. 16, 1967; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G-3; Gemtnt-Titan 

Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-7; Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle Chronolo

p. 41. 

At a meeting of the NASA-McDonnell Management Panel, the probl

the extravehicular activity (EVA) chest. pack size was discussed. If 

on spacecraft No. 6, it would take up space that would otherwise be av

for experiments on that mission, and the same would be true on subs

missions. A study was requested from McDonnell, as well as suggestio

alternath·e plans. One such alternative proposed was the storing of so

periments in the adapter section-but this, of course, meant that EVA 

be a prerequisite for those experiments. 

Minutes, NASA-MAC Management Panel, at McDonnell, Aug. 14, 1964. 

Martin-Baltimore received the propellant tanks for ~mini launch veh

from Martin-Denver, which had begun fabricating them in April. After 

inspected, the tanks were placed in storage where they remained 

December 18. 

Gemini Program Mission Report, Gemini VI-A, January 1966, p. 12-7; Aerosp

ll'iftal Report, p. 11.0-5; Gemtni-Titan II Air Force Launch Veh.iok, p. D-11. 

A severe electrical storm in the vicinity of complex 19 interrupted test

~mini launch vehicle ( GLV) 2. Several observers reported a lightning 

at or near complex 19. All testing was halted for a thorough investi

of this so-called electromagnetic incident. The inspection, completed on Se

ber 2, revealed no physical markings of any kind but disclosed a num

failed components, mostly in aerospace ground equipment (AGE) with 

in GLV-2. This indicated that complex 19 had not been hit directly; d

was attributed to the electromagnetic effects of a nearby lightning str

to resulting static charges. A recovery plan was prepared to restore conf

in all launch vehicle systems, AGE, ground instrumentation equipmen

facility systems. All components containing semiconductors \Vere rep

and all tests \Vere to be conducted again as if GLV-2 had just arrived at 

ern Test Range. 

Mission Report for GT-2, pp. 12-15, 12-16, 12-48; briefing to Gemini Execut

Management Meeting, Sept. 4, 1004; Aerospace Final Report, pp. II.E-14, II.E-

Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle ChroMlouv. p. 41. 

Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) Procurement and Contracts Divisi

ported that the amendment to the Gemini flight suit contract covering 

flight suits and related equipment for Gemini-Titan (GT) 3 had bee

to the contractor, David Clark Company. The first four ~mini flight 

to be used in GT-3, were delivered to MSC late in August. Because of e

problems in fitting training suits, astronauts had had preliminary f

of the flight suits before final delivery. 

154 

extravehicular life support system (ELSS). The MMU was scheduled to be 

flown in Gemini-Titan 9 as Department of Defense experiment D-12. The 

first prototype ELSS was scheduled for delivery in January 1965. 

Consolidated Activity Rl'port, July 19-Aug. 22, 1964, p. 52; Quarterly Status Rl'port 

No. 10, p. 28. 

Flight Crew Support Division reported that egress and recovery training 

for the first. manned Gemini flight cre'v had been defined and scheduled in three 

phases: phase I would consist of an egress procedure review in the McDonnell Gemini mock-up, phase II of a review of egress development results and 

of egress using the trainer and the Ellington flotation tank, and phase III 

of egress in open water with the essential recovery forces. 

Oonsolidated Activity Report, July 1~Aug. 22, 1964, p. 31. 

Hurricane Cleo struck the Cape Kennedy area. Stage II of Gemini launch 

vehicle (GLV) 2 was deerected and stored; the erector was lo,vered to horizontal, and stage I was lashed in its vertical position. Stage II wns reerected 

September 1. Po,ver was applied to the launch vehicle September 2, and Subsystem Functional Verification Tests (SSFVT) began September 3. When 

forecasts indicated that Hurricane Dora would strike Cape Kennedy, both 

stages of GLV-2 were deerected on September 8 and secured in the Missile 

Assembly Building. Hurricane Ethel subsequently threatened the area, and 

both stages remained in the hangar until September 14, when they were returned to complex 19 and reerected. SSFVT, begun again on September 18, 

ended successfully October 5. 

Mission Report tor GT-2, pp. 12-16, 12-48; Gemini-Titan II Air F'orce Lattnc'lt. 

Vehicle, p. D-5; Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle Ohronology, p. 42. 

Manned Spacecraft Center reported that efforts were still being made to clarify 

production problems at Ordnance Associates, Pasadena, California, pyrotechnics contractor for the Gemini program. The problems appeared to be more 

extensive than had been previously indicated. Problems of poor planning 

or fubrication and testing were complicated by poor quality control. In many 

areas it was difficult to trace the routing of parts. These problems were caused 

by inadequate record-ke~ping and frequent by-passing of checkpoints by development engineers who "'ere trying to expedite the release of parts for test 

programs. Efforts to solve these difficulties stopped production for a time 

and delayed the overall program. 

Quarterly Status Report No.10, pp.19, 20. 

Gemini Program Office (GPO) reported the substantial completion of all 

research and development testing of components, including thrust chamber 

assemblies, of the reentry control system (RCS) and orbit attitude and maneuver system (OAMS) as configured for spacecraft Nos. 2 through 5. System 

testing of two RCS units was under ''my, and GPO expected the test program 

22 

27 

31 

31 

155 

8 

program. GPO revie''"ed the qualification test program to see how s

could be improved without compromising the attainment of test dat

test requirements were deleted, but the major change was reducing h

requirements by planning more tests on single units. Since lack of h

had been a major source of delay, GPO expected this change to pro

proved schedules. Reliability testing was to be done on some qualificati

ware, which meant that much of the reliability test program coul

initiated until qualification testing was finished. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 10, pp. 11-12. 

Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD), supported by launch veh

tractors, recommended that Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 2 be flown 

uled. Manned Spacecraft Center had proposed dropping GLV-2 f

Gemini program because of possible ill effects resulting from the ele

netic incident of August 17 and from Hurricane Cleo. GLV-3 would 

substituted for the second Gemini mission, and the program would be s

by one flight. After reviewing the incidents, their effects, corrective act

retesting, SSD, Martin, Aerospace, and Aerojet-General all felt GLV-

fly, and NASA accepted their recommendation. 

Brit>ftng to Gemini Executive Management Meeting, Sept. 4, 19M; Harris, G

Launch Vehicle Ohronology, p. 42; interview, Lt. Col. F. J.I. Hutchison, Los An

Apr. 19, 1966. 

McDonnell began final checkout and control system calibration test

Gemini translation and docking simulator. Engineering data runs for 

trol system evaluation tests of the simulator began September 12 an

two weeks. All testing \vas expected to be completed by late Octob

crew training would begin. 

Consolidated Activity Reports: Aug. 23-Sept. 19, p. 31; Sept. 2n-Oct. 17, 

pp. 30-31. 

Final mating of Gemini spacecraft No.3 modules began at McDonnell

operations were completed September 27. In the meantime, the secon

of Spacecraft. Systems Tests (SST) began. Vibration testing was accom

Nmrember 7-8, and altitude chamber tests began November 12. Du

manned portion of alt.itude tests, space suits for the Gemini-Titan 3 pr

backup crews were satisfactorily checked out, with no significant p

(November 15-19). The Simulated Flight Test (December 6-21) co

SST. After spacecraft acceptance review on December 22, it was shi

Cape Kennedy January 3, 1965. 

Mission Report for GT-3, pp. 12-21, 12-22; Weekly Activity Reports: Nov. 

p. 1; Nov. 15-21, 1964, p. 1; Quarterly Status Report No. 11, p. 20. 

Spacecraft No.2 arrived at Cape Kennedy and was installed in the Cr

Building of the Merritt Island Launch Area Fluid Test Complex. T

156 


21 
The following day it was transferred to complex 19 and prepared for mating 

with Gemini launch vehicle 2. PrematP. systems testing was conducted October 21-27. Premate Simulated Flight Test was completed November 4-. 

Mission Report for GT-2, pp. 12-4 through 12-6, 12-46; Consolidated Activity 

Report, Sept. 20-0ct. 17, 1964, p. 74. 

Manned Spacecraft Center announced at a Trajectories and Orbits Panel 

meeting that several changes in the ground rules had been made to the GeminiTitan 6 mission plan. One change concerned a previous assumption of a 20-day 

Agena lifetime; it was now established that the A gena would not be modified 

to provide this. As a result, greater emphasis had to be placed on ensuring spacecraft launch on the same day as the A.genn, primarily by relieving the constraint of no Agena maneuvers. The restriction on using Agena maneuvers 

had been removed to increase the probability of achieving rendezvous within 

the few days that the Agena would remain an acceptable target. 

Abstract of Meeting on Trajectories and Orbits, Oct. 20, 1964. 

Lockheed completed the modification and final assembly of Gemini Agena 

target vehicle 5001 and transferred it to systems test complex C-10 at the 

Lockheed plant. Lockheed began the task of hooking the vehicle up for systems 

testing the next day, September 25. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Sept. 20-0ct. 17, 1964, p. 17; Ael"'ffPPI.ee Final RepOf't, 

p. III.G-3; GATV Progrc11 Report, September 1964, pp. 2-8, 2-4. 

Representatives from the Instn1mentation and Electronics Division conducted 

preliminary rendezvous radar flight tests at White Sands Missile Range. Testing was interrupted while the T -33 aircraft being used was down for major 

maintenance and was then resumed on October 19. Flight testing of the rendezvous radar concluded December 8. 

Weekly Activity Report, Dec. 6-12, 1964, p. 4; Consolidated Activity Report, 

Sept. 20--0ct.17, 1964, pp. 57-58. 

Gemini Program Manager Charles W. Mathews presented the Gemini Ma.nagement Panel with the new flight schedule resulting from the lightning strike 

and hurricane conditions. The schedule was as follows: Gemini-Titan (GT) 2, 

November 17; GT-3, January 30, 1965; and GT--4:, April12. For GT--4: through 

GT-7, three-month launch intervals 'vere planned; for the remainder of the 

program, these intervals would be reduced to two and one half months. 

Minutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting held at Patrick AFB, 

Fla., Sept. 29, 1964. 

Fuel cells and batteries were discussed as power sources for the Gemini-Titan 

(GT) 5 mission (long-duration) at a meeting of the Gemini Management Pa.nel. 

A study was reviewed that proposed a combination to be used in the following 

manner: batteries would be used during peak ]oad requirements; the fuel cell 

23 

24 

25-26 

29 

29 

157 

flown in the later manned flights) to gain flight experience with the compo

Minutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting, Sept. 29, 1964. 

Manned at-sea tests of the Gemini spacecraft, using static article No. 5, b

During the two days of tests, spacecraft postlanding systems functioned 

factorily, but the two crew members were uncomfortable while wearing 

pressure suits. The comfort level was improved by removing the suits, but 

heat and humidity levels were high. The test was stopped after 1'T hours b

approach of Hurricane Hilda. A test to detennine if opening the hatch w

 

alleviate the heat and humidity problem was conducted November 13; 

perature did fall, enhancing comfort of the test subjects. Three days lat

at-sea test demonstrated water egress procedure. The astronauts left the s

craft and were able to close and latch the hatch behind them, indicating th

reentry vehicle could be recovered even if the astronauts had to leave it. 

Weekly Activity Report, Nov. 15-21, 1964, p. 3; Quarterly Status Report No. 1

pp. 16-17. 

Early in the month, Bell Aerosystems began a test program to identify the 

of the fnilure of the secondary propulsion system (SPS) Unit II thrust cha

during Preliminary Flight Rating Tests. The wall of the thrust chambe

burned through near the injector face before attaining the specification acc

lated firing time of 400 seconds. Six series of tests, each comprising thre

second firings separated by 30-minute coast periods, were planned, wit

temperature range of fuel and oxidizer varied for each series. Origi

158 

concluded that no mission problem existed because Lockheeds analysis of SPS 

operation indicated that the maximum propellant temperature range in orbit 

was oo to 85°F, including a 30°F margin. (Nominal temperature range was 30° 

to 55°F.) 

Weekly Activity Reports: Sept. 6-12, p. 1; Nov. S-14, 1964, p. 2; Consolidated 


Activity Report, Aug. 23-Sept. 19, 1964, p. 16; Quarterly Status Report No. 11, 


p. 39; Abstracts ot Meetings on Atlas/Agena Coordination, Aug. 27, Sept. 15, 1964; 


GATV Progre11 Reports: September, pp. 2-1, 2-2; October, p. 2-2; November 1964, 


pp. 2-2, 2-3. 


The Prespacecraft Mate Combined Systems Test (CST) of Gemini launch Octobw 

vehicle 2 was completed at complex 19. This test, similar to CST perfonned. at 6 

the Martin plant, comprised an abbreviated countdown and simulation of flight 

events, with a simulator representing electrical characteristics of the spacecraft; its purpose was to establish confidence in the launch vehicle. ElectricalElectronic Interference Tests were completed October 12. Hurricane Isbell 

threatened the area on October 14-15, but its path was far enough south of the 

Cape to make deerection unnecessary, though testing was curtailed. 

Mission Report for GT-2, pp. 12-16, 12-48; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.F-3; 


Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. 4-14; Interview, Edward F. Mitros, 


Houston, Oct. 2, 1967. 


The vehicle acceptance team for Gemini launch vehicle ( GLV) 3 met for the 7 

second time to review test and manufacturing data at Martin-Baltimore. The 

Figure 77.-Gemini launch vehicle 8 undergoing jlftal checks before ron-out mlpectloft.. 

(Mart• Photo No. B-70508, undated.) 

328-(122 0-GD-12 
9-17 

discrepancy items. 

Mission Report for GT-3, p. 12-25; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G-3; G

Titan II A.ir Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-7; Harris, Gemini Launch V

Chronology, p. 43. 

Figure 78.-Backup and prime crew1 tor Gemini-TitanS ml1rion at Gemlnll4ut~ch 

roll-out lfl.lpectiOII. Left to right: Thoma• P. Stafford, W11lter M. 8ch!rrtJ, Jr.

Young, au VirgU I. Gril1om. (NASA Photo No. 64-H-~598 [Gemini], Oct. 

First major tests of the NASA worldwide tracking network were cond

preparation for manned orbital flights in the Gemini program. Simulat

missions were carried out over nine days and involved Goddard Spac

Center, Mission Control Center at the Cape, and eight remote sites in th

wide network to test tracking and communications equipment, as well 

control procedures and equipment. This completed the updating of the 

Space Flight Tracking Network to support the Gemini flights. Conve

Mercury nehvork for Gemini had taken t'vo years and cost $50 milli

Material compiled by Alfred Rosenthal, Deputy Chief, 011lce ot Public M

Goddard Space Flight Center. 

160 

Figure 79.-Tltc Gemini Network. See Appendi-111 .f tabulation of equipment 


at each lite. (NASA Photo 8-65-.f007, undated.) 


Gemini Program Office reported that the first production rendezvous radar, 1964 

intended for spacecraft No. 5, had completed its predelivery acceptance tests. Octobw 

10 Weekly Activity Report, Oct. 4-10, 1964, p. 1. 

McDonnell completed final assembly and systems tests of Gemini spacecraft 

No. 3A and delivered it to the laboratory for thennal balance testing. Spacecraft No. 3A had been designated a thermal qualification test unit. All of its 

systems and subsystems were flightworthy, with the exception of certain easily 

replaceable pieces of equipment such as the heatshield and ejection sea.ts for 

which non-flight articles were substituted with NASA approval. Qualification 

testing comprised mission simulations in the altitude chamber, with all systems 

being operated to their duty cycles. During the next two months, the spacecraft 

was installed in the altitude chamber, completed a dry run test, and was accepted after a readiness review meeting. Thermal qualification testing began 

December 19. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 11, pp. 2, 50; McDonnell FinaJ RetJort, pp, 32-83. 

Flight Crew Support Division reported that the Gemini-Titan (GT) 3 primary 17 

crew had completed egress practice in boilerplate No. 201 in the Ellington Air 

Force Base flotation tank. The backup GT-4 crew was scheduled for such training on October 23. Full-scale egress and recovery training for both the GT-3 

and the GT-4 crews was scheduled to begin about January 15, when para.chute 

refresher courses would also be scheduled. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Sept. 20-0ct. 17, 1964, p, 32. 

Crew Systems Division reported that the first Gemini extravehicular prototype 17 

suit had been received from tlle contt·a.ctor and assigned to Astronaut James A. 

161 
Figure 80.-Water egrc88 training in the flotation tank at Ellington Air FfW'ce Ba&e

(NASA Photo S-65-2508, Feb. 5,1965.) 

1964 McDivitt for evaluation in the Gemini mission simulator. During th

October 	 McDivitt complained of some bulkiness and immobility while the suit wa

unpressurized condition, but the bulk did not appear to hinder mobilit

the suit was pressurized. The thennal/micrometeoroid cover layer had b

stalled on a test suit sent to Ling-Temco-Vought for thennal testing 

space simulator chamber. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Sept. ~t. 17, 1964, p. 47. 

17 	 Crew Systems Division reported that zero-g tests had been conducted at W

Patterson Air Force Base to evaluate extravehicular life support system 

techniques. Results showed that, after practice at zero g, subjects wear

chest pack had successfully entered the spacecraft and secured the hatch 

proximately 50 seconds. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Sept. 20-0ct. l7,1964, p. 47. 

26 	 Russell L. Schweickart spent eight days in a Gemini space suit to e

Gemini biomedical recording instruments. While in the suit, the astrona

several zero-g flight profiles, went through a simulated four-day Gemini m

and experienced several centrifuge runs. 

Weekly Activity Report, Oct. 18-24, 1964, p. 1 ; MSC Space News Roundup, Oct

1964, p, 8. 

28 	 Gemini launch vehicle 4 was erected in the vertical test facility at M

Baltimore. Power was applied to the vehicle for the first time on N over

Subsystems Functional Verification Tests \vere completed November 19

162 
01 

flOW 

ASS!MtlY lfSTRICTOI ­

QU ICK 

T CONNECTOR DISCONNECT_......--­

(AtiN 

I!GULATOI 

W:­

~ 

LFi.gure 81.-Diaora-m of the Gemini G40 eztravehicular suit. (NASA Photo S-65-4858, 

Mau1965.) 

Mission Report for GT-IV, p. 12-26; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G- 5; Gemini­ 1964 

Titan II Air F<Wce La-unch Vehicle, p. D-8. Octobw 

Bell Aerosystems successfully fired the Agena secondary propulsion system 28 

(SPS) in a test of the system's ability to survive a launch hold. The SPS had 

first gone through a 20-day dry (unloaded) period, followed by a 20-day wet 

(loaded) period. The system reverted to hold condition and was successfully 

refired November 2. 

GATV ProorcBB Reports: October, p. 2-2 ; November 1964, p. 2-2. 

Gemini launch vehicle 2 and spacecraft No. 2 were mechanically mated at complex 19. The Electrical Interface Integrated Validation, confirming compatibility between launch vehicle and spacecraft and checking out redundant circuits connecting the interface, was completed November 9. This was followed 

by the Joint Guidance and Control Test, completed November 12, which 

established proper functioning of the secondary guidance system, comprising 

the spacecraft inertial guidance system and the launch vehicle's secondary flight 

control system. 

Mission Report !or GT-2, pp. 12-17, 12-49; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.F-3. 

The Gemini mission simulator at the Cape, configured in the spacecraft. No. 3 9 

version, became operational; during the next three weeks, some 40 hours of 

163 

1964 

No11embw 

1f) 

17 

Figure 82.-Norman 8h71ken, McDonnell engineer-pilot, in zero-g telf1 In an 

KC-185 jet trat18port. (NASA Photo 8-6.f-!S051, Mav !5,1964.) 

flight crew usage and three hours of other Manned Spacecraft Center p

usage were logged. 

Consolidated Activity Report, Oct. 18-Nov. 30, 1964, p. 29. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5001 completed a simulated fl

cent and orbit) at Lockheed test complex C-10. Minor anomalies requ

tions of the test .to be rerun. This concluded GATV 5001 systems 

preparation for captive-firing tests to be conducted at Lockheed's Sa

Test Base. The vehicle was shipped November 30. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 11, pp. 4, 37; GATV PrO{IreBI Re-prwt, November 

pp. 2-3,2-5,7-8. 

Gemini launch vehicle 2 and spacecraft No.2 were electrically mated at 

19. The Joint Combined Systems Test was run the following day. Thi

first test of launch vehicle and spacecraft combined systems. It consis

abbreviated countdown and two plus-time flight simulations, one to 

the primary guidance system, the second to exercise the secondary s

second combined systems test, the Flight Configuration Mode Test (

was completed November 21 in preparation for the Wet Mock S

Launch. FCMT was essentially similar to other combined systems tes

that all umbilicals were dropped. 

164 
,A) 

Figure BS(.d.) .-Astronauts Gris&om and Young in the Gemini mtulon rimulator at Cape 

Kennedv prior to the Gemini-Titan S miBBion. (NASA Photo No. 65-H-415, released 

Alar. 19, 1965.) 

:\fiBSion Report tor GT-2, pp. 12--17, 12-49 ; Ael'O!lpace Final Report, p. II.F-3; 

Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, pp. 4-14, 4-16. 

Gemini-Titan (GT) 2 suc.cessfully completed the Wet Mock Simulated Launch, 

a full-scale countdown exercise which included propellnnt 1onding. Procedures 

for flight crew suiting and spa~craft ingress were practiced during simulated 

165 

1964 

Novembw 

24 
1964 

November 

Figure B~(B).-Techniciana at the miaalon Bimulator console. (NASA Photo No. 6

released Mar. 19, 1965.) 

launch. The primary Gemini-Titan 3 flight cre\v donned the trainin

n.nd full biomE.'dirnl in!>'trumentation, assisted by the spnce suit bi

mentation and aeromedical personnel who would participate in the 

launch operation. As a result of this practice operation, it was establish

all physical examinations, bioinstrumentation sensor attachment, a

donning would be done in the pilot ready room at complex 16. The fina

166 
24 

p. 4-18. 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 3 was scheduled to be shipped from MartinBaltimore to Cape Kennedy. Shipment was delayed, however, because GLV-2 

had not yet been launched; and several modifications, scheduled for the Cape, 

were made at Baltimore instead. All work was completed by January 14, 

1965; the vehicle 'vas reinspected and was again available for delivery. Preparations for shipment were completed January 20, and stage IT was airlifted to 

Cape Kennedy January 21, followed by stage I January 23. 

Mission Report for GT-3, p. 12-25; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G-3 ; GemimTitan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-T. 

The Combined Systems Acceptance Test of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 4 

was conducted. The vehicle acceptance team inspected the vehicle and reviewed 

all test and manufacturing data December 11-13 and authorized Martin to 

remove GLV-4 from the vertical test cell. During the next three months, while 

awaiting shipment to Cape Kennedy, GLV-4 had 27 engineering changes 

installed. Final integrity checks, weighing, and balancing were completed 

Ma.rch 8, 1965. 

Mis:~lon Report for GT-IV, p. 12-26; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G--6; GcmintTitG1t II .Air Force Launch Vehicle, pp. D-8, D-9. 

Lockheed shipped Gemini Agena iarget vehicle (GATV) 5001 to its Santa. 

Cruz Test Base for captive-firing tests. Primary test objective was verifying the 

operational capabilities of the GATV during actual firing of the primary 

and secondary propulsion systems. Other objectives included developing operational procedures and techniques for vehicle handling, launch preparation, 

servicing, countdown, and postfire servicing, as well as verifying ground equipment peculiar to the Gemini program, including the pulse-code-modulated 

telemetry ground station. The target docking adapter (TDA), manufactured 

by McDonnell, was also to be installed and tested as an integral system. When 

the TDA was hoisted into the test sta.nd on December 17 to be physically 

mated with the G A TV, the interface between the two vehicles emerged as a 

major problem. After some preliminary difficulties, the physica.l mate was 

accomplished, but discrepancies were discovered in wiring continuity. The 

captive flight test was delayed until January 20, 1965. 

Consolidated Activity Report, December 1964, p. 14; Aerospace Final Report, 

p . III.F-2; GATV Progress Report, December 1964, pp. 2-1, 2-3, 2-5. 

Astronauts James McDivitt and Edward White, command pilot and pilot 

for the Gemini-Tita.n 4 mission, begn.n crew training on Gemini mission simulator No. 2 in Houston. The initial week of training was devoted to familiarizing 

the crew with the interior of the spacecraft. 

Weekly Activity Report, Dec. ~12,1964, p. 3. 

167 

25 

30 

30 
p

y ppy 

Range, where it arrived on December 7. 

Weekly Activity Reports: Nov. 29-Dee. 5, p. 3; Dee. 6-12, 1964, p. 4; Cons

Activity Report, Oct. 18-Nov. 30,1964, p. 17. 

I ASIC GA GATV GMTV GMTVS 

AGENAD G!MINI AG!NA G!MINI AGENA G!MINI GEMINI (55-()11 WITH (5-QIC) TMG!T VEHICLE ATLAS·AGENA ATLAS•AGENA 

MUlTI-START TARGET V!HICLE TARGET VEHICLE 

ENGINE) 	 SY5T£M 

ffi ffi ffi 

~J e 	STANDARD '~I'1tr1J e TARG!T e ATLAS e FACILITIES 

11 OPTIONALS 0 DOCKING 0 0e

e ADAPTER AGE l'fRSONN!l 0 e 	FORWARD (TDA) 


AUXILIARY 


RACK • (NOSE I 


FAIRING) + R!MOVE, 

A:EMOVf; e SOME tASIC 


&OPTIONAL 


COMPONENTS 
 e 	All 

DROPPAILES 

I 

+ 

GAT 

G!MINI 

AGENA TARG!T 

(ACTUAL TARG!T FOR GEMINI 

SPACECRAFT) 

Figure 84.-Terminolooll tor the Gemini Agena target vehicle program

(Lockheed, Gemini Agena Target Press Handbook, L'!t/80 A766R71

Feb. 15, 1966, p.l-1.) 

NASA advised North American that no funds were available for fur

testing in the Paraglider Landing System Program, following com

full-scale test vehicle flight test No. 25. NASA did authorize North 

to use the test vehicles and equipment it had for a contractor-

flight test program. North American conducted a two-week test 

which culminated in a highly successful manned tow-test vehicle 

December 19. 

NAA, .A. Final Fee Settlt'ment Proposal tor Oontract NAS 9-1484, Section III

glider Landing System, Monthly Progress Reports: No. 20, Jan. 15; N

Feb. 11, 1965. 

168 

y p

Gemini-Titan (GT) 2 launch countdown begnn at 4:00 a.m., e.s.t., and proceeded normally, with minor holds, until about one second after engine ignition. 

At that point a shutdown signal from the master operations control set 

(MOCS) terminated the launch attempt. Loss of hydraulic pressure in the 

primary guidance and control system of stage I of the launch vehicle caused 

an automatic switchover to the secondary guidance and control system. During the 3.2-second holddown following ignition command, switchover was 

9 

PRIMARY SEC<WDARY 


DISC~NECT DISCOINECT 


~~----~1111•------.-~ __, I

I 

------------­1 

PRIMARY f'"""'~ I 

ACCUMtl.ATOR i 

RESERVOIR 1 

SYSTEM TEST 

Sll£CTOR VALW 

I 

I 

I 

I

.. ·--------------, I f'""'""""""""'"'"IIUUIII'! SE~DARY ~ 

ACCUMtl.ATOR : RESERVOIR i 

! 

.,.................,; 

I 

SE~DARYi, 

PRIMARY 

(ljGINE 

PLMP TANDEM 

ACTUATOR 

TANDEM 

ACTUATOR 

ENGINE 

PLMP 

TAND£M 

ACTUATOR 

I 

I 

I 

I 

NO. ~ NO. 3 NO. 4 I 

I 

I 

---------­

•I o o I 

I I ••••••••••••••• I 

I 

I ! I I : 

I 

I 

-PRIMARY PRESSURE ..••••••••'••••••••"•••••••••••••••••• 

- SEC~DARY PRESSURE •••PRIMARY RETURN 

'•• • SEC!WOARY RETURN 

·-•""' PJ!IMARY SUPPt.Y ....... SEC~DARY SUPPt.Y 


------------------------·--------~--------· 

Figure 85.-Gcmlni launch vehicle Biage I hvdrauUc 1118tem. (Martin Photo 8B65778, 

undated.) 

instrumented as a shutdown command. Accordingly, the MOOS killed the 

launch attempt. Subsequent investigation disclosed that loss of hydraulic pressure had been caused by failure of the primary servo-valve in one of the four 

tandem actuators which control movement of the stage I thrust chambers. All 

four stage I tandem actuators were replaced with redesigned actuators. 

Mission Report for GT-2. pp. 12-17, 13-1; Gemini Launch Vehicle Famlliarizatloft. 

Manual, p. 6-1; Aerospace Fi?Wl Repo-rt, p. II.E-23; Harris, Gemini I..aunch 

Vehicle Ohronologv, p. 47. 

169 
12 

16 

17 

17 

displayed live and simulated Gemini launch vehicle and spacecra-ft d

results were considered very successful. 

Consolidated Activity Report, December 1964, p. 20. 

Gemini Program Office (GPO) reported that it had initiated contractu

to delete the eighth Agena from the Gemini Agena target vehicle p

On March 6, 1965, GPO reported its decision to eliminate the sevent

as well. 

Weekly Activity Reports: Dec. 8-12, 1964, p. 3; Feb. 28-Mar. 6, 1965, p. 1. 

The Gemini Phase II centrifuge training program was completed. P

provided refresher training for Gemini-Titan 3 and 4 flight crews, w

their runs c1ad in pressure suits. For astronauts not yet officially ass

a mission the program provided familiarization training under shirt-sle

ditions. Phase II had begun early inNovember. 

Consolidated Activity Reports: Oct. 18-Nov. 30, pp. 28-29; December 1964, p

Quarterly Status Reports: No. 11, p. 48; No. 12, p. 43. 

Atlas standard launch vehicle (SLV-3) 5301 was erected on complex 14 

ern Test Range. This was not only the Gemini pr<>gTam's first Atlas, 

the first SLV-3 on a ne\v complex. Tests began to validate the pad 

associated aerospace ground equipment (AGE). AGE validation w

pleted December 30, propellant loading tests in mid-January 1965. 

ended on February 11 with a flight readiness demonstration. 

Weekly Activity Report, :ran. 17-23, 1965, p. 1 ; Consolidated Activity Re

December 1964, p. 14; Quarterly Status Report No. 12, p. 32; Abstracts of Mee

on Atlas/Agena Coordination, Jan. 20, Mar.1,1965. 

Phase III tests to qualify the Gemini parachute recovery system beg

a successful drop of static article No. 7. In addition to No. 7, static ar

4A was also used in the series of 10 tests. All tests were successful, with 

parachute nor sequencing failures. Phase III ended on February 11, 19

the lOth drop test. This completed the qualification of the Gemini p

system. 

Weekly Activity Reports: Dec. 13-19, 1964, p. 3; Jan. 10-16, p. 2; Feb. 14-20, 

p. 1 ; Quarterly Status Report No. 12, p. 8. 

Air Force Space Systems Division officially accepted Agena D (

for the Gemini program. Lockheed then transferred it to the vehicle 

sembly area for modification to Gemini Agena target vehicle 5002. W

scheduled to begin in mid-January 1965. 

Weekly Activity Report, Dec. 13-19, 1964, p. 2; ·GA·TV Progren Report, I>eco

1964, p. 2-7. 

Martin-Baltimore removed the propellant tanks for Gemini launch 

170 


18 
Figure 86.-Agetl4 D 82 undergoing modijfcatlon to Geminl Agetl4 target vehicle 5()()f. 

(Lockheed Photo SA63603-C, Feb. 25, 1965.) 

(GJ..V) 6 from storage. Cleaning the tanks and purging them with nitrogen 

was completed February 5, 1965. Aerojet-General delivered the flight engines 

for GLV-6 February 1. Tank splicing was completed February 23, engine installation, February 25. GLV-6 horizontal testing was completed April 3. 

Ml!•slon Rt>port for GT-YIA, p. 12-7; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G­ 5; GeminiTitan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-11. 

Gemini spacecraft No. 3A began thermal qualification tests in the altitude 

chamber at McDonnell. During test No. 1 (December 19-21), the spacecraft 

coolant system froze. Over the next three weeks, the coolant system was retested and redesigned. The modified coolant system was subsequently installed 

in other spacecraft. Test No. 2 was run January &-13, and the test program 

ended February 19 with the third test run. The three test runs in total simulated 

over 220 orbits. 

19 

Mission !Wport for GT-IV, p. l2-23; Quarterly Status Report No. 12, p. 46; McDonnell!Wport No. B427, "Gemini Spacecraft 3A Thermal Test No. 1 Test Results 

Rt-(lOrt, Tt>st Dnte: 19- 21 Dt>cember 1064," Jnn. 12, 1065; :\f<'Donnt>ll Report No. 

B427 1, " . .. Thermal Test No. 2 ... , Test Date : 6--13 January 1965," Feb. 15, 

1965. 

Crew Systems Division received a prototype G4C extravehicular Gemini space 

suit for testing. This suit contained a thennaljmicrometeoroid cover layer, a redundant closure, and the open visor assembly for visual, thermal, and structural 

protection. Zero-gravity tests in January 1965 showed the suit to be generally 

28 

171 
December 

Figure 87.-Thc Ocmtni G.fO ea:travehicular suit with chestpack ventilation con

and gold-coated umbilical line. (NASA Photo 8-65-27.ff.f, :Ua11 !8, 1965

satisfactory, but the heavy cover layer made moving around in it 

The cover layer was redesigned to remove excess bulk. The new c

proved satisfactory when it was tested in February. 

Consolidated Aetivity Report, December 1964, p. 45; Quarterly Status Rep

12, p.12. 

172 

1964 
PART III 


· Flight Tests 


PART III 

Flight Tests 

McDonnell delivered Gemini spacecraft No. 3 to Gape Kennedy. After its 

receiving inspection had been completed (January 6), the spacecraft was 

moved to the Merritt Island Launch Area Radar Range for a communications radiation test. This test, performed only on spacecraft No. 3 because 

it was scheduled for the first manned mission, exercised spacecraft communiFigure 88.-Gcmin-i apaeecratt No. S being unloaded at Cape Kennedy. (NASA Photo 10~­

KSC-65-00003, Jan. 4. 1965.) 

1965 

]t~nut~ry 

4 

328-022o--69----13 
6 

6 

11 

NASA Headquarters provided Flight Operations Division with p

data for revising the Gemini-Titan (GT) 3 flight plan to cover the po

retrorocket failure. The problem was to ensure the safe reentry o

nauts even should it become impossible to fire the retrorockets effec

Headquarters proposal incorporated three orbit attitude and maneu

maneuvers to establish a. fail-safe orbit from which the spacecraf

enter the atmosphere whether the retrorockets fired or not. Thi

as refined by Mission Planning and Analysis Division, became part o

plans for GT-3 and GT-4. 

Memo, Asst. Chief, MPAD, to Chief, MPAD, Subj : Complete Revision ot t

Flight Plan, Jan. 7, 1005; Mission Reports: for GT-3, p. 4-1; GT-IV, p. 2-

John A. Edwards toKmtt, Jan. ~.1965. 

Manned Spacecraft Center issued the Gemini Program Mission 

Report, prepared by Gemini Program Office. This report fonna

the objectives of the Gemini program and presented guidelines for 

Gemini missions. These guidelines stated the configuration of space ve

used, specified primary mission objectives, and described the planne

The report included guidelines for phasing extravehicular oper

Gemini missions as a primary program objootive: a summary of 

equipment required, a statement of the objectives of extra.vehicular 

and o. description of the kind of operations proposed for each mis

ning with the fifth. Finally, the report described all experiments p

Gemini missions and named the mission to which each was cul'I"ent

The report was to be periodically revised, and a detailed missio

issued for each mission about six months before its scheduled launch. 

NASA Program Gemini Working Paper No. 5019, "Gsllni Program 

Planning Report," Jan. 6, 1965. 

Redesigned stage I tandem actuators were received a.nd installed 

launch vehicle (GLV) 2. Although some retesting began shortly 

Gemini-Titan 2 mission was scrubbed on Dooember 9, 1964, most 

preparing GLV-2 for another launch attempt was curtailed until th

ators arrived. Subsystems retesting then began. The final combin

test-the Simulated Flight Test-was completed January 14, w

scheduled for January 19. 

Mission Report for GT--2, pp.12-18,12-49. 

The test program to qualify the Gemini escape-system personnel 

began with two low-altitude dummy drops. The backboard and 

failed to separnt~ cleanly; the interference causing the trouble wa

and the parachute was successfully tested in two more drops on J

Four high-altitude dummy drops followed during the week of J

System sequencing was satisfactory, but in two of the four drops 

176 

ruary 17. 

Weekly Activity Reports: Jan. 1€>--16, p. 2; Jan. 31-Feb. 6, 1965, p. 1; Quarterly 

Status Report No.12, p.10. 

Flight tests of the zero-gravity mock-up of the Gemini spacecraft began. The 

mock-up was installed in a KC-135 aircraft to provide astronauts with the 

opportunity to practice extravehicular activities under weightless conditions. 

The Gemini-Titan (GT) 3 flight crew participated in the opening exercises, 

which were duplicated the next day by the GT-4: flight crew. 

Weekly Activity Report, Jan. 1€>--16, 1965, p. 1; Consolldated Activity Report, 

January 1065, pp. 12, 16. 

A task force in the Office of Manned Space Flight finished a two-month 

study to determine the requirements for reducing the interval between Gemini 

flights from three to two months. The findings and recommendations were presented to George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space 

Flight., on January 19. The task force concluded that an accelerated launch 

schedule could be fully achieved by Gemini-Titan 6. This required flight-ready 

vehicles delivered from the factory, with most testing done at the factory rather 

than at the Cape. Among the major changes caused by implementation of this 

plan were: spacecraft altitude testing only at McDonnell, activation of the 

second cell in the vertical test facility at Martin-Raltimore, simplification of 

subsystems testing at the Cape, and elimination of electronic interference testing and the Flight Configuration Mode Test. 

OMSF, "Two Month Launch Interval Study," Jan. 14, 1965; Lt. Col. Alexander C. 

Kuras and Col. John G. Albert, "Gemini-Titan Technical Summary," Gemini 

Launch VPhide Divhdon, 6655th Aerospace Test Wing, Jan. 24, 1007, p. 138; Aerospace Final Report, pp. II.F-5, II.F-7; interviews, Leroy E. Day, Washington, 

Jan. 25, 1967; Scott H. Slmpklnson, Houston, Jan. 18, 1967. 

Gemini spacecraft No. 3 thrusters were static fired as part of a complete, endto-end propulsion system verification test program carried out on spacecraft 

Nos. 2 and 3 to provide an early thorough checkout of senricing procedures and 

equipment before their required use at the launch complex. The tests also completed developme-nt and systems testing of Gemini spacecraft hypergolic systems to enhance confidence in them before they were committed to flight. 

Deservicing ofthe propulsion system lasted until January 21. 

Mission Report for GT--3, p. 12-23; Gemini Midprogram Con.tercncc, p. 214. 

Engineering and Development Directorate reported that its Crew Systems Division had qualified the Gemini spacecraft bioinstrumentation equipment. 

MSC Minutes of Senior Sta1f Meeting, Jan. 15, 1~. p. 1. 

After a long delay because pyrotechnics were not available, simulated off-thepad ejection (SOPE) qualification testing resumed with SOPE No. 12. Per

12 

14 

15 

16 

177 

g

test was successful, and all systems functioned properly. This porti

qualification test program came to a successful conclusion with SOP

on March 6. The complete ejection system functioned as designed

equipment was recovered in excellent condition. 

Weekly Activity Report, Jan. 17- 23, 1965, p. 2; Quarterly Status Reports: 

p. 9; No. 13 for Period Ending May 31, 1965, p. 8. 

Figure 89.-Slmulated of!-the-pad ejection teat No. 18 at TJ.S. Naval Ordnance T

China Lake, California. (NASA Photo No. 65-H- 197, releaaed Feb. 1!,196

19 	 Following a report prepared by Space Technology Laboratories, Miss

ning and Analysis Division recommended the inclusion of "properl

built-in holds in the [Gemini launch vehicle] GLV; Gemini countdo

study of 325 missile countdowns, 205 missile launches, as well as 

scrubs and holds, indicated that GLV launching would be conside

proved and a great many scrubs precluded by the addition of such hold

Memo, Asst. Chief, MPAD, for Distribution, Subj : Can we launch the GLV on 

(Part II), Jan. l9,1965. 

19 	 During the countdown for Gemini-Titan (GT) 2, the fuel ce11 hydro

valve failed to open. Efforts to correct the problem continued until i

tennined that freeing the mlve would delay the countdown. Work on 

cell ceased, and it \Yas not activated for the flight. The fuel cell in

spacecraft No. 2 \YRS not a current flight design. When fuel cell de

changed in January 1964, several cells of earlier design were available. 

these cells were kno,vn to have some defects, flight testing with the reac

ply system '"as felt to be extremely desirable. Accordingly, it \vas deci

178 
Spacecraft #2 Fuel Cell, Jan. 25,1965. 

The second Gemini mission, an unmanned suborbital flight designated GeminiTitan~ (GT-2), was successfully launched from complex 19 at Cape Kennedy 

at 9:04 a.m., e.s.t. Major objectives of this mission were to demonstrate the 

adequacy of the spacecraft reentry module's heat protection during a maximumheating-rate reentry, the structural integrity of the spacecraft from liftoff 

through reentry, and the satisfactory performance of spacecraft systems. Secondary objectives included obtaining test results on communications, cryogenics, fuel cell and reactant supply system, and further qualification of the launch 

vehicle. All objectives were achieved, with one exception: no fuel cell test results were obtained because the system malfunctioned before liftoff and was 

deactivated. GT-2 was a suborbital ballistic flight which reached a maximum 

altitude of 92.4 nautical miles. Retrorockets fired 6 minutes 54 seconds after 

launch, and the spacecraft landed in the Atlantic Ocean 11 minutes 22 seconds 

later-1848 nautical miles southeast of the launch site. Full duration of the mission was 18 minutes 16 seconds. The primary recovery ship, the aircraft carrier 

Lake Champlain, picked up the spacecraft at 10:52 a.m., e.s.t. 

Mission Report tor GT-2, pp. 1- 1, 2-1, 2-2, 6-31; MSC Test Evaluation Office, 

Gemini Program Flight Summary Report, Gemini Missions I through XII, Revision 

A, January 1967, pp. 6-8; MSC Fact Sheet 291, pp. 5-7; Aerospace Final Report, p. 

II.G--8; Harris, Gemini Lat1nch Vehicle Chronoloov. p. 48. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5001 unden\"ent a successful hot-firing test 

at Lockheed's Santa Cruz Test Base. The test simulated a full 20,000-second mission, including multiple firings of both the primary and secondary 

propulsion systems and transmission of operational data in real time to two 

PCM (pulse-code-modulated) telemetry ground stations, one at the test site 

and one in Sunnyvale. Major test anomaly was a series of command programmer time-ac.cumulator jumps, seven of lvhich totaled 77,899 seconds. The 

vehicle was removed from the test stand on February 1 and returned to 

Sunnyvale. 

Weekly Activity Report, Jan. 17- 23, 1965, p. 1; Quarterly Status Report No. 12, 

pp. 82, 34; GATV Progre11 Report•: January, pp. 2-1, 2-2, 2-3; February 1965, 

p.l-1. 

Installation of pyrotechnics in Gemini spacecraft No. 3 began. Preparation of 

the spacecraft in the industrial area at Cape Kennedy, which began with the 

receiving inspection and ended when the spacecraft was transferred to complex 

19, was generally limited to non-test activity with certain exceptions. These 

were the special requirements of the communications test of spacecraft No.3 and 

the propulsion verification tests of spacecraft Nos. 2 and 3. Industrial area activity included cleaning up miscellaneous manufacturing shortages, updating spacecraft configuration, installing pyrotechnics nnd flight seats, building 

up the rendezvous and recovery section, and preparing the spacecraft for move19 

20 

22 

179 

,­ 

0.. 

"'

... 

.. cmc 

f .... 

...

... 

0

-

-

0 

M l 

OIV 

MILA 

PAFI 

RADAR 

lllO II 

TPQ·ll 

FPQ.. 

i 

I 

rnm:TRY 

PCM, ocs, Tone 

O'!IIU 

C. t '()D (It. C:o"'J'Uler 

----+· 

VAL 

r.a1 

ELU 

MISTIWI 

FPS·If>, >()0 II 

MISTIW4 

PCM, !WF>I' Tone OM'ICS: 

SAL FPS-11> Tone Fahe Care 

en: Tl'Q-11, II POt Tone Willi- l'olftt 

RlV I'CM DCS Cocoa keel\ 

AliT PO!' Patrld AFB 

'114 Ship 

'114 Acft 

PCM" 

POl' Vtro a.ach 

EC·UI 

GSFC 

AI'S.!IS 

• • acceive only Coapuur 

Figure 90.-The tracking network tor the second Gemini f'nU
ary 29 and Subsystems Functional Verification Tests (SSFVT) commenced. 

SSFVT were finished February 12. The Combined Systems Test before spacecraft mating was conducted February 15-16. 

Mission Report for GT-3, p. 12-26; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, 

pp. D-7, D-8. 

The NASA-McDonnell incentive contract for the Gemini space.craft was approved by NASA Headquarters Procurement Office and the Office of Manned 

Space Flight. The preliminary negotiations between Manned Spacecraft Center 

(MSC) and McDonnell had been completed on December 22, 196!. The contract 

was then sent to NASA Headquarters for approval of MSC's position in preliminary negotiations. This position was approved on January 5, 1965, at which 

time final negotiations began. The negotiations were completed on January 15. 

The contract was signed by MSC and McDonnell and submitted to NASA 

Headquarters on January 21 for final approval. 

Consolldated Activity Report, January 196lS, p. 28; Quarterly Status Report No. 12, 

pp.47-48. 

The High-Altitude Ejection Test (HAET) program resumed with HAET 

No.2. This was the first ejection in flight to demonstrate the functional reliability of the Gemini personnel recovery system. The recovery system was ejected 

from an F-106 at an altitude of 15,000 feet and a speed of mach 0.72. Original 

plans had called for an ejection at 20,000 feet, but the altitude was lowered because of a change in the Gemini mission ground rules for mode 1 abort. Both 

sent and dummy were recovered without incident. The program ended on February 12 with HAET No.3, although the dummy's parachute did not deploy. 

An aneroid device responsible for initiating chute deployment failed, as did an 

identical device on February 17 during qualification tests of the personnel 

parachute. These failures led to redesign of the aneroid, but since the failure 

could not be attributed to HAET conditions, Gemini Program Office did not 

consider repeating HAET necessary. All other systems functioned properly in 

the test, which was conducted from an altitude of 40,000 feet and at a speed of 

mach 1.7. 

Weekly Activity Report, Jan. S-9, 19M, p. 8; Quarterly Status Report No. 12, 

pp. 9-10. 

Qualification testing of the foo.d, water, and waste management systems for the 

Gemini-Titan 3 mission was completed. 

Letter, John J. Symons, Whirlpool Corp., Systems Division, to NASA-MSC, 

Subj: Weekly Progress Report, NASA Houston Contract NAS 9-5157, Jan. 29, 1965; 

Quarterly Status Report No. 12, p. 18. 

McDonnell completed major manufacturing activity, module tests, and equipment installation for Gemini spacecraft No. 4. Phase I modular testing had 

28 

28 

29 

31 

181 

4 

Febrtlary 

1 

Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) receiYed on schedule the first qual

configuration extravehicular life-support system (ELSS) chest pack. 

this unit and the ELSS umbilical assembly were being conducted at MSC

while, AiResenrch was preparing for systems qualifications tests. Zero

flight tests of the ELSS had shown that egress and ingress while w

chest pack could readily be done by properly trained astronauts. 

Quarterly Status Report No.12, p.12. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5001 was removed from the te

at Santa Cruz Test Base and returned to Sunnyvale. After a brief 

in systems test complex C-10, the vehicle was transferred to the anecho

ber for electromagnetic interference and radio-frequency-interferen

Test preparations began February 23. At this point, GATV 5001 was 3

dar days behind schedule, 20 days of which were caused by the time-accu

anomaly that had developed during hot-firing tests. A temporary fix 

time-accumulator jumps was installed, while Lockheed continued its e

diagnose the problem and find a permanent remedy. 

Aerospace Final Report, pp. III.F-2, III.F-4; GATV ProgreBB Report, Febr

1965, pp. 1-1,2-1,2-4,2-5,2-6,2-8. 

Because of interest expressed by George M. Low, Deputy Director of 

Spacecraft Center, in spacecraft weight-control vigilance at the previo

ini Management Panel meeting, Gemini Program Manager Charles W. M

reported that weight had increased only 12 pounds in the past month

"leveling-off trend" had been discernible over the last two months. Lo

ever, was still concerned about the dangers of unforeseen growth as the p

progressed from flight to flight. Walter F. Burke of McDonnell sugges

redundant systems be eliminated once the primary systems had been 

Ernst R. Letsch of Aerospace warned that spacecraft weight was gTo

over 8000 pounds, which should require some checking of the structur

Both Air Force Space Systems Division and the Gemini ProgTam Off

charged by Low to pay close attention to the weight factor. 

Minutes ot Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting held at SSD, Feb. 4, 

Gemini spacecraft No. 3 was moved to complex 19 and hoisted into 

atop Gemini launch vehicle 3. Test operations began February 9 with 

systems tests, which lasted until February 13. These were followed by a 

Simulated Flight Test, February 14-16. Data from this testing were co

with data from Spacecraft Systems Tests at McDonnell and pre

acceptance tests at vendors' plants. The purpose of these tests was to i

the spacecraft with the launch complex and take a last detailed look 

functioning of all spacecraft systems (especially those in the adapter) 

the spacecraft wa.s mechanically mated to the launch vehicle. 

Mission Report tor GT....S, p. 12-23; Gemini Midprogrvsm (Jonference, p. 215. 

182 

Figure 91.-SecOfld stage of Gemini launch 11ehicle 5 being hoisted to the top of the vertical 

teat facility at Martin-Baltimore. (NASA Photo 8~5-2867, Feb. 8, 1965.) 

Modifications to Gemini launch vehicle 5 were completed and stage I was erected 

in the vertical test facility at Martin-Baltimore. Stage II was erected February 8. Power was applied to the vehicle for the first time on February 15, and 

Subsystems Functional Verification Tests were completed March 8. Another 

modification period followed. 

Mission Report for GT-V, p. 12-6 ; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, 

pp. D-9, D-10. 

Manned Spacecraft Center announced the selection of L. Gordon Cooper, Jr., 

183 

1965 


J""""'"" 
 5 

8 
11 	 Atlas standard launch vehicle 5301 completed testing on complex 1

flight-readiness demonstration. It was then deerected and transf

Hangar J, where its sustainer engine was to be replaced. Replacem

finished April191 and the new level sensor and vernier engine was ins

April21. The vehicle was returned to complex 14 and erected again on 

Weekly Activity Reports: Apr. 18-24, p, 1; June 13-19, tOOlS, p. 1; Abstr

Meeting on Atlas/Agena Coordination, Mar. 1, 19M. 

12 	 Director of Flight Operations Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., told the Manne

craft Center senior staff that the Gemini-Titan (GT) 3 mission might 

between March 22 and 25, although it was officially scheduled for th

quarter of 1965. In addition, the Houston control center was being co

for use in the GT-4 mission. 

MSC Minutes ot Senior Staff Meeting, Feb. 12, 1965, p. 2. 

u 	 Goddard Space Flight Center selected Bendix Field Engineering Corp

Owings Mills, Maryland, for a contract to operate, maintain, and sup

stations of the Manned Space Flight Tracking Network. The cost-plu

fee contract was valued at approxima.tely $36 million over two yea.r

Material compiled by .Allred Rosenthal. 

17 	 Gemini launch vehicle 3 and spacecraft No.3 were mechanically ma.ted 

plex 19. The Electrical Interface Integrated Validation Test was c

February 19, the Joint Guidance and Control Test on February 22. 

Titan 3 combined systems testing included the Joint Combined 

Test on February 24 and the Flight Configuration Mode Test on Marc

Mission Report tor GT-3, p. 12-26; Geml111-Tltafl. II Air Force Launoh. Ve

p. D-8. 

17 A series of live jumps from high altitude to qualify the Gemini p

parachute began. The ballute failed to deploy because of a malfunctio

aneroid device responsible for initiating ballute deployment. The ident

function had occurred during the high-altitude ejection test on Febr

These two failures prompted a design review of the ballute deployme

anism. The aneroid was modified, and the qualification test program 

personnel parachute was realigned. In place of the remaining 23 low

live jump tests, 10 high-altitude dummy drops using the complete p

parachute gystem (including the balJute), followed by five high-alti

jumps, would complete the program. The 10 dummy drops were c

March 2-5 at altitudes from 12,000 to 181000 feet and at speeds from 1

knots indicated air speed (KIAS). All sequences functioned nonnal

tests but one: in that one, the ballute failed to leave its deployment b

rected by eliminating the bag closure pin from the design) and the b

and egress kit failed to separate (resolved by instituting a special in

procedure). The five live jumps were conducted March 8-13 at altitud

184 

Weekly Activity Reports: Feb. 14-20, pp. 1-2; Feb. 21-27, 1965, p. 1; Quarterly 

Status Reports: No.12, pp. 10-11; No. 13, pp. 8-9. 

During the week, the Gemini-Titan 3 prime crew participated in egress training 

from static article No.5 in the Gulf of Mexico. After half an hour of postlanding cockpit checks with the hatches closed, Astronauts Virgil I. Grissom and 

John W. Young practiced the emergency egress procedures developed by the 

flight crew training staff for Gemini. Both pilots then egressed through the 

left (command pilot's) hatch, after first heaving their survival kits into the 

water. Each astronaut then practiced boarding a Gemini one-man life raft. 

Swimmers w-ere standing by in a larger raft. 

MSC Space News Roundup, Mar. 3, 1965, p. 8. 

Martin-Denver delivered propellant tanks for Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 7 

to Martin-Baltimore. Tank fabrication had begun in May 1964. Martin-Baltimore recleaned and purged the tanks with nitrogen by April 20, 1965. In the 

meantime, flight engines for GI..V-7 arrived from Aerojet-Genernl on Apri117. 

Tank spJicing was completed May 6 and engine installation May 20. All horizontal testing was completed June 14. A modification period followed. 

Gemini Program 1\llsslon Report, Gemini VII, January 1966, p. 12-6; Aerospace 

Final Report, p. II.G-5; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, pp. D-12, 

D-13. 

A full-scale rehearsal of the flight crew countdown for Gemini-Titan 3 was 

conducted at the launch site. Procedures \vere carried out for moving the flight 

crew from their quarters in the Manned Spacecraft Center operations building 

at Merritt Island to the pilot's ready room at complex 16 at Cape Kennedy. 

Complete flight crew suiting operntion in the ready room, the transfer to 

complex 19, and crew ingress into the spacecraft were practiced. Practice countdown proceeded smoothly nnd indicated that equipment and procedures were 

flight ready. 

Quarterly Status Report No.12, p. 13. 

I....ockheed initiated a "Ten-point Plan for C&C Equipment." The Agena command and communication (C and C) system comprised the electronic systems 

for tracking the vehicle, for monitoring the performance of its various subsystems, and for verifying operating commands for orbital operations. Because of 

the unique requirements of the Gemini mission, in particular rendezvous and 

docking, Lockheed had had to design and develop a new C and C system for 

the Gemini target vehicle. Numerous failures and problems calling for rework 

duriJ'g the initial manufacturing stages of the C and C system suggested the 

existence of mechanical and electronic design deficiencies. Aerospace, which had 

assumed technical surveillance functions for the Gemini Agena in the fall of 

1964, was instrumental in bringing these problems to the attention of Air Force 

and Lockheed top management. Among the results of the 10-point plan were 

21 

25 

26 

185 

FliGHT · TDM ANTENNA 

'--.RfNDEllfOUS IIUCON / COMMAND S

GEMINI SPACECRAFT 

Figure 92.-Location of command and commun·!cation& 81/Btcm eq

on the .4.gcna. target vehicle. (Lockheed Photo NP-2-23, June 

several redesigned programmer circuits and packaging changes, closer 

toring of vendor work, expedited failure analysis, and improved 

control. 

Aerospace Final Report, p. III.E-1; GATV Progrc88 ReportB: February, p. 4

March, p. 4-1 ; April 1965, p. 2-13; letter, Hohmann to Grimwood. 

Office of Manned Space Flight held the Gemini manned space flight 

certification review in Washington. Chief l'xecutives of all major Gemi

tractors certified the readiness of their products for manned space flight. G

Titan 3 was ready for launch as soon a'S the planned test and checlwut pro

at Cape Kennedy were comp~eted. 

Weekly Activity Report, Feb. 28-Mnr. 6, 1965, p. 2; Interview, 1\IncDougall, H

ton, Sept. 20, 1967. 

2 	 McDonnell completed Systems Assurance Tests of Gemini spacecraft 

The Simulated Flight Test was conducted February 27-March 8. Prepa

for altitude chamber testing lusted until March 19. 

Mission Report tor GT-IV, p. 12-22. 

6 AiResearch completed dynamic qualification tests of the environmental 

system. 

Weekly Activity Report, Mar. 7-13, 1965, p. ).. 

8 	 The Wet Mock Simulated Launch of Gemini-Titan 3 was successful

ducted. Countdown exercises were concluded on March 18 with the Sim

Flight Test. 

186 

Fiqtlre 98.-Gemlt~I-Tltat& 8 Oft. pad 19 during ftM~ ootmtdoWft e4'erollel. (NASA P"Aoto 


No. 66-H-.f06, relea~ed Mar. 19, 1965.) 


Miuion Report for GT-3, p. 12-26; Gemini-Titate II Air Force Launch Vehkle,


p.D-8. 


Gemini Agena target vehicle 5001 completed electromagnetic compatibility 

tests in the anechoic chamber at Sunnyvale. It remained in the chamber, however, until March 17 while Lockheed verified the corrective action that 

had been taken to eliminate programmer time-accumulator jumps and telemetry 

synchronization problems. The vehicle was then transferred to systems test 

complex C-10 for final Vehicle Systems Tests on Mar~h 18. 

GATV Progre11 Report, March 1965, pp. 2-3 through 2-6. 

The official roll-out inspection of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 4 was conducted at Martin-Baltimore. Air Force Space Systems Division fonnally ac10 

cepted delivery of the vehicle March 21, and preparations to ship it to Cape 

Kennedy began at once. GLV--4 stage I arrived at the Cape March 22, followed 

the next day by stage II. 

l'rllllllion Report for GT-IV, pp. 12-26, 12- 27; Aerospace FiMl Report, p. II.~; 

Gemit&l-f'itat& II Air Force Laut&Ch Vehkle, p. D-9; Barris, Gemini Launch Vehic~e UAJ'Oflologfl, p. 44. 


At a meeting of the Gemini Trajectory and Orbits Panel, Air Force Space 10 

Systems Division repeated its position that on Gemini-Titan 6 the nominal 

181 
restrict the nominal mission plan to approximately 15 orbits. 

Abstract ot Meeting on Trajectories and Orbits, Mar. 28, 1965. 

14 	 McDonnell finished manufacturing, module tests, and equipment ins

for Gemini spacecraft No. 5. Spacecraft assembly was completed Apri

the mating of the reentry and adapter assemblies. Systems Assuran

began April 30. 

Mission Report tor GT-V, p. 12-2. 

18 	 Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5001 was transferred from the 

chamber to systems test complex C-10. Six days were scheduled for 

modifications before beginning final systems tests. Unexpected diffic

incorporating filters in the command controller, which required cons

redesign, and alignment problems with the forward auxiliary rack, w

quired extensive machining, imposed a lengthy delay. These problems a

days of slippage to the GATV 5001 schedule, leaving the vehicle 66 c

days behind schedule by the end of March. Machining of the forward a

rack was completed April 5, and vehicle systems testing finally began 

Weekly Activity Report, Apr. 4--10, 1965, p. 1; Abstract ot Meetlng'on Atlas/A

Coordination, May 1>, 1965; GATV Progrcaa Report a: March, pp. 2-3 through 

April 1965, p. 2-1. 

Figure 94.-Gemln( apaoccratt No. 4 entering the 14-foot altitude oll.amber at M

before aimulated Mgh-altitude teats. (NASA Photo S-65-84!0, Mar. 16, 196
HATCH OPENING STANO UP 

EQUIPMENT OPUATION HATCH CLOSING 

Figure 95.-A.Itronut~t Edward H. White II practice• 1tandup cztravchicular actlvitv at a 

Bimll1atcd alti111dc of 150,000 teet In the McDonnell altit11de chamber. (NA.SA Photo 

8-65, 4896, Mar. !4, 1965.) 

and the fifth did the same for the backup crew. Altitude chamber testing ended 

March 25, and the spacecraft was prepared for shipment to Cape Kennedy.. 

Mission Report for GT-IV, p. 12- 22; Weekly Activity Report, Mar. 21-27, 1965, 

p. 1; Gemini llidprogram Conference, p. 86. 

Gemini-Titan 3 (GT-3), the first manned mission of the Gemini program, was 

launched from complex 19 at 9 :24 n.m., e.s.t. The crew were command pilot 

Astronaut Virgil I. Grissom and pilot Astronaut John W. Young. Mn.jor objectives of the three-orbit mission were demonstrating manned orbital flight 

in the Gemini spacecraft, evaluating spacecraft and launch vehicle systems for 

future long-duration flights, demonstrating orbital maneuvers with the spacecraft orbit attitude and maneuver system (OAMS) and use of the OAMS in 

backing up retrorockets, and demonstrating controlled reentry flight path and 

landing point. Landing point accuracy was unexpectedly poor. The spacecraft 

landed at 2 :16 p.m. about 60 nautical miles from its nominal landing point. The 

flight crew left t.he spacecraft. shortly after 3 :00 and was transported by heli189 

23 
Figure 96.-Aitronautl Young and Grilllom tcalk up the ramp leading tu the elevat

will carru them to the spacecraft for the flrflt manned Gemini m~~slon. The

Gemini GSO intravchtcuwr lltlitl. (NASA Photo No. 65-H-.6~8. rclea11cd Mar. f~, 

copter to the prime recovery ship, the aircraft carrier Intrepid. Spac

recovery was completed at 5:03. During the flight, Grissom successfull

formed three orbital maneuvers. Among the secondary objectives of the m

190 
Flt/ttre 9"1.-Gemini spacecraft No. S, 1rcartng a jfotatiott collar, beino hoiJtted a'l)oard the 

U.8.8. Intrepid after wnding. (NASA Photo No. 65 H-~6t, released M(lcr. tS, 1965.) 

Representatives of Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD), Aerospace, Lock- 23-24 

heed, and Gemini Program Office met at Sunnyvale for the monthly Gemini 

Agena Target Vehicle (GATV) Management-Technical R.eview. SSD recommended that the current c.onfiguration of the oxidizer gas generator solenoid 

valve be removed from GATV 5001 because of the recent failure of the valve 

during 38-day oxidizer star-system stornge tests at ReJ1 Aerosystems. Following the meeting, Lockheed formed a team to evaluate the design of the 

valve. A redesigned valve began qualification tests in July. 

GATV Progreas Reports: March, pp. 2-13, 7-3; July 1965, p. 2-20. 

The orbit attitude and maneuver system (OAMS) 25-pound thrusters installed 27 

in spacecraft No. 4 were replaced with new long-life engines. Installation of 

the new engines had been planned for spacecraft No. 5, but they were ready 

3~22~ 14 191 
achieved early in June. The total ground qualification of all Gemini sp

liquid propellant rocket systems was completed in August with th

qualification of the OAMS in the spacecraft 6 configuration. 

Weekly Activity Report, Mar. 21-27, 1965, p. 1; "Gemini Propulsion by R

dyne,"p. 3. 

29 	 The possibility of doing more than the previously planned stand-up 

extravehicular activity (EVA) was introduced at an informal meetin

office of Director Robert R. Gilruth at Manned Spacecraft Center 

Present at the meeting, in addition to Gilruth and Deputy Director G

Low, were Richard S. Johnston of Crew Systems Division (CSD) a

ren J. North of Flight Crow Operations Division. Johnston presented 

up of an EVA r!hestpack, as ''"ell as a prototype hand-held maneuver

North expressed his division's confidence that an umbilical EVA coul

cessfully achieved on the Gemini-Titan 4 mission. Receiving a go-ahe

Gilruth, CSD briefed George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for 

Space Flight, on April 3 in Washington. He, in turn, briefed th

quarters Directorates. The relevant 1\fSC divisions were given tenta

proval to continue the preparation and training required for the o

Associate Administrator of NASA, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., visited M

further briefing on May 14. The enthusiasm he carried bnck to Wa

regarding flight-readiness soon prompted final Headquarters approval. 

Inte"lew, Low, Houston, Feb. 7, 1967. 

29 	 Gemini launch vehicle 4 was erected at complex 19. After the vehicle h

inspected, umbilicals were connected March 31 and power applied 

Subsystems Functional Verification Tests began immediately and we

pleted April 15. The Prespacecraft 1\fate Combined Systems Test w

ducted the next day (Aprill6). 

Mission Report for GT-IV, p. 12-27; Gemlnl·Tit.an II Air Force Launch Ve

p.D-9. 

McDonnell delivered Gemini spacecraft No. 4 to Cape Kennedy. R

inspection was completed April 6. Other industrial area activities, fn

pyrotechnic buildup, temporary installation of seats, and final prepara

pad testing were completed April 14. The spacecraft was then moved 

plex 19. 

Mission Report for GT-IV, p. 12-24. 

Manned Spacecraft Center announced that Walter M. Schirra, .Jr., and 

P. Stafford had been selected as command pilot and pilot for Gemini-Tit

first Gemini rendezvous and docking mission. Virgil I. Grissom and J

Young would be the backup crew. 

Astronautlol and Aeronautlcl, 1965: A. ChrOftOlofltl on Bclerlce, TcchnologJI, 

Polictl, NASA SP-4006, p.l70. 

192 

Deputy for Launch Vehicles, had signed for SSD on March 31 and 29 respectively. The agreement, dated March 1965, followed months of negotiation and 

coordination on management relationships and fundamental responsibilities 

for the Gemini Agena target vehicle program. It clarified and supplemented 

the "Operational and Management Plan for the Gemini Program" (December 29, 1961) with respect to the target vehicle program. 

Weekly Activity Report, Apr. 25-May 1, 1965, p. 1; Abstract of Meeting of Atlas/ 


Agena Coordination, :\lay 5, 1965; "Gemini Atlas Agena Target Vehicle System 


Management and Responsibilities Agreement between the NASA-1\ISC and USAF, 


AFSC, SSD," March 1965 ; Aerospace Final Report, p. III.A-1. 


Gemini spacecraft No. 4 was hoisted into position atop the launch vehicle. 14 

Cabling for test was completed April19, and premate systems tests began. For 

the first time, Mission Control Center, Houston, supported Kennedy Space 

Center pad operations. Systems testing ended April21. The Prespa.cecraft Mate 

Simulated Flight Test was conducted April 22-23. 

Mission Report for GT-IV, p. 12-24; NASA-MSC Quarterly Activity Report for 


Office of the Associate Administrator, Manned Space Flight, for period ending 


April 30, 1965, p. 8 (hereafter cited as Quarterly Activity Report-formerly Con­


solidated Activity Report). 


Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 6 was erected in the vertical test facility at 14-U 

Martin-Baltimore. GLV-6 was the first vehicle in the new west test cell, which 

Martin had finished installing and checking out in January. At this time, GLV5 was still undergoing vertical tests in the other test cell. Because both cells 

used the same power sources and aerospace ground equipment connections, 

simultaneous testing was impossible; however, one vehicle could be inspected 

and prepared for test while the other was being tested. Power 'vas applied to 

GLV-6 for the first time on May 13. Subsystems Functional Verification Tests 

continued until June 22. 

Mls!Jlon Report for GT-VIA, p. 12-7; ~erospace Final Report, pp. II.F-2, II.G-5; 


Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-11; Barris, Gemmt Launch Ve­

hicle Chronoloov. p. 47. 


Martin-Denver delivered the propellant tanks for Gemini launch vehicle 8 to 

Martin-Baltimore. Tank fabrication had begun September 25, 1964. AerojetGeneral delivered the stage I engine on June 16 and the stage II on August 20. 

In the meantime, tank splicing was oompleted August 3. Engine installation 

was completOO. September 23, and all horizontal testing ended September 27. 

Gemini Program Mission Report, Gemini VIII, Apr. 29, 1966, p. 1~ ; Aerospace 


Final Report, p. II.G-5; Gemlni-Tftan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-14. 


McDonnell completed Systems Assurance Tests of Gemini spacecraft No. 5. 20 


The environmental control system was validated April24, and fuel cell reinstal­


lation was completed April26. The fuel cell had failed during reentry/adapter 


mating ope:ra.tions on April16. 


Mission Report for GT-V, pp. 12-2, 12-3. 

193 

22 

23 

26 

test cell May 7-8, formally ac<.'epted by the Air Force May 15, and s

to Cape Kennedy. Stage I arrived at the Cape on May 17 and stag

May 19. 

Mission Report for GT-V, pp. 12-6, 12-7; Aerospace FiJJal Report, p. II.G

Gemlni-TitaJJ 11 Air Force Launcl\ Vcl\lcle, p. D-10; Barris, Gemini La11nc1l Ve

ChroMlO(IJI, p. 110. 

The Abort Panel met to review abort criteria for Gemini-Titan (GT) 

decided that GT-3 rules would suffice. Alternate procedures for delaye

2 abort would be investigated when the Manned Spacecraft Cente

trainer became available to the GT-5 mission. 

Weekly Activity Report, Apr. 25-May 1,1965, p. 1. 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 4 and spacecraft No.4 were mechanically 

at complex 19. The Electrical Interface Integrated Validation and Join

ance and Control Test were completed April 26-29. These had been s

tests for earlier vehicles, but from Gemini-Titan 4 on, the tests were co

and performed as one. The spacecraft/GLV Joint Combined System

follo,ved on April 30. The Flight Configuration Mode Test finished 

testing May 7. 

MiBBion Report for GT-IV, p. 12-27; Gemini Jlidprouram COJJtcrencc, pp. 222-

The Simulated Flight Test of Gemini spacecraft No. 5 began at McD

During the test (April 28) the environmental control system (ECS) 

advertently overpressurized. The test was halted while the ECS suit lo

investigated. Reinstallation was completed May 8, and the ECS and gu

and control systems were retested May 9-11. Simulated flight testing 

sumed May 11 and completed May 19. Preparations for altitude chamb

ing lasted until May 25. 

Mission Report for GT-V, pp. 12-2, 12-3; Weekly Activity Reports: Apr. 25-Ma

p. 2; May 2-8, 1965, pp. 1-2. 

McDonnell completed manufacturing, module tests, and equipment in

tion for Gemini spacecraft No. 6. Mating the reentry and adapter ass

completed final assembly of the spacecraft on May 12. Cabling and test 

ration lasted until June 4, when Systems Assurance Tests began. 

Ml!!8lon Report for GT-YIA, p. 12-2. 

Discussing the landing point error of Gemini 3, Charles W. Mathews t

Gemini Management Panel that the spacecrnft had developed a smalle

of attack than planned and that the lift capability had been less than wi

nel tests had indicated. 

Minutes of Project Gemini Management Panel Meeting held at MSC, May5, 1

194 

Weekly Activity Reports: May 2-8, p. 1; May ~15, 1965, p. 1; GATV Progre1s Re· 

port, May 1965, pp. 2-1, 2-2. 

A team of representatives from NASA, Air Force Space Systems Division, 10 

Aerospace, and Lockheed bega.n the First Article Configuration Inspection 

(FACI) of Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5001 nt Sunnyvale. A 

F ACI acceptance team reviewed and evaluated all drawings, specifications, 

tEst procedures and reports, component and assembly log books, a.nd qualification and oertification documentation relating to GATV 5001. The resulting 

record of discrepancies then served as a basis for corrective action. F ACI, a 

standard Air Force procedure established in June 1962, was essentially a.n 

audit perfonned by the Air Force with contractor support to reconcile engineering design, as originally released nnd subsequently modified, with the actual 

hardware produced. Its purpose was to establish the production configuration 

base line under which remaining contract end items (in this oose, GATV 5002 

and up) of the same configuration were to be manufactured and deJhrered to 

the Air Force. F ACI on GATV 5001 was completed May 26. 

Weekly Actlvlty Report, May 9-15, 1965, p. 1; Quarterly Status Report No. 13, p. 

20; GATV Progre11 Report, May 19M, p. 2-12. 

Figure 98.-Wt>ight and balance test of A1trona11t McDivitt during the Wet Alock Simulated 

Launch ot Gemim·Titan 4. (NASA Photo No. 65-H-191, relcaaed Mav !1, 1965.) 
determine the cause of the apparent loading inaccura.cies that had tu

during '~fSL. The problem was locn.ted in the stage II flowmeter

wero replaced (May 21) and checked out in a third tanking test (of 

only) on May 27. In the meantime, launch vehicle and spacecraft were 

on May 22. The Simulated Flight Test of GT-4 on May 29 concluded pr

testing. 

Mission Report for GT-IV, pp. 12--2!, 12--27; Kuras and Albert, "Gemini 

Technical Summary," p. 140. 

Qualification of the G4C extravehicular suit was completed. This 

basically the same as the G3C suit exc~pt for modifications which in

redundant zipper closure, two over-visors for visual and physical pr

automatic locking ventilation settings, and a heavier cover layer incor

thermal and micrometeoroid protection. Six G4C suits would be at ·th

site for the Gemini 4 flight crews by the end of :May. 

Quarterly Activity Report, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 38 ; Quarterly Status Report N

p.9. 

Figure 99.-The hand-held maneuvering unit. (NASA P1wto 8-65-27~~1. June!
rack and the vehicle; machining and aligning the rack and refinishing the 

scraped surfaces proved time-consuming. GATV 5002 was still short se,reral 

items of command equipment. Systems testing began :May 21. 

GATV Progre11 Reporl, May 1965, pp, 2-6,2-8. 

All extravehicular equipment planned for the Gemini 4 mission, including the 

ventilation control module, the extravehicular umbilical assembly, and the handheld maneuvering unit, had been qualified. The flight hardware wns at the 

launch site ready for flight at the end of May. 

Quarterly Activity Report, July 31, 1965, p. 31; Quarterly Status Report No. 13, p.lO. 

li'lflure 100.--Gemlnl apact)craft No. 5 undergoing clea,..up prior to being dipped to Cape 

Kc11ned11. (NASA Photo S-65-5181, June !, 1965.) 

McDonnell began altitude chamber tests of Gemini spacecraft No. 5. Testing 

was interrupted by a fuel cell failure on June 1, and fuel sections were replaced. 

Modifications and preparations for retest concluded June 12, and an overall 

systems test \vith the fuel cell was conducted. . 

197 


19 

26 
( GATV) 5001 not acceptable because First Article Configuration Insp

(completed May 26) showed the vehicle not to be flightworthy as requi

the contract. SSD nevertheless conditionally accepted delivery of GATV 

Lockheed was to correct deficiencies by the dates noted on DD-250 attach

Besides several items of equipment merely awaiting final documentation, 

items yet to be qualified were the shroud, primary and secondary prop

systems, the command system, and components of the electrical power s

After being conditionally accepted, GATV 5001 was shipped by air to E

Test Range on May 28, arriving May 29. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 13, p. 20; GATV Progren Report11: May, pp. 2-1,

2-4, 4-1, 4-2 ; June 1965, p. 2-1. 

LATCH HOOK 

( 3 REQUIRED) 

Figure 101.-Target Docking .4.dapter Ullllcmbly. ( MrDonneU Report 


No . F169, Gtomlni Final Summary Report, Feb. 2!0,1967, p. 5.i8.) 


Gemini Agena target vehicle 5001 arrived at Cape Kennedy fo

its conditional acceptance by the Air Force on May 27. It was m

the Missile Assembly Building (Hangar E) for testing. The target 

was mated with target docking adapter No.1 on June 18, and Combine

198 


29 
Weekly Activity Report, June 13-19, 1965, p. 1; G.d.TV ProgrciB Rcporto: J'une, pp. 

2-2, 2-3; July 1965, p. 2-1; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, pp. 5-4, 

5-6. 

Fi(Jure 10! (.d.) .-Launch vehicle erector tower being lowered jtUJt prior to launch ot GemlniTitan 4. Ditfleulty in lowering the erector delayed the launch from tlw achcduled time 

of 9:00 a.m. to 10:16 a.m., e.s.t. (NASA Photo No. 65-H-934, released June 3, 1965.) 
1965 

].nu 

3 

Fiqure 10!(B).-Gt>mini·Titan lifto1J. (NASA Photo No. 65-B-93~, released Jt~

Gemini 4, the second mn.nned and first long-duration mission in the Ge

gram, was la.unched from complex 19 at 10 :16 a.m., e.s.t. Comm

Astronaut James A. McDivitt and pilot Astronaut Edward H. Whit

the crew. Major objectives of the four-day ·mission were demonstra

evaluating the performance of spacecraft systems in a long-duration f

evaluating effects on the crew of prolonged exposure to the space env

200 
~ .... :... '- • .;j..:. -; 

.- .. l' ' 

- I 

#·- ~ ' 

Figure 103.-Astronaut Edward H . White II drtrfng CJ"travclricular activity on the Gemini• 

Titan 4 mission. (NASA Photo No. 65-H-1019, released Ju11c 3, 1965.) 

Secondary objectives included demonstrating extravehicular activity (EVA) 

in space, conducting stationkeeping and rendezvous maneuvers with the second '"'" 

stage of the launch vehicle, performing significant in-plane and out-of-plane 

maneuvers, demonstrating the ability of the orbit attitude and maneuver sys201 

1965 
7 

15 

18 

only other major problem to mar the mission was the inadvertent altera

the computer memory during the 48th revolution in an attempt to cor

apparent malfunction. This made the planned computer-controlled reen

possible and required an open-loop ballistic reentry. All other mission obj

were met. The flight crew began preparing for EVA immediately af

minating the stationkeeping exercise. Although preparations went sm

McDivitt decided to delay EVA for one revolution, both because of th

level of activity required and because deletion of the rendezvous attempt r

the tightness of the schedule. Ground control approved the decision. The 

craft hatch was opened at 4 hours 18 minutes into the flight and White ex

minutes later, using a hand-held maneuvering gun. White re~ntered the 

craft 20 minutes after leaving it. The hatch was closed at 4 hours 54 m

ground elapsed time. Drifting flight was maintained for the next two a

half days to conserve propellant. The spacecraft landed in the Atlantic 

about 450 miles east of Cape Kennedy-some 40 miles from its nominal l

point--at 12:13 p.m., June 7. The crew boarded a helicopter 34 minute

landing and was transported to the prime recovery ship, the aircraft 

Wasp. Spacecraft recovery was completed at 2 :28 p.m., a little more th

hours after Gemini 4 had been launched. Gemini 4 was the first missio

controlled from the mission control center in Houston. 

Mission Report for Gemini IV, pp. 1-1, 2-1, 2-2, 4-1, 4-2, 4-19, 6-.Jl, 6-12; Q

terly Activity Report, July 31, 196Ci, p. 10. 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 5 was erected at complex 19. The vehi

inspected and umbilicals connected June 9. Power was applied June 1

systems Reverification Tests (SSRT) began June 14. SSRT was a sim

test program which replaced Subsystems Functional Verification 

(SSFVT). SSFVT, performed on the first four GLVs, repeated testa th

already been performed at Martin-Baltimore. SSRT simplified subs

checkout by requiring only that the factory findings be reverified, rath

duplicated, for GLV -5 and all later launch vehicles. SSRT wns com

June 28. The launch vehicle Combined Systems Test to verify its readin

mating was run J nne 29. 

Misalon Report for GT-V, p. 12-7; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.F-2. 

Systems assurance testing of Gemini spacecraft No. 6 was completed 

Donnell. Following validation of the environmental control system June 

the spacecraft was prepared for Simulated Flight Test which began J

Mission Report for GT- VIA, p. 12-2. 

Atlas standard launch vehicle 5301 was returned from Hangar J to com

and once again erected. Booster Facility Acceptance Composite Te

completed July 9. 

Weekly Activity Reports : June 18-19, .p. 1 ; July 4-10, 19M, p. 1. 

202 

subsequent spacecraft. The Premate Verification Test of spacecraft No. 5 was 

conducted June 30-July 2. 

Mission Report for GT-V, p. 12-4; Weekly Activity Reports: June 13-19, p. 1; 

June 20--26, 1965, p. 1; Geminl Midprogram Conference, pp. 222-223. 

The Simulated Flight Test of Gemini spacecraft No. 6 was completed at McDonnell. The spacecraft was cleaned up and moved to the altitude chamber, 

where it underwent phasing checks and was prepared for chamber testing. 

These activities were completed July 15, and altitude chamber tests were 

conducted July 16-21. The spacecraft was deserviced, realigned, and prepared 

for shipment to Cape Kennedy. 

Mission Report for GT-VJA, p. 12-2; Weekly Activity Reports: June 20--26, p. 1; 

July 18-24, 19615, p. 1. 

The Combined Systems Acceptance Test of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 

6 was completed at Martin-Baltimore. The vehicle acceptance team convened 

July 6 to review GLV-6 and accepted it July 10. The vehicle was demated 

on July 19 and formally accepted by the Air Force July 31. Stage II was 

delivered to Cape Kennedy the same day, and stage I on August 2. Both 

stages were then placed in storage pending the launch of Gemini-Titan 5. 

Mission Report for GT-VIA, pp. 12-7, 12-8; Weekly Activity Report, Aug. 1-7, 

1965, p. 1; Aerospace Final R8J)ort, p. II.G-5; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch. 

Vehicle, p. D-11. 

Stage I of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 1 was erected in the east cell of the 

vertical test facility at Martin-Baltimore. Stage II 'vas erected June 28. 

GLV-7 was inspected and prepared for testing while GLV-6 was undergoing 

vertical tests in the west cell. Power was applied to GI.N-7 for the first time 

July 26. Subsystems Functional Verification Tests 'vere completed August 25. 

Systems modification and retesting followed. 

Mission Report for GT-VII, p. 12-6; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G-5; GeminiTitan IIAir Force Laut~eh. Vehicle, p. D-13. 

McDonnell concluded manufacturing, module tests, and equipment installation 

for Gemini spacecra.ft. No. 7. The reentry and ada.pter assemblies were mated 

July 26 to complete final assembly of the spacecraft. Preparing the spacecraft 

for test lasted until August 4, when systems assurance testing began. 

Mission Report for GT-VII, p. 12-2. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5002 completed Vehicle Systems Tests at 

Sunnyvale, and the final acceptance test was conducted. The vehicle was 

disconnected from the test complex on July 13, after NASA, Air Force Space 

Systems Division, Aerospace, and Lockheed representatives agreed that all 

data discrepancies from the final systems tests had been resolved. 

GATV ProgreiiB Reporta: June, pp. 2-4, 2-6, 2-7; July 1965, p. 2-7. 

25 

25 

25 

29 

30 

208 

management with background needed for effective policy decisions. 

purpose was ensuring that the executives knew each other well enoug

directly in solving time-critical problems rapidly. One-day meetings w

held at intervals of two to four months. 

Letter, Mueller to Gllruth, July 1, 1965. 

I 	 NASA announced that Frank Borman and James A. Lovell, Jr., 

selected as the prime flight crew for Gemini VII. The backup crew 

flight, which would last up to 14 days, would be Edward H. Whit

Michael Collins. 

ABtron.auticB and AercmauticB, 1965, p. 308. 

Figure 104.-Re11de:rou1J ct,aluation pod installed in the equipment IJCCtion of Gem

craft No. 5 before launch t:eT1iclc mating. (;VASA Plloto S-65-41884, July 6, 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 5 and spacect·tdt No.5 were mechanicn.

at complex 19. The Electrical Interface Integrated Validation and Joi

ance and Control Test began immediately and was completed July 9. T

craft/GLV Joint Combined Systems Test followed on July 12. Th

Configuration Mode Test completed systems testing on July 16. 

Mission Report for GT-V, p.12-7. 

7 
Weekly Activity Reports: July 410, p. 1; July 1824, 1965, p. 1 ; GATV Progrell 

Report, July 1965, p. 2-1. 

NASA Headquarters Gemini Program Office informed Manned Spacecraft 

Center that it had decided to delete extravehicular activity from C-emini 

missions 5, 6, and 7. 

Message, Schneider to Mathews, Subj: Deletion l1f EVA, Ju.ly 12, 1965. 

A Simultaneous Launch Demonstration (SLD) was conducted between the 

Gemini Atla.s-Agena target vehicle on complex 14 and Gemini-Titan (GT) 5 

on complex 19, in conjunction with the Wet Mock Simulated Launch (WMSL} 

of GT-5. The Gemini la,unch vehicle tanking exercise, normally a part of 

WMSL, was conducted separately for convenience on July 17. SLD was a 

dress rehearsal to demonstrate the coordination required to conduct a single 

countdown on two vehicles and was subsequently performed on all rendezvous 

missions. The mission control centers at Houston and the Cape, as well as 

Eastern Test Range support facilities, were integral parts of the combined 

countdown. A failure in the Houston computer system caused several spurious 

commands to be transmitted to the target vehicle. Although some of these 

commands were accepted, results were not serious because they were mostly 

stored program command loads. Following SLD, the Atlas and Agena were 

demated on July 26. 

Mission Report tor GT-V, p. 12-7; Weekly Activity Reports : July 18-24, p. 1; 

July 25--31, 1965, p. 1; Quarterly Status Report No. 14 tor Period Ending Aug. 31, 

1965, p. 18; Abstract ot Meeting on AtlaS'/Agena Coordination, Aug. 20, 1965; 

Aerospace Final Report, pp. II.F-3, II.F-4, III.F-4, III.F-5; GATV Progrc81 

Report, July 1965, pp. 2-1, 2-3, 2-4. 

Air Force Spa,ce Systems Division formally accepted delivery of Gemini 

Agena target vehicle ( GATV) 5002 after the vehicle acceptance team inspection 

had been completed. The vehicle was then shipped by air to Eastern Test Range 

on July 24, arriving July 25. Although GATV 5002 was a,ccepted, several items 

of equipment remained in "not qualified" status, including the shroud, secondary 

and prima.ry propulsion systems, and components of both the electrical power 

and command systems. 

Weekly Activity Report, July 25-31, 1965, p. 1; GATV Progrcu Report, July 1005, 

pp. 2-7, 4-11, 4-12. 

Gemini-Titan (GT) 5 \Vas demated following the completion of the Wet Mock 

Simulated Launch to allow the spa,cecra.ft fuel cells to be replaced and the 

coolant bypass to be modified. Spacer-raft and launch vehicle were rernated 

August 5. Modified Electrical Interface Integrated Validation 1\.nd the Joint 

Guidance and Control Tests \vere run on August 6. Spacecraft Final Systems 

Test on August 9-10 and the Simulated Flight Test on August 18 completed 

prelaunch testing of GT-5, scheduled for launch August 19. 

Mission Report tor GT-V, pp.12-4, 12-IS, 12-7. 

12 

22 

23 

23 

205 
1965 


July 

23 


Figrtre 105.-A.•ytrtJnauts Ch4rlcs Conrad Jr., and L. Gordon Cooper, Jr., p1·aeticc p

for getting into their ~pacccra!t in ITt<' Gemini 5 Wet ]fock Slnlltlatccl 

(NASA Photo S-65-41895, July 22, 1965.) 

Standard Agena D (AD-108), which had been completed in June and 

storage, ~as transferred to Building 104: at Sunnyvale for modifica

final assembly as Gemini Agena target vehicle 5003. While in storage

206 

pieces 

Figure 

of 

106.-Standard 

AD-108 equipment 

Agena D 108 

had 

8066, 

being 

been 

July 

delivered 

removed 

23, 1965

to 

.) 

for 

ftnal 

modification 

assembly area. 

to 

(NA.SA 

the Gemini 	

S-65­

1965 

July configuration. Final assembly bcgnn August 8. 

GATV Progress Reports: June, pp. 2-8, 2-9; July 1965. pp. 2-10, 2-11. 

Atlas standard launch vehicle 5301 and Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 26 

5001 were demn.ted ,1t complex 14, following the Simultaneous Launch Demonstration of July 22. G ATV 5001 was returned to Hangar E, where it was stored 

as the backup vehicle for GATV 5002. On August 18, GATV 5002 was officially 

designated as the target vehicle for Gemini VI, the first rendezvous mission, 

while GATV 5001 was to be maintained in flight-ready condition as backup. 

Atlas 5301, which had been returned to Hangar J after demnting, was mo,·ed 

back to complex 14 on August 16 to serve as the target launch vehicle for GATV 

5002. 

Weekly Activity Report, July 25-31, 1005, p. 1; Quarterly Statu~ Report ~o. 14. p. 


18; Abstract of :Meeting on Atlas/Agena Coordination, Aug. 20, 1965; GATl' Prog­

resB Report, August 1965, p. 2-1. 


Gemini Program Manager Charles W. Mathews initiated a spacecraft manager 27 

program by assigning one engineer to Gemini spacecraft No. 5 and another to 

spacecraft No. 6. As.">ignments to other spacecraft would come later. Following 

the precedent established in Mercury and then in Gemini by Martin, McDonnell, and Aerojet-Genern.I, one man would follow the spacecraft from manufacturing through testing to launch, serving as a source of up-to-date information on his spacecraft and calling attention to particular problem areas. 

328- 022 0--69-Ui 	 207 
12 

12 

16 

g py

spacecraft modifications. The spacecraft was moved to Merritt Islan

Area for Pla.n X integrated tests with t.he target vehicle during the la

August.. 

Mission Report for GT-VIA, p. 12-4. 

Atlas standard launch vehicle 5302 was shipped from San Diego 

arriving at Cape Kennedy August 11. The vehicle had come oft' the p

line and been delivered to the Gemini program on April2. Final asse

been completed May 25, installation of flight equipment and Gemin

kit June 3, and factory testing July 22. Air Force Space Systems Div

formally accepted the vehicle on July 29. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, pp. 12--12, 12-18; Weekly Activity Reports: Au

p. 1; Aug. 8-14, 1965, p. 1; Quarterly Status Report No. 14, p. 21. 

McDonnell finished systems assurance testing of Gemini spacecra

Validation of the environmental control system concluded August 19, 

arations were started for the Simulated Flight Test which began A

Mission Report for GT-VII. p.12-2. 

Gemini Program Office informed the NASA-McDonnell Managemen

the decision to fly the new, lightweight G5C space suit on G.emini V

by Crew Systems Division, the suit displayed a major improvement i

and normal mobility without sacrificing basic pressure integrity or cr

The suit weighed about nine pounds and was similar to the G4C s

for the elimination of the restraint layer and the substitution of a so

design with an integral visor and no neckring. Under study was the p

of allowing one or both astronauts to remove their suits during the 

NASA Headquarters, on July 2, had directed t.hat the flight crew no

pressure suits during the Gemini VII mission. 

Memo, Mathews to Gilruth et al., Subj: Suit Configuration for Gemini VI

27, 1005 ; MSC Minutes of Senior Staft' Meetings: Aug. 6, p. 1 ; Aug. 18, 196

M1nutes of NASA- MAC Management Panel Meeting held at MSC, Aug. 12

Quarterly Status Report No. 14, p. 9. 

Martin-Baltimore received propellant tanks for Gemini launch vehic

9 from Martin-Denver, which had begun fabricating them February 

were the first GLV tanks to be carried by rail from Denver to Balti

previous tanks had traveled by air, but shortage of suitable aircraft 

change necessary. The ttmks were shipped August. 9. Aerojet-General 

the stage I engine for GLV-9 August 20 and the stage II engine S

22. Tank splicing 'ms completed Octobet· 21, engine installation 

10. Horizontal testing concluded November 23. 

Gemini Program 'Mission neport, Gemini IX-A, updated, p. ~; Aerospac

Report, p. II.G-7; Gemini-Titan II Air Force lAunch Vehicle, p. D-15. 

208 
loading propellants. 


Mission Rt-port for GT-Y, pp. 5--129, 12-5; Kuras and Albert, "Gemini-Titan Tech­


nical Summary," p. 142. 


Lockheed conducted shroud separation tests at its Rye Canyon Research Center. 19-24 

Tests comprised four separations at simulated altitudes, all successfuL After 

test data had been analyzed, the shroud was judged to be flight worthy. 

GATV Progress Reports: August, pp. 2-12, 2-17, 3-13; September 1965, p. 2-12. 

I 

Flgure 107.-0hristophcr C. Kraft, Jr., Robert R. GiJrvth, and George ./If. Low in the Houston 11/iasion Control Center wltcn falling prcR.911rc in t1H' o:rygcn s11pply tank of the fuel 

cell tllrcatcned the Gemini Y mi.,sion. (NASA Plwto S-65-28691, .4.ug. 22, 1965.) 

Gemini 5 was launched from complex 19 at 9 :00 a.m., e.s.t. The crew 

comprised command pilot Astronaut L. Gordon Cooper, Jr., and pilot 

Astronaut Charles Conrad, Jr. Major objectives of the eight-day mission were evaluating the performance of the rendezvous guidance and navigation system, using a rendezvous evaluation pod (REP), and evaluating the 

effects of prolonged exposure to the space environment on the flight crew. 

Secondary objectives included demonstrating controlled reentry guidance, 

evaluating fuel cell performance, ill>monstrating all phases of gnidnnce and 

control system operation needed for a rendezvous miss!on, evaluating the ca209 

21 
supply tank of the fuel cell system was falling. Pressure dropped f

pounds per square inch absolute ( psia) at 26 minutes into the fligh

stabilized at 70 psia at 4 hours 22 minutes, and gradually increased 

the remainder of the mission. The spacecraft was powered down and 

exercise was abandoned. By the seventh revolution, experts on the gro

analyzed the problem and a powering-up procedure '~as started. Du

remainder of the mission the flight plan was continuously schedule

time. Four rendezvous radar tests were conducted during the mission, 

in reYo'ution 14 on the second day; the spacecraft rendezvous radar 

fully tracked a. transponder on the ground n.t Cape Kennedy. During 

day, n simulated Agenn. rendezvous was conducted at full electrical l

simulation comprised four maneuvers-apogee adjust, phase adju

Flqure 108.-Photoqraph of the Florida penln1ula taken from the G~mlnl 5 l

lookitlfl Rntlt1t alOfiQ the caat caad, witlt Cape Kc11nedy in the toreqrortnd proJ

the Atlantic Ocean. (NASA Photo 8-65-45888, Auo. !1-!9, 1965.) 
next da.y, a.nd the rest of the system was gradually becoming more erratic. Lim

ited experimental and operational activities continued through the remainder 

of the mission. Retrofire was initiated in the I 21st revolution during the eighth 

day of the mission, one revolution early because of threatening weather in the 

planned recovery area. Reentry and landing were satisfactory, but the landing point was 89 miles short, the result of incorrect navigation coordinates 

transmitted to the spacecraft computer from the ground net\vork. Landing 

occurred at 7 :56 a.m., August 29, 190 hours 55 minutes after the mission had 

begun. The astronauts arrived on board the prime recovery ship, the aircraft 

carrier Lake Champlain, at 9:25. The spacecraft 'vas recovered at 11:51 a.m. 

Mission Report tor GT-V, pp. 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, 4-1 tbrougb 4-7, 5-68, 5-69; Fact 


Bbeet 291-C, Gemfni 5 Flight, October 1961'i; McDonnell Fiftar Report, pp. 68-69. 


Gemini Agena target vehicle 5002 completed preliminary systems testing at 

Hangar E and was transferred to Merritt Island Launch Area, where it was 

joined by spacecraft No.6 for Plan X testing. After ground equipment checl{s, 

Plan X tests proceeded on August 25. No significant interference problems 

were found, and testing ended on August 31. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 14, pp. 1S-19; GATV Progress Report, August 1965, 

p.2-3. 

Stage I of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 6 was erected at complex 19. Stage II 

was erected the following day. Umbilicals were connected and inspected September 1, and Subsystems Reverification Tests began September 2. These tests 

were completed September 15. The Prespacecraft Mate Verification Test of 

GLV-6 was run September 16. 

Mission Report tor GT-VIA, p. 12-8; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Lau11ch Vehicle, 

p.D-11. 

The Simulated Flight Test of Gemini spacecraft No. 7 ended at McDonnell. 

The spacecraft was cleaned up and moved to the altitude chamber September 

9. Phasing checks were conducted September 10-11, and the spacecraft was 

prepared for altitude chamber tests, which began September 13. Chamber 

tests concluded September 17. The spacecraft was deserviced, updated, retested, and prepared for shipment to Cape Kennedy. 

Mission Report tor GT-VII, p. 12-2; Weekly Activity Report, Sept. 5-11, 1965, p. 1. 

Gemini Program Office reported that during the missions of Gemini 4 and 5, 

skin-tracking procedures had been successfully developed. On these missions, 

the C-ba.nd radars were able to track the spacecraft in both the beacon and 

skin-track mode. It was, therefore, possible to obtain tracking data when the 

spacecraft was powered down and had no tracking beacons operating: As a 

result, the skin-tracking procedures were integrated into the network support 

for all remaining Gemini missions. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 14, p. 24. 

23 

30 

30 

31 

211 

-r 

T 

...l" 

r_

r

1

... 

Figure 109.-Gemln4 apacccraft No. 7 ln ]fnal ahakedou:m in the clean room at McDonnell. 

S~5-541!7, Sept. !9, 1965.) 


212 

erection and mating with the launch vehicle. 

Aerospace Final Report, p. III.F-4; GATV Prognu Report, September 1965, 

p. 2-1. 

Representatives of Air Force Space Systems Division, Aerospace, and Lockheed 

attended a. technical revie'v of the flight verification test program for the oxidizer gas generator solenoid valve. This was the last remaining component of 

the Agena. primary propulsion system needing test qualification. Testing had 

been completed August 26; disassembly, inspection, and evaluation were concluded September 3. The consensus of those attending was that the successful 

test program had demonstrated flightworthiness of this configuration. 1'his concluded qualification of all propulsion system components. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 14, p. 19; GATV Progreu Report, September 1965, 

p. 2-14. 

Gemini spacecraft No.6 was moved to complex 19 and hoisted to the top of the 

launch vehicle. The move had been scheduled for September 2 but was delayed 

by tM presence of Hurricane Betsy in the vicinity of the Cape September 3-8. 

The Prespacecraft Mate Verification Test was conducted September 13-16. 

Preparations then began for mating the spacecraft to the launch vehicle. 

Mission Report for GT-VIA, p. 12-4; Weekly Activity Reports : Aug. 29-Sept. 4, 

pp. 1-2 ; Sept. ~11. 1965, p. 1. 

Martin-Denver shipped the propellant tanks for Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 

10 to Martin-Baltimore. During the rail trip, leaking battery acid corroded the 

dome of the stage II fuel tank. The tanks arrived at Martin-Baltimore 

September 21. The stage II fuel tank was rejected and returned to Denver. It 

was replaced by the stage II fuel tank from GLV-11, which completed final 

assembly September 25 and arrived in Baltimore November 3 after being inspected and certified. Fabrication of GLV-10 tanks had begun in April. 

Gemini Program Mission Report, Gemini X, undated, p. 12-6 ; Aerospace FlnoJ 

Report, p. II.G-7; Harris, Gemini Lounc11. Vehicle Chronologl/. p. 158. 

Gemini launch vehicle ( GLV) 6 and spacecraft No. 6 were mechanically mated 

at complex 19. The Electrical Interface Integrated Validation and Joint Guidance and Control Test was completed September 21. The spacecraft/GLV Joint 

Combined Systems Test was run September 23. GLV tanking test was performed September 29 and the Flight Configuration Mode Test October 1, completing systems testing for Gemini-Titan 6. 

!\lfBSion Report for GT-VIA, pp. 12-4, 12-8. 

McDonnell completed mating the reentry and adapter assemblies of spacecraft 

No. 8. The complete spacecraft was aligned and adjusted. Systems Assurance 

Tests began September 30. 

:\fission Report for GT- VIII, p.12-2. 

B 

9 

16 

17 

20 

213 

Figure 110.-Gcminl spacecraft No. 8 ln clean room at McDonnell for svstems validation testlng. 

Photo 8-65-5~1!5, Sept. !9, 1965. ) 


214 
y py 

gp

Kennedy October 16, followed by stage II October 18. Both stages were placed 

in storage pending the launch of the Gemini VI mission. 

Mission Report for GT-VII, pp. 12-6, 12-7; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G-5; 

Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-13; Harris, Gemini Launch Vehicle Chronologu, p. 54. 

Manned Spacecraft Center announced that Neil A. Armstrong would be command pilot and David R. Scott would be pilot for Gemini VIII. Backup crew 

would be Charles Conrad, Jr., and Richard F. Gordon, Jr. Gemini VIII would 

include practice on rendezvous and docking maneuvers and a space walk that 

could last as long as one Earth orbit, about 95 minutes. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1965, p. 444. 

Gemini launch vehicle ( GLV) 8 was erected in the west cell of the vertical test 

facility at Martin-Baltimore. Power was applied to the vehicle October 13, following the deerection of GLV-'1. Subsystems Functional Verification Tests of 

GLV-8 were completed November4. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12-6; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G-5; GeminiTitan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-14. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5002 was transported to complex 14 and mated 

to target launch vehicle 5301. Preliminary checks 'vere followed, on October 4, 

by the Joint Flight Acceptance Composite Test (J-FACT). J-FACT was a 

combined check of all contractors, the range, the vehicles, and aerospace ground 

equipment in a simuhtted countdown and flight; propellants and high pressure· 

gases were not loaded, nor \vas the gantry removed. Simultaneous Launch Demonstration was successfully completed October '1. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 15 for Period Ending Nol·. 30, 1965, p. 18; Aerospace 

Final Report, pp. III.F-4, III.G-3; GATV ProgreiB Report, October 1965, pp. 

2-1,2-2. 

The final design review for the Gemini Atlas-Agena target vehicle ascent guidance equations was held. Tho equations, using tat·get launch vehicle pitc.h and 

yaw steering a.nd Gemini Agena target vehicle nodal steering, were found to 

have been adequately tested and well within required accuracy limits. The 

equations were approved as ready for flight. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 15, p. 19. 

The Wet Mock Simulated Launch (W1.ISl..) of Gemini-Titan (GT) 6 and the 

Simultaneous Launch Demonstration with GT-6 and the Gemini Atlas-Agena 

target vehicle were conducted. Following WMSL, the spacecraft and launch 

vehicle were demated to allow the spacecraft battery to be replaced. They were 

remated October 8--13. Spacecraft Systems Test was completed October 15. Prelaunch testing concluded October 20 with the Simulated Flight Test. 

:\llsslon Report for GT-VIA, pp. 12-4,12-8. 

20 

28 

Odobw 

I 

6 

7 

215 

14 

20 

22 

2J 

27 

the fuel cell, was conducted November 1-5. 

Mission Report for GT-VII, p.12-4. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5003 was transferred to Vehicle Syste

after completing final assembly on October 9. Testing began Octo

GA.'l'V Progre11 Report, October 1965, p. 2-4. 

Systems testing at complex 14 of the Gemini Atlas-Agena target veh

Gemini VI was completed with a launch readiness demonstration. Fina

closeout and launch preparations began October 21 and continued un

countdown on October 25. 

Aerospace Final Report, p. III.F-5; GA.'l'V Prog,..., Report, October 1965, p

McDonnell completed Systems Assurance Tests of spacecraft No. 8 and 

tion of the spacecraft environmental control system. The spacecraft si

flight was conducted October 26-N ovember 4. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p.12-2. 

The Gemini VI mission was canceled when Gemini Agena target 

(GATV) 5002 suffered what appeared to be a catastrophic failure shor

separating from the Atlas launch vehicle. The Gemini Atlas-Agen

vehicle was launched from complex 14 at 10 :00 a.m., e.s.t. 'Vhen the two 

separated at 10:05, all signals were normal. But approximately 375 secon

liftoff, vehic1e telemetry was lost and attempts to reestablish contact fai

Gemini VI countdown 'vas held and then canceled at 10 :54 a.m., bec

target vehic1e had failed to achieve orbit. In accordance with Air Forc

Systems Division (SSD) procedures and NASA management instru

both of which specified investigation In the event of such a failure-Maj

eral Ben I. Funk, SSD Commander, reconvened the Agena Flight 

Review Board, and NASA established a GATV Review Board. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 15, pp. 21, 23-24; memo, Seamans to Mueller, S

Gemini VI Mission Failure Investigation, Oct. 27, 1965; letter, Mueller to Gl

Oct. 29, 1965, with enc., "Gemini .Agena Target Vehicle (GATV) Review Bo

same date; MSC Fact Sheet 291-D, Geminl VII/VI, Lon(l Duration/Rendez

Million, January 1966; GA'l'V Progreu Ref)ort, October 1965, p. 2-1. 

NASA Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., informed G

Mueller, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, that th

strophic anomaly of Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5002 on Oc

had been defined 1\S a mission failure. Accordingly, Seamans asked Mu

establish a GATV Review Board to investigate all aspects of the Agena 

managerial as well as technical. Manned Spacecraft Center Director R

Gilruth and Major General 0. J. Ritland, Deputy Commander for 

Air Force Systems Command, were designated cochairmen of the review 

216 

28 

The White House announced that NASA would attempt to launch Gemini VI 

while Gemini VII was in orbit. The original Gemini VI mission had been canceled when its target vehicle failed catastrophically on October 25. In a memorandum to the President, NASA Administrator James E. Webb indicated the 

possibility that Gemini VI spacecraft and launch vehicle could be reerected 

shortly after the launch of Gemini VII. Since much of the prelaunch checkout 

of Gemini VI would not need repeating, it could be launched in time to rendezvous with Gemini VII (a mission scheduled for 14 days) if launching Gemini 

VII did not excessively damage the launch pad. NASA officials, spurred by suggestions from Walter F. Burke and John F. Yardley of McDonnell, began discussing the possibility of a dual mission immediately after the failure October 25, drawing on some six months of discussion and preliminary planning by 

NASA, Air Force, Martin, and McDonnell personnel for a rapid manned flight 

launch demonstration. 

News Conference #176-A at the White House {Austin, Texas) wlth William D. 

Moyers, 10 :30 a.m., c.s.t., Oct. 28, 1961S: memo, Webb to the President for use 

in announcement, Oct. 27, 1965; Low interview; interviews : Col. John G. Albert, 

Patrick .AFB, Fla., May 26, 1967; Walter J. Kapryan, Cape Kennedy, May 21S, 

1967 ; Raymond D. Hill, Titusville, Fla.• May 23, 1967. 

Gemini spacecraft No.6 and the second stage of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 

6 were deerected and removed from complex 19. GLV-6 stage I was deerected 

the next day. The GLV was placed in storage at the Satellite Checkout Building under guard, in an environment controlled for temperature and humidity. 

Bonded storage maintained the integrity of pre'l<·iously conducted tests to reduce testing that would have to be repeated. Spacecraft No. 6 was stored in 

the Pyrotechnics Installation Building at the Merritt Island Launch Area. 

Mission Report for GT-VIA, pp. 12-5, 12-9; Kuras and Albert, "Gemini-Titan 


Technical Summary," pp. 143-144; Interview, Slmpkinson, Houston, Oct. 13, 1967. 


The major portion of 819 discrepancies remaining from the First Article Configuration Inspection (FACI) of Gemini Agena tn.rget ,·ehicle 5001 in June 

were cleared; 128 that had not been applied against the acceptance document 

(DD-250) remained. All subsystem F ACI discrepancies were also closed out 

during October. 

GATV Progress Report, October 1965, p. 2-14. 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 7 was erected at complex 19, following the 

deerection of GLV-6. Power was applied to GLV-7 on October 31, and Subsystems Reverification Tests (SSRT) began immediately. SSRT ended 

No\•ember 9, and the Prespacecraft Mate Verification Test was performed 

November 10. This test now included dropping all umbilicals, eliminating the 

need for a Flight Configuration Mode Test (FCMT). No FCMT was performed 

on GLV-7 or nny subsequent vehicle. 

28 

28 

29-30 

217 

3 

8 

mander for Launch Vehicles, Air Force Space Systems Division, re

Lockheed's flight safety analysis of the failure of Gemini Agena target 

(GATV) 5002 on October 25. The subpnnel approved the conclusions reac

Lockheed's analysts, that the catastrophic anomaly was apparently caus

"hard start" of the Agena's main engine, most probably resulting from 

rather than oxidizer lead into the thrust chamber before ignition. Unl

previous standard Agenas, the GATV had been intentionally sequenc

a fuel lead to conserve oxidizer for the many programmed restarts. Th

panel reported its findings to the parent board on N IJVember 3. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 15, p. 21 ; Aerospace Final Report, p. III.F

GATV Progre" Report, November 1965, pp. 2-1, 2-2· 

Martin-Baltimore received the propellant tanks for Gemini launch 

(GLV) 11 from Martin-Denver, which had began fabricating them Ju

They were shipped by rail October 27. The GLV-11 stage II fuel tan

used in GLV-10, and the stage II fuel tank from GLV-12 was reas

to GLV-11, arriving by air from Martin-Denver January 16, 1966. A

General delivered the engines for GLV-11 on December 14, 1965. S

tank splicing and engine installation \vas complete by March 21, stage 

April 5. Stage I horizontal tests ended April 12 and stage II, April 25

Gemini Program Mission Report, Gemini XI, October 1966, p. 12-7; Aerosp

Final Report, p. II.G-7; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D

The Agena Flight Safety Review Boord met at Lockheed to contin

investigation of the failure of Gemini Agena target vehicle 5002 on Octo

The board, chaired by George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Admini

of Manned Space Flight, reviewed the findings of the subpanel for G

VI and reached the same conclusion: the failure resulted from a har

probably caused by the fuel lead. The next day the board presented its 

mendation to Air Force Space Systems Division for a contractual 

covering a program to modify the design of the Model 8247 main rocket 

to revert to oxidizer lead. Design verification testing would follow. E

engines \vould be recycled through BeH Aerosystems to allow the 

poration of the design modifications. Since two existing engines wo

used for design verification testing, two new engines were to be procu

replacements. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 15, p. 21; G.ATV Progre11 Report, November 1965, 

2-1,2-2. 

The Combined Systems Acceptance Test of Gemini launch vehicle (G

was conducted at Martin-Baltimore. The vehicle acceptance team co

November 16 and completed its inspection November 19, deeming the 

excellent. GLV-8 was deerected December 13-14 and was formally ac

by the Air Force on December 23. Stage I was airlifted to Cape Kenn

218 

Manned Spacecraft Center announced that Elliot M. See, Jr., had been selected 

as command pilot and Charles A. Bassett II as pilot for the Gemini IX mission. The backup crew would be Thomas P. Stafford, command pilot, and Eugene 

A. Ceman, pilot. The mission, scheduled for the third quarter of 1966, would 

last from two to three days and would include rendezvous and docking and 

extravehicular activity. Bassett would remain outside the spacecraft for at least 

one revolution and would wear the manned maneuvering unit backpack, a selfpropelled hydrogen-peroxide system with gyro stabilization designed by the 

Air Force. 

ABtrOflautkiJ and AerOftautkl, 1965, p. 1510. 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 7 and spacecraft No. 7 were electrically mated 

at complex 19. An electrical interface jumper cable connected the spacecraft, 

suspended about six feet above stage II, to the GLV. No Wet Mock Simulated 

Launch (WMSL) was performed on Gemini VII or any subsequent vehicle. 

WMSL was replaced by the Simultaneous Launch Demonstration (SLD) and 

a. separate tanking test. For Gemini VII, the SLD was also eliminated because no simultaneous Atlas-Agena launch was planned. The elimination of 

the erector lowering associated with WMSJ.. made it possible to postpone mechanical mating until later in the test sequence. This had the advantage of 

allowing access to the spacecraft adapter without demating and remating the 

spacecraft and launch vehicle, while at the same time permitting. integrated 

testing to continue and shortening the test schedule. The Electrical Interface 

Integrated Validation and Joint Guidance and Control Test was completed 

November 13. The Joint Combined Systems Test was run November 15. The 

only countdown exercise performed for Gemini VII was the GLV tanking test 

on November 16. The spacecraft Final Systems Test was completed November 

20. Spacecraft and launch vehicle were mechanically mated November 22, and 

the Simulated Flight Test was finished November 27. 

Mission Report for GT-VII, pp. 12-4, 12-7; Aerospace Ftnal Report, pp. II.F-4, 

II.F--5; Gemini-Titan II A~r Force Launch Vehicle, p. 4-16; Gemini JlldJWO(Iram 

Conference, p. 217. 

A symposium on hypergolic rocket ignition at altitude was held at Lockheed. 

Because too little diagnostic information had been obtained from the flight of 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5002 to determine the exact nature of the 

probable hard start, it was not certain that the proposed modification-a return 

to oxidizer lead-would definitely pre,·ent a recurrence of the malfunctions. Sixteen propulsion specialists (brought together from Government, industrial, and 

university organizations) assembled for the symposium and concentrated on 

clarifying the hard-start phenomenon, isolating possible hard-start mechanisms 

of the Agena engine, and determining meaningful supporting test programs. 

They agreed with earlier conclusions on the probable cause of the failure. Their 

recommendations, with Lockheed's analysis of the GATV 5002 failure, were 

8 

11 

12-H 

219 
15 

19 

19 

24 

T....ockheed presented its proposed Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV

modification and test program to Colonel A. J. Gardner, Gemini Target 

Program Director, Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD). The p

was immediately turned over to a three-man team comprising B. A. H

(Aerospace), Colonel J. B. Hudson (Deputy Commander for Launch V

SSD), and L. E. Root (Lockheed) for consideration. On November 

group decided on a final version of the proposal that called for: (1) m

the A.gena main engine to provide oxidizer lead during the start seque

demonstrating sea-level engine flightworthiness in tests at Bell Aero

and (3) conducting an altitude test program at Arnold Engineering D

ment Center. The final proposal was presented to the GATV Review 

at Manned Spacecraft Center on November 20. 

Quarterly Status Report No. Hi, pp. 21-22; GATV ProgreBB Report, Nove

1005, pp. 2-3, 2-4. 

Aerojet-General delivered the stage II engine for Gemini launch vehicle 

10 to Martin-Baltimore. The stage I engine had been delivered Au

Martin-Baltimore completed splicing stage I January 12, 1966; stage 

ing, using the fuel tank reassigned from GLV-11, was finished Feb

Engine installation was completed February 'T, and stage I horizon

February 11. Stage II horizontal testing ended March 2. 

Mission Report tor GT-X, p. 12-7; Geminl-Tltan II Air Force Launch Ve

p. D-16. 

Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD) directed Lockheed to return 

Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5001 to Sunnyvale. The GATV was st

stored in Hangar E, Eastern Test Range, minus its main engine which S

directed Lockheed to ship to Bell Aerosystems on November 9 for mod

Although SSD and NASA had considered using GATV 5001 as th

flight vehicle, it needed to be refurbished, repaired, and updated-wor

could be done only at the Lockheed plant. A dummy engine was ins

simulate weight and center of gravity, and the vehicle left the Cape 

mercial van on November 20, arriving at Sunnyvale November 24. 

GATV Progress Report, November 1965, p. 2-9. 

Lockheed submitted an engineering change proposal to Air Force Sp

tems Division (SSD) for Project Surefire, code name for the Gemin

Target Vehicle ( G A TV) Modification and Test Program designed to 

the malfunction which had caused the failure of GATV 5002 on Oct

SSD gave Lockl1eed a tentative go-ahead for Project Surefire on Nove

and established an emergency priority for completing the program

snme day, Lockheed announced the fonnation of a Project Surefire 

Development Task Force to carry out the progTam. Work was geared 

the scheduled launch of GATV 5003 for Gemini VIII. GATV 5003 

testing was halted. The main engine was removed November 23 and sh

220 

, Progre88 Reports: November, pp. 25, 29; December 1965, pp. 211, 212, 213. 

"1 

•

I 

I 

_.I

• 

-1-­ 1 I 

I I I I I I I I I

I 

I \~

I 

.J 

(A) 

Figure 111.-(A) General arrangemene ot sectfona ln the augmented target docking 


adapter; (B) Augmented target docking adapter equipment lnatallation. (McDon­

tteU Report No. FJ69, Gemini Final Summary Rej,ort, Feb. !0, 1967, pp. 556, 5.f4.) 


C ·llANO I'O~ER DIVIDER 

DIODE PANEL 

77601 

OIPUXER ~.,.,..T----'-f--~';~~~~~~0PANEL 

COMMAND__.I,..--.l---::iiO~W'Y ,.~~ ~'F~~">/f-AUOMENTED TARGET DOCkiNG ~Z.~tOL ~ ADAI'IER SYSTEM CONTROL PANEl 

OCS RELAY MODULES (3)-~~~p~ 

OCS RECEIVER 


DECODER 


CJCONTROl PAfo.(LS AND I'J!! INSTAll£0 EQUIPMENT 


ACCESS DOORS 
 {I ) 

McDonnell proposed building a backup target vehicle for Gemini rendezvous 

missions. The augmented target docking adapter (ATDA) would serve as an 

alternative to the Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) if efforts to remedy 

the GATV problem responsible for the October 25 mission abort did not meet 

the date scheduled for launching Gemini VIII. Using Gemini-qualified equipment, the ATDA (as its name implied) was essentially a target docking adapter 

221 

26 
29 

December 

electrical system, and a reaction control system identical to the Gemini 

craft's. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA Associate Administrator, approve

procurement of the ATDA on December 9, and McDonnell began assemb

December 14. 

Mission Report for GT-IXA, pp. 3-43 to 3-47, 12-8; Quarterly Status Report No. 

for Period Ending Feb. 28, 1966, p. 4; message, Day to :Mathews, Dec. 10, 196

Lindley, "Gemini Engineering Program," p. 18; McDonnell Final Report, p

570-573. 

Figure 11!.-Mock-up of the auumented target docking adapter at McDonnell, along 

1paoecratt mock-up. (NASA Photo 8-65-6!180, Dec. 1!, 1965.) 

Director Robert R. Gilruth, Manned Spacecraft Center, requested the co

rence of NASA Headquarters in plans for doffing the G5C pressure suits d

orbital flight in Gemini VII. Both astronauts wanted to remove their suits 

the second sleep period and don them only for transient dynamic cond

specifically rendezvous and reentry. Primary concern was preventing th

gradation of crew performance by maintaining crew comfort during the 

duration mission. Gemini Program Office had participated in the G5C sui

gram and certified the suit for intravchicular manned flight in the G

spacecraft on November 19. When Gemini VII was launched on Decem

the mission plan required one astronaut to be suited at all times, but on D

ber 12 NASA Headquarters authorized both crew members to have thei

off at the same time. 

Memos, Mathews to 1\lueller, Subj: Lightweight suit evaluation, Nov. 19, 19

witQ enc., Design Certification Report on the Lightweight Space Suit, G-5C f

Gemini YII Mission, Nov. 19, 1005; Gilruth to Mueller, Subj: Use of G-5C suits 

Gt'mini VII, Nov. 29, 1965; Mueller to Gilruth, Subj: G-5C Operational Te

Procedure, Dt'c. 12, 1965. 

McDonnell began altitude chamber and extravehicular support package 

of spacecraft No. 8. These tests were completed December 13. During t

222 

3 
to the elevator at pad 19 prior to their Gemini VII /fight. The11 are wearing the new 

lightweight G50 suits. (NASA Photo 8-65-44!90, Dec. 4, 1965.) 

-,.. ; 

, f .,..,~~ . i

~-; -_ ' 

.. -;.a ,- - : . 

828-()22 0 - 69--16 
the seconda.ry objectives were providing a rendezvous target for the 

VI-A spacecraft, stationkeeping with the second stage of the launc

and with spa.cecra.ft No.6, conducting 20 experiments, using lightwei

sure suits, and eva.luating the spacecraft reentry guidance capa.bility. A

tives were successfully achieved with the exception of two experiment

cause of equipment failure. Shortly after separation from the la.unch 

the crew maneuvered the spacecra.ft to within 60 feet of the second s

stationkept for about 15 minutes. The exercise wa.s termina.ted by a. se

maneuver, and the spacecra.ft was powered down in preparation for th

mission. The crew performed five maneuvers during the course of the 

to increase orbital lifetime and pla.ce the spacecraft in proper orbit fo

vous with spa.cecraft No. 6. Rendezvous was successfully a.ccomplishe

the 11th day in orbit, with spa.cecra.ft No.7 serving as a passive target f

craft No.6. About 45 hours into the mission, Lovell removed his pres

He aga.in donned his suit a.t 148 hours, while Borman removed his. 

hours later Lovell again removed his suit, and both crewmen flew the re

of the mission without suits, except for the rendezvous and reentry 

With three exceptions, the spacecraft and its systems performed n

throughout the entire mission. The dela.yed-time telemetry playba.ck 

Figure 11,f.-Aitronauta Borman (rlqht) and Lovell on t11.e deck of the U.8.8. W

com11leHnq their 14-dav mlulon. (NASA Photo No. 65-H-t~!~. releaaed D«. 1
_, 


Figure 115.-Gemini spacecraft No. 6, after removal from /Jtorage, beltt(l hoillted to the top of the launch 

pad at complea; 19. (NASA Photo No. 65-H-1906, relca/Jcd Dec. 5, 1965.) 

225 

4 

8-10 

12 

Retrofire occurred exactly on time, and reentry and landing were nomi

spacecraft missed the planned landing point by only 6.4 miles, touchin

at 9 :05 a.m., December 18. The crew arrived at the prime recovery ship

craft carrier Wa8p, half an hour later. The spacecraft was recovered 

hour after the crew. 

Mission Report for GT-VII, pp. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-2, 6-18; Fact Sheet 29

McDonnell Final Report, pp. 71-73. 

Both stages of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 6 were removed from 

and arrived at complex 19 two hours after the launch of Gemini VII

craft No.6 was returned to complex 19 on December 5. Within 24 hou

the launch of Gemini VII, both stages of GLV-6 were erected, spacec

launch vehicle were mated, nnd power was applied. Subsystems Rever

Tests were completed December 8. The only major problem was a malf

of the spacecraft computer memory. The computer was replaced and 

out December 7-8. The Simulated Flight Test, December 8-9, comple

launch tests. The launch, initially scheduled for December 13, was resc

for December 12. 

Mission Report for GT-VIA, pp. 12-5, 12-9 ; Kuras and Albert, "Gemini-

Technical Summary," pp. 144-145; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Veh

p. D-12. 

Gemini launch vehicle 9 was erected in the east cell of the vertical test 

at Martin-Baltimore. PO\ver was applied to the launch vehicle for the f

on December 22, and Subsystems Functional Verification Tests were co

January 20, 1966. 

Mission Report for GT-IXA, p. 12-6; Gemln~Titan II Air Force Launch Vel

p. D-15. 

The scheduled launch of Gemini VI-A was aborted when the Master 

tions Control Set automatically shut down the Gemini launch vehicle 

after engine ignition because an electrical umbilical connector separa

maturely. The launch was canceled at 9 :54 a.m., e.s.t. Emergency pro

delayed raising the erector untilll :28, so the crew was not removed un

a.m. Launch was rescheduled for December 15. Routine analysis of engi

begun immediately after shutdown, revealed decaying thrust in one fir

engine subassembly before shutdo,vn had been commanded. The prob

di&gnosed as a restriction in the gas generator circuit of the subassembly

would have caused shutdown about. 1 second later than it actually occ

a result of the umbilical disconnect. Source of the restriction proved 

protective dust cap inadvertently left in place in the gas generator 

injector inlet port. The anomalies were corrected and recycling, based 

prepared contingency plans, proceeded without incident through lau

December 15. 

226 

and 

Figure 

Air 

Mission 

p. 

Force 

inspection 

II.E-19; 

116.-Attempted 

Space 

Report, 

Kuras 

of 

Systems 

GT-VIA, 

Gemini 

and 

launch 

Albert, 

Division 

H-19-U, 

pp. 

Agena 

and 

5-77, 

"Gemini-Titan 

.the 

released 

authorized 

5-79, 

target 

shutdown 

5-80

Dec

vehicle 

, 

Technical 

. 

5-91, 

ot 

1!,1965.) 


Lockheed 

Gemini 

5

5001 

- 92; 

Summary," 

VI-A

Aerospace 

to 

to begin 

determine 

. (NASA 

p. 

Final 

the 

145

Photo 

disassembly 

. 

the 

Report, 

No. 

extent 

65­

of refurbishment needed. The vehicle was stripped down to its major structural 

components to expose all areas of possible contamination. 

GATV Progress Report, December 1005, pp. 2-4, 3-1. 

Gemini VI-A, the fifth manned and first rendezvous mission in the Gemini 

program, was launched from complex 19 at 8:37 a.m., e.s.t. The primary objective of the mission, crewed by command pilot Astronaut Walter M. Schirra, Jr., 

and pilot Astronaut Thomas P. Stafford, was to rendezvous with spacecraft No. 

7. Among the secondary objectives were stationkeeping with spacecraft No. 7, 

evaluating spacecraft reentry guidance capability, testing the visibility of space-­

craft No. 7 as a rendezvous target, and conducting three experiments. After 

the launch vehicle inserted the spacecraft into an 87- by 140-naut.ical-mile orbit, 

the crew prepared for the maneuvers necessary to achieve rendezvous. Four 

maneuvers preceded the first radar contact between the two spacecraft. The first 

manuver, a height adjustment, came an hour and a half after insertion, at first 

perigee; a phase adjustment at second apogee, a plane change, and another 

height adjustment at second perigE:e followed. The onboard radar was turned on 

3 hours into the mission. The first radar lock-on indicated 246 miles between 

the two spacecraft. The coelliptic maneuver was performed at third apogee, 3 

hours 47 minutes after launch. The terminal phase initiation maneuver was performed an hour and a half later. Two midcourse corrections preceded final 

braking maneuvers at 5 hours 50 minutes into the flight. Rendezvous was technically accomplished and stationkeeping began some 6 minutes Inter when the 

227 

196, 

December 

14 
Figure 117.-The MiaBion Control Center at Houaton ju11t after the announce

the orbiting Bpacecraft that Gemini VI-A and VII had achieved rendezvou

Photo No. 8-65-62720, Dec.15,1965.) 

Figure 118.-U.B. Navy ll!oimmerll attaching the cable to the Gemini VI-A llpace

taining the alltr~mautB, to haul it aboard the U.S.S. Wasp. The cretD remai

Bpacecraft during recovery. (NASA Photo No. 65-H-2!9•• releaBed Dec. 16, 
gp

loss of all delayed-time telemetry data for the remainder of the mission, some 

4 hours and 20 minutes. The flight ended with a nominal reentry and landing 

in the West Atlantic, just 7 miles from the planned landing point, at 10:29 

a.m., December 16. The crew remained in the spacecraft, which was recovered an 

hour later by the prime recovery ship, the aircraft carrier WatJp. 

Mission Report for GT-VIA, pp. 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3; Fact Sheet 291-D; 

McDonnell Final Report, pp. 70-71. 

The Air Force accepted the main rocket engine for Gemini Agena target vehicle 

(GATV) 5003 after Bell Aerosystems had completed Project Surefire modifications. The engine was shipped immediately and arrived at Lockheed December 18. Lockheed completed reinstalling the engine on December 20. GATV 

5003 systems retesting began December 27 after other equipment modifications 

had been installed. 

Mission IU>port for GT-VIII, p. 12-8; GATV Progreu Report, December 1965, pp. 

2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-6, 3-4. 

The acceptance meeting for Atlas 5303, target launch vehicle for Gemini IX, 

was held at San Diego. An unresolved problem with a liquid oxygen tank 

pressurization duct delayed formal acceptance until investigation revealed that 

the ducts were satisfactory. The vehicle left San Diego by truck on February 4 

and arrived at Cape Kennedy February 13, 1966. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 16, p. 19. 

Atlas 5302, target launch vehicle for Gemini VIII, was erected at complex 14. 

Air Force Space Systems Division and General Dynamics/Convair had begun 

intensive efforts to ensure the vehicle's flight readiness immediately after the 

Agena failure on October 25, 1965. The effort resulted in procedural and design 

changes intended to improve vehicle reliability. Of the 20 engineering change 

proposal differences between Atlas 5301 (launched October 25) and Atlas 5302, 

all but one were proven in other Atlas flights before Atlas 5302 was launched. 

The exception was a new destruct unit which flew for the first time in Atlas 

5302. Booster subsystems tests continued until February 23. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12-13; Quarterly Status Report No. 16, p. 18. 

McDonnell delivered spacecraft No. 8 to Cape Kennedy. Fuel cell installation, 

heater resistance checks, nnd pyrotechnics buildup lasted two weeks. The spacecraft was then transferred to Merritt Island Launch Area for integrated (Plan 

X) test with the target vehicle, .January 26-28, and extravehicular equipment 

compatibility test, January 29. 

!\fission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12--l. 

17 

27 

1966 

].,fl.., 

5 

8 

229 

16 

17 

Eastern Test Range the same day, but bad weather delayed delive

January 21. GATV 5003 was to be the target vehicle for Gemini VII

GATV Progress Report, January 1966, pp. 2-2,2-4. 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 8 was erected at complex 19. After the 

was inspected and umbilicals connected, power was applied January 

systems Reverification Tests began the following day and lasted until 

31. The Prespacecraft Mate Verification of GLV-8 was run Februa

launch test-procedure review was held February 2-3. During leak c

the stage II engine on Febntary 7, small cracks were found in the thru

ber manifold. X-rays reYealed the cracks to be confined to the weld; re

eliminated the problem. Systems rework and validation were co

February 9. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12-7; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G-5; K

and Albert, "Gemini-Titan Technical Summary," p. 146. 

Project Surefire verification testing began at Bell Aerosystems. Bell's 

the test program was to demonstrate the sea-level flightworthiness of th

fied Agena main engine. Bell completed testing on March 4 with a 

second mission simulation firing. The successful completion of this 

the test program gave the green light for the launch of Gemini Agen

vehicle 5003, scheduled for March 15. 

GATV Progress Reports: January, pp. 2-1, 2-2; Mareh 1966, pp. 2-3, 2-4

At a NASA-McDonnell Management Panel meeting, W. B. Evans of 

Program Office reviewed possible future mission activities. Gemini VII

have three periods of extravehicular activity (EVA)-two in dayligh

darkness-and would undock during EVA with the right hatch snubbed 

the umbilical guide and the astronaut strapped into the adapter se

redocking would be performed with one orbit of stationkeeping pe

before each docking. EVA would include retrieval of the emulsion pa

the adapter, the starting of the S-10 (Micrometeorite Collection) exp

on the Agena, and the use of a power tool. The astronaut would don the 

hicular support pack, use the hand-held maneuvering unit, and chec

ent lengths of tether. The spacecraft would maneuver to the astronaut 

astronaut to the Agena. It would incorporate a secondary propulsion 

burn with the Agena and would be a three-day mission. Gemini IX 

also be a three-day mission and would include a simulated lunar modu

rendezvous (third apogee rendezvous), a primary propulsion system 

burn with the docked Agena, a rendezvous from above, a simulated L

a phantom rendezvous with three PPS burns (double rendezvous), EV

the modular manem·ering unit, and the parking of thP Gemini V

Gemini IX Agenas. Gf'mini X would include a dnal rendezvous with 

230 

12 to Martin-Baltimore by air. The GLV-12 stage II fuel tank had been reallocated to GLV-11, and GLV-12 used the stage II fuel tank originally 

assigned to GLV-10, which had been reworked to eliminate the damaged dome 

that had caused the tank reshuffling. The reworked tank arrived March 12. 

Aerojet-General had delivered the stage I engine on December 13, 1965, the 

stage II engine on January 20. Stage I tank splice was completed April 25, 

stage II on May 4. Engine installations were completed May 19. Stage I 

horizontal testing ended June 1, and stage II, June 22. 

Gemini Program Mission Report, Gemini XII, January 1967, p. 12-7; Aerospace 

Final Report, p. II.G-7; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, pp. D-19, 

D-20. 

McDonnell completed final assembly of the augmented target docking adapter 

(ATDA). Voltage Standing Wave Ratio Tests were conducted January 21 and 

22. Systems Assurance Tests were completed January 25, vibration tests January 27. Simulated flight and phasing tests were conducted January 30-February 1. The A.TDA was shipped to Cape Kennedy February 4. 

1\fiss!on Report for GT-IXA, p. 12-8. 

Qualification testing of the freon-14 extravehicular propulsion system for the 

Gemini VIII mission had been successfully completed. During earlier tests 

some freezing problems had resulted; ho,vever, with particular attention given 

to dt·ying procedures used in loading the gas, the freezing problem was elimimtted, and later tests \Vere successful. Oxygen had been used for propulsion 

fuel during extravehicular activities by Astronaut Edward H . White II on 

Gemini IV. 

Quarterly Activity Report, Jan. 31, 1966, p. 44. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5003 was mated to target docking 

adapter (TDA) 3. McDonnell had delivered TDA-3 to Cape Kennedy on 

January 8. The GATV/TDA interface functional test \Vas completed January 

24, and the vehicle was transferred to Merritt Island Launch Area for integrated tests with spacecraft No. 8 and extravehicular equipment, which were 

completed January 28. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12-10; GATV Progre11 Report, January 1966, 

p. 2--IS. 

Astronaut John W. Young had been selected as the command pilot for Gemini 

X. The pilot would be Astronaut Michael Collins. The backup cre\v would be 

James A. Lovell, Jr., command pilot, and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., pilot. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1966: Ohronology of Science, Technology, and Policy, 

NASA SP-4007, p. 27; MSC Space Newll Roundup, Feb. 4, 1966, p. 2. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5004 was transferred to the vehicle 

systems test area at Sunnyvale. Its modified main engine had been received 

21 

21 

22 

2' 

26 

231 

31 

28 

Pebru.wy 

2 

2 

4 

GATV Progreu Report, January 1966, pp. U, 2-6. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5003 was returned to Hanga

completing Plan X tests at Merritt Island Launch Area. Systems Ve

and Combined Interface Tests were conducted through February 18

by functional checks of the primary and secondary propulsion system

E testing ended February 28, and the GATV was transferred to com

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12-10; GATV Progre11 Report, January 

p.2-6. 

Gemini space{)raft No. 8 was transferred to complex 19 and hoisted t

tion atop the launch vehicle. Cables were connected for test February 

Prespacecraft Mate Verification Tests were conducted February 3-8. 

were activated February 8 and deactivated the following day. Sp

launch vehicle integrated tests began February 10. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p.12-4. 

A mission planning meeting for Gemini flights IX through XII, he

Donnell, was attended by members of the Gemini Program Office an

Operations Division. The last item on the agenda was a reminder 

Donnell that the Gemini spacecraft was capable of flying to a 

high elliptic orbit from which it could safely reenter under certai

stances. The type of orbit McDonnell suggested had an apogee o

nautical miles. This would involve using the Agena. primary propulsi

both to get into this orbit and to return to a 161-mile circular orbit fo

reentry. 

Memo, Asst. Chief, MPAD, to Distribution, Subj: Mission Planning Mee

MAC, Feb. 8, 1966. 

Agena D (AD-129) was accepted by the Air Force for delivery to th

program. It was transferred to the final assembly area at Sunnyvale 

fication to Gemini A gena target vehicle 5005. 

Aerospace FitlaZ Report, p. III.G--3. 

The augmented target docking adapter (ATDA) arrived at Cape 

Modifications, testing, and troubleshooting were completed Marc

ATDA, which was intended to back up the Gemini Agena targe

(GATV), was then placed in storage (March 8) where it remai

May 17, when the failure of target launch vehicle 5303 prevented GA

from achieving orbit. The ATDA became the target for Gemini IX-A

Mission Report for GT-IXA, p. 12-9; Quarterly Status Report No. 17 for 

Ending May 81, 1966, p. 2. 

The Combined Systems Acceptance Test of Gemini launch vehicle 

was successfully conducted in the Yertical test facility at Martin-Baltim

232 


9 
GeminiTitan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, p. D15. 

Gemini launch vehicle 8 and spacecraft 8 were electrically mated; the Electrical Interface Integrated Validation and Joint Guidance and Control Test 

was completed February 14. After data from this test were reviewed (February 15), the Joint Combined Systems Test was run February 16. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12-7. 

The tanking test of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 8 was conducted. While the 

launch vehicle was being cleaned up after the test, spacecraft No. 8 Final 

Systems Test 'vas completed February 23. On February 25, GLV and spacecraft were temporarily mated for an erector-cycling test. The extravehicular 

support package and life support system 'vere checked out and installed in 

the spacecraft between February 26 and March 5, while GLV systems were 

modified and revalidated February 28 to March 3. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, pp. 12-4, 12-7; Aerospace Final Repr;rt, p. II.G-5. 

A successful Booster Flight Acceptance Composite Test (B-FACT) completed subsystems testing of target launch vehicle 5302. Component problems 

had delayed completion of some of the vehicle pad tests, including B-FACT, 

which had first been run on February 4. Difficulties were also encountered in 

completing the propellant tanking tests. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12-13; Quarterly Status Report No. 16, p. 18. 

The astronaut maneuvering unit (AMU) scheduled to be tested on the Gemini 

IX mission was delivered to Cape Kennedy. The receiving inspection revealed 

nitrogen leaks in the propulsion system and oxygen leaks in the oxygen supply 

system. Reworking these systems to eliminate the leakage was completed on 

March 11. Following systems tests, the AMU was installed in spacecraft No.9 

(March 14-18). 

1\flssion Report for GT-IXA, p. 12-12. 

Over 600 representatives of Government agencies and industrial firms participating in Project Gemini attended a Gemini Midprogram Conference at 

Manned Spacecraft Center. They heard some 44 papers describing the development of spacecraft and launch vehicle, flight operations, and the results 

of the first seven Gemini missions, including the findings of experiments performed during these missions. 

Gcm·ini Midprogram Oonfcrcnce, pa88im. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5004 completed systems testing at 

Sunnyvale. It was formally accepted by the Air Force on March 11, following 

the vehicle acceptnnce tenm inspection. The next day (March 12), GATV 5004 

was shipped by air to Eastern Test Range, arriving March 14. 

Aerospace Final Report, p. III.G-3; GA.TV Progrc88 Report, March 1966, pp. 2-ti, 

2-6. 

10 

17 

23 

23 

23-24 

27 

233 
Figure 119.-Jlethod ot donning the a&tronaut maneuvering unit, carried ~n th

&ection. (NASA Photo S-66-!~19'7, Mar. 16, 1966.) 

1966 Gemini IX Astronauts Elliot M. See, Jr., and Charles A. Bassett 

P•bnuwy killed when their T-38 jet training plane crashed in ra.in and fog sho

28 St. Louis Municipal Airport. The jet, which had been cleared for an ins

landing, was left of center in its approach to the runway when it turned 

the McDonnell complex, 1000 feet from the landing strip. It hit the roo

building where spacecraft nos. 9 and 10 were being housed, bounced int

jacent courtyard, and exploded. Several McDonnell employees were 

injured. Minutes later the Gemini IX backup crew, Thomas P. Staff

Eugene A. Cernan, landed safely. The four astronauts were en route 

Donnell for two weeks' training in the simulator. NASA Headquar

nounced that Stafford and Cernan would tly the Gemini IX mission on 

and appointed Alan B. Shepard, Jr., to head a seven-man investigating 

MSC Space Net01 Roundup, Mar. 4, 1966, p. 1; Warhington Polt, Mar. 1 a

1966; interview, John H. Bickers, St Loula, Apr. 13,1966. 

28 	 Stage I of Gemini launch vehicle 10 was erected in the east cell of the 

test facility at Martin-Baltimore. After completing horizontal testing 

3, stage II was erected March 7. Power was applied to the vehicle for 

time on March 14. Subsystems Functional Verification Tests were co

April 13. 

Mi1!8lon Report for GT-X, p. 12-7; Gemini-Titan II Air F(}l1'ce Lauttch Ve

pp. D-16, D-17. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5003 was mated to target launch vehicle 

complex 14. After ground equipment compatibility tests, the Join

234 
2 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12-10; GATV Progress Report, March 1966, p. 2-4. 

Spacecraft No. 9 and target docking adapter No. 5 arrived at Cape Kennedy 

from McDonnell. Spacecraft fuel cells were installed March 3-4. Pyrotechnics 

buildup, further installations, and preparations for test lasted until March 18. 

The spacecraft was then transferred to Merritt Island Launch Area for Plan X 

integrated tests with the target vehicle and extravehicular systems March 22-24. 

Mission Report for GT-IXA, p. 12-4. 

Gemini launch vehicle 8 and spacecraft No. 8 were mated for flight at complex 19. The Simultaneous Launch Demonstration with the Gemini Atlas-Agena 

target vehicle on complex 14 was completed March 9. The Final Simulated 

Flight Test concluded prelaunch tests on March 10. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12-7. 

The fuel tank of target launch vehicle 5302 was overfilled during propellant 

loading. The necessary replacement of the fuel-tank regulator and fuel relief 

valve was completed the next day. The launch, which had been scheduled for 

March 15, was postponed to March 16. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, p. 12-13; Kuras and Albert, "Gemini-Titan Technical 

Summary," p. 147. 

The Gemini VIII mission began with the launch of the Gemini Atlas-Agena. 

target vehicle from complex 14 at 9:00 a.m., e.s.t. The Gemini space vehicle, 

with command pilot Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong and pilot Astronaut David 

R. Scott, was launched from complex 19 at 10 :41 a.m. Primary objectives of 

the scheduled three-day mission were to rendezvous and dock with the Gemini 

Agena target vehicle (GATV) and to conduct extravehicular activities. Secondary objectives included rendezvous and docking during the fourth revolution, perfonning docked maneuvers using the GATV primary propulsion 

system, executing 10 experiments, conducting docking practice, performing a 

rerendezvous, evaluating the auxiliary tape memory unit, demonstrating controlled reentry, and parking the GATV in a 220-nautical-mile circular orbit. 

The GATV was inserted into a nominal 161-nautical-mile circular orbit, the 

spacecraft into a nominal 86- by 147-nautical-mile elliptical orbit. During the 

six hours following insertion, the spacecraft completed nine maneuvers to 

rendezvous with the GATV. Rendezvous phase ended at 5 hours 58 minutes 

ground elapsed time, with the spacecraft 150 feet from the GATV and no relative motion between the two vehicles. Stationkeeping maneuvers preceded docking, which was accomplished at 6 hours 33 minutes ground elapsed time. A 

major problem developed 27 minutes after docking, when a spacecraft orbit 

attitude and maneuver system (OAMS) thruster malfunctioned. The crew undocked from the GATV and managed to bring the spacecraft under control by 

deactivating the OAMS and using the reentry control system (RCS) to reduce 

the spacecraft's rapid rotation. Premature use of the RCS, however, required 

6 

16 

235 

Figure 1!0.-T'Ite launch of the Gemini .Atlat·Auena taruct vehicle for the Gemini VIII mutlon 

plea: 14. (NASA Photo No. 66-H-!96, releated Mar. 16, 1966.) 

1966 

March 

the mission to be terminated early. The retrofire sequence was initiat

seventh revolution, follo,ved by nominal reentry and landing in n s

recovery area in the western Pacific Ocean. The spacecraft touched d

236 
(A) 

Ji'igvre 1!1(A).-The Oemtnt VIII BpacecrtJft approaching the Gemini Agena target vehicle 

~n the final 1tage of rendezvou1 (the diltancc bctu:een the tu:o craft is approzlmatclfl tu:o 

teet). (NASA P11.oto No. 66-H-!!5 [66-H0-191], rclea1ed Mar. 16, 1966.) 

than seven miJes from the planned landing point at 10:22 p.m. The recovery 

ship, the destroyer Leonard iJIa/Jon, picked up both crew and spacecraft some 

three hours later. Early termination of the mission precluded achieving all mission objectives, but one primary objective-rendezvous and docking-was accomplished. Several secondary objectives were also achieved: rendezvous and 

docking during the fourth revolution, evaluating the auxiliary tape memory 

unit, demonstrating controlled reentry, and parking the GATV. Two 

experiments were partially performed. 

Mission Report for GT-VIII, pp. 1-1 to 1-4, 2-1, 2-2, 4-1 to 4---5; Fact Sheet 291-E, 

Gemini VIII, Rentlezvou1 and Doc1dng Million, April 1966; McDonnell Final 

Report, pp. 73-75. 

237 
1966 

MtWch 

16 

(B) 

Figure 121 (B) .-The docked Gemint and Agena. (NASA Photo No. 66-H-226 [66-

relea1ed Mar. 16, 1966.) 

Following the early tennination oi Gemini Ylll, Gemini Agena targe

(GATV) 5003 remained in orbit, where its various systems W<'re ext

exercised. The main engine was fired nine times, iour more than requ

contract, and 5000 commands were received and executed by the comm

communications system, as against n contractual requirement oi 1000. 

5003 electrical power \vas exhausted during the lOth day of orbit 

vehicle could no longer be controlled. Before that, however, all attitude 

gas was vented overboard to preclude errant thruster malfunction, 

238 
1966, pp. 2-7, 2-8, 2-9. 

The extravehicular life support system (ELSS) for Gemini spacecraft No. 9 

was delivered to Cape Kennedy. Compatibility tests involving the ELSS, the 

astronaut maneuvering unit, and the spacecraft were completed March 24. The 

ELSS was returned to the contractor on April6 for modification. 

Mission Report tor GT-IXA, p. 12-12. 

NASA announced the astronaut assignments for Gemini XI. The prime crew 

would be command pilot Charles Conrad, Jr., and pilot Richard F. Gordon, Jr.; 

backup crew would be Neil A. Annstrong, command pilot, and William A. 

Anders, pilot. James A. Lovell, Jr., and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., backup crew for 

the Gemini X mission, were reassigned as backup crew for Gemini IX. Alan 

L. Bean and Clifton C. Williams, Jr., were named the new backup crew for 

Gemini X. 

MSC News Release 66-20, Mar. 21, 1966. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5004 and spacecraft No. 9 began Plan X compatibility tests at Merritt Island Launch Area Radar Range. 

GATV Progrell Report, March 1966, p. 2--6. 

Agena D (AD-130) was fonnally accepted by the Air Force for the Gemini 

program and moved to Building 104 at Sunnyvale for modification and final 

assembly as Gemini Agena target vehicle 5006. 

GATV Proure1111 Report, March 1966, p. 2-10. 

Gemini launch vehicle 9 was removed from storage and erected at complex 19. 

The vehicle was inspected and umbilicals connected by March 28. Power was 

applied March 29, and the Subsystems Reverification Test (SSRT) began 

March 30. SSRT concluded April 11. The Prespacecraft Mate Verification 

Combined Systems Test \vas completed April12. 

Mission Report for GT-IXA, p. 12-7. 

Air Force Space Systems Division and Lockheed agreed not to curtail the Project Surefire test program despite the excellent performance of Gemini Agena 

target vehicle (GATV) 5003 during the Gemini VII/ mission. The final test 

phase of Project Surefire began March 28 with two firings at Arnold Engineering Development Center. This phase of testing included low temperature 

starts and planned malfunctions. Testing culminated on April4 with a planned 

fuel lead test. As predicted, an engine hard start occurred. Data from analysis 

of engine damage correlated well with data from the GATV 5002 failure., 

tending to confirm the hypothesis that failure resulted from a hard start caused 

by fuel preceding oxidizer into the thrust chamber during ignition. 

MSC Minutes ot Senior Staff Meeting, Apr. 8, 1966, p. 4; Quarterly Status Report 


No. 17, pp. 1S-19; GATV Progre811 Report•: March, p. 2-8; Aprll1966, pp. 2-9, 2-10. 


328-022 0-69- 17 239 

17 

19 

21 

22 

24 

24 
31 

12 

12 

Mission Report for GT-IXA, p. 12-4. 

Atlas target launch vehicle (TLV) 530! was not accepted immediate

Gemini program at the San Diego a.c.c.eptance meeting because of an u

contractual requirement. The vehicle had completed systems test on 

After the technicalities \Vere ironed out, the Air Force formally accep

5304 on April14, and the vehicle 'vas then shipped to Cape Kennedy 

En route an accident damaged the skirt on booster engine No.1. Aft

tion and analysis, the contractor determined that the dented tubes 

from the accident could be used without repair. TLV-5304 arrived a

nation on M:ay 8 after a nine-day road trip. Following a receiving i

it was placed in storage :May 11. 

Mission Report for GT-IXA, pp. 12-10, 12-11 ; Quarterly Status Report 

p. 17. 

Atlas 5303, target launch vehicle for Gemini IX, was erected at lau

plex 14. Electrical power was applied on Aprilll, and the Booster F

ceptance Composite Test was completed April27. 

Quarterly Status Report ~o. 17, p. 16. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5005 completed modification and final 

with the installation of a number of electrical and electronic compo

which it had been waiting-including the guidance module, flight con

tion box, and flight electronics package. The vehicle was transferr

complex C-10 at Sunnyvale to begin Vehicle Systems Tests. Prelim

tasks were completed by April 23, with preliminary inspection on Ap

GATV Progress Report, April1966, pp. 2-2,2-4. 

Gemini Agena. target vehicle 5004 began t.he Combined Interface Te

at Hangar E, Eastern Test Range, after completing Plan X tests M

CIT ended April22 and engine functional tests of both the primary an

ary propulsion systems followed. Hangar E testing was complete

GATV Progress Report, Aprll1966, p. 2-2. 

The Electrical Interface Integrated Validation and Joint Guidance 

trol Test began after Gemini launch vehicle 9 and spacecraft No. 9 

trically mated. These activities ,.,·ere completed April 15. The Joint 

Systems Test was run April19. 

:\llsslon Report tor GT-IXA, p. 12-7. 

The Combined Systems Acceptance Test (CSAT) of Gemini launc

(GLV) 10 'vas conducted at Martin-Baltimore. The CSAT was follo

performance data review, completed April 19. The vehicle accepta

convened April26 and accepted GLV-10 on April 29. The vehicle was 

240 


14 
18 

p, pp, ; pp, p; 

Gcmi11i-Tit(ln II A.ir Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-17. 

Stage I of Gemini launch vehicle 11 was erected in the west cell of the vertical 

test fncility 1tt. Mm'tin-Baltimore.•\fter completing horizont.ltl tests April 25, 

stage IIwas erected .April 29. Power was applied to the vehicle for the first time 

on May 9, and Subsystems Functional Verification Tests 'vere completed 

June 8. 

l\llsslon Report for GT-XI, p. 12-7; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Larmch Vehicle, 

p. D-18. 

The extraYehicular life support system (ELSS) for Gemini spacecraft No. 9 

was returned to Cape Kennedy and underwent an electrical compatibility test 

with the astronaut maneuvering unit (A~fiT). An ET~SS/AMU Joint Combined System Test was nm the following day and rerun April 21. The ELSS 

was then delh·ered to Manned Spacecraft Center for tests (April 22) while 

the AMU was prepared for installation in the adapter. The ELSS was returned 

to the Cape Apri12G. AMU Final Systems Test and installation for flight were 

accomplished May 7. The ELSS was serviced and installed for flight Mny 16. 

:\Ii!lsion Report for GT-IXA, p. 12-12. 

The tanking test of Gemini launch Yehicle ( GT~V) !) was conducted. While the 

GLV was undergoing post-tanking cleanup, the spaeecraft computer and extravehicular systems were retested ( .\pril 21-22), pyrotechnics were installed in 

the spacecraft (Apri125), spacecmft final systems tests were run (April27-28), 

spacecraft crew stowage was reYiewed (April29), and the ltStronaut maneuvering unit was reverified (April :30-May 2). On May 3 the spacecraft and launeh 

vehicle were temporarily mated for an e.rector-cycling test. GLV systems 

were then revalidated in prepnrntion for Simultaneous Launch Demonstration 

(SLD), while spacecraft extravehicular equipment was re,vorked and revalidated. Spacecraft and GLV 'vere mated for flight ~lay 8. The SLD was 

conducted May 10, the Final Simulated Flight Test on May 11. 

:\IIssion Report for GT-IXA, pp. 12-4, 12- 7; Gemini-Titan II A·ir Force Launch 

l' chicle, p. D-15. 

Gemini Program Manager Clutrles ,V. Mathews reported the launch dates 

tentatively scheduled for Gemini X as July 18, for Gemini XI as September 7, 

and for Gemini XII as October 31, 1966. 

:usc :\IInutes of Senior Starr Meeting, Apr. 2'2, 1966, p. 3. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5004 was transferred to complex 14 and mated 

to Atlas taq,ret launch vehicle 5:J03. Joint Flight Acceptance Composite Test 

was completed May 6, nnd Simultaneous Launch Demonstrntion followed on 

May 10. 

G.-lTV Progress Report, 1\Iay 1006, p. 2- 1. 

18 

20 

22 

Mt11 

2 

241 

Figure 122.-Dcmonltratlon of the a8tronaut matteuvertnu unit. tNASA Photo S-66-32550, Mal/1!,1

242 
8 

2-3,3-2. 

Lockheed established a task force to handle the refurbishing of Gemini Agena 

target vehicle (GATV) 5001 and announced a GATV 5001 Reassembly Plan. 

The task force's fundion was to see that G A TV 5001 reached a flight worthy 

condition on t.ime and as economically as possible. The reassembly plan provided an operational base line as well as guidelines for reassembling the vehicle, 

which was completely disassembled down to the level of riveted or welded parts. 

GATV 5001 'vas scheduled for acceptance on September 20 and would be the 

target vehicle for Gemini XII. 

Aerospace Final Report, p. III.G-5; GATV ProgreBif Report, 1\Jay 1966, p. Z-8. 

McDonnell delivered Gemini spacecraft No. 10 to Cape Kennedy. Insta1lation 

of fuel cells was completed May 18, and that of the pyrotechnics, May 25. 

Preparations for Plan X testing were completed June 1, and the spacecraft was 

moved to Merritt Island Launch Area June 3. 

Mission Report tor GT-X, p. 12-5. 

The sc.heduled launch of Gemini IX was postponed when target launch vehicle 

5303 malfunctioned and, as a result, Gemini Agena target vehicle 5004 failed 

to achie;e orbit. Launch and flight were nonnnl until about 120 seconds after 

liftoff, 10 seconds before booster engine cutoff. At that point, booster engine 

No. 2 gimbaled to full pitchdo,vn position. Automatic correction was ineffective. Stabilization was achieved after booster separation, but in the meantime 

the vehicle had executed a 216-degree pitchdown maneuver and was pointing 

toward Cape Kennedy at a climbing angle of about 13 degrees above the 

horizontal. Ground guidance was also lost, and the vehicle continued on the 

new trajectory with normal sequencing through vernier engine cutoff. The 

Agenn separated normally but could not attain orbit. It fell into the Atlantic 

Ocean some 90 miles off the Florida coast about seven and one-half minutes 

after launch. Subsequent investigation indionted that the failure had been 

caused by a short in the servo control circuit. 

Quarlt>rly Status Report No. 17, pp. 16, 22; Aerospace Final Report, p. IV-8; 

GATl! Progreaa Report, M.ay 1006, p. Z-2; General Dynamics/Convair Test 

Evaluation Group, "Space Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Repol't, SLV-3 

5303," June Z7,1006 (GDC/BKF66-029). 

Recycling operations began immediately after the cancel1ation of the Gemini 

IX mission. Propellants were unloaded, and ordnance and pyrotechnics were 

removed from the launch vehicle and the spacecraft. Spacecraft and launch 

vehicle were dernated May 18. Both were checked and serviced, then remated 

May 24 and subjected to Electrical Interface Integrated Validation. The 

Simulated Flight Test on May 26 completed retesting in preparation for 

launch on June 1. Themission was redesignated Gemini IX-A. 

Mission Report tor GT-IXA, pp. 12-4, 12-7. 

17 

17 

243 

25 

]U,II 

1 

1 

\ehiele for the ATDA. The standard mission of the Atlas standa

vehicle (SLV-3) was to place an Agena into a specified coast ell

ATDA mission, however, required the SLV-3 to place the targ

direct.-ascent Earth orbit. This called for numerous modificati

necessity for such modifications had been anticipated when the AT

gram was initiated after the Agena failure on October 25, 1965. By 

1966, there were ATDA kits ready at the Cape to modify any SLV

ATDA mission to be launched within 18 days from go-ahead. In fac

only 14 days. Modification was complete ~fay 20, TLV-5304 was erecte

plex 14 on }.fay 21, TI.V and ATDA were mated l\fay 25, and all lau

arations "''ere completed by l\fay 30. The launch took place on Ju

15th day follo,ving the TLV-5303 failure. 

:\fission Report for GT-IXA, p. 12-11; Quarterly iil-tatus Report No. 17, 

Aeroopa<.-e Fimz.l Report, pp. IV-8, IV-9. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5005 was mated to the target docking 

(TDA) in Hangar E at Cape Kennedy. McDonnell had delivered 

on May 4. After mating, interface functional tests were performed, l\f

Preparations then began for Plan X testing with spacecraft No. 10 a

Island Launch Area. 

Mission Report for GT-X, p. 12-10; GATV Progress Report, May 1966, p

The augmented target docking adapter (ATDA) was launched from 

14 at 10: 00 a.m., e.s.t. The ATDA a.chieved a near-circular orbit 

Hi1.5, perigee 158.5 nautical miles) . One hour and 40 minutes later, th

uled launch of Gemini IX-A was postponed by a ground equipmen

which prevented the transfer of updating information from Cape 

mission control center to the spacecraft computer. The mission was 

for lnunch on June 3, follmving a prepared 48-hour recycle plan. 

1\fisslon Report for GT-IXA, pp. 1-1, 1-2, 5-143; Gcmin~Titan 11 Air 

Launch Vehicle, p. D-16; Kuras and Albert, "Gemini-Titan Technical 

mary," pp. 147-148. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5005 completed preliminary testing at 

E, Eastern Test Range, and was moved to Merritt Island Launch 

Plan X tests with spacecraft No. 10. Plan X tests had first been s

for May 2:3 but. were rescheduled for June 2--3. To avoid an impac

schedule, the delay was absorbed by eonducting several activities 

performed after Plan X: secondary propulsion system (SPS) mo

check and alignment, SPS heatshield fit check, and booster adn.pter 

But the vehicle work plan was again rescheduled, and Plan X 

begin until June 7. Following the successful completion of Plan X 

R, the ,·ehicle was returned to Hangar E for systems verification test

began on June 9. Cause of rescheduling was the Gemini IX- A launc

1\IIRSlon Re-port for GT- X, p. 12-10; GATV ProgrcBs RcportR: May, p

Jull(> 1966, p. 2-1. 

244 

(EVA). These objectives were only partially met. After successfully achieving 

rendezvous during the third revolution-a secondary objective-the crew discovered that the A TDA shroud had failed to separate, precluding docking-a 

...... _ ...-=:.E·· ~ ·-'· . ---­

Figure 123.-Th.e augmented target docking adapter with. shroud partlv opm and atm 

atta-ched, as seen from the Gemini IX-A spaceCf'a/t in orbit. Sh-roud's faUure to separate precluded docking. (NASA Pltoto No. 66-H-1!5, released June 1, 1966. ) 

primary objective-as well as docking practice-another secondary objective. 

The crew was able, however, to achieve other secondary objectives: an equiperiod rendezvous, using onboard optical techniques and completed at 6 hours 

36 minutes ground elapsed time; and a rendezvous from above, simulating the 

rendezvous of an Apollo command module with a lunar module in a lower orbit 

(completed at 21 hours 42 minutes ground elapsed time). Final separation maneuver was performed at 22 hours 59 minutes after liftoff. EVA was postponed 

because of crew fatigue, and the second day was given over to experiments. The 

hatch was opened for EVA at 49 hours 23 minutes ground elapsed time. EVA 

was successful, but one secondary objective--evaluation of the astronaut maneuvering unit (AMU)-was not achieved bec.ause Ceman's visor began fogging. 

The extravehicular life support system apparently became overloaded with 

moisture when Cernan had to work harder than anticipated to prepare the AMU 

245 
6 

7 

7 

9 

9 

with the spacecraft, which was hoisted aboard 53 minutes after landi

!\fission Report tor GT-IXA, pp. 1-1 to 1-3, 2-1, 2-2, 4--1 to 4-3; Fact Sheet 29

GettJ.Ini IX-A, Rcmtezvous MUisfQn, August 1966; McDonnell Final Report

76-77. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5006 completed modification and final a

and was transferred to Vehicle Systems Test (VST) at Sunnyvale. Altho

vehicle lacked the flight cont.rol electronics package and guidance modu

ing began immediately. The guidance module was received June 7 and th

control electronics package June 9. Preliminary VST was completed J

The Air Force Plant Representative Office at Sunnyvale authorized f

ceptance test to begin on June 20. 

GATV Progress Report, June 1966, pp. 2-2, 2-3. 

The acceptance meeting for target launch vehicle (TLV) 5305 was held 

eral Dynamics/Convair in San Diego. TLV systems test had original

completed March 25. During the next two months, TLV components w

w()rked to the latest flight configuration. Systems t.ests were then reru

26-June 1, followed by composite test June 2-3. Following acceptan

vehicle \vas shipped by air on June 9 to Cape Kennedy; this was the fir

to be transported by air to the Cape, and it arrived the same day. 

1\llsslon Rt-port tor GT-X, p. 12-11 ; Quarterly Status Report No. 18 tor Pe

Ending Aug. 31, 1966, p. 15. 

Gemini launch vehicle 10 was removed from storage and erected at com

Umbilicals were connected and power applied June 9. Subsystems Reveri

Tests (SSRT) began immediately. SSRT ended June 16, and the Prespa

Mate Verification Combined Systems Test was conducted June 17. 

1\llsslon Raport tor GT-X, p. 12-8; Gemini-Titan ll Air Force Launch Veh

p. D-17. 

Gemini spacecraft No. 10 was moved to complex 19 and hoisted to the to

launch vehicle. Cabling for test was completed June 13. Premate verif

as well as fuel cell activntion and deactivation, were completed June 16. 

ration for integrated tests with the launch vehicle wns accomplished the 

ing day. 

M188lon Report tor GT-X. p. 12-5. 

The launch vehicle acceptance test of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 11 w

ducted. The vehicle acceptance team convened June 20 and aecepted G

June 24. The vehicle was deerected June 29 and formally aecepted by t

Force on July 11. Stage I was delivered by air to Cape Kennedy the sam

and stage II on July 1:l. Both binges were transferred to Hangar U wh

tanks were purged and pressurized. The stages remained in controlled 

246 
Floure 124.-The flrBt and 1econd 1taoe1 of Gemini launch vehicle 11 arriving at complez 19. 

(NA8A Photo No. 66-H-1045, releGIIed Ju'r/ !S, 1966.) 

storage until the launch pad wa.<; revalidated after the launch of Gemini X; 1966 

revalidation was completed July 21. ]IIJH 

Ml.!lslon Report for GT- XI, pp. 12-7, 12--8; Aerospace Fimll Report, p. II.G-7; 

Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Vehicle, pp. D-18, D-19. 

Combined Interface Tests (CIT) of Gemini Agena target \'ehicle ( GA TV) 5005 

began. CIT was completed June 22, with no significant anomalies detected. 

Primary and secondary propulsion system functional checks were completed 

June30. TheGATV was then moved to complex 14. 

GATV Prooreu Report, June 1966, p. 2-1. 

Atlas 5305, target launch vehicle for Gemini X, was erected at launch complex 

14. Electrical power was applied June 17, and subsystem testing was completed 

June 28. During propellant system checks, a leak was discovered in the fuel start 

tank. Access to repair the leak required removing the sustainer engine and the 

fuel tank apex cone. 

Mission Report for GT- X, p. 12-12; Quarterly Status Report No. 18, p. 15. 

During the Gemini IX-A postlaunch press conference with Astronauts Thomas 17 

P. Stafford and Eugene A. Cernan, Director Robert R. Gilruth of Manned 

Spacecraft Center announced that James A. Lovell, Jr., and Edwin E. Aldrin, 

Jr., would be the prime crew for the last Gemini flight, Gemini XII. The backup 

247 
19 

20 

24 

27 

'""' 


test facility at Martin-Baltimore. Stage II was erected June 22. P

applied July 6, and Subsystems Functional Verification Tests were 

July 11. 

Mission Report tor GT-XIJ, p. 12-7; Gemini-Titan 11 Air Force Launch Ve

D-20. 

NASA announced that the Gemini X mission had been scheduled for 

than July 18, with John W. Young, command pilot, and Michael Col

as the prime crew. Alan L. Bean, command pilot, and Clifton C. Willia

'vould be the backup crew. Mission plans would include rendezvous

and extravehicular activity. The spacecraft was scheduled to rende

dock with an Agena target vehicle which was to be launched the sam

possible, Gemini X would also rendezvous with the Agena launched in 

16 Gemini VIII mission. 

NASA News Release 66-155, June 19,1966. 

Gemini launch vehicle 10 and spacecraft No. 10 were electrically mate

plex 19. The Electrical Interface Integrated Validation and Joint Gui

Control Test was conducted June 20-21. Following a data review, 

Combined Systems Test was run June 23. 

Mission Report for GT-X, p. 12-8. 

The tanking test of Gemini launch vehicle ( GLV) 10 was conducted. D

post-tanking cleanup and systems testing of the GLV, spacecraft No. 

golics \Vere serviced (June 27-28), spacecraft Final Systems Tests 

ducted (June 28-July 1), crew stowage was evaluated, and the extra

life support system was checked (July 1). On July 5, spacecraft and G

mechanically mated and the erector was cycled. The electrical inte

retested July 6. The Simultaneous Launch Demonstration on July 12 a

lated Flight Test on July 13 completed prelaunch testing. 

Mission Report for GT-X, p. 12-8. 

Final acceptance test of Gemini Agena target vehicle 5006 was c

at Sunnyvale. The vehicle was disconnected from the test comple

and formRlly accepted by the Air Force on July 13, two days ahead of 

Shipment of the vehicle to Eastern Test Range (ETR), planned fo

'vas delRyed until July 14 by wind conditions. It arrived at ETR in 

morning of July 15. 

~llssion Report for GT-XI, p. 12-10; GATl' Progress Report/!: .June, p. 2-3

1966, p. 2-4. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5005 was transferred to r.omplex 14 and 

target launch vehicle 5305. Joint Flight Acceptance Composite Test 

248 

I 
Figure 1!5.-The Gomlni Atla..t-Agell4 target vehlole undergolnglfl&t~m~& tett& at oomple11114 prior to the 

Gemlm X mu&lon. (NASA Photo No. 66-H-989, relea&ed Jul1J18, 1966.) 

pleted July 8. Complex 14 systems tests were completed July 12 with the 

Simultaneous Launch Demonstration. /11~ 

Mission Report for GT-X, p. 12-10; GATV Progre11J Report, July 1966, pp. 2-3, 


2-4. 


249 

1966 
, 

' 

-- li I
 I 


I 
 I 


I 
 I
 ' 1,.. I
 I 


I 
 ..--· 

Fig11re 126.-McDonnell personnel boltlttg the Gemini XI apa.oecraft to a support ring for 'boreai

the Pvrotcch,nic InstallatiOJt Building, Merritt Island. (N.4SA P1wfo S-66-1,1635, .July 2, 19

250 

The acceptance meeting for Atlas 5306, the target launch vehicle for Gemini XI, 

was held at San Diego. Final acceptance was completed July 18. The vehicle 

was shipped the same day by air to Cape Kennedy, arriving July 19. 

Quarterly Status Report No. 18, p. 15. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5006 was mated to target docking 

adapter (TD.A) 6. McDonnell had delivered TDA-6 to Cape Kennedy July 7. 

The interface functional test was completed July 21. The next day GA TV 

5006 was moved to the Merritt. Isli\Jld Launch Area for integrated tests with 

spacecraft No.ll and extravehicular equipment. 

Mi88lon Report for GT-XI, p. 12-10; GATV Progress Report, July 1966, p. 2-4. 

The Gemini X mission began with the launch of the Gemini Atlas-Agena 

target vehicle from complex 14 at 3: 40 p.m., e.s.t. The Gemini space vehicle, 

manned by command pilot Astronaut John W. Young and pilot Astronaut 

Michael Collins, was launched from complex 19 at 5 :20 p.m. The Gemini 

Agena target vehicle (GATV) attained a near-circular, 162- by !57-nauticalmile orbit. Spacecraft No. 10 was inserted into a 14:5- by 86-nautical-mile 

elliptical orbit. Slant range between the two vehicles was very close to the 

nominal 1000 miles. Major objective of the mission was achieved during the 

fourth revolution when the spacecraft rendezvoused with the GATV at 5 hours 

23 minutes ground elapsed time and docked with it about 30 minutes later. ~{ore 

spacecraft propellant was used to achie\·e rendezvous than had been predicted, 

imposing constraints on the remainder of the mission and requiring the de,·elopment of an alternate flight plan. As a result, several experiments were not completed, and another secondn.ry objective-docking practice-was not attempted. 

To conserve fuel and permit remaining objectives to be met, the spacecraft remained docked with the GATV for about 39 hours. During this period, a bending mode test was conducted to determine the dynamics of the docked vehicles, 

standup extravehicular activities (EVA) were conducted, and several experiments were performed. The GATV primary and secondary propulsion systems were used for six maneuvers to put the docked spacecraft into position for 

rendezvous with the Gemini VI/I GATV as a passive target. The spacecraft 

undocked at 44 hours 40 minutes ground elapsed time, separated from the 

GATV, and used its own thrusters to complete the second rendezvous some three 

hours later. At 48 hours and 42 minutes into the flight, a 39-minute period of 

umbilical EVA began, which included the retrieval of a micrometorite collection package from the Gemini VII/ Agena. The hatch was opened a third time 

about an hour later to jettison extraneous equipment before reentry. After about. 

three hours of stationkeeping, the spacecraft separated from the GATV. At 

51 hours 39 minutes ground elapsed time, t.he crew performed a true a.nomalyadjust maneuver to minimize reentry dispersions resulting from the retrofire 

maneuver. The retrofire maneuver was initiated at 70 hours 10 minutes after 

18 

18 

251 

21 

21 

22 

26 

28 

Following the reentry of spacecraft No. 10, Gemini Agena target 

( G A TV) 5005 made three orbital maneuvers under ground control. Its 

propulsion system (PPS) fired to put the vehicle in a 750.5- by 208.6-

mile orbit in order to determine the temperature effects of such an 

the vehicle. Temperature data showed no appreciable difference fr

obtained at lower orbits. The PPS fired a.gain to circularize the orbit a

ondary propulsion system Unit II maneuver placed the GATV in a 19

cnl-mile circular orbit for possible use as a Gemini XI rendezvou

During its time in orbit, the GATV received and executed 1700 co

1350 by ground controllers and 350 from spacecraft 10. 

Mission Report for GT-X, pp. 1-3, 4-35, 5-140; Fact Sheet 291-G. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5001 was transferred to systems test 

C-10 at Sunnyvale, after the long process of refurbishing it had be

pleted; however, it was still short several pieces of equipment. 

GATV ProgreBI Report, July 1966, p. . 

Gemini launch vehicle 11 was removed from storage and erected at 

19. After the vehicle wns inspected and umbilicals connected, power 

plied July 27, and Subsystems Reverification Tests (SSRT) began

ended August 4, and the Prespncecraft Mate Verification Combined 

Test was run the fo11owingday. 

Mission Report for GT-XI, p. 12-8; Gemini-Titan II Air Force Launch Veh

p. D-19. 

After completing Plan X tests at Merritt Island Launch Area, Gemin

vehicle (GATV) 5006 retun1ed to Hangar E to begin systems ver

tests. Combined Interface Tests began August 4 and ended August 12. P

and secondary propulsion system (PPS and SPS) functional tests be

gust 13. SPS functionals were completed August 18, and the SPS 

were inst.a1Ied August 19. PPS functionals were completed August 21

5006 was then transferred to complex 14 for mating with the Atlas

Mission Rt>IlOrt for GT-XT, p. 12-10; GATV Progrc38 Report, August 1966, p

Atlas 5306, the target launch vehicle (TI,V) for Gemini XI, was er

launch complex 14. Electrical power was applied the following day. T

propellant loading (DPL) was run August 18, after a number of liquid 

leaks had been eliminated. A discrepancy noted in the vemier engin

oxygen bleed system during the first loading required a second DPI.., 

fully completed on August 22. The Booster Flight Acceptance Compo

was suc~essfu11y completed on August 19, and the TLV and Gemin

target vehicle l\"ere mated on August 22. 

llfi>mlon Repol't for GT- XI, p. 12-12; Quarterly Status Report No. 18, pp. 1

252 

~llsslon Report tor GT-XI, pp. 1~. 12-6. 

The launch vehicle acceptance test of Gemini launch vehicle ( GLV) 12 was 

conducted. The vehicle acceptance team convened August 9 and accepted the 

vehicle August 12. GLV-12 was deerected August 17 and formally accepted 

by the Air Force August 30. Stage I was airlifted to Cape Kennedy the same 

day. Stage II arrived September 3. Both stages were placed in controlled access 

storage in Hangar T pending the launch of Gemini XI and the re,ralidation of 

the launch pad, completed September 16. 

Mission Report tor GT-XII, pp. 12-7, 12-8; Aerospace Final Report, p. II.G-7; 

Gemltlil-Titan IIAir Force Launch Vehicle, p. D-20. 

Gemini launch vehicle 11 and spacecraft No. 11 were electrically mated at complex 19. Electrical Interface Integrated Validation and Joint Guidance and 

Control Test was conducted August 8-9. The Joint Combined Systems Test 

followed August 11-12. 

Mission Report tor GT-XI, p. 12-8. 

The tanking test of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 11 was conducted. While 

GLV post-tanking operations were being performed, the Final Systems Tests 

of spacecraft No. 11 were conducted August 22-23. Spacecraft and GLV were 

mechanically mated August 24 and erector cycling was tested. The electrical 

interface was revalidated August 25-29. The Simultaneous Launch Demonstration on August 31 and the Simulated Flight Test on September 1 completed 

prelaunched testing. 

M1981on Report for GT-XI, p. 12-8. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5001 completed final acceptance testing. Analysis 

of test data was completed by August 24 and the vehicle was disconnected from 

the test complex. 

GATV Proureu Report, August 1966, pp. 2-8, 2-4. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5006 was mated to target launch vehicle 5306. 

Joint Flight Acceptance Composite Test was performed August 26, Simultaneous Launch Demonstration on August 31. 

1\f:lsslon Report tor GT-XI, p. 12-10; GATV Proure11 Report, August 1966, pp. 2-1, 

2-2. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5001 was formally accepted by the Air Force after 

vehicle acceptance team inspection. It was shipped from Sunnyvale on September 3 and a.rrived a.t Eastern Test Ra.nge on September 4. 

1\lission Report tor GT-XII, p. 12-10; GATV ProgreBI Report, September 1966, pp. 

2-1,5-1. 

29 

A.11psl 

8 

16 

22 

253 

9 	 The scheduled launch of Gemini XI was postponed when a pinhole lea

discovered in the stage I oxidizer tank of the launch vehicle shortly afte

pellants had been loaded. The decision to repair the leak required resche

the launch for September 10. After propellants were unloaded, the lea

plugged with a sodium silicate solution and covered with an aluminum 

Mission Report for GT-XI, pp. 5-106, 5-107; Gemlni-Titan II Air Force Laun

l'chicle, p. D-19; Kuras and Albert, "Gemini-Titan Tecbnieal Summary," p. 1

10 	 The scheduled Atlas-Agena launch was postponed because of apparent 

lems with the target launch vehicle autopilot. It was later determined th

problems were caused by a combination of propellant sloshing, wind lo

and autopilot recorder sensitivity. The circumstances were determined 

normal and hardware replacement was not required. Launch was resch

for September 12. 

Mission Report tor GT-XI, pp. 5-107, ~2; Qual'terly Status Report No. 19 

Period Ending Nov. 30, 1966, p. 11. 

12 	 The Gemini XI mission began with the launch of the ~mini Atlas-

target vehicle from complex 14 at 8 : 05 a.m., e.s.t. The Gemini space v

Figure 1!1.-AIItronaut Richard F. Gordon, Jr., returning to the hatch of G('mini X

eztravehictllar acti.vftfl. (NASA Photo No. 66-H-J!.!,S. rel~a11 d Sept. 13, 196
objectives included docking practice, extravehicular activity (EVA), 11 experiments, docked maneuvers, a tethered vehicle test, demonstrating automatic 

reentry, and parking the GATV. All objectives were achieved except one experiment~valuation of the minimum reaction power tool-which was not 

performed because umbilical EVA was terminated prematurely. Umbilical 

EVA began at 24 hours 2 minutes ground elapsed time and ended 33 minutes 

later. Gordon became fatigued while attaching the tether from the GATV 

to the spacecraft docking bar. An hour later the hatch was opened to jettison 

equipment no longer required. At 40 hours 30 minutes after liftoff, the GATV. 

Figure 128.-Vieto of India and Oevlon from Gemini XI at 540 natttical mile11 looking north, 

toith the Ba11 of Bengal to the right and the Arabian Sea to the left. (NASA Photo No. 

66-H-1!46 [66-H0-1668], relea11ed Sept. 11, 1966.) 

primary propulsion system (PPS) was fired to raise the apogee of the docked 

vehicles to 741 nautical miles for two revolutions. The PPS was fired again, 

a hours 23 minutes later, to reduce apogee to 164 nautical miles. The crew then 

prepared for standup EVA, which began at 47 hours 7 minutes into the flight 

255 
Figure 1!9.-The Gemtnt XI lpGCecra/t landlftQ approach ln the tDeltern Atlantlc. (NASA P

66-H-1!1~, relea1ed Sept. 15, 1966.) 

256 
At about 53 hours into the mission, the crew released the tether, separated from 

the GATV, and maneuvered the spacecraft to an identical orbit with the target 

vehicle. A fuel cell stack failed at 54 hours 31 minutes, but the remaining 

five stacks shared the load and operated satisfactorily. A rerendezvous was 

accomplished at 66 hours 40 minutes ground elapsed time, and the crew then 

prepared for reentry. The spacecraft landed less than three miles from the 

planned landing point at 71 hours 17 minutes after liftoff. The crew was retrieved by helicopter, and the spacecraft was brought aboard the prime recovery 

ship, the aircraft carrier Guam, about an hour after landing. 

Mission Report for GT-XI, pp. 1-1 to 1-4, 2-1, 4-1 to 4--3; Fact Sheet 291-H, 

Gemini XI Mi&&ioJt, Hi{}h Altitude, Tethered Flight, October 1966. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5001 was mated to target docking adapter (TDA) 

7A at Cape Kennedy. McDonnell had delivered TDA 7A to the Cape August 

19. After functional \'erification tests (September 13-15), the vehicle was moved 

(September 19-20) to the Merritt Island Launch Area for Plan X integrated 

tests with spacecraft No. 12. 

Mission Report for GT-XII, p. 12-10. 

The acceptance meeting for target launch vehicle (TLV) 5307 was conducted 

at San Diego. The vehicle \Vas shipped to Cape Kennedy following ac~epta.nce, 

arriving September 20. This vehicle had originally been assigned to the Lunar 

Orbiter program. The Atlas 5305 failure on May 17, however, followed by the 

decision to use Atlas 5304 to launch the augumented target docking adapter, 

made it necessary to procure an additional TLV for the Gemini Program. In 

Ma.y, Gemini Program Office (GPO) completed negotiations to acquire Atlas 

7127 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. This vehicle was so different from the Gemini TLV, however, that GPO decided to use the Luna.r 

Orbiter vehicle, Atlas 5803, redesignating it TLV 5307. This vehicle had only 

nine minor engineering change proposal (ECP) differences from earlier 

TLVs, all of which analysis showed to be acceptable. Modification for the 

Gemini program was completed August 22 and factory testing on September 12. 

Mission Report for GT-XII, pp. 12-11, 12-12; Quarterly Status Reports: No. 

17, p.18; No. 18, p.16; No.19, p.ll. 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 12 was removed from storage and erected at 

complex 19. Umbilicals were connected after GLV inspection September 21. 

Power \vas applied the next day and Subsystems Reverification Tests (SSRT) 

began September 23. SSRT ended October 2 and Prespacecraft Mate Verification Combined Systems Test was run October 4. 

Mission Report for GT-XII, p. 12-8; Gemini-Titan 11 Air Force Launch Vclliclc, 

p. 1)....20. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5001 'vas returned to Hangar E and 

began systems test after completing Plan X tests at the Merritt Island Launch 

12 

16 

19 

21 
23 

23 

26 

O&tobw 

5 

11 

The astronaut maneuvering unit (AMU), which had been installed 

spacecraft No. 12 on September 17, was removed as the spacecraft. w

going final preparations for movement to complex 19. NASA Hea

deleted the AMU experiment from the extravehicular activities (EVA

for the Gemini XII mission. Persistent problems in performing EVA 

flights had slowed the originally planned step-by-step increase in the c

of EVA. With only one flight left, George E. Mueller, NASA Asso

ministrator for Manned Space Flight, felt that more work was re

EVA fundamentals-the performance of easily monitored and calibr

tasks. On this flight, the pilot would remove, install, and tighten bolt

connectors and hooks, strip velcro, and cut cables. 

Mission Report for GT-XII, p. 12-5; letter, Mueller to Gen. James R. Fer

Sept. 30, 1966. 

Gemini spacecraft No. 12 was moved to complex 19 and hoisted to t

the launch vehicle. Premate verification was completed October 3. 

Mission Report for GT-XII, p. 12- 5. 

Target launch vehicle 5307 'vas erected at complex 14. Systems tests 

next day and lasted until October 18. The Booster Flight Acceptance C

Test was conducted October 24. 

Mission Report for GT-XII, p. 12-12. 

Gemini launch vehicle 12 and spacecraft No. 12 were electrically mate

plex 19. The Electrical Interface Integrated Validation and Joint 

and Control Test was conducted October 5-6, and data was reviewed th

ing day. The Joint Combined Systems Test was run on October 10. 

Mission Report for GT-XII, p. 12-8 ; Kuras and Albert, "Gemini-Titan Te

Summary," p. 100. 

The tanking test of Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 12 was conducte

the GLV was being cleaned up after the tanking test, the Final System

spacecraft No. 12 was conducted October 17-19. Spacecraft and G

mechanically mated October 25 and the erector was cycled. The spacec

ance system was retested October 26-27, and the spacecraft;GLV 

interface was revalidated October 28. The Simultaneous Launch Demo

on November 1 and the Simulated Flight Test on November 2 comp

launch testing and checkout. 

Mission Report for GT-XII, pp. 12-5, 12-8; Gemini-Titan II Ait· Force L

Vehicle, p. D-20. 

Gemini Agena target vehicle 5001 was mated to target launch veh

258 

23 
supply in the launch vehicle secondary autopilot, discovered before the count­ 8 

down for the November 9 launch began. Tlw secondary autopilot package and 

the secondary stage I rate gyro package were replaced, and the mis.'lion was 

rescheduled for November 10. During tests of the replacement autopilot on 

November 9, another malfunction occurred, which was resolved by again replacing the secondary autopilot package. The launch was rescheduled for 

November 11. 

1\llsslon Report for GT-XII, pp. 5--111, 5--112, 12-22, 12-23; Gemini-Titan II Air 


Force Launch Vehicle, p. D--21; Kuras and Albert, "GE'mlnl-Titan TPchnical Sum­


mary," p. 150. 


The Gemini Atlas-Agena target vehicle for the Gem,ini XII mission was 11 

launched from complex 14 a.t 2:08p.m., e.s.t. The Gemini spaee vehicle, manned 

by command pilot Astronaut James A. I.ovell, Jr., and pilot Astronaut Edwin 

E. Aldrin, Jr., was launched from complex 19 at 3:47p.m. Major objectives of 

the mission were to rendezvous and dock and to evaluate extravehicular activities (EVA). Among the secondary objectives were tethered vehicle evaluation, 

experiments, third revolution rendez\Tous and docking, automat-ic reent.I'Y demFigr~ro 130.-Astronartt Edwin E. Alttrln, Jr., ccu-rvmu a ml.orometcOf"oid paolrogc to the 

spaoccratt from the atta.pter section. dur·ing CJ:travchicular activity on. Gemini xn. 

(NA8A Photo No. 66-H-753 [66-HC-1546], released Kov. 16, 1966.) 
1966 

NovHnbw 

Figure 1!1.-Tll.e Gemtnt AgetW target vehicle tetll.ered to tll.e 1pacecraft dllri"

XII mllrion. (NASA Pll.oto No. 66-H-751, relea1ed No'V. 16, 1966

onstra.tion, docked maneuvering for a high-apogee excursion, dockin

syswms tests, and Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) parking

apogee excursion was not attempted because an anomaly was noted in 

primary propulsion system during insertion, and parking was not 

because the GATV's attitude control gas was depleted. All other 

were achieved. Nine spacecraft maneuvers effected rendezvous with 

The onboord radar malfunctioned before the terminal phase initiate 

but the crew used onboard backup procedures to calculate the mane

dezvous was achieved at 3 hours 46 minutes ground elapsed time, 

minutes later. Two phasing maneuvers, using the GA TV secondary 

system, were accomplished, but the primary propulsion system wa

The first of two periods of sta.ndup EVA began at 19 hours 29 minu

260 
hours 1 minute ground elapsed time. The tether evaluation began a.t 47 hours 23 

minutes after liftoff, with the crew undocking from the GA.TV. The tether 

tended to remain slack, although the crew believed that the two vehicles did 

slowly attain gravity-gradient stabilization. The crew jettisoned the docking 

bar and released the tether at 51 hours 51 minutt>s. Several spacecraft 

systems suffered problems during the flight. T'vo fuel cell stacks failed and 

had to be shut down, while t'vo others experienced significnnt loss of power. 

At 39 hours 30 minutes ground elapsed time, the crew reported that little or no 

thrust was available from two orbit attitude and maneuver t.hntsters. Retrofire 

occurred 94 hours after liftoff. Reentry '""as automatically controlled. The spacecraft landed less than three miles from the planned landing point at, 2:21p.m., 

November 15. The crew was picked up by helicopter and deposited 28 minutes 

later on the deck of the prime recovery ship, the aircraft carrier lJ'a.Yp. The 

spacecraft was recovered 67 minutes after landing. 

Mission Report for GT-XII, pp. 1-1 to 1-4, 2-1, 2-2, 4-1 to 4-7; Fact Sheet 291-1, 

Gemini XII Flight atld Gemltti Prooram Su.mmary, December 1966; McDonnell 

FlnaJ Report, pp, 84--85. 

Manned Spacecraft Center's (MSC) Gemini Program Office was abolished. 

The responsibility and authority for final Gemini activities, such as disposing 

of equipment and settling contract costs, were assigned to George F. MacDougall, Jr., the newly appointed Special Assistant for Gemini in MSC's Office 

of the Director of Administration. Wrapping up the program would require 

several years of gradually decreasing effort. 

MSC Announcement No. 67-15, Feb. 1, 1967; MaeDongall Interview. 

A. Gemini Summary Conference was held at Manned Spacecraft Center. Major 

focus of the 22 papers which foiiowed the welcoming address by Director Robert 

R. Gilmth was on the results of the final Gemini missions. Sessions were devoted 

to orbital rendezvous and docking operations, extravehicular activities, operational experience, and the results of experiments carried aboard the Gemini 

missions. 

Program, Gemini Summary Conference, MSC Audltor1um, Houston, Tex., February 

1967; Gemini Summary Conference, NASA SP-138, Feb. 1-2, 1967, paaltm. 

1967 

P•"'-ry

1 

1-2 

261 


APPENDIXES 

GEMINI SPACE VEHICLE 

Spacecraft No _____________ __ __ 1------------ 2------------ a____________ 4------------ 5--

Launch weight (lb.) _________ 7026_________ 6882_________ 711L ________ 7879--------- 794

Launch vehicle _______________ GLV-L____ __ GLV-2_______ GLV-a_______ GLV-4_______ GLV

Flight crew Command pilot_ ____________ Unmanned. __ Unmanned. __ GriBBom____ __ McDivitt•••. _ Coo

~lot.---------------- --- --- -- --------- --- ------------- 1roung _______ ~ite________ Con

Backup crew Command pilot ________ __ ---------- _______ --- ___ ---- ____ Schirra.•. ____ Borman. ___ __ Arm

Pilot._. ____ ---- ____________ ----- ______ ._--- __ ---- _____ Stafford. _____ LovelL____ ~ __ See

Launch date__________________ Apr. 8, 1964. _ Jan. 19, 1965 _ Mar. 23, 1965. June 3, 1965 .. Aug

Time (e.s.t.)---------------- 11 :00:01 a.m•. 9:03:59 a.m ••. 9:24:00 a.m ___ 10:15:59 a.m•• 8:59

Launch azimuth ______________ 72"---------- 105"- -------- 72"---------- 72"---------- 72"

0RBITAL PARAMETERS 

At insertion 

Apogee (n.m.) ______________ 173.0 ________ 92.4***-- - --- 121.0_____ __ _ 152.2-------- 188.

Perigee (n.m.) ______________ 86.6----------------------- 87.0 _____ ___ _ 87.6--------- 87.4

Period (min.) __________ __ ___ 89.3. ___ ---- _______________ 88.3. ________ 88.90. __ --- __ 89.5

Inclination angle ••• _________ 32.59"---- ______ ____ ______ __ a2.6" ---- _____ 32.53" ---- ____ 32.5

At retrofire 

Revolution••------------------------------------------- a____________ 62 ___________ 120

Apogee (n.m.) _____ ---------------- __________ ------- _--------- ________ 136.5. _-.--- _ 154

Perigee (n.m.) ____ ----.--------------- ___ ---- ___ ••----- ____ --- ________ 86.1 •• _. _____ 106

Period (min.) ___________ ----- __ ••-- __________ ------------_-----------_ 88.53. _. _----

--- ____ 

_------

_. _--- _

89.3

Inclination angle .••---------- _______________ ----- ___ ._---- ________ • ___ 32.53"- 32.6

Higheat apogee (n.m.) ___ ------- ________________ • __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 121.0. _______ 159.9. 188.

Lowest perigee (n.m.) ___________________________________ 85.6. _. ______ 86.1 •• 87.4

G.E.T. to OAMS preretro (hr;.------------------------------- 4:21:23_____ __ 97:28:02-----------

min; sec). 

RETROFIRE 	& REENTR1r 

Orbits to retrofire. ___ ----- ____ None•. ______ SuborbitaL __ 3.L _________ 66.L. ___ ---- 127.

G.E.T. to retrofire (hr; min; aee) •. ___ ________ __ 

--------------

00:06:54____ __ 

_____ 

4 :33:23 .•• __ __ 

_____ _

97:40:01 •••• _ _ 

------

190:

G.E.T. to touchdown (hr; mini- 00:18:16_ 4:52:31. 97:56:12 190:

sec). 

Landing coordinates 

Lat. __ -- __ ---- ____ ------ _____ ------- ____ 16°36' N ____ _ 

___ _ 

----

22"26' N ___ __ 

____ 

_______ ___ 

27"44' N _. ___ 

 _____ 

_____ 

29"4

-

Long·----------------------------------- 49"46' W _ 70"51' W _ 74"11' W 69"4

Landing accuracy (n.m. from .•------------------------ 60_ 44______ 9L 

planned landing point). 

RECOVER1r•••-------.---- _----- ___________ Mid-Atlantic. W/Atlantie. _. W/Atlantie. __ W/A

Area- --------------------------------------------------- 4-1---------- 63-1--------- 121-

Status. __ ------------------ _____ ---- _____ Primary••• ___ _____ •• ___ 

_____ ---- __ 

Primary_ Primary• Prim

Ship, U.S.S. _____ ---- __ ----------------- ___ Lake Cham- Intrepid_ Wall'-_ Lake 

plain. pl

Date- ------------------------------------- Jan. 19, 1965 •. Mar. 23,1965. June 7, 196.1)__ Aug

Time (e.s.t.) 

Crew·------------------------------

--

------------------- 3:28p.m_____ 1:09 p.m ____ _ 9:26

Spacecraft.-------------------- -------- 10:52 a,m ____ 5:03p.m_____ 2:28p.m_____ 11:11

•M18111on escrubbed; M18111on 9 eerubbed. 

••statrord and Ceman, beekup llft1r tor Oemlnl 9, beeame prime erew. 


•••Apo&M only (suborbital). 

6-------------- ____________ ----------- ________ 

______ 

____ 

_______ 

____

__ ___ 

________ 

___________ __________ __________ ________ ________ ________ 

______ _____ _ ____ 

__________ _ ________ 

_______ 

_

________ 

________ 

___ ----

_______ 

________ 

______ _ ---- _______ ______ 

. ________ ---- _______ _____ 

________ 

_______ 

_ _______ _________ ___ 

_ _______ ____ _______ 

___ . __ _ 

____ ___ __ __ __ 

----------- __ _______ _ --- ----- --------- ________ 

7_ 8- 9_ 10_ 11 _ 12. 


7817 _ 8076_

_

8351 _ 8268 8295 _ 8374 _ 8296. 


GLV-6 _

_

GLV-7 GLV-8_ GLV-9_ GLV-10_ GLV-11_ GLV-12. 


Schirra _ Borman Armstrong Stafford•• Young Conrad_ Lovell. 


Stafford LovelL Scott _ Ceman••- Collins Gordon. Aldrin. 


Grissom White_ Conrad _ Lovell_ Bean Armstrong_ Cooper. 


Young__ Collins_ Gordon Aldrin Williams_ Anders Cernan. 


Dec. 15, 1965 _ Dec. 4, 1965 Mar. 16, 1966_ June 3, 1966_ Jnly 18, 1966_ Sept. 12, 1966. Nov. 1, 1966. 


8:37:26 a.m _ 2:30:03 p.m _ 11:41:02 a.m __ 8:39:33 a .m _ 5:20:26 p.m _ 9:42:26 a.m_ 3:46:33 p.m. 

81.4° 83.6°_ 99.9° 87.4"- 98.8" 99.9°_ 100.6°. 

140.0__ ____ __ ___

-----------

___ ------- __________

_____ ____ 

__________ 

__________ 

___ -------

°----------

__________

----------

177.1- ________

--------

- ------- ---------

________

____ ____ 

________

--------

---------

________

--------

146.7 ________ 

-------

-------

--------

______ 

______ 

______ 

-------

-------

______ 

-------

14•1.0 ________

-------

--- - --- _______ 

_______

_______

_______ 

--- ----

-------- _______ 

-------

145.1_ _______ 

--------

_---- --- ________ 

_______ 

_______ 

_______ 

.-------

°--------

_______ 

-------

150.6________ 

--------

- ------ ________ 

________ 

_______ 

_______ 

-------

--------

_______ 

-------

146.1. 

86.9. 87.2 __ 86.3.- 85.7- - 86.3. 86.6. 86.8. 

87.92 _ 89.39_ 88.83. 88.78_ 88.79 88.99_ 88.87. 

28.97" 28.89" 29.07" 28.91°_ 28.87° 28.85° 28.87°. 

16____ 206___ 7______ 45 ____ 43 ____ 44 ___ 59. 

168.L 163.6 _ 161.3 __ 155.5 _ 215.5 _ 163.0 _ 155.0. 

153.0_ 156.5_ 157.5 __ 143.8 _ 157.9_ 151.0_ 140.8. 

90.54 _ 90.57- 90.55_ 90.19_ 91.48 90.38_ 90.06. 

28.89 28.89° 29.02°- 28.91° 28.87 28.84° 28.87°. 

168.L 177.L 161.3 __ 168.2 _ 412.2 _ 739.2 _ 162.7. 

86.9_ - 87.2_- 86.3.- 85.7-- 86.3.- 86.6.- 86.8. 

16.8___ _________ _________ _________ _________ ________ ________ 

_______ ___ ___ ______ ______ ______ _____ 

_______ _____ ______ ______ ______ _____ 

219.7 6.7 _ 47.6 45.5 _ 47.L 62.3. 

25:15:58 _ 329:58:04 10:04:47 71:46:44 70:10:24 70:41:36_ 93:59:58. 

25:51:24 _ 330:35:01_ 10:41:26 72:20:50 70:46:39 71:17:08_ 94:34:31. 

23°35' N ________ 

______ ______________ 

25°25'01" N ___ 

___ 

__ 

25°13'08" N __ 

_ 

27°52' N _____ __ __ 

_____ _______ _________ _________ _________ 

26°44'07" N 24°15'04" N 24°35' N. 

s7•so' w_ 7o•o6'07" w 135• E ______ 75°00'04" w__ 71°57' w 70° w 69°57' w. 7_ 6.4 _________ 1.1 __________ 0.38 3.4 _ 2_;65 2;6. 

W/Atlantic______ ____ ____ ___ ___ ___________ _________ __________ _________ 

___ ---_ _______ ____ _____ _ ---

______ ---- •• _______ _______ ________ L _

_________ W/Atlantic W/Pacific_ W/Atlantic W/Atlantic W/Atlantic ___ _________ 

______ 

________ 

W/Atlantic.

17-1 207-1 7-3 46- 1 44-1 45-1 60-1A. 

Primary _ Primary Secondary Primary Primary--- Primary Primary. 

Wasp _ Wasp Mason Wasp Guadalcana Guam Waap. 

Dec. 16, 1965____ Dec. 18, 1965 __ Mar. 17, 1966_ June 6, 1966 __ July 21, 1966 __ Sept. 15, 1966- Nov. 15, 1966. 

11:32 a.m.------ ____ _ ____ _____ . ____ . ____ 

_______ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ 

9:37a.m _ 1:28 a.m _ 9:53a.m 4:34p.m 9:23a.m 2:49p.m. 

11:32 a.m 10:08 a.m 1:37 a.m _ 9:53a.m 5:01p.m 9:58a.m 3:28p.m. 

265 
VI GATV­ TLV- Oct. 25, 1965 10:00:04.490 a.m._ 85. 7 GATV failed to achieve 

5002 5301 orbit. 

VI-A S/C 7 

(See 

Coelliptical rendezvous___ 

Station keeping _______ ____

Table 

A) 

VIII GATV5003 

TLV5302 

Mar. 16, 1966 10:00:03.127 a.m. _ 84. 4 Coellipt ical rendezvous __ _ Docking_______________ _ 

IX GATV­ TLV- May 17, 1966 10:15:03.422 a.m. _ 83.9 G A TV failed to achieve 

5004 5303 orbit. 

IX-A ATDA ___ TLV 

5304 

June 1, 1966 10:00:02.363 a.m __ 83. 8 Coelliptical rendezvous___ 

Station keeping ____________

Equl-period rendezvous__ 

Station keeping. __________

Rendezvous from above__ 

Station keeping ___ ------­ _

X GATV5005 

TLV5305 July 18, 1966 3:39:46.131 p.m__ _ 83. 9 Coelliptical rendezvous __ _ Docking__________ _____ _ 

High-altitude excureion_ __ Rerendezvous__________ _ 

XI GATV­ TLV- Sept. 12, 1966 8:05:01.725 a.m __ _ 83. 32 Rendezvous at first 

5006 5306 apogee. Docking_______________ _ 

High-altitude excurelon_ __ 

Tethered operations ____ _ 

Coincident orbit rendez­ 

vous. 

XII GATV­ TLV- Nov. 11, 1966 2:07:58.688 a.m. __ 83. 3 Coelliptical rendezvous___ 

5001 5307 Docking________________ 

Tethered operations_ _ _ _ _ 3
.  

... 

161. 9 156. 3 90. 55 28. 89 - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- - - --- - - - - ---- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --­

- -------- ------------------------------- 5:56:00 5:17:29 ------------------------------------­

- ----------------- - ---- - --- - - --- - - ---- ------ - - - - - - - - - ---- ----- -- 161. 1 158. 6 90. 55 29. 02 

---------------------------------------- 6:33:22 0 :41:50 ------------------------------------­

148. 0 145. 2 90. 07 28. 91 - --- ---- - --- ----- - --- - - --- -- --- ----- --------- ---- - - - - - ------­

---------------------------------------- 4:15 :00 0:46:00 ------------ ------------------------­ 163. 3 156. 6 90. 49 28. 89 ---------------------------------------------- --------------­

---------------------------------------- 6:36:00 0:39:00 ------------------------------------­ 168. 2 166.4 90.81 28.91 ------------------------ 160.3 156. 8 90.51 28.91 

------- --- ---------------------- ------- - 21 :42:00 1:17:00 ---- ---------- - -------- - ------------­

145. 8 143. 3 89. 88 28. 85 - - ----------------- ----- 161.9 156. 5 90.56 28.85 

---------------------------------------- 5:52:37 38:47:00 ------------------------------------­ 412. 2 158. 5 95. 31 28.88 -------­------------------­-----------­---------------------­ 209. 2 205. 9 92. 38 28. 90 ---­- - ------­--------­- - 216.0 213.5 92. 63 28. 91 

163. 1 153. 7 90. 55 28. 85 

---------------------------------------- 1:34:16 48:20:44 - --------- ---- ----------------------­ 739.2 156.3 101.52 28.85 - - - --------- ---------- ---------------------- - - - - ------------­

164.0 152.6 90.45 28.83 49:55:00 3:03:00 ------------------------------------­

--------------------------------------------------------------- - 164.0 155. 6 90. 45 28.83 

151. 7 146. 8 90. 11 28. 88 ------- - ---------------- 162.7 156.4 90.50 28. 87 

------------- -- - - ----------------------- 4:13:53 43:09:24 ---------------------- ------- ------- ­ 159.0 140. 3 90. 14 28.88 47:23 :17 4:27:40 - ------- ------------- --------- ------­

267 
M-1 Cardiovascular conditioning._--------

- ________

_____ ----

_________

---------

___ ------

•--------

---------

---- ____ .

_____

__

_

_

-

-

..

. _

_

-

_

.-

--

-

________ x+ x+ ___ -

-

-

---- __

_

--

______

-

-

-

-

-

•

-

-

-

_____

M-3 Inflight exerciser------------ _______ x+ x+ x+ __ - --- __ _ ---- -----

M-4 Infllght phonocardiogram ••• _ - __ __ x+ x+ x+ ___ ---- ----- -----

M-5 Bio-assays body fluids ______ ____ __ x+ ----------

-

-

_

__

--

- _

_

__

-

--

-- x+ x-' x+ --- -----

M-6 Bone demineralization ..---- ----------

-

--

--

--- x+ x+ --------------- -----

M-7 Calcium balance study______ ____ --- ------

.

------- -- x+ ----

-

-

-

-

_

_

-

-

-----

-

-

.

-

-

-

_

_

-

-

-- __ -- ---- _

M-8 Inflight sleep analysis ••••••• _-- ---- ---_ ___ .--- __ x-• --- ---- --- ___ ----- 

M-9 Human otolith function.--- ---- ---- --- x+ x+ -------- ------ -----

MSC-1 Electrostatic charge .. ___ - _.. __ x+ x+ --- ----- __ •--- _---- ------ -----

MSC-2 Proton electron spectrometer __ -------- __ x+ ____ . ____ . x- 1 --- ---- ------ -----

MSC-3 Tri-a:ds magnetometer ________________ __ x+ ---

_

_

-

-

-

------ - x+ --- ---- --- x+ ---

1\ISC-4 Optical communication ...••••••------- -----

__

--

-

-

- _____ __ --- _ . x- a --- ---- -.----------

MSC-5 Lunar UV spectral reflectance __________ ___ _____ _ _____ ___________ ____ ___ xos ---

MSC-6 Beta spectrometer••------------- ____ --- --•.- ------ _ ----_. ___ ____ ___ x+ ___

MSC-7 Bremsstrahlung spectrometer.--------- --- ------ ------ ----------- ---- --- x+ ---

MSC-8 Color patch photographY----------- ---- ------ ------ ----------- ----- --- x+ ---

MSC-10 Two-color Earth's limb photography _____

---

_ _ x+ ---

---

--.

---

------

-

.

--

--

_ 

--

--

_ 

--

------------

---

•••

- _-

---

···

------

--

-.-

---

-·-

---

___

--

---

.--

--

---

--·

._

------------

MSC-12 Landmark contrast measurement---- -----

--

-

--

_

__

-

-

-.

-

--- ----- --- xo • ---- --- xoo ---

T-1 Reentry communications••--------- ___ x+ - · _- ___ .• • ______ • _ ---- -----

__ 

-

--

•.

--

------

T-2 Manual navigation sightings. ___ -------.--

--

__

--

--

--

--

--

__

--

• _

--

_

----- --- --- _ --------- ---- -- _ •--- _-

D-1 Basic object photographY-------------- ----- --- x+ - --------- ---- ---- ------

D-2 Nearby object photography _______ ----- _ _____ __ . xo • __ -------·· _--· --- ----.-

D-3 Mase determination _______ ·--- ____ ----- - ___ ____ ._----- _____ ---- xo i _ _ .• ___ x+ 

D-4 Celestial radiometrY------------------- ----- --- x+ - --- x+ ---

--

__ 

--

__ 

--

__

___

---- ---- -----·

D-5 Star occultation navigation------------ ----- ----------- --- xo• - ---- -- x+ ---

D-6 Surface photography_----------------- ----- __ _ x+ __ •---- _____ ---- - _----

---

•••

---

---- _

D-7 Space object radiometry .•-------------- ----- --- x+ - --- x+ - ---- ---- -----

D-8 Radiation in spacecraft _________________ ___ x+ ____ 

---

_••

---

. _ x+ _---- __ •--- --. ---.-

D-9 Simple navigation.·------------------- --- xob - -----

•

_

-

--- x+ - ---- --- -----

D-10 Ion-sensing attitude controL. __ ••••• __ • ••---•

---

___

•••• •••• __ •• _--- __ ___ ._ •. x+ • __

D-12 Astronaut maneuvering unit.--------_- --- ---- - ___ __________ _ . x- 1 _. _

-

______

D-13 Astronaut visibility ____________________ ___ ___ xod -- --------- x+ -------- ------

D-14 UHF-VHF polarization••. ____ . _____ .-----

_____

-----

------

·---

__

---

--

__ 

__ 

. _

----- ____ --------- ___ xo 1 x-m . ___ .• _•.

D-15 Night image intensification ___________ __ _____________________ xol ------------ x+ 

D-16 Power tool evaluation.--------------- -- -------------------- xol ------------ XO

S-1 Zodiacal light photographY----------- --- --- x+ ------------ xo I x+ x+ ---

S-2 Sea urchin egg growth.----------- _____ x-• _ ------ ___ •. _---- ___ . -----•••••------•••---

S-3 Frog egg growth .•_••--------- ___ • ___ •• ______ • ____ • ____ ----------- x-• . __ • _______ •. __

S-4 Radiation and zero g on blood __ ________ x+ _ __ ---------- __ •• _____ --------- _______ __ x+ 

S-5 Synoptic terrain photogr~hY--------------- -- x+ x+ x+ x+ ------------ x+ x+ 

S-6 Synoptic weather photography ______________

--

__

__

-

__

__

--

__ x+ x+ x+ x+ ------------ x+ x+ 

S-7 Cloud top spectrometer_---------------- ------

_

_

-

_ 

_

-

__ _ x+ •• __________ xo I ------ __ --- __ .-

S-8 Visual acuity ••-----------------_. ______ ___ • _ __ x+ __ ___ _ x+ --- ___ ---. _••--------

S-9 Nuclear emulsion _______________________ ____ ______________________ xo J ------------ x+ 

S-10 Agena micrometeorite collection ______ ---- ----- ------- __ .__________ xo I xo a x+ 

S-11 Airglow horizon photography _____ • ______ _ • __ .---------. ____ ----- ____ ___ x+ _----- x

S-12 Micrometeorite collection .• ______ • ______ ____ ____ ---••-------------_--- _ x+ xo" 

S-13 UV astronomical camera. ___ • __ . ----- ___ ---- ----------------------------- ___ - x+ x+ 

268 
S-51 Sodium vapor cloud--------------------------------------------------------------------- --- xou 8-30 Dim light photography/orthicon. _____________________________________ xo I ____ __ ______ x+ _______ _ 

S-64 Sunrise UV photography________ ------ ____________ -----_------- ___ __ _______ _____ ------- _____ xo .. Eclipse photography__ _____ ___ _________ ____ __ ________ 

• Malfunction of lnatrument handle terminated experlment. 


b Time hacks not entered on telemetry; positions thus not computable. 


• Precluded because rendenons with rendezvous evaluation pod not 

accomplished. 

d Weather obscuration and spaeecraft attitude 1'81trlctlona. 

• Accidental removal of all eieetrodea by command pilot at 55:10 hrs 

O.E.T. 

'Intermittent !allure of experlmental equipment. 

• Cloud obscuration and spacecraft attitude restrictions. 


b Tube failure In D-S photometer. 


' Only limited number ofsamples collected because of early termination 


of mission. 

I Precluded by early termination of mission. 

• Half of lnftlght part of experlment not performed because of early 

termination ofmission. 

•AMU evaluation terminated because of astronaut's v!Jor fogging. 

M Insumclent number of data samples drawn. 

• Data not collected because spacecraft not near augmented tarret 

docking adapter during umbilical EVA. 

___ ------- _________________________________ x-'"' 

• Deleted because of llmltatlona on time and fuel supply. 

• Collection apparatus retrieved but lost by ftoatlng out of spacecraft. 

" EVA terminated after 33 minutes. 

• No high-orbit photographs because or fault In camera magazine. 

• Experlm6ntal equipment !ailed Sminutes after experlment began. 

• Two-thirds of starflelds excluded because of spacecn\(t/0 A TV lack of 

maneuverability, 

• Camera shutter !allure. 

• Static electricity In camera logged nearly all exposures. 

• .All still-camera 111m badly overexposed. 

• Canceled because Moon was out of pht181!. 

Notes; 


1 Indicates experlment planned (up to time of Uftoft). 


+Indicates experiment performed. 

- Indicates uperlment only partially completed (with reason listed 

below). 

o Indicates experiment could not be performed (with reason listed 

below). 
--------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

----- ---- - -

(hr:mln:sec) (hr

IV ________ UmbilicaL______ 4:17:36 4:18 4:20 4:30 4:50 4:54 4

(T) (E) (V) (V) (V) (E) 

IX-A______ Umbilical_______ 49:23:00 49:23 49:24 49:40 51:26 51 :30 5

(V) (V) (V) (V) (V) (V) 

x _________ Standup____ ___ _ 23:23:26 23:24 23:27 24:13 24

(T) (V) (V) (V) 

UmbilicaL _____ 48:40:48 48:41 48:42 48:47 49 :12 49:20 49

(T) (E) (V) (V) (V) (E) 

Equipment jettison___ ___ _ 50:31:56 50:33 50:34 50

(T) (E) (E) XL _____ __ UmbilicaL_____ 24:02:16 24:02 24:03 24:09 24:30 24:35 24

(T) (V) (V) (V) (E)• (E) 

Equipment 

jettison_______ 25:36:18 25:37 25:39 25

(T) (V) (V) 

Standup_______ _ 46 :06:11 46:07 n/a 48:15 48

(T) (E) (V) 

XII _______ Standup !_ _____ 19:25:43 19:29 19:30 21:58 21

(T) (V) (V) (E) 

UmbilicaL _____ 42:47:31 42:48 42:51 42:52 44:47 44:54 44

(T) (V) (V) (V) (V) (V) 

Standup II _____ 66:05:24 66:06 66:08 67:01 67

(T) (E) (V) (V) 

•Estimated from comment on tape that the pilot rested for about ll.n m1nutaa. 

Notes: 

(T) obtained from telemetar cabin preaure data. 

(V) obtained from voloe tralllerlptlona {alr-sround and on board recorded). 

(B) estimated from above two Items. 

270 

y pgpg g p

program consists primarily of development flight!!, long-duration flights, and rendezvouadevelopment flights. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration u~lgned certain 

specific objectives to the Gemini program. These objective~~ were a!I follows: 

(1) 	Subject two men and their snpportlng equipment to long-duration flights of up 

to two weeks In space 

(2) 	Achiet"e rendezvous and docking with another orbiting vehicle and develop efficient 

and reliable rendezvous techniques 

(3) 	Using the target vehicle propuls!on system, maneuYer the spacecraft In space after 

docking · 

(4) Perfonn extravehicular actlvitleH requiring one of the flight erew to climb out of 

the spacecraft for short periods of time while In orbit and dt>\'elop the capability 

and techniques for extravehicular operations In free ~tpace 

(5) Provide a controlled reentry whereby the spacecraft Is brought to a specific landing 

area 

(6) 	Provide training for the flight crew members who will fly In the Apollo program 

(7) 	Pertonn appropriate engineering and scientific expt>rlments In support of the 

national space program 

Mi•8Wft 

Gemltti I 

Prlma.ry Objectives: 

(1) 	To demonstrate the Gemini launch vehicle performance and to flight-qualify 

the vehicle subsystems for future Gemini ml~slons (achieved) 

{2) 	To determine the exit heating conditions on the spacecraft and launch vehicle 

(achieved) 

(3) 	To demonstrate the structural Integrity and compatibility of the spacecraft 

and launch vehicle combination through orbital insertion (achieved) 

(4) 	To demonstrate the structural Integrity of the Gemini spacecraft from launch 

through oroitallnsertion (achieved) 

(5) 	To demonstrate the ability of the Gemini lauiK'h vehicle and ground guidance 

systems to achieve the required orbital insertion conditions (achieved) 

(6) 	To monitor the swltchover circuits as lnRtallt'd on the Gemini launch vehicle 

and to evaluate their sufficiency for mission requirements (achieved) 

(7) To demonstrate the malfunction detection system (achieved) 


Secondary Objectives: 


(1) 	To evaluate the operational procedures ust'd In e ..tabl!shlng the Ge-mlnllMJnch 

vehicle trajectory and cutotr conditions (achieved) 

(2) 	To verity orbital Insertion conditione by tracking the C-band transponder 

system In the spacecraft (achieved) 

(3) 	To demonstrate the perfonnance of the launch and tracking networks 

(achieved) 

(4) 	To provide training for the Bight dynamics, guidance swltchover, and malfunction dete<.-tlon sy~tems flight controllers (achieved) 

(5) 	To demonHtrate the operational ('ftpablllty of the prelaun(•h and laun<'h fa('llltles (achieved ) 

Gem4ft.HI 

Primary Objectives: 

(1) 	To demon!oltrate the adequacy of the reentry as!lembly hPat j)rotectlon equipment during a maximum-heating-rate reentry (achieved) 

(2) 	To demonstrate the structural integrity and capability of the spacecraft from 

liftotr through landing (achieved) 

271 

328- 022 ~9--19 
) 

(2) 	To further flight-qualify the launch vehicle and to dt>monstratP it.'! ability to 

Insert the spacecraft into a prPscrlbed trajectory ( arhipvpd) 

(3) 	To demonstrate the compatibility of the launrh VE'hil'll' and spacecraft through 

the countdown nn!l launrh sequenre (achieved) 

(4) 	To provide training for flight controllers (achieved) 

(5) 	To furthl'r qualify ground communications and tracking systems In support 

of future manned miRslonl'l (achle,·ed) 

Gtm~tni III 

Primary Objectives: 

(1) 	To demonstratl' manned ol"bltal flight in thl' Qpmlnl ~n<"eCraft and to furthPr 

qualify the l'lpa<'ecraft and launc-h \'ehide syl<tt>mR fol." future manned missions 

(nt>hleved) 

(2) 	To evaluate the two-man Gl'mini design and Its l'trects on flight crew performance (achieved) 

(3) 	To demonstrate nod evaluate the operation of the worldwide tracking network 

with the spncec'rnft and flight crew (achieved) 

(4) To demonstrate and evaluate the capability to maneuver the !!pa<"eCraft In orbit 

using the orbit attitude and maneuver system (OAl\IS) (achieved) 

(5) 	To demonstrate the OAMS capability to perform retrofire ·backup (achieved) 

(6) To demonstrate the rapablllty to control thP reentry flight path and the ultimate 

landing point (partially achieved. The accuracy of the controlled landing 

point was not as high as bad bl!f'n expected) 

(7) 	To evaluate the J)l'rforrnance &f the spacecraft sy~>tems (achieved) 

(8) 	To demonstrate systems checkout, prelaunch, and launch prO<·edures for a 

manned spacecraft with a two-man crew (achieved) 

(9) To recover the spacecra ft and evaluate the reco\"Pry Rystem (achle\'ed) 

Secondary Objectives: 

(1) 	To evaluate the flight crew equlpml.'nt, biomedical instrumentation, and partial personal hygiene system (achieved) 

(2) 	To perform thl"('e experimPnts (partially a<'hieved) 

(3) 	To evaluate the effects of the low-le,·et longitudinal oscillations (POGO) of 

the launch ''ehlele on the flight crew (achle\"ed) 

(4) To obtain general photographic covE>rage in orbit (·partially achieved because 

of an improJ)l'r lens on the 16mm camera) 

Gcmin.i IT' 

Primary Objectives: 

(1) 	To evaluate the Pf'fec'ts of prolongl'd pxposure of thl' two-man flight crew to the 

space environment (achieved) 

(2) 	To demonstrate nod evaluate the performance of the Gemini spacerraft systE'ms for a period of approximately four dayl'l In the "pace Pnvlronment (partially achieved. TbP romputer-controllE'd rePntry was not flown bPcfUlRe of an 

inadvertent alteration of the computer ml'mory) 

(3) 	To evaluate previously developed procedures for rrew reMt and work cycles, 

Patlng scheduiP>', and rPal-tlme flight planning for long-duration flight!! 

(achieved) 

Secondary Objectives : 

(1) 	To dl'monstrnte extravehicular aetivlty In spa<·l' and to evaluate attitude and 

,position control ttl'llng the hand-hPid propull'lion unit or the tether llnl' 

(achieved) 

(2) 	To conduct stat.lonkeeplng and rendezvous maneu'l"ers with the expended second stage of the launch \"ehlcle (partially achieved. Sl"Pftrntion and rendezvous 

272 

rocket system (achieved) 

(6) 	To conduct 11 experiments (achieved) 

Gmnfni V 

Primary Objectives: 

(1) 	To evaluate the perfom1ance of the rendezvous guidance and navigation system using a rendezvous evaluation pod (REP) (not achl~.>ved. Rendezvous 

with the REP was not condu<'ted becausl' of a decision to pow(>r do\\·n th(> 

spacecraft) 

(2) 	To demonstrate manned orbital flight In the Gemini 9pacecraft for approximately eight days (achieved} 

(3) 	To evaluate the effects of (>Xposlng the two-man crew to long periods of 

welghtlessneee (achieved) 

Secondary Objectives: 

(1} 	To demonstrate controlled ~ntry guidance to a predetermln(>d landing point 

(not achieved. Incorrect navigation <'oordlnates transmitted to the spacecraft 

comput(>r from the ground network caused an 89-mlle undershoot) 

(2} 	To evaluate the performance of the fuel cell under flight electrical load conditions (achieved) 

(8) 	To demonstrate all pbases of guidance and control system operation neceesary 

to support a rendezvoue mission (achieved) 

(4) 	To evaluate the capability at either pllot to maneuver the spacecraft in orbit 

to a close proximity with anot.her object (not achieved) 

(5} To evaluate the performance of the rendezvous radar (achieved) 

(6) 	To conduct 17 experiments {partially achieved. One photography experiment 

was not conducted because of the decision to cancel rendezvous with the REP) 

Gem.fni VI 

Primary Objective: 

To demonstrate rendezv<ms and docking with the Gemlnl-Agena target vehicle, 

using both the epacecraft and Agt-na e&Pftbllltles as required (not achieved. The 

Geminl-Agena ta.rget vehicle (GATV) falled to att·ain oroltal conditions, causing 

the mission to be terminated before Gemini spacecraft launch) 

Secondary Objectives: 

(1) 	To conduct rendezvous and docking using radar computer closed-loop modi.' 

{2) 	To conduct multiple docklng8 under various lighting conditions (day and 

night-both pilots) 

(3) To demonstrate reentry guidance capability and landing point control 

(4} To eV'Illuate spacecraft command of the GATV In undocked mode 

(5} To determine useful lifetime and ground control capability of the GATV 

(6} To evaluate vlslblllty ot the GATV under varl<ms conditione of lighting 

and range 

(7} To provide motion picture documentation at the GATV during docking 

{8) To conduct ~tylltt>mR tl'"t" and (>Xf'<'nte lnfllght f'XJX'rlmf'ntR 

Gemlnl VI-A 

Primary Objective: 


To :rendezvous with the Gtrmlnl VII spacecraft. in orhlt (achieved) 


Secondary Objectives: 


(1) 	To perform closed-loop rendezvous at the fourth darkness (achieved) 

(2) 	To conduct statlonk~.>eplng with the Gmntnl VII IIP&CE'Craft (achieved) 

(3) 	To evaluate the reentry guidance capability of the spacecraft (achieved) 

(4) To conduct visibility tests of the Gemini VII spacecraft as a rendHvous target 

vehicle (achieved) 

273 

(achieved) 

(2) To evaluate the ptfects of the 14-day flight on the crew (achieved) 


Secondary Objectives : 


(1) 	To provide a rendPzvous target for the Gen1-lnt VI-A spacecraft (achieved) 

(2) 	To condud stationkeeping with Grmtnt VI-A (achieved) 

(3) 	To conduct statlonket'ping with the second stage of the launch vehicle 

(achieved) 

(4) 	To conduct 20 scheduled experiments (achieved) 

(5) 	To evaluate a lightweight pressure suit during a mission (at'hieved) 

(6) 	To evaluate the spacecraft reentry guidance capablllty (achieved) 

(7) 	To conduct spacecraft systems tesll9 (achieved) 

Gemini VIII 

Primary Objectives : 

(1) 	To perform rendezvous and docking with the GATV (achieved) 

(2) 	To conduct extra,·ehlculnr activities (not achieved. Mission was terminated 

early because of a malfunctioning thruster In the epacecraft) 


Secondary Objectives : 


(1) 	To perform rendezvous and docking during the fourth revolution (achieved) 

(2) 	To perform docked-vehicle maneuvers using the GATV's secondary propulsion 

system (not achieved) 

(3) 	To ronduct systems evaluation (partially achieved) 

(4) 	To conduct 10 ~>xperlments (partially a<'hleved) 

(5) 	To practice docking (not achieved) 

(6) 	To perform a rerendezyous (not achle\'ed) 

(7) 	To evaluate tht' auxiliary tape memory unit (achieved) 

(8) 	To park the GATY In n ~nautical-mile circular orbit (achieved) 

Gemini IX 

Primary Objectives: 

(1) 	To rendezvous and dock with the GATV (not a•·hieved. The Atlas target launch 

vehicle fai!Pd to boost the GATV Into orbit, and the mission was terminated 

before the launch of the Gemini spacecraft) 

(2) To conduct t'Xtravehicular art!vi ties 


Secondary Objecth·es : 


(1) 	To rendezvous and dock wlth the Agena during the third revolution at the 

Gemini Rparecratt 

(2) 	To conduct systems tests 

(3) 	To conduct eight lnfiight experlmt>nt~ 

(4) 	To conduct docking practice with the Agena 

(5) 	To evaluate line-of-sight docked vehicle control 

(6) 	To conduct rerendt>zvouR exPrf'iRf's to provide additional crew t'Xperlence 

and to perform rPndezvous from above 

(7) 	To conduct a phantom rendezvous using the spacecraft docked with the Agena 

to dt>monstrate ability to pPrform midconrse mant'uvers tn the docked configuration 

(8) 	To evaluate onboard navigation capability 

(9) 	To park the Agena 

Gen1ini IX-A 

Primary Objectives: 

(1) 	To perform rendezYous and docking with the augmented target docking 

a!lapter (ATDA) (partially achfeyed. Tht> spacecraft could not dock becaust> 

2'74 
(4) To conduct seven experiments (partially achieved. A meteoroid collection 

experiment could not be completed because the extra\•eblcular activity did 

not take place near the target vehicle) 

(5) 	To conduct docking practice (not achieved) 

(6) 	To perform rendezvous from above (acbleved) 

(7) 	To demon.8trate a controlled reentry (achieved) 

Gemf.niX 

Primary Objective : 


To perform rendezvous and docking with the GATV (achieved) 


Secondary Objectives: 


(1) 	To rendezvous and dock in the fourth revolution in check of onboard navigation (achieved) 

(2) 	To u&e large propulsion systeme In space In dual rendezvoua using the target 

vehicle primary and secondary propulsion systems (achieved) 

(3) 	To conduct extravehicular activities (acbieved) 

(4) 	To conduct docking practice (not attempted because of lnsuftlclent fuel reserves) 

(5) 	To perform 14 e%perlments (partially achieved. Some e%periments were not 

conducted because or tlme limitations and a constraint on the use or spacecraft propellants) 

(6) 	To conductsystems evaluations (achieved) 

Gemi.niXI 

Primary Objective : 

To 	·rendezvous and dock with the target vehicle during the ftrst revolution 

(achieved) 

Secondary Objectives: 

(1) 	To conduct docking practice (achieved) 

(2) 	To perform e:riravehicular activity (achieved) 

(3) 	To conduct 11 experiments (partially achieved. One photography experiment 

was not completed because extravehicular activity was termfnared esrller 

than planned) 

(4) 	To maneuver In the docked condguratlon, lncludlng a high-apogee ex(."ttrsion 

(achieved) 

(5) 	To conduct a tethered-vehicle test (achieved) 

(6) 	To demonstrate an automatic reentry (achieved) 

(7) 	To park the Agena target vehicle (achieved) 

GemWXII 

Primary Objectives: 

(1) 	To rendezvous and dock with a target vehicle (achieved) 

(2) 	To conduct e:rtravehfeular activity at least three times during the miAAion 

(achieved) 


Secondary Objectives: 


( 1) 	To practice docklng (achieved) 

(2) 	To aceompllsh a tethered 8tatlonkeeplng exercise, using the gravity gradient 

technique (achieved) 

(3) 	To conduct 15 experiments (achieved) 

(4) 	To perform maneuvers, 'll81ng the Agena primary propulsion system to changf' 

orbit (not achieved. Ground controllers noted a fluctuation In the Agena 

propulsion system and canceled the maneuver.) 

(5) 	To use a controlled reentry teehnlque as demonstrated on Gemini XI (achieved) 

275 
from instrumentation whleb measures basic inputs and ou~uts of the unit or system. 

3. The term "evaluate" means the measuring of the performance of a unit or system, 

as wl'll as the performance and/or Interaction or it.'! sectlolliS or subsystems that are under 

lnveMtlgatlon. A.ccompltshment or this type or objective requires quantitative data on thl' 

:Pl'rformane~c> of tb~c> unit or syKtl'm and its section!< or sub!!YHtems. 

SoURCE: MSC-G-R-66-5, "Gl'mlni Program Flight Summary Rl'port," with revisions, 

January 1967; NASA Program Gemini Working Paper No. 5030. "Gl'mlnl Program/Mis!fton 

Directive," Nov. 1!1,1965, with Appendixes A through C. 

276 

APPENDIX 3-VEHICLE MANUFACIURIN

Table A-Gemini Launch Vehicle 

[ From Aerospace, Gemini PrO(ITam Launcla Systema F

and Martin, Gemini-Titan II Air Foru Launch Ve

Gemini 

Item 

GLV-1 GLV-2 GLV-

Major welding of propellant Sept. 1962 __ ______ Sept. 1962____ ____ June 1963 _

tanks at Denver began. 

Propellant tanks delivered to Oct. 10, 1962 __ ___ July 12, 1963 __ ___ Dec. 13, 19

Baltimore. 

ABsembly oompleted ______ __ __ May 21, 1963 ___ __ Jan. 9, 1964 ___ ___ June 6, 196

Horizontal tests completed ____ May 27, 1963_____ Jan. 17, ____ _ June 17, 19

Erected in vertical test facility. June 9, 1963 ____ __ Feb. 7, 1964 ____ __ June 22, 19

Power applied _______ _____ ___ ___ _____ __ ___ ______ Feb. 20, 1964----­ - - -­ -- - --­ -

Subsystems Function Verifica­ -­ --­ ---­ ----­ ----­ -­ ---­ ---­ -­ -­ - -­ July 31, 19

tion Tests completed. 

Combined Systems Acceptance Oct. 4, 1963•------ Apr. 22, 1964 _____ Sept. 30, 19

Test completed. 

Vehicle Acceptance Team Oct. 8, 1963-••••.. Apr. 27, 1964 __ ___ Oct. 7, 1964

inspection. 

DD-250·------­ -----­ -­ ----­ Oct. 12, 1963 •• ••• June 22, 1964 __ ___ Nov. 18, 19

Delivered to ETR_____ __ __ __ _ Oct. 26, 1963 ••••• July 11, 1964 __ ___ Jan. 23, 19

Erection at complex 19 com- Oct. 29, 1963 _____ Sept. 14, 1964•---­ Jan. 25, 19

pleted. 

Power applied ___ __________ __ _ Nov. 13, 1963 •.._________ _______ ____ 

Jan. 29, 19

Subsystem and Combined Jan. 21, 19641__ ___ Oct. 20, 1964 ___ __ Feb. 15, 19

Systems tests oompleted. 

Tankingexereise·------------­ ---­ ---­ ---­ - ---------------­ --­ --­ ----­ -----­ 

Spacecraft mated to GLV. Mar. 5, 1964. . •••• Nov. 5, 1964 ______ Feb. 17, 19

Joint Combined Systems Tests__ ___ _______ __ ____ _ Nov. 18, 1964 •••. • Feb. 24, 19

Countdown practice exercises Apr. 2, 1964 ••••.• Nov. 24, 1964____ _ Mar. 8, 196

completed-Wet Mock Simulated Launch. 

Final Status Simulated Flight Apr. 5, 1964 __ ____ Jan. 14, 1965d _____ Mar. 17, 19

Test. 

Launch. ___ • _____ ••• _______ _ Apr. 8, 1964. ­ - --­ Jan. 19, 1965d ____ _ Mar. 23, 19
Gemini Ti

Item 

GLV-7 GLV-8 GLV-9 

Major welding of propellant May 1964 ___ _____ Sept. 1964 ________ Feb. 1965 ___

tanks at Denver began. 


Prn!1Plhnt tanks delivered to Feb. 25, 1965 _____ Apr. 15, 1965----- Aug. 16, 196

Baltimore. 


AsseJUoly completed __________ May 20, 1965----------------------- Nov. 10, H)65

Horizontal tests completed ____ June 14, 1965 _____ Sept. 15, 1965 ___ __ Nov. 23, 1965 

Erected in vertical test facility. June 28, 1965 _____ Sept. 28, 1965_____ Dec. 10, 1965 

Power applied ____ __ ___ _______ July 26, 1965 ___ __ Oct. 13, 1965 _____ Dec. 22, 1965 

Subsystem Functional Verifica- Aug. 25, 1965 ____ _ Nov. 4, 1965 __ __ __ Jan. 20, 1966 

tion Tests completed. 

Combined Systems Acceptance Sept. 20, 1965 _____ Nov. 8, 1965 ______ Feb. 9, 1966 _

Test completed. . 

Vehicle Acceptance Team Sept. 28, 1965 _____ Nov. 16, 196.')_____ Feb. 15, 1966 

inspection. ' 

DD-250_____ ___ _____________ Oct. 15, 1965 _____ Dec. 23, 1965 _____ Mar. 8, 1966 _Delivered to ETR________ ____ Oct. 19, 1965 _____ Jan. 6, 1966 ____ __ Mar. 10, 196

Erection at complex 19 com- Oct. 29, 1965 _____ Jan. 13, 1966 ___ __ Mar. 24, 196

pleted. 

t-::l Power applied ________________ Oct. 31, 1965 _____ Jan. 19, 1966 _____ Mar. 30, 196

..... 

(X) Subsystem and Combined Nov. 12, 1965 _____ Feb. 1, 1966 ______ Apr. 12, 196

Systems Tests completed. 

Tanking exercise___ ____________________________ Feb. 18, 1966 _____ Apr. 20, 1966 

Spacecraft mated to GLV. Nov. 22, 1965 _____ Mar. 5, 1966 ____ __ May 8, 1966 

Countdown practice exercises ______ ___ ___ ____ __ Mar. 9, 1966 ______ May 10, 196

completed-Wet Mock 


Simulated Launch. 


Final Status Simulated Flight Nov. 27, 1965 _____ Mar. 10, 1966 _____ May 11, 196

Test. 

Launch.

__ _____ _______ _______ Dec. 4, 1965 ______ Mar. 16, 1966 _____ June 3, 1966

• OLV- lnoUooepteclanerftnt CSAT (Sept. 6,111113) and VAT Inspection (8ept.ll,111113). 


b OLV-3notaooepted alterlint CSAT (Alii. 7, 1116C) andVAT Inspection (Alii. 17,1116C). 


• Flnt erected July 16, 111114, and Subsystem tests began July 17, nulillled by lichtningstrike Alii. 17. Humcane 

hlcle deereotlon Sept. 8. 

• After 8FT on Dec. 3, 1116C,IaWlch acheduled foe Dec. t aborted at llnltlon plua1.71Cl0. 

• Scrubbed beoauae or Acena catastrophic !aUure. 


1 Aborted Dec. 12, ltll.'l, at lenition plua1.18 sec when umbWoal tallpllll dropped Investigation a

• Mlalion postponed May 17 when OATV !ailed toorbit. 8FTrepeated May 2tl. Mlsalon aaatn scrubbed on JWle 

• Mlslllon scrubbed Sept. t beoauae pinhole In oddtser tank. Reacbeduled for Sept. 1o; scrubbed beo

1 Mllslon postponed on Nov. 8 beoauae or maltunctioo In aeoondar:v autopilot; postponed apln on Nov. t for m

i Sequence oompatlbWty ftrlnc (SCF). 


t POGO lr:lt Installed 1an. 20-Feb. 6. 


1 Modllled at Baltlmoce alter OT-2 tandem actuator trouble at the Cape-actuator replaced Jan. 8. 


• Delay from Deo. It-Mar. lt, ltl!ll, pennltted mod111oatlonl at Baltlmon that wen usaally dooe at tbe Cape
Table B--Gemini Target Vehicle 

[From Aerospace, Gemini Program Launch Sy8km4 FinoJ R

Stag

Item 

5001 5002 5003 

Basic vehicle ___________ Apr. 30, 1964 ___ Dec. 17, 1964 ___ July 20, 1965 ___ Oct. 

Modification and final 

assembly ____________ Sept. 24, 1964 ___ May 18, 1965 ___ Oct. 14, 1965 ___ Jan. 

Combined Systems Ac- May 6, 1965 ___ June 30, 1965 ___ Jan. 8, 1966 ___ Feb

oeptance 

Vehicle Acceptance May 27, 1965 ___ July 23, 1965 __ _ Jan. 18, 1966 ___ Mar

Team inspection. 

(0 Delivered to ETR______ May 29, 1965 ___ July 25, 1965 ___ Jan. 21, 1966 ___ Mar

Preliminary systems tellts July 8, 1965 ___ Aug. 23, 1965 ___ Jan. 26, 1966 ___ Mar

at Hangar E. 

Interface tet!ts, Plan X ___ _______________ Sept. 1, 1965___ Jan. 28, 1966 ___ Mar

Systems tllllts at ---------------- Sept. 30, 1965 ___ Feb. 28, 1966 ___ May 

Hangar E. 

Target and launch July 8, 1965 ___ Oct. 1, 1965 ___ Mar. 1, 1966__ _ May 

vehicles mated. 

Systems tests at July 26, 1965 ___ Oct. 20, 1965 ___ Mar. 9, 1966 ___ May 

complex 14. 

Launch_______________________________ Oct. 25, 1965 ___ Mar. 16, 1966 ___ Ma

•6001 wu returned from ETR for returblsllilll on thl8 date and deslpulted 11001 R . 


..6001R wu completely and rebuilt. 


Note: 

0 A TV was a modifted standard Agena, a production-Une vehicle deUvered to the Oamlnl procram a

fllcht ready. After modiftcatlon and reaaembly, tbe same testa cart1fled Its ......un- as the Gemini Ap
Table C-Gemini Target Launch Vehicle 

Gemini Target Launch Vehicle 

Item 

TLV-5301 TLV-5302 TLV-5303 TLV-5304 TLV-5305 TLV-5306 

Basic vehicle delivered __________________ Apr. 2, 1965·------------------- Dec. 2, 1965____ Nov. I, 1965____ Jan. 14, 1966 ____ A

Final assembly of ---------------- May 25, 1965------------------- Jan. 19, 1966 ___ Feb. 15, 1966 __ _ Mar. 17, 1966.•• J

booster and sustainer 

sections. 

Install flight equipment __ ______________ June 3, 1965. _____________ ____ __ Jan. 24, 1966. __ Feb. 18, 1966. __ June 20, 1966. __ A

and Gemini-peculiar 

kit. 

Systems test completed_______ . __________ July 13, 1965. ______ ____________ Mar. 14, 1966 ___ June 1, 1966b ___ Jull' 1, 1966 ____ S

Composite test_ ___ __ ___________________ July 22, 1965 _______________ ____ Mar. 23, 1966 ___ June 3, 1966 ____ July 11, 1966 ___ S

o Data review and final ----------·----- July 29, 1965------·------------ Mar. 31, 1966 •.. June 6, 1966 ____ July 15, 1966 ___ S

acceptance. 

Delivered to ETR______ Dec. 4, 1964 ____ 11, 1965 ... Feb. 13, 1966 ••. May 8, 1966 ____ June 9, 1966____ July 18, 1966 ___ S

Erected

___ ______ _______ __ ___ __________ Jan. 5, 1966 ____ _______________ _ May 21, 1966• ___ June 15, 1966 ___ July 28, 1966 ___ S

Subsystems tests com- ---------------- Feb. 23, 1966 ______ _____________ May 28, 1966 ___ June 28, 1966 ___ Aug. 16, 1966 ___ O

pleted. 

TLV/GATV mate______ Oct. 10, 1965 ___ Mar. 1, 1966.... May 2, 1966 ____ May 25, 1966 ___ July 1, 1966 ____ Aug. 22, 1966 ... O

Joint Flight Acceptance ___ • _______ ----- Mar. 7, 1966 ___ _ • __ .. _____ . _____ May 30, 1966. __ July 7, 1966 ____ Aug. 26, 19664 ___ O

Composite Test. 

Simultaneous launch___ _ Oct. 20, 1965 ___ Mar. 9, 1966 __ __ May 10, 1966 _____ __ _______ __ ___ July 12, 1966 ___ Aug. 31, 1966 ___ N

Launch

___________ ____ Oct. 25, 1965 ... Mar. 16, 1966 ___ May 17, 1966 ___ June 1, 1966____ July 18, 1966 ••. Sept. 12, 1966• __ N

• This vehicle had originally been to tbe LW181' Orbiter program; the 10&'1 ot the TLV on Gemini I X made neoessary an additional Atlas for the Gemini program. 


b Systems tests were completed Mar. 2$, 19Ge, but components were then reworked to latest ft.lgbt configuration, Mar. 26-May 2$, 19&8; systems tests were then rerun. 


•Vehicle In storaae May 11-17, 1966, and nndergolng modl1lcatlon for ATDA mission from May 

d This test was repMted Sept. 1. 1968. 


• Launches were attempted Sept. 9 and 10, 1968. 
TableD-Gemini Spacecraft 

Item S/C 1 S/C 2 S/C 

Equipment installation ____________ ________________ June 30, 1964 _____ Sept. 12, 

Reentry/adapter mate____________________________ July 7, 1964 ______ Sept. 27, 

Systems A88Uranoe Tests-----------------------------------------------------

Environmental control system ---------------------------- _-----------------

validation. 

Simulated Flight Test_____________________________ Sept. 16, 1964 _____ Dec. 21, 

Altitude chamber test___________ Sept. 23, 1963 _______________________ Nov. 18, 

Shipped to ETR_______________ Oct. 4, 1963 ______ Sept. 21, 1964 _____ Jan. 4, 1

Complex 19/EIIV and G&C_____ Mar. 3, 1964 ______ Oct. 18, 1964 _____ Feb. 4, 1

Mechanical mate_______________ Mar. 5, 1964 ______ Nov. 5, 1964 ______ Feb. 17, 

Joint Combined Systems Test______________________ Nov. 19, 1964 _____ Feb. 24, 

FCMT/Final Systems Test___ ----- _______ ._-------- ____ ---------_--- Mar. 3, 1

Wet Mock Simulated Launch/ Apr. 3, 1964 ______ Nov. 24, 1964 _____ Mar. 8, 1

Simultaneous Launch Demonstration. 

Final Simulated Flight Test _____ Apr. 6, 1964 ______ Jan. 14, 1965 ____ Mar. 18, 

Launch________________________ Apr. 8, 1964______ Jan. 19, 1965 ____ Mar. 23, 

S/C 7 S/C 8 S/C 

..... 

Equipment installation__________ June 29, 1965 _____ Sept. 17, 1965 _____ Dec. 7, 1

Reentry/adapter mate__________ July 26, 1965 _____ Sept. 20, 1965 _____ Nov. 22, 

Systems Assurance Tests________ Aug. 12, 1965 _____ Oct. 22, 1965 _____ Dec. 30, 

Environmental control system ------------------ Oct. 22, 1965 _____ Jan. 11, 

validation. 

Simulated Flight Test___ ________ Aug. 30, 1965 _____ Nov. 4, 1965______ Jan. 21, 

Altitude chamber test___________ Sept. 17, 1965 _____ Dec. 13, 1965 _____ Feb. 10, 

Shipped to ETR_______________ Oct. 9, 1965 ______ Jan. 8, 1966 ______ Mar. 2, 

Complex 19/EIIV and G&C_____ Oct. 30, 1965 _____ Feb. 11, 1966 _____ Apr. 14, 

Mechanical mate_______ ____ ____ Nov. 22, 1965 _____ Mar. 6, 1966•----- May 8, 

Joint Combined Systems Test____ Nov. 15, 1965 _____ Feb. 16, 1966 _____ Apr. 19, 

FCMT/Final Systems Test_ _______________________ Feb. 23, 1966 _____ Apr. 28, 

Wet Mock Simulated Launch/ ------------------ Mar. 9, 1966 ______ May 10, 

SimultaneoU8 Launch Demonstration. 

Final Simulated Flight Test_____ Nov. 27, 1965 _____ Mar. 10, 1966 _____ May 11, 

Launch. __ ------- _____________ Dec. 4, 1965 ______ Mar. 16, 1966 _____ June 3, 

•Temporary mar.e and erecCor cycllnc Feb. 25, 19611. 


••Sort ma1.e and erect« cycllnc May a, lve6 . 


...Mission acrubbed May 17, 19611, when OATV failed to orbit; S)'lll.ems retest, mate, and EUV retest comple

cratt computer problem, followed by recycle and launcb. 

tLauncb atlempts on Sept. 9 and 10, liM!&. 
Station 

Cape Kennedy CNV 

MCC-K X X X X X X X X X 

Station symbol 

GBI X X 

GTK 

X X X X X X - - 

X X X X X - - - 

X X X X X X - 

- 

X X 

X 

Real-time telemetry to 

X X X X X X - - - 

X 

MCC-H 

BDA 

ANT 

CYI - X X X X X X X X X 

X X - - - 

Acquisition aid 

KNO 

ASC 

- X - - 

- X - - X X - - - 

X 

X 

PRE 

- - - X X - - - 

Radar 

X

X - - X X - - - X 

PCM telemetry ground 

X X X X X X X X X 

station 

X X - - - - - - 

Telemetry record 

X - - X X - - - X 

PAM telemetry (FM/FM) 

X X X X X X X X X 

ground station 

-

X X - X X -

- 

- X 

Flight controller display consoles 

WHS - 

X X X X X X - - 

X X - - - - - - 

X 

TEX 

Digital command modulation 

X X X X X X X X X X 

EGL - X X - X X - - - - 

Radiofrequency command 

WLP - X X X X X X X X X 

CSQ - 

Spacecraft communications 

RKV - 

X - 

X - 

X X X X X X X 

X X X X X X X 

GSFC - - - - - - - - - - 

RTK - - X - X - - - - 

X 

’Through Cape Kennedy Superintendent of Range Operations 

282

Mission Control Center 

Grand Bahama Island 

Grand Turk Island 

Bermuda 

Antigua 

Grand Canary Island 

Ascension Island 

Kano, Africa 

Pretoria, Africa 

Tananarive, Malagasy 

Carnarvon, Australia 

Woomera, Australia 

Canton Island 

Kauai Island, Hawaii 

Point Arguello, Calif 

Guaymas, Mexico 

White Sands, N. Mex 

Corpus Christi, Tex 

Eglin, Fla 

Wallops Island, Va 

Coastal Sentry Quebec (ship) 

Rose Knot Victor (ship) 

Goddard Space Flight Center 

Range Tracker (ship) 

TAN -

CRO - 

WOM -

CTN - 

- 

CAL -

GYM 

HAW
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 

Spacecraft _________________ ---­ 30.3 205. 1 281. 7 165. 3 98. 9 9. 1 790. 4 

Launch vehicles ________________ Support________________________ 24. 4 

o. 1 

79. 1 

4. 9 

122.7 

14. 5 

115.4 

27. 7 

72. 9 

25. 5 

2. 9 

9. 6 

417.4 

82.3 

Total____________ __ ______ 54. 8 289. 1 418. 9 308.4 197. 3 21. 6 1290. 1 

APPENDIX 6-NASA CENTERS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT 


AGENCIES PARTICIPATING IN THE GEMINI PROGRAM 


[From NASA SP-121] 

NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., and the fol- Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.: 

Department of the Army lowing NA'SA centers: 


Department of the Navy
 Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Callt. Department of the Air Force 


Electronics Research Center, Cambridge, Mass. 
 Department ot State, Washington, D.C. 

Flight Research Center, Edwards, Callt. Department ot Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

Goddard Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. 

Department of HeaJ.th, Education, and Welfare, Wash· Kennedy Space Center, Cocoa Beach, Fla. lngton, D.C. Langley Research Center, Langley Station, Hamp- Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C. : 

ton, Va. ·u.s. Coast Guard 

Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio Ennronmental Science Services AdmlniatMtlon, WashManned Spa~raft Center, Houston, Tex. Ington, D.C. 


Marshall Space Flight Oenter, Huntsvllle, Ala. U.S. Information Agency, Washington, D.C. 

, , 

seals for S'l)llcecraft 

ACF Industries, Inc., Paramus, N.J.-Spacecraft Cbnnd and S~and radar beacons and associated nero­

!lpace ground equipment (AGE) 

Acoulltica ABIIoclatcs, Inc., Los Angeles, Callf.- Propellant utilization system for the Atlas 

ACR Electronics Corp., New York, ~-Y.-UHF recovery beacons for the spacecraft 

Advanced Commtlfdoations, Inc., Chatsworth, Callf.­

Command destruct system for Gemini launch vehicle 

*Advanced 

ican Radiator 

Technology 

~ Stan.dtJrd 

Laboratories, 

Corp., 

Di'Vi8ion 

Mountain 

of AmerView, 

Callf.-Spacecraft horizon sensor system and associated AGE 

Advanced Technology Laboratories, Cape Canaveral, 

Fla.-Engineering field support for S'l)llcecl'llft 

Aerojet-General Corp., Downey, Callf.-Study of cryogenic and hypergollc propellants 

•Aerojet-GenertJl Corp., 	 Sacramento, CaUf.-Englnes · 

for Gemini launch vehicle and associated AGE 

Aeronca Mam.ufacturlng Corp., Baltimore, Md.-Closures for spacecraft 

Aeroqutp Corp., Jackson, Mich.- Spacecraft fittings 

• Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, Callf.-Technical support for Atlas, Agena, and Gemini launch vehicle 

Air 	Products and Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, Pa.­

Liquid oxygen (LOX) for the Atlas 

Airco Cryogenics, Dtvulon of Air Reduction Co., Inc., 

Newark, N.J.-Cryogenic gases for -tests of spacecraft 

AiResearch Manufacturing Co., Division of GtJrrett 

Corp., Cape Canaveral, Fla.- Engineertng field support for spacecraft 

•AiResearch 	Manutacturlflf! Co., Division of Garrett 

Corp., Los Angeles, Callf.-Spacecraft environmental 

control system, reactants supply system for fuel cell, 

and 11ssociated AGE 

AiRuetJrclt. Mam.utacturlng Co., Division of Garrett 

Corp., Phoenix, Arlz.-Parts for the spacecraft environmental control system (EOS) 

Amesoorch Manufacturlflfl Co., DtvU!ton of Garrett 

Corp., Torrance, Callf.-Blood pressure measuring 

system, environmental control system, and environmental facility 

Alrite Products, Inc., Los Angeles, Oalif.-Rocket cases 

for spacecraft thrusters 

rtea~ DynamiCIJ, Inc., Compton, Oalif.-Tank asst>m· 

blies for spacecraft 

Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, Wis.-Fuel cell 

test 

American Beryllium Corp., Sarasota, Fla.-Ground test 

equipment and parts for the S'l)llCecraft 

•Jndlootes contracts $5 million ·and over 

y , 

Conn.-Ion-exchange membrane for spac

cell 

American Machine and Foundry Co., Stamfo

Spacecraft ground test equipment 

American Mach.inc and Foundry Co., Y

Mechanfcal and pneumatic launch mec

Atlas 

Amerloam. Super-Temp Wire Co., Winooski

for spacecraft 

Amp, Inc., Harrisburg, Pa.-Electrical patc

parts for the spacecraft 

ilmpez Corp., Culver City, Calit.-Recorde

of spacecraft and of Atlas 

Analytical Mechanics As11oclates, Westbu

Misston planning study. 

Applied Electronics Corp., Metuchen, N.J

tators for spacecraft 

ARDE-Portland, Inc., Paramus, N.J.-Url

measuring system 

A.rgus Industries, Inc., Gardens, Calif.-H

ators for spacecraft 

Associated Machine Co., Santa Clara, Ca

components for Gemini launch vehicle en

A.strodata, Inc., Anaheim, Calif.-Equipmen

for spacecraft 

Alltro Metallic, Inc., Chicago, Ul.-Berylliu

for spacecraft 

Autronlcs Co1·p., Pasadena, Calif.-Time d

for Gemini launch vehicle 

A VCO Corp., Stratford, Conn.-Range saf

for Atlas 

.tvionlcs Research Corp., West Hempstead, 

glneerlng servict>s for spacecraft 

Baldwin Contracting Co., Reno, Nev.-Cons

test facllfty for spacecraft thrusters 

Bechtel Corp., San Francisco, Calif.-Spac

facility study 

Beckm4n Instruments, Ino., Fullerton, C

meamring system 

Beech Aircraft Corp., Boulder, Colo.-AG

servicing units for S'l)llcecraft 

•Bell Aeroltfllltems Co., Division of Bell Aeros

Buffalo, N.Y.-Primary and secondary 

systems for Agena 

Bendia~ Corp., Pacific Div., Sylmar, Callf.- A

etry equipment 

Bendiz Corp., Red Bank Div., Eatontown, N

Inverters for Gemini launch vehicle 

Bendiz Corp., Pioneer Central Div., Davenpo

Sensing elements and instrumentation for 

craft and Gemini launch l"ehicle 

Be11diz Corp., Eclipse-Pioneer Div., Teterbo

Spacecraft ground test equipment 

284 
Brush Berr~nium Co., Cleveland, Ohio-Beryllium 

shingles for spacecraft 

Brush In1trument DlvtiJton, CJevtte Corp., Cleveland, 

Ohio-Recorders for use In testing spacecraft and 

Gemini launch vehicle 

•Burroug'II.IJ Corp., Paoli, Pa.-Oomputer modifications 

and computation services during launch of Atlas and 

Gemini launch vehicle 

Burtek, Inc., Tulsa, Okla.-Spacecraft systems trainers 

Cadillac Gage Co., Detroit, Mlch.-Accumulator reservoir for Gemini launch vehicle 

Calcor Space Facmt11, Inc., Whittier, Callf.-Shlelded 

cabinets and consoles for spacecraft AGE 

Cannon Electric Co., Phoenix, Arlz . .!_EJectrlcsl receptacles and plugs for spacecraft 

Cannon Electric Co., Los Angeles, Callf.-Plugs and receptacles for Gemini launch vehicle 

CBS Labs, Inc., Stamford, Conn.-Spacecraft onboard 

voice recorder 

Central Technology Corp., Herrin, Ill.-Pyrotechnlcs 

for spacecraft 

ChriiJtie Mach.ine Works, San Francisco, Callf.-First 

stage nozzles for Gemini launch vehicle engines 

Clary COf'p., San Gabriel, Calif.-Solenoid a99embllee 

and pl"eSsurization units for spacecraft, valves, heaters, and II'Witches for thE' Atlas engines 

Clifton Prec1sion Product1 Co., Cllfton Heights, Pa.­

Synchro transmitter and resolver for spacecraft 

Collins Radio Co., Cedar Rapids, Jowa.-Spacecraft 

voice communications "system and associated AGE 

Colflmbi4 Tool Steel Co., Chicago Heights, Til-Tool 

steel for manufacturing spacecraft parts 

Comprehensive DeBlgner1, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.-Englneerlng services for spacecraft 

Computer Control Co., Inc., Framingham, Mass.--(Jomputers for ground tests of spacecraft 

Conductron Corp., Mlssourl Dw., St. Charles, Mo.­

Spacecraft simulators and training aids 

CoMoUdated ElectrodUftamlcB Corp., Pasadena, Callf.­

Galvanometers for tests of Gemini launch vehicle 

Control Data Corp., Mlnneapolls, Mlnn.--(Jomputer and 

ancillary equipment for tests of spacecraft 

Cook Electric Co., Morton Grove, Ill.-Biomedlcal 

recorder 

Corning GlaBB Work1, Corning, N.Y.- Spacecraft 

windows 

CoBmod11ne Corp., Hawthorne, Callf.--(Jonvertera tor 

spacecraft AGE 

CTL Dtvtston, Studebaker Corp., Cincinnati, OhioTests of ablation materials 

Cutler-Hammer, Inc., Long Island City, N.Y.-Radlo 

telescope 

•David 	Clark Co., Inc., Worcester, Mass.-Spa~suits 

and associated AGE 

tank bladders 

Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., Santa Monica, Caltf.-Machlned parts for spacecraft 

Dougla.B Aircraft Co., Inc., Tulsa, Okla.-Agena shroud 

and toolings and machined parts for spacecraft 

Eagle-Picher Co., Joplin, Mo.-Batteries for the 

spacecraft 

EdgertOfl., GermeBMUIIen cf Grier, Inc., Boston, 

Mass.- Acquisition light on target docking adapter 

Electra Manufacturing Co., Independence, Kans.-Reslstors for spacecraft 

•Electro-Meclt.antcaJ Research, 	Inc., Sarasota, Fla.­

Spacecraft data transmission system and &IISOCiated 

AGE 

Bleotro-Opttcal SJIItem&, Inc., Pasadena, Callf.-Beta 

spectrometer and equipment for plasma wake experiment 

Electro Tee Corp., West caldwell, N.J.-Sllp rings for 

spacecraft systems 

Blglft National Watch Co., Elgin, 111.-Fuel remaining 

Indicator for spacecraft 

Emer11on 	 Electric Co., St. Louis, Mo.-Engineering 

SE'rvlces, tPmplate toollng, and metal fabricating for 

spacecraft 

EmertrOft InfortMtlon and Conjrol DiviBion, Litton 

8111tems, Inc., Silver Spring, Md~--S band andC-band 

antenna systems for spacecraft 

Engle'll.ard Indwtrles, Inc., Newark, N.J.-Platlnum 

for spacecraft fuel cell 

Engineered Magnetic Divtllon, Gurton Indultrlel, Inc., 

Hawthorne, Callf.~Llnear accelerometers and AGE 

for spacecraft and power supplies for Gemini launch 

vehicle 

Bnthone, Inc., New Haven, Conn.-Goldspray for spacecraft adapter 

EPBCO, Inc., Westwood, Mass.-Multiplex encoder for 

Gemini launch vehicle 

l!latplodve TechnologJI, Inc., Santa Clara, CaUf.- Pyrotechnlc device (separation assembly to cut adapter) 

for spacecraft 

Faircl\Ud Camera and lMtrumet&t Corp., El Cajon, 

Callf.-Vaned elbow assemblies for Gemini launch 

vehicle engines 

FalrcMld 

Falrcl'llld 

Controll 

Bion, Joplin, 

Camera 

Camera 

Dlv~ton, 

Mo.--Cables 

and 

an4 

Hicksvllle, 

IMtrument 

1Mtrument 

for spacecraft 

N.Y.-Transducers 

Corp., 

COf'J)., 

AGE 

Cable 

Falrc11.Ud 

Dlvifor 

spacecraft 11nd Gemini launch vehicle 

Fairchild HUler Corp., 8trato1 Dlrilton, Manhattan 

Beach, Dalff.-Qulck disconnects for Gemini launch 

vehicle and bellows and ftexlble linea for the Atlas 

Falrc'lt.lld HUler fJOf'p., 8trato1 DlviBioft., Bay Shore, 

N.Y.-Coldplate all84!mblies and AGE for the spacecraft 

285 

Flttidgenics, Inc., National City, Callf.LOX and fuel 

regulators for the Atlas 

F M C Corp., Baltimore, Md.- Propellant for Gemini 

In unch vehicle 

•General 	Dynamics, San Diego, Calif.-Atlas launch 

vehicle and launch services 

General 	 Dun.am1cajConvafr Division, Fort Worth, 

Tex.-Personnel dosimeter 

•GC?teral Electric Co., Syra<'use, N. Y.-MISTRAM !'IYStem and gnidance systf'm component!! for Gemini 

launch vf'hicle and for the Atlas 

GC?teral 	Electric Co., Pittsfield, Mass.-Parts for the 

!lpacf'Craft fuel cell 

•General 	Electric Oo., West Lynn, }lass.-Spacf'Cratt 

fuel cell and a s.c;oclated AGE 

General Electric Co., St. Louis, Mo.-Engineering services and AGE for spacecraft 

General Electric Co., Waynesboro, Va.-Parts far the 

~acecraft fuel cell system 

General Mon.itors, El Segundo, Calit.-Combustlble gas 

detf'Ctors for the spacecraft 

General Motors Corp., Milwaukee, Wls.-Dual Inertial 

measuring unit study 

Gencra.J Precision, Inc., Link Divtsl.on , Riverdale, 1-Id.­

Sottware for spacecraft simulators 

General Prccf.aion, Inc., Keartott Divi11lon, Little Falls, 

N.J.-Atlas rate integrating gyros and spacecraft 

synchro transmitter and resolver 

General Precision, Inc., Lin.k Divislon, Binghamton, 

N.Y.-Computer for spacecraft simulator and tape 

prPparatlon for mission simulators 

General Precfsfon, lne., Pleasantville, N.Y.-Closed 

circuit TV system and modification for Gt>mlnt mls· 

ston simulator 

Giann.lfti Controls Orwp., Duarte, Callf.-Rate switch 

pa<'knge for Gemtnt launch vehicle 

B. F. Goodrich Co., Akron, Ohlo-Spa<'esult equipment 

Gooduear Aerospace Oorp., Akron, Ohio-Paraglider 

components and ballute stabilization system for 

spacecraft 

Gray cE Huleguard, Inc., Santa Monica, Callt.-Spacecraft electrical disconnect (from Agena target 

vehicle) 

Grimes 	 Manufacturing Co., Urbana, Ohio-Telt>llght 

panel assembly for spacecraft 

Gulton lndtlstries, lnc., Metu<'hE'n, N.J.-I,inear accelerometE'r for spact>eraft 

B. 	H. Hadleu, lnc., Dit,isfoft of Royal Industries, Pomona, Callt.-Atlas LOX and fuel regulators and 

rt>liE'f valves 

•Jndi<'Btt>S t'ontracts $5 million and over 

handles for spacecraft 

Hartman Electrical Jlanufacturlng Co., M

Ohio-Relays for spacecraft 

A. 	W. Hecker Oo., Clevt>land, Ohio-Machine

for spacecraft 

Heinemann Electric Co., Trenton, N.J 

brE'akers tor spacecraft 

Hercules Powder Co., Bessemer, Ala.-Prope

Agena 

Hercules Potcder Co., Hercules, Callf.-Prope

Gf.'mini launch vehicle 

He~cel Products, Inc., Berkeley, Oallf.-Core 

and honey<'omb shiE'ld tor spacecraft 

High VaCflum Equipment Corp., Hingham

Ground tt>st equipment for spacecraft 

Hocfner Corp., El Monte, Oallf.-Valves and 

for Atlas engines 

Honeywell Inc., West Covina, Callf.-Albedo 

• Honeywell l nc., St. Petersburg, Fla.-Space

ertial measuring unit and associated AGE 

•Honeutoell 	l11c., Minneapolis, Minn.-Spacec

gyros, attitude and control maneuver electro

associated AGE; Gemint launch vehicle 

rE>ference system package; Atlas rate gy

paraglldE.>r control electronics and rate s

HonqJil'Cll 	T11e., St. l.ouiR, Mo.-Engineering 

port for !lpacecraft 

IIo11ston Fearlcsa Corp., Torrance, Calif.-F

oxidizer mPterlng units for !lpacecraft 

Hurletron Corp., WhE'aton, 111.-Tlme delay 

spacecraft 

Hydra Electric Co., Burbank, Callf.-Pressur

for Gemini lann<'h l'ehlcle 

Hydraulic Research and llfantl/acturlt!Q Co., 

Calif.-Rellef l'alVt>!l and actuators for Atla

•Tnf('rttational 	 Bllsin.css Uac11incs Corp., B

Md.-Computer complex 

•IntC'rrtational 	 Buaineu .lfaehines Corp., 

.-Spacecraft onboard <'Omputer, Increm

locity lndiC'ator, manual data Insertion unit 

ciated AGE; post flight analysis of !

mant>uverlng 

Tntcrn.at1011al Bttsincss Mach incs Corp., S

:\ln.-Engineering fiE-ld support for !lpllcec

Jet Air Engineering Corp., El Cajon, Cali

forCf'd hat band as~E'mbly for Atlas E>ngine 

Jolln~t-.lfant ille C'ortJ., :\lanvllle, N.J.-Immla

tE'rlal for spa<'ecraft 

Kaiser AeroRpaee and Eleetron.lcs Co., San 

Callf.-First ;:tagE' t>ngint> frnme!l for Gemin

vehicle 

Walter Kidde and Co., Inc., BE'llE'ville, N.J.-G

t>rator solenoid valves for Agena propul!llon 

286 

yg 

throats for spacecraft. thruster!! 

La Mesa Tool artd Manutacf1trlng, Inc., El Cajon, 

Callf.-Gas generator asst'mbly, injector baffles, and 

gas coolers for Gemini launch vehicle engines 

Leach Corp., Los Angi'IE'R, Callf.-Control relays for 

spacecraft 

Lear-Siegler, Inc., Anaheim, Cnlif.-Closed cireult TV 

syHtem for ~pacecraft simulators 

Lear-SiegZer, Inc., Grand Rapids, Mlch.-Spacecrnft 

attitude indicator 11ystem, Incremental velocity Indicator systl'm, and associated AGE 

Marion Lee Corp., El St'gundo, Callf.-Solenoid and 

valve ·asSI'mblles for spacecraft 

Lel Inc., COI)iagul', N.Y. Receiver~~ and di!!('rlmlnator~ 

for spact'craft 

Ling-Tcmco-Vought, Inc., Dallas, Tex.-Spacecraft 

parts, detector sy!ltem 

Lion Research Corp., Cambridge, llass.-CO, partial 

pres>mre system for spacecraft 

•Lockheed JlfisR-ilc.• a11d Space Co., Sunnyvale, Callf.­

Agl'na targt't vehicle, associated AGE, and launch 

services 

Lytron Inc., Cambridge, Mass -Pres~ure sensor and 

oxygen purge vah·e for spacecraft 

Maffett Tool and Machine Co., St. Louis, Mo.-HingE' 

fittings for !!pllcecrnft 

Martin Co., Dit,i.ston of Martin-Jifaric tta Corp., Denver, 

Colo.-Tank!l for Gt'minl launch vehicle 

0 11fartin Co., Division ot Martin-Marietta Corp., Baltlmort>, Md.-Gemini launch Vt>hlcle~;, assoclared AGE, 

and launch ~rvices 

J . A.. Maurer, In.c., Long Island City, N.Y-Cameras for 

flight use 

.llcCormick Selph As.•oc., Diti i8fon of Teledyne, Inc., 

Hollister, Calif.-Voltage detectors and cartridge,; 

for Gemini laun('h vehlde 

•McDonnell Astronautics Co., McDonnell Douglas 

Corp., St. IAuls, 1\lo.-Gemlni 11pacecraft, assortated 

AGE, and launch 11ervtces 

McGregor Manufacturing Co., Troy, 1\llch.-FirMt and 

!lecond !!tage turbine manifold assemblies for Gemini 

launch VE'hlclt> enginE's 

.lfeg ProdtlCtll, Inc., Seattle, \Vash.-Cables for RpaCt'· 

craft AGE 

M enasco Manl(.factltrlng Co., Burbank, Callf.- Hellum 

bottles for the Atlas 

D. 	 B. Milliken, Inc., Arcadia, Cnlif.-Photograph 

recorders 

Minnesota Mining and Jfatwfartu.rlng Co., Hut('hinson, 

1\llnn.-1\JagnE'tic tape !or ground tests of the 

11pacecratt 

•Motorola, 	Inc., Scottsdale, Artz.-Spacecratt digital 

command system and associated AGE, Agena UHF 

command receiver and C-band transponder 

National Scmiromfuctor Cnrp., Danbury, Conn.-Translstors for spacecraft 

National Water Lift Co., Kalamazoo, 1\llch.-Hatch 

actuator and 11hut-otr valves for spacecraft 

•North. Amrriran .-tviution, Inc., Rorkcldl/ftc Divillion, 

Canoga Park, Callf.-Spacecraft reentry control sysrem, orbit attitude and maneuve11ng system, and 

associated AGE; enginE's for the Atlas 

•North 	American .-iviation, Inc., Space & lnform.atiofl 

Systems Division, Downey, Callf.-Paragllder landing system 

North. 	American A1Jiation, Inc., Cape Kennedy, Fla.­


Englneering field support for spacecraft 


•Northrop 	Corp., Ventura Division, Newbury Park, 

Callf.-Spacecraft landing lilystem (parachutes) 

Northrop Corp., Yan Nuy!l, Calif.-Emergency recovery 

parachute syRtt>m for paraglidt'r 

Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., Lake Charlt'S, Ln.­

Propellant for Agena 

Olin Math.lcson Chemical Corp., Saltville, Va.-ProJ)t'llant for Gemini laun<'h vehicle 

Ordnance Associates, Inc., South Pasadena, Callf.­

Pyrotechnlc sl'parntion devices for the spacecraft 

Ordnan.cc Engineering Associates, Ine., De11 Plaine!!, 

Ill.-Actuator assemblies for spacecraft 

Pacific Atttomation, Glt'ndalE', Cnllf.-Cable a~SI'mblles 

for Atlu 

Palomar Scicnti.ftc Corp., Didsion of United Control 

Corp., Rt'dmond, Wash.-Transducers for Gt>mlni 

launch vehicle 

Paragon Tool, Die and Engineering Co., Pacoima, 

Callf.-Turblne rotor Impellers for Gemini launch 

vehicle engines 

Parker .4ircratt Co., Los Angel(>S, Callf.-Hydraullc 

packngt>s for Atlas t>nglnes 

Philco Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.-Engtneering support · 

•Philco 	Corp., WDL Diviaton, Palo Alto, Calif.-1\llsston Control Center (Houston) 

Pioneer Astro In.dustries, Chicago, 111.-Berylllum 

shingles !or the spacecraft 

Pncumodynamics Corp., Kalamazoo, Mlch.-Motor operated ,·nlves and pre~<sure rl'gulatore for tht> !!pace· · 

craft 

Pollack & Skan, Inc., Chicago, Ill.-Englneering servl<."es for the spacecraft 

Powerton, Inc., PlalnsvlllP, N.Y.-Parts for the Gemini 

launch vehicle 

Precision 	 Sheet Metal, Inr., Los Angt'les, Callt.­

Thrust chamber tubes for the Gemini launch VE'hlclt> 

engines 

287 

32&-022 0 - 00--20 
Radiation, lflC., Melbourne Dwidon, Melbourne, Fla.­

Data processfng systems for the spacecraft, parts for 

the checkout system 

Radio Corpora.twn of America, Camden, N.J.-Pulse 

code modulator recorder for the spacecraft 

RaJ~chem Corp., Redwood Clty, Callf.-Wire for the 

spacecraft 

R1J1,1mond Efl{)iMerifl{) IAboratorv, IflC., Middletown, 

Conn.-Auxlllary tape memory for spacecraft on· 

board computer 

Ra11t1tecm Co., Hawthorne, Callt.-Semlconductors for 

the Atlas 

R~ndow Lab., Newark, N.J.-Bolar optical telescope 

Reeve1 IMtr~men.t Co., Garden City, N.Y.-Alfgnmt>nt 

tester for the Gemini launch vehicle 

Reinhold Engineering Co., Banta Fe Springs, Callf.­

Nozzle sleeves for apacecraft thrusters 

Rocket Power, Tfl.c., Mesa, Arfz.-Seat ejector (rocket 

catapult) for the spacecraft 

Rome Cable Corp., Di1:flfon of Alcoa, Rome, N.Y.­

Csbles for spacecraft AGE 

Ro1emont Efl{)ineerlfl{) Co., Minneapolis, Mlnn.-Tem· 

perature st>nsor elements for spacecraft 

B&Q ConBtruction Co., Chatn·orth, Callf.-construc· 

tlon of test facflfty for spacecraft thrusters 

B&Q ComtructlOfl Co., Rt>no, Nev.-constructlon of tt>Mt 

facflfty for spacecraft thrusters 

Bclentf/lc Dt~ta BJ~ItetM, Inc., Santa Monica, Callf.­

Oomputer 

8er1:onic InBtNlmcntl, lflC., Costa Mesa, Calff.-Pres· 

sure transducers for Gemini launch vehicle, for the 

Atlas, and for the spacecraft 

Snap Titc Inc., Union Clty, Pa.-Disconnects and 

couplers for the spacecraft 

8out1uced lndultrle1, IflC., Los Angeles, Calff.­

Swltches for Atlas engines 

Space Corp., Dallas, Tex.-Transportatfon trailers for 

spacecraft 

Space Equipment Corp., Torrance, Callf.-Spacecraft 

and paragllder checkout equipment 

Space Lab1, Inc., Van Nuys, Callf.-Biolnstrumentatlon 

Space Tec1tnolog1J Labs, Inc., Redondo Bt>ach, Calff.­

Orbltal rt>ndezvous studlt>s and guidance equations 

for the Atlas 

Spacecraft Welding and Manufacturing Co., Ingle· 

wood, Calff.-Spacecraft tank aliBt'mblles 

8PCN'11 Rand Corp., Spcrrv P1r oenl:~~ Co., Phoenix, 

Arlz.-TTHF radio beacon transmitter 

8fU'rru Rafl.d Corp., Vicker1 Divlsion, Torrance, Calff.­

Pneumatfc pitch and roll control actuation subsystem 

for paraglfder 

•Indicates contracts $5 million ·and over 

qp

8peldcllflC., Warwick, R.I.-Rt>corder for 

Gemini launch vehicle 

8tanda,rd Oil Company of Neic Jer1ev, Bay

Fuel for the Atlas 

Superior Manufactrtring a~d Instrument 

Island City, N.Y.-Syncbro repeater fo

craft 

Talley Indultrle1, Mesa, Arlz.-Actuators 

scanner releaRe assembly for the spacec

TaJle11 Corp., Newbury Park, Calff.-Elect

cal actuator for the spacecraft 

Ta11lor Forged Pipe Workl, Chicago, nt.-

nlum parts for the spacecraft 

Tekt111ne 8111tem1 Corp., Hawthornt>, Call

data recording system for spacecraft te

Tezas lMtitute for Rc1tabilltatwn an

Hou!lton, Tex.-lmmobfllzatlon unit 

Teil'al lMtrumCJttl, Inc., Dallas, Tex.-Tra

spacecraft and signal conditioner for G

vehicle 

Thiokol Chemical Corp., Elkton Divnlon, E

Spact>Craft retrogradt> rockets and aMo

rockt-t tt>sts 

T1tikol Chemical Corp., Reaction Motor D

N.J.-Valves for the Gt>mlnt launch veb

Atlas 

Thiokol Chemical Corp., Brlltol Dlvf1wn, B

Inltlators for the Gemini launch vehicle 

H. 	1. T1tomp1on Fiber Co., Gardena, Callf

spacecraft thrusters 

•T1romplon Ramo 	Wooldridge, lflC., Rt>d

Callf.-Trajectory calculations 

Titanium Mctalr Corp., Toronto, Obi(}-T

the spacecraft 

Todd 8hlp1Jards Corp., Galveston, Tex.-M

to NASA's reconry ship, U.8.8. Retrief

Turbo 	Crut 1M., Los Angelt'8, Calff.-Tur

castings and blades for the Atlas engine

U.S. 	 Engltu!crlng Co., Van NuyR, Callf.-

cult boards for the 11pacecraft 

Tln.lon Carbide Corp., Linde Divi.tfon, Wh

Uquld nitrogen for test11 of the spa~f

1!n1Qn. Carbide Corp., Lfnde Dit•IBfon, New Y

LOX for the Atlu 

U11ion Carbide Corp., J..awrt'ncelM>rg, Ten

billets for ~~pacecraft thrusters 

Vacco Valt•c Co., El Monte. Callf.-Valvt>

for tt'sts of spacecraft 

ValOOI' Engineering Corp., Kenilworth, N

for the t~pacecraft 

Vector 	M afl.wfacturlfl.g Co., Southampton, 

sltlon ald beacon for the spacecraft 

288 
Wc1tcrn Instruments, Newark, N.J.-Envlronmental 

instrumentation for the spacecraft 

Wcltern Way Inc., Chatsworth, Calif.-Ducts, tanks, 

and aspirators for the Atlas engines 

Western Way Inc., Van Nuys, Calif.-Vaned elbow assemblies and super heaters for the Gemini launch 

vehicle engines 

•westinghouse Electric Corp., Baltimore, Md.-Space· 

Whittaker Corp., Chatsworth, Callf.-Transducers for 

the Atlas 

Wyle Laboratories, El Segundo, Callf.-Ground tests 

of spacecraft and Gemini launch vehicle equipment 

l'ardney Electric Corp., New York, N.Y.-Batterles for 

the Gemini launch vehicle and for the Atlas 

H. L. Yoh Co., Pbiladelpbia, Pa.-Engineering services 

for the spacecraft 

289 
APPENDIX 8-MANNED SPACE FLIGHT REC

AND GEMINI FUG

[From Mercury and Gemini Mi.M

Spacecraft Orbits/ Misaion Cum

Mi.Mion, crew Date fhght time Rev- Man-hours Ma

(hr:min:aee) olutiona (hr:min:aec) (hr:

MR-3 Shepard_________ May 5, 1961_ _____ 15:22 	-------- 15:22 

MR-4 Gri880m________ July 21, 1961_ ____ 15:37 - --- ---- 15:37 

Glenn ___________ Feb. 20, 1962 _____ 4:55:23 3. 0 4:55:23 

MA-7 Carpenter_______ May 24, 1962 _____ 4:56:05 3.0 4:56:05 

MA-8 Schirra __________ Oct. 3, 1962 ______ 9:13:11 6.0 9:13:11 1

MA-9 Cooper __________ June 15-16, 1963 • . 34:19:49. 22.0 34:19:49 5

Gemini Ill Grisllom Mar. 23, 1965 _____ 4:52:31 3.0 9:45:02 6

and Young. 

Gemini IV McDivitt June 3-7, 1965____ 97:56:12 62.0 195:52:24 25

and White. 

Gemini V Cooper and Aug. 21-29, 1965 __ 190:55:14 120. 0 381:50:28 64

Conrad. 	 

Gemini V l l Borman Dec. 1965___ 330:35:01 206.0 661:10:02 13

and Lovell. 

Gemini VI-A Schirra Dec. 15-16, 1965 __ 25:51:24 16.0 51:42:48 13

and Stafford. 

Gemini V l l l Arlll8trong Mar. 16, 1966 _____ 10:41:26 6.6 21:22:52 13

and Scott. 

Gemini I X-A Stafford June 3-6, 1966____ 72:20:50 -lS.O 144:41:4:0 15

and Cernan. 

Gemini X Young and July 18-21, 1966_- 70:46:39 43.0 141:33:18 16

Collin&. 

Gemini XI Conrad Sept. 12-15, 1966 __ 71:17:08 44.0 142:34:16 18

and Gordon. 

Gemini X II Lovell Nov. 11-15, 1966 .. 94:34:31 59.0 189:09:02 19

and Aldrin. 

Total United State& Flight Time (hr:min:aeo) 1023:46:23 Total Manho

•Tbe plctecl up the utronaotll ; the PC«w retrtned the epaeeeratt. 
INDEX 

A 

Ablation materials, 41 

Abort, 27, 49, 146 

criteria, 39, 194 

high-altitude, suborbital, 34, 98 

modes, 94 

otr-the-pad, 31, 32, 49, 50 

retrorocket, 4 

trainer, 194 

Abort Panel, 194 

Sec also Gemini Abort Panel. 

ACF Electronics Division. Sec ACF Industries, Inc. 

ACF Industries, Inc., 38, 60 

Adapter section, 10, 11, 16, 18, 26, 33, 34, (};'j, R4, 87, 100, 

137,154,230,234,259 

See also Gemini spacecraft. 

Advanced 1\lt>rcury configuration, 4, 11 

Advanced Mercury spacecraft, 6, 15 

Advanced Paragllder Trainer, 53, 71, 90, 120 

Advanced Technology Lnborntorlt>s, Inc., 33 

AEDC. Sec Arnold Engineering Development Center. 

Aerodynamic lift, 8 

Aerodynamics Section, 4 

Sec also Flight Systems Division. Aerojet-Gene~al Corporation, 34, 54, 62, 76, 90, 103, 112, 

113, 116, 12.•• 126, 137, 14!>, 1:i6, 111, 1&3, 201, 208 21s 

220,231 ' . ' 

Liquid Rocket Plant, 54 

Aeronautical Division. Sec Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company. 

Aerospace and Defense Products Division. See B. F . Goodrich Company. 

Aerospace C<1~ratf<!n, 23, 39, 44, 52, 62, 75, 80, 84, 85, 

!>4, 133, 143, l :,.'l, la6, 182, 18:i, 191, 1!l:i, 203, 213, 220 

A(•rospnce Division of Vickt>rs, Im:., 83 

Aerospace ground equipment, 19, 34, 41, 49, 61, 101 105 

147,149,154, 157,170,1!)3 ' • 

recorders, 142 

Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory (675oth)

(USAF),92 

AgPIIIl, 6, 18, 22, 32. 3!), 62, 65, 92, 112, 127. 138, 157 

communications and control subsystem, 92 

main engine, 104, 148, 218, 220 

primary propul!don system, 133 

Sec alao Target vehicle. . \gt>na B, 14, 55 

See alao Target vehicle. Agena command and communication system 85 186 

Agt>naD (AD) , 55,'148 ' ' 

modifications, 157,170,171,181,206,207,232 external status di~<plays, 57 

secondary propul~<ion systt>ms !i5 

AD- 71,143 . ' 

AD-82, 170, 171 

AD-108, 206, 207 

AD-129, 232 

AD- 130, 239 

Agt>na Flight Safety Review Board, 216, 218 

Agena procurement, 20 

schedule, 31 

Agena rendezvous vehicle,23, 145 

Agena target vehicle, 14, 28, 29, 32, 43, 58, 79, 98, 104, 123, 136, 146,168,248 

launch schedule, 21, 62,63,92 

transponder, 28 

AiResearch Manufacturing Company, 24, 25, 33, 98, 132, 

143, 1::il, 15ii, 182, 186 

Air Force. Sec United States Air Force. 

Air Force Missile Test Center 

See United States Air Force. 

Air Force School of Aviation Medicine 

Sec United States Air Force. 

Air Force Space Systems Division/Aerospace Vehicle 

Acceptance Team, 113, 116 

Air Force Systems Command, 18, 20, 42, 90, 119, 137, 

216 

Ballistic Systems Division, 93, 119 

Space Systems Division, 18, 119, 182, 187, 191, 

217,227,229 resp<~nsibilit1es, 18 

Bee also United States Air Force. 

Air Force 6511th Test Group 

Bee United States Air Force. Aircraft 

C-130, 90 

C-133,152 

F-106, 147, 181 

JrC-135,92, 145,164,177 

T-33,157 

T-38,234 

Akron, Ohio, 8, 37 

Albert, John G., 177,217 

Aldrin, &!win E., Jr., 119, 138, 231, 239, 247, 259, 261 

AlPxnnder, Charlt>s C., xlli, 61 

Altitude Chamber Tests, 109, 150, 156, 161, 171, 186, 189, 

104,197, 203,211,222 

Amt>s RPseal'('h Center (ARC), 1, 4, 37, 41 47, 67 71 

100, 104, 131 I f '

full-scale test facility, 47 

wind tunnel tests, 5, 37, 47, 119 

hnlf-scnlt> inflatahle paragllder wing 47 104 f I 

large-scale intlatablt> parnglicler wing, 47 

AMR. Sec Atlantic 1\Hssile Rangt>. 

A1\IU. See Astronaut mnn('uverfng unit. 

AMU Final Systems Test, 241 

Anders, Willinm A., 119, 2.~9 

Anechoic chambt>r test, 113, 182, 187, 188 

Antt>nna syst~:>ms, 71, 139 Apoget>,~'l,210,232,244,255 

first apogee rende1.vous feasibility, 255 

Apollo. Sec Apollo Program and Project Apollo. 

Apollo fa dUties, 66 

Apollo Program, v, 17, 54, 60 

Sec also Project Apollo. 

Arabian Sea, 255 

Armstrong, Nell A., 60, 75, 100, 184, 21!i, 2.'35, 239 

Armstrong, Stephen D., 135 

Army Corps of Engineers, 47, 54 

291 

Artificial gravity mission, 5, 6 


Astronaut Activities Office, 73 


Astronaut maneuvering unit (AMU), 233, 234, 239, 241, 


242,245,246,258 


experiment, 258 


Astronaut training, 76, 96, 113 


aerodynamics, 76 


astronomy, 76 


celestial recognition, 76 


centrifuge, 76, 162 


communications, 76 


computer, 76 


docking practice, 76 


egress, 185 


environmental control systems, 76 


1Ught simulator, 76, 91 


duid mechanics, 76 


global meteorology, 76 


guidance and navigation computers, 76 


Ingress, 131, 145 


launch abort, 147 


medical aspects of space flight, 14, 76 


parachute jumping, 76, 113, 161 


paragllder flying, 76 


physics of the upper atmosphere and space, 76 


rocket propulsion systems, 76 


selenology, 76 


survival training, 76, 106 


weightless flying, 76, 92,162,177 


Astronauts,5,36,39,60,75,119,131,139,154 


Atkinson, A. H., 34 


Atlantic Missile Range (AMR), 55, 74, 89, 96, 108, 109, 


117,118,121,143 


Atlantic Ocean, 32, 140, 179, 202, 210, 229, 243, 256 


Atlas (intercontinental ballistic missile), 56 


Atlas launch vehicles, 12, 13, 14, 18, 73, 108 


Atlas 5800, 257 


redesignated TLV 5807, 257 


Atlas 7127, 257 


Atlas procurement, 20 


Atlas standard launch vehicle (SLV), :16 


Atlas standard launch vehicle (SLV 3) 5301, 168, 170, 


184,202,205,207,244 


erected on complex 14,170,184, 202 


roll-out Inspection, 168 


See alto Target launch vehicle 5301. 


Atlas standard launch vehicle (SLV) 5302, 208, 229 


target launch vehicle for Gemini VIII, 229 


See alto Target launch vehicle 5302. 


Atlas standard launch vehicle (SLV) 5303,229,240,241 


target launch vehicle !or Gemlnl IX, 229, 240 


trucked to Oape Kennedy, 229 


See alto Target launch vehicle 5300. 


Atlas standard launch vehicle (SLV) 5304, 240, 2Ui 


See alto Target launch vehicle 5304. 


A·tlas standard mu.nch veb~cle ( SLV) 5305, 247, 2!'17 


Sec alto Target launch vehicle 5305. 
 Atlas standard launch vehicle (SLV) 5306,251, 2i2 


See alto Target launch vehicle 5300. 


Atla's standard launch vehicle (SI,V) 5307, 2rti 


See alto Target launch vehicle 5307. 
 Atlas-Agena, 73, 74, 87 


Atlas-Agena B, 5, 14, 18, 22, 27, 44 


modifications, 23 


Atlas-Agene. configuration, 55 


Atlas-Agena coordination meeting, 41, 53, 89, 92 


Austin, Texas, 217 


Automatic checkout equipment, 75 


Automatic reentry, 255, 259 


Automatic swltchover, 169 


Autopilot, 254, 259 


Au:dUary equipment rack, 42, 148, 188 


AuxlUary tape memory unit, 235, 237 


Aviation Medical Acceleration Laboratory 

Azusa, CaUfomla, 34 


B 

Bailey, Glenn F., 7, 16, 31 


Ballard, H. J., 86 


Ballistic Systems Division, 85, 90 


Titan Program Office, 90 


See alto .A£r Force Sy&tems Comman

Ballute, 78,176,184 


36-lnch diameter, 122, 124 


42-lnch diameter, 123 


48-lnch dlemeter, 123 


quaWlcatlon progmm,123,141 


stablllzatlon system, 78, 123, 141 


Baltimore, lfaryland, 14, 28, 51, 52, 80, 113, 

213 


Bassett, Charles A., II, 119, .219, 234 


Batteries, 11, 42, 73, 101, 116, 1157, 158, 196 


quaUtlcstlon program, 114 


silver-zinc, 16, 72, 126 


for spacecraft No. 3, 126 


Bay of Bengal, 255 


Bean, Alan L., 119, 239, 248 


Bell Aerosystems Company, 515, 88, 104, 

158,163,191,218,220,221,229,230,232 


Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, 184 

Beryllium shingles, 121 


B-FACT. Sec Booster Flight Acceptanc

Test. 


Bending mode test, 251 


Bickers, John H., 234 


Bilodeau, James W., 56 


Blolustrumentation, 162, 166, 169, 177 


blood pressure, 43 


eleciroeaTdlogram, 48 


equipment, 48 


nuclear radiation d~. 48 


oral temperature, 43 


phonocardlognon, 48 


respiration, 48 


Biomedical measurements, 48 


blood pressure, 43 


bodytemperature, 43 


electrocardlog:mm, 48 


electroenceph1l·logram, 48 


galvanic skin response, 43 


phonocardiogram, 43 


respiration, 43 


Bipropellant attitude and control sy~tem, 2

Blpropellant thruste-rs, 16 


Rlockhouse, 36 


Blood pressure. Sec Blolnstromentatlon. 


Bollerplate spacecraft, 27, 43, 50, 55, 86, 90, 

Boilerplate No.1, 79 


Boilerplate No.2, 98, 145 


Bollerpllllte No.3, 64 


Boilerplate No. 3A, 131-132 


Boilerplate No. 4, 138 


292 

Atlas-Agena B, 5,14, 18, 22, 27, 44 

Atlas-Centaur,11 

Sec aZ11o names ot each. 

Booster Facility Acceptance C-omposite '.1\!st (BFACT), 202,233,240, 2!'i2, 258 

Borman, Frank, 60, 75,106, 151, 204, 223, 224 

B-ost, James E.,15 

Brackett, Ernest,17 

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, 49 

Brown, Harold, 7 

Budget, ar,, 62 

Fiscal Year 1962,7,17 

Fiscal Year 1963, 85 

Buffalo, New York, 55 

Burbank, Calitomla, 32 

Burke, Walter F., 6, 10,117, 121, 182,217 

Burroughs Corporation, 26 

c 

C-130 aircraft, 90 

C-133 nircratt,152 

C-band radar beacon, 38. 42, al, 60, 101, 211 

Cabin atmosphere, 24, 158 

Cabin pressurization, 76, 80 

Camera,141 

Canoga Electronics Corporation, 63 

Canoga Park, California, 63 

Cape Canaveral, Florida, 12, 15, 46, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 

61, 6!i, 68, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 93, 96, 104, 121, 122, 125 

Cape Gemlni/Agena Test Integration Working Group, 

98 

Cape Kennedy, Florida, 126, 129, 135, 139, 140, 150, 152, 

1a3. 1:.:., 1n6, 1r.n. tr~. 1~1. 16!i. ton. 170, 17~. 177, 179. 

185--187, 189, 192, 197, 198, 202, 203, 208--211, 215, 

216, 218, 220, 223, 229, 231-233, 235, 239, 240, 241, 

243,244,246,251,253,254,257 

Capsule Review Board, 5 

Carley, Richard R., 29, 119 

Castor (star), 20 

Catapult, rocket, 32 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 36 

CentE.>r ot gravity, 59, 79, 220 

Centrifuge, 27 

training program, 27,92,102,162,170 

Ceman, EugE.'ne A., 1 19, 219, 234, 245-248 

Ceylon, 255 

Cha1fee, Roger B., 119 

Chamberlin, James A., 6, 9, 11, 13, 1:., 21, 24, 43, 53, 

56,62,73,75,79,84 

Chance Vought Corporation, 34 

ChE.>sapeake Bay, 145 

ChE.>st pack. Sec Extravehicular Ute support system. 

Chicago, Illinois, 41, 50, 121 

Chicago l\II<lway J..aboratories, 41 

Chinn J.ake, California, 48,98,146,178 

Cincinnati, Ohio, 41 

Circular orbit, 63,232,239,252 

Circumlunar flights, 18 

Circumlunar orbiting mission, ll'iS 

CIT. Sec Combined Interlace Test. 

Clean room, 212, 214 

Sec also White room. 

Clements, H. E ., 96 

Clickner, Russell E., 111 

114,118,142,143,153,194,203,215,218,232,240 

Combined Systems Tests, 105, 136, 164, 181, 202, 239, 

243 

Command system (GATV), 186, 198, 205, 222, 230, 2.32, 

238,2l:i2 

Communlcations,179, 222 

DOD support, 121 

system, 2Jl:! 

See also Gemini spacecraft systems and Spacecraft systems. 

Communications radiation test, 175, 176 

Complex 14, 55, 60, 66, 87, 89, 170, 184, 202, 205, 207, 

215,216,229,232,234-236,240,241,244,247-249,251, 

Z:.2, 2i"ri, 258, 2!11) 

Gemini-Agena facilities completed, 149 

Complex 16, 166, 185 

Complex 19, 15, 89, 93, 94, 118, 120, 127, 135, 136, 139, 

151, 1l"ri, Hi5, 157, 159, 163, 164, 179, 181, 182, 184, 

185, 189, 192, 194, 200, 202, 203, 205, 209, 211, 213, 

216,217,219,225,226, 230,232,235,239,240,245-247, 

251-253,255,257-259 

Computer complex, 62 

Computer system, 23, 40, 62, 100, 102, 110, 126, 138, 143, 

241 

digital compntl'r, 40, 41, 86, 244 

incrpmental velocity indicator, 40 


launch programs, 170 


malfunction, 209 


manual data Insertion unit, 40 


ll!lPmOry, 202, 206 


0)Dgress, 1 

C-onrad, Charles, Jr., 60, 7a, 106, 184, 206, 200, 21!'1, 239, 2!'14 

Console controls and displays, 41 

ConsolldatE.'d Steel, 47 

Contractors, Subcontrnetors, and Vendors. See 

Appendix 7. 

Control system, 22, 118 

Controlled land landing, 14, 18, 19 

Controlled reentry, onboard, 3, 71, 189, 202, 235, 237 

Coolant system, 171 

Cooper, L. Gordon, Jr., 183, 206, 209, 248 

CorrealE.', James V., 64 

Cost of Gemini Program. Sec Appendix 5. 

CrPs!l, Gordon P., xv, 64 

Crew compartment, 27 

Crew displays, 28 

Crew safety, 53 

Crew-station system, 24 

mock·up, 99, 145 

Crew Systems Division, 76, 126, 127, 131, 141, 143, 155, 161,162,171,177,102,208 

Crew trainer, 146 

CrE.'w training, 27, 167, 185 

CrowlE.'y, John W., 1 

OryogE.>nk Building, 156 

CryogE.>nic system, 12, 65 

oxygen, 98 


tanks, 98, 109 


CSAT. Sec Combined Systems Acce-ptance Test. 

CTL Division. Sec Studebaker Corporation. 

Cunningham, R. Walter, 119 

Cylindrical space laboratory, 5 
DaYid Clark Company, Inc., 63, 96, 100, 127, 154. 

Davis, Leighton I., 100, 121 

Day, LeRoy E., 177 

DCS. Bee Digital command system. 

Decker, James L., 12, 13 

Defecation gloves, 141 

Denver, Oolorado, SO, 208, 213 

Department of Defense (DOD), 7, 19, 20, 61, 73, 74, 

78,82,88,103,112,121 

Director of Defense Research and Engineering, 7, 17, 18 

experiment D-12, 155 

experiments, 82, 114 

Representative for Project Gemini Operations, 

100, 121 

support, 74 

Design Approval Tests, 108, 109 

Design Engineering Inspection, 50, 67, 71, 105, 114 

Design Information Tests, 109 

Design review meeting, 99, 215 

Detroit, Michigan, 83 

De,·elopment Engineering Inspection, 145 

"Development Plan for the Gemini Launch Yehide 

System," 35, 61 

Den•lopment test vehicle (DTV), 142 

Digital command and communications subsystem, 42 

controller, 42 

onboard tape recorder, 42 

PCl\f telemetry, 42 

programmer, 42 

J)igital command encoder, 63 

J)fgitnl command system (DOS), 34,41 

Digital computt'r, 4, 35, 40 

DTneen, Richard C., 21, 79,104, 119, 122 

Dlrt'Ct a!K'ent, 17 

Disher, John H., 9 

Displays pilot, 92 

Docking, v, 18, 19, R6, 235, 245, 251, 255, 260 

tralnt'r, 28, 85 

DOD. Bee Department of Defense. 

DOD Rt-'prt'sentatlve for Projt'Ct Gemini Operations, 

103, 121 

Donlan, Charles J., 5 

Dophetde, Nell C., 16 

Dorman, Bernhardt L., 116 

Douglas Aircraft Corporation, 123 

Downey, California, 8, 50 

Drogue-and-pilot-chute, 129 

Drogue parachute, 111 

stabtllzatlon, 129, 140 

Drop tests, 111, 138 

boilerplate, 100, 129 

qualification, 141 

Dryden, Hugh L., 40 

DTY. Bee Development test vehicle. 

Dust cap, 226 

Dye marker,144 

Dynnmlr pres.'!ure, 90 

Dynamic Rtablllty, 67 

Dynn-Soar, 12 

E 

Eagle-Pi<'her Company, 72,73 ~arth-orbital 111gbts, 18 

Earth-orbital rendezvous, 5, 22 

g

Ellington Air Force Base, 125, 155, 16

Galveston Bay,158 

Egresstralner,27,155 

Eisele, Donn F., 119 

Ejection seat, 11, 18, 31, 32, 44, 49, 51, 50, 67

146, 161, 178, 184 

ballute, 68, 120, 184 

Ejection seat system, 31, 67, 91, 120, 182, 14

184 

ballute, 120, 184 

Ejection tests 59, 64, 91, 98, 181, 184 

off-the-pad, 49, 51, 52, 59, 78, 91 

rocket sled, 49, 64, 151 

El C-entro, California, 90, 123, 124, 129, 140, 14

Elt'Ctrical Interface Integrated Valtdatlon 

Guidance and Control Test, 194, 204, 213

240,248,253,258 

Electrical Interface Integrated Validation 

184,243 

Electrical power, 16, 73, 85, 151, 198, 205, 226

247,252 

Electrical storm, 154 

Bee aJio Weather. 

Electrical systemfl, 22, 10l'i, 222 

Electrical Systems Coordination Meeting, 74 

ElectrOC'Drdlogram. Sec Blotnstrumt>ntatlon. Electromagnetic incident, 154, 156, 157 

Elt'Ctromagnetlc interference (EMI)', 138, 182 

Electro-Mechanical Research, Inc., 46, 63, 114 

Electronic systems, 105, 185 

test unit, 63 

Electronic-Electrical Interfert'nce (EEl) T

113, 120, 136, 137, 142, 143, 159, 177 

Elkton,llaryland,34 

Ellington Air Force Base, Texas, 161, 162 

water tank egress tests, 125, 161, 162 

Elliptical orbit, 63, 232, 251 

El Segundo, California, 23 

ELSS. See Extravehicular life support system

ELSS/AMU Joint Combined System Test, 241 

Emergency escape, 10, 32, 130, 185 

EMI. Sec Electromagnetic interference. 

Emme, Eugene M., xv 

Engineering and Contracts Division. Bee Sp

Group. 

Engineering and Development Directorate, 

tems Division. Bee Manned Spacecraft Cen

En~neering change proposal11, 68, 220,257 

Engineering Division. Bee Space Task Group 

ned Spact'Crn!t Center. 

Engines, 136,149,226 

Gemtnf-Agt>na llodel 8427, 88, 89, 134, 2

Mode18096,88 

modlflt>d main engine (Agena), 220, ~2

multiple restart main (Agena), 23, 31, 

238 

St'COnd stage (GLV), 68 

sustalner, 184, 247 

vernier, 184, 243 

Envtronmt>ntat control systl.'m (ECS), 24, 2

100,186,198,194,202,208,216 

F..qnlpment section. Bee Gemini spacecraft. Ert'Ctor, 46, 155, 199, 226 

Ertel, Ivan D., xtll, xv 

294 

ETR. Bee Eastern Test Range. 

Evans, W. B., 230 

Expt'riments, 74, 135, 136, 151, 152, 154, 176, 191, 202, 210,224,227,235,237,255,259,261 


DOD, 82, 114, 133, 155 


lnflight military, 82 


results, 233, 261 


scientific, 152, 189, 230 


Bee also Appendix 1. 


External status displays, 23, 57, 143 

Extravehicular 

activity, v, 154, 189, 192, 201, 205, 219, 230, 231, 235,245, 24S, ~}1, 2'A,2r>G, 258-261 

equipment, 197, 229, 231, 241, 251 

lite support paekagt>, 123, 222, 230, 233 

life support systl.'m (ELSS), 151, 155, 162, 172, 

182,233,239,241,245,248 

che~pack, 151,1iA,162,172, 182,192 

operations,6,60, 76,84, 123,131,176,177 

pressurization and ventilation system, 132, 162 

suit, 100 

tests, 145, 241 

umbilieal, 172, 182, 192, 197, 2:.1, 25a, 260 

Bee also Appendix 1. 

F 

F- 106 aircraft, 147, 181 

FACI. Bee First Article Configuration Inspection. 


FagE>t, l\faxlme A., 6 


Fniled Equipment and DlscrE>pancy Rt>ports, 146 


FC~IT. Sec Flight Configuration 1\fodl.' Test. 


Fcdl.'ral-1\Iogul Corporation, 38 


Arrowhl'ad Products Division, 38 

Ft>rrondo, James A., 53 

Final Simulated Flight Test, 100, 235 

Final Systems Tl'st, 205, 21!), 233,241,248, 253, 258 

Final Yehicll.' Systems Test, 125 

First Article Configuration Inspection (FACI), 19ii, 198, 217 

Fishl.'r, Lewis R., 136 

Flammability test, 126 

Flashing light, 42, 71, R6 

Flight Configuration :\fodl.' TI'St (FC:\IT), 164, 177, 184, 

194, 204, 213, 217 

Flight controllers, 24, 55, 56 

command site tt>ams, 5.') 

network trolning, 55 

procedures, 76 

rl.'mote site tl'ams, 55 

training, 5l:'i, 94 

Flight Crew Operations Directorate, 131 

Flight Crew Operations Division, 32, 91, 122, 141, 102 

Spact'Craft Orll'rntions Rranch, 27 

Flight Crew Support Division, H'il, 1:t2, 1l:'i::i, 161 

Flight crews, 27, 32, 106, 145, 151, 160, 161 165 170 

185, 192, 204,208,200, 21:t, 219,231, 239, 247.'248 ' ' 

Flight medkal kit, 141 

Flight Operations Directorate, 149 

Flight Operations Division, 23, 52, 53, 55, 71 7:l 122 

176,232 ' ' ' 

Flight Control 0I:II'rations Rranch, 55 

Rt>ndeozvom1 Analysis Rranch, 98 

Flight progrom, 27, 100 

, 

Follow-on experiments, 2 


14-day mission, 2 


lunar orbit rl.'entry, 2 


mnneuvl.'r In orbit, 2 


manned I"I'Connalssance, 2 


self-contained guidance, 2 


touchdown control, 2 


Sec al8o names of each. 


Follow-on ~It>rcury program, 2, 5 


Food, m 


Food and waste mnnageml.'nt systt>m, 50, 141, 160 


Food storoge, 50 


Fourteen-day mission, 2 


lo,owler, William D., 50 


Frank, 1\f, P., 76 


FSTV. Sec Fnll-senle test Vl'hi<'le. 
 Frcl.'man, Theodore C., 119 


Fuel, 158, 150, 168. 218, 251 


requirements, 122 

Fuel Cl'lls, 16, 21, 22, 33, 74, 75, 101, 109, 126, 139, 151, 

11i3, 157, 158, 178, 179, 193, 197, 205, 200, 210, 216, 

229,232,235,246 

development, 104, 117, 121 


gas-dilluslon electrodes, 21, 22 


ton-exchange membranes, 21, 75 


lifl', 117 


operating temperatures, 117 


section, 151, 197, 253 


stack, 74,75,226,257,261 


Fuel-oxidizl.'r systl'ru, 65, 121, 133 

Full-scale flight test vehicle, 30, 54 

Full-scale paraglidt>r wing, 27-28,50-51, 11S-119 

Full·scale test Vl.'hicle (FSTV), 50, 55, 67, 90, 100, 105, 

115,130,168 


Funk, Ben 1., 119, 133, 193, 216 


G 

Galveston Bay, 98, 122, 139, 158 


Gantry, 46 


Gardena, California, 38 


Gardner, A. J., 220 


Garrett Corporation, 24, 123, 132 


GATV. Sec Gemini Agena target vehicle. 


GATV u001. Sec Gemini Agt•na target vehicle (GATV)
 5001. . 

GATV 5002. Bee Gemini Agl"'la target vehicle (GATV)

5002. 

GATV 5003. Sec Gemini Agl'na target vehicle (GATV) 

5003. 

GATV 5004. Sec Gemini Agl'na target vehicle (GATV) 

l:'i004. GATV l:'iOOri. Sec Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 

5005. 

GATV 5006. Sec Gemln1 Agena target vehicle (GATV) 

5006. 

GATV Rl.'vicw Board, 216,220 

Gemini (constellation), 20 

Gemini (project), v, 60 

named, 20 

Gl'mini VI, 216, 217, 21S 

Gcmini T' l-A., 227, 228 

launch, 227 

spn('('craft, 224, 228 

abort, 226 

295 
GenllniiX-A, 247 

launch, 245 

target,232,244,245 

Gemini X, 231, 232, 239, 241, 247-249, 251, 252 

launch, 251,255 

Gemtn.f. XI, 232, 239, 241, 200, 252-257 

launch, 254 

rendezvoustarget,252 

Gemini XII, 232, 241, 247, 25~260 

launch, 259 

target vehicle, 243 

Gemini Abort Panel, 86, 94 

Sec also Abort Panel. 

Geminl-Agena propulsion development plan, 62 

Gemini/Agena rendezrous and docking equipment developml'nt, 19 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV), 53, 86-88, 112, 

125, 137, 141, 170, 186, 193, 215, 221, 232, 235, 237, 

252,260 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5001, 142, 143, 

157, 164, 167, 179, 181, 187, 188, 191, 198, 207, 217, 

220,227,243,252,253,257,258 

FACI, 195, 198, 217 

parklng,237,255,260 

systems tests, 195, 205 

Gemini AgE>na target vehicle (GAT\T) 5002, 170, 171, 

195, 197, 203, 205, 207, 211, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 

220,239 

mission failure, 216, 239 

shipped to ETR, 205 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATY) 5003, 206, 216, 

220, 229-232, 234, 238, 239 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5004, 226, 231­

233,239-241,243,244 

Gemini Agena target \'chicle (GATV) 5005, 232, .240, 

243,244,247,248,252 

Gemini Agena target vehicle (GATV) 5006, 239, 246, 

248,251-253 

Gemini Agena Target Vehicle Management-Technical Review,191 

Gemini Agl'na Target Vehicle Modification and Test 

Program, 220 

Gemini Atlas-Agt"'la target \'chicle 205, 21.5, 216, 23;'i, 

236,249,251,254,259 

"Gemini Atlas Agena Target Vehicle Systems Management and Responsibilities AgreE'ment," 193 

Gemini Configuration Control Board, 152 

Gemini Extra Care Program, 146 

Gemini tacilltles, 66 

GE'mlni flight program, 80, 82, 160 

revised, 62, 87, 9'.? 

Gemini launch schedules, 61, 62, 121, 157, 184, 205, 209, 

217,219,226,235,241,244,248,254 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 19. 34, 36, 46, 51, r.2, 61, 

66,68,80,82,93,94, 130,139,169,170,178 

contract tor, 147 

fixes on Titan II filghts, 68, 125 

fiight control subsystem, 24, 26 

manufacturing and testing. See Appendix 3. 

propellant tank, 80, 81 

skirt assemblies, 80 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 1, 80, 00, 105, 113, 114, 

128,185,139 

airlifted to AMR, 120 

CSAT tests, 113, 118,127 

mechanical mate, 136 

electrical mate, 164 

engines, 125 

mechanical mate, 163 

stage I, 151, 152, 169 

stage II, 80, 100, 151 

tandem actuators, 169, 176 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 8, 126, 153, 

167,181,182 

acceptance, 160 

mechanical mate, 182, 184 

stage I, 149, 167 

stage II, 167 

Gemini launch vehicle (GJ,V) 4, 136, 162, 1

engines, 137 

mechanical mate, 194 

roll-out inspection, 187 

shipped to Cape K~nnedy, 187 

stage I, 137, 187 

stage II, 137, 187 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 5,149,183,19

mechanical mate, 205 

modificatlons,183 

stage I, 183, 194 

stage II, 183, 194 

shipped to Cape, 194 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 6,170,171,19

engines, 171 

mechanical mate, 213 

stage I, 203,211,226 

stage II, 203, 211, 226 

tankH, 154,170,171 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 7,215 

airlifted ·to Cape Kennedy, 215 

electrical mate, 219 

engines, 185 

mechanical mate, 219 

stage I, 203,215,217 

stage II, 203,215,217,219 

tanks, 185 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 8, 193, 215, 2

233,235 

alrlltted to Cape Kennedy, 218 

electrical mate, 233 

engines, 193, 230 

stage I, 193, 218 

stage II, 193, 219, 230 

tanks, 193 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 9, 208,226,232

electrical mate, 240 

engines, 208 

stage I, 208, 233 

stage II, 208, 233 

tanks, 208 

GE'minllaunch vehicle (GLV) 10, 213, 218, 2

electrical mate, 248 

engines, 220 

mechanical mate, 248 

stage I, 213, 220, 234, 241 

stage II, 213,220, 234,241 

tanks,213,220 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 11,218,231,24

electrical mate, 258 

engines, 218 

mechanical mate, 258 

stage I, 218, 241, 246, 247 

stage II, 218, 241, 246, 247 

tanks, 218, 220 

296 

68 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 13,153 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 14,153 

Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 15, 153 

Gemini Launch Vehicle Configuration Control Board, 

Gemini Launch Vehicle Directorate, 21 

Gemini I,aunch Vehicle Pilot Safety Program, 79 

Gemini Launch Vehicle Program, 23 

Gemini Launch Vehicle Program Office, 23, 115 

Gemini Management Panel, 79, 83, 89, 100, 121, 133, 142, 

157,182,194 

"Gemini M·anufacturing Plan," 39 

Gemini Midprogram Conference, 233 

Gemini mission planning, 111 

Gemini mission simulator, 27, 146, 165 

No. 1, Cape Kennedy, 126,163,165 

No.2, Houston, 162, 167 

Gemini Network Operations Directive 63-1,96 

Gemini Operational and 1\lanagement Plan, 19, 21 

DOD responsibilities, 19 

NASA responsibilities, 19 · Gemini Operations Support Committee, 53 

Gemini Phase I Centrifuge Program, 102 

Gemini Procurement Ofllce, 48, 135 

Gemini Program, v, vi, xlii, 21, 32, 42, 44, 54-56, 61, 62, 

78, 82-84, 8$-88, 96, 108, 125, 135, 155, 156, 160, 167, 

168, 170, 200, 208, 224, 227, 232, 239, 240, 245, 247 

Gemini Program and Mission Objectives. See Appendix 

2 and Appendix 8. 

Gemini Program Flight Summary Data. See Appendix 

1. 

Gemini Program Instrumentation Requirements Docu· 

ment (PIRD), 61 

Gemini Program Mission Planning Report, 176 

Gemini Program Office, xiil, XT', 146, Hi1. 1!53, 15G, 161, 

170, 176, 181, 182, 188, 191, 208, 211, 222, 230, 257 

Gemini Program Planning Board, 78, 82, 84, 90 125 

Gemini Project Manager, 24, 84 ' 

Gemini Project Office, 21, 24, 30-32, 39, 42-44, 46, 48, 

51-53, 55, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 73, 75, 79-81, 83, 87, 91, 

96, 98, 99, 101-104, 108, 109, 116, 121, 126, 131, 135, 

136,142,159 

Manager,21,89,100 

Systems Integration Office, 136 

Gemini Pyrotechnic Ad Hoc Committee, 110 

Gemini Recovery School, 149 

Gemini Rendezvous and Reentry Panel, 76 

Gemini spacecraft, 20-261, pasdm 

adapter section, 26, 33, 84, 100, 182, 188, 194, 196, 

203,213,261 

boilerplate, 27 

checkout, 80 

communications and electri~al system, 35, 36, 43 

configuration, 37 

cost, 44,85 

design, 30 

development, 19, 43 

engineering mock-up, 56, 57, 103 

equipment section, 204 

instrument and recording system, 43, 100 

maneuvering system, 26, 27, 29, 41, 89 

manufacturing and testing. See Appendix 3. 

reentry section, 90, 92, 179, 182, 188, 194, 203, 213 

rendezvous and recovery section, 27,179 

schedule,21,39,43 

Gemini Stability Improvement Program, 116 

Gemini Summary Conference, 261 

GeminiTitan 2 (GT2), 111,122,142,150, 157,158,165, 

1G9,170, 176-178,179 

launch, 179 

mission objectives, 179 

scrubbed, 169 

Gemfni-Titan 3 (GT-3), 111, 122,127,142,154, 156, l57, 

159, 161, 165, 166, 170, 176, 177, 181, 184-187, 189, 

194 

launch, 189 

launch profile, 147 

mission objectives, 189-191 

Gemini-Titan 4 (GT-4), 127, 131, 157, 158, 161, 167, 

170, 176, 177, 184, 192, 194, 197, 199, 201, 211, 231 

flight profile, 122,151,152,192,200-202 

launch, 200 

objectlves,200-202 

rendezvous evaluation experiment, 122, 151 

Simulated Flight Test, 196 

Wet 1\lock Simulated J,aunch, 196 

Gemfni-Titan 5 (GT-5), 127, 131, 151, 157, 184, 194, 

203,205,206,209,211 

launch, 209 

Wet Mock Simulated Launch, 205, 206 

Gemini-Titan 6 (GT-6) , 131, 148, 151, 157, 177, 187, 

192,205,207,213,215 

launch schedule, 177 

Sec also Gemini VI. Gemini-Titan 7 (GT-7), 131,151,157 

See also Gemini VII. 

Gemini-Titan 8 ( GT-8), 131 

See also Gemini VIII. 

Gemini-Titan 9 (GT-9), 131 

See also Gemini IX. 

Gemini-'l'ltan 10 ( GT-10), 131 

Sec also Gemini X. 

Gemini·Tltan 11 (GT-11)', 131 

See also Gemini XI. Gemini-Titan 12 (GT-12),131 

Sec also Gemini XII. Gemini-Titan Coordination Meeting, 44 

Gemini-Titan Launch Operations Committee, 53 

General Dynamics/Astronautics, 14, 149 

General Dynamics/Convair, 168, 229, 246 

General Electric Company, 21, 22, 26, 116 

General Electric Mod III G, 75 

radio guidance system, 26, 75 

GilMlth, Robert R., 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17-19, 21, 60, 

62, 83, 139, 141, 192, 100, 208, 200, 216, 217, 222, 247, 

261 

GLV. Sec Gemini launch vehicle. Goddard Space Flight Center, 24, 42, 63, 96, 140, 160, 184 

Goett committee, 1 

Goett, Harry J., 1 

Goodrich, B. F., Company, 38, 63, 64 

Aerospn<'e' and Defense Products Division, 37 

Goodwin, Harold L., 20 

Goo!lyt>nr Al:n:'ra!t Corporation, 8, 30 

Gordon, Ri<'hard F., Jr., 119, 215, 239, 254, 255 

GruYity-gradient stabilization, 261 

Gre(•nbelt, :\Iaryland, 24 

Grimwood, .Tames !\1., xtll, xv, 21, 61, 154 

Grissom, Virgil I.,141, 160, 165, 185, 189, 100, 192 

Ground eontrollers, 27, 202, 252 

Ground instrumentation equipment, 154,244 

Ground stations, au, 36, 38, 53 

GT-1. See Gemini-Titan 1. 

297 

GT-9. See Gemini-Titan 9 and Gemini IX. 

GT-10. Sec ~mini-Titan 10 and Gemini X. 

GT-11. Sec Gemini-Titan 11 and Gcmf.nl XI. 

GT-12. Sec Gemini-Titan 12 and Gemini XII. 

Guldan('(' and control equlpm~.>nt, 140, 194, 222,258 

Guidance and control system,'1, 22, 33, 40, 42, 71, 102, 

169, 194, 222, 258 

secondary, 3, 169 

Gulf of Mexico, 185 

Guy, WalterW.,64 

H 

HAET. See High-Altitude Ejection Teet. Halt-ring 11aps, 4 

Half-IK'Ille flight test v~.>hldl', 30, 48, 49 

Halt-scale test \'~.>hidl' (HSTV), 41, 56, 66, 83 

Halt-scale tow test vehicle (HSTTV) , 00, 92 

helicopter-towed psraglld~.>r, 3 

Hall, Albert C., 8 

Handcontroller, 92 

Hand-held m.anl'm'l'rlng unit (HHl\lU), 192, 196, 197, 

202, 203 

Hangar AF, 5R, 66, 117 

Hangar E, 198, 205, 211, 213, 220, 232, 240, 244, 252, 

257 

Hangar J, 184, 202, 207 

Hangar L, 241 

Hangar S, 57, 58, 65 

Hangar T, 2M 

Hangar U, 246 

Hannigan, James E., 87 

"Hard start," 218, 219, 239 

Harness, Arminta, 31 

Harris, Howard T., xv, 18 

Hasson, Dennis F., 4 

Hatch, II, 32, 43, 49, 75, 80, 103, 158, 202, 230, 245, 246, 

251, 254 

actuation systl'm, 32, 146, 178 

Hl'at, 158, 179 

Heat l'Xchangers, 33 H~.>at transfer, 5 

Heatshleld,4,41,51,64,65,100, 111,150,161,244 

qualification tests, 84, 146 

Hecht, K., 50 

Helmstadt, C. E., xv, 64 

Helicopter, 28, rl6, 66, 93, 11'i3, 189, 190, 202, 257, 261 

HE-lmet, 100 

HE-ller, N. R., 43 

Hello, Bastian, 13, 15 

HF vol('(' transcelvf'r, 36 

HHMU. Sec Hand-h~.>ld maneuvering unit. 

Hlgh-AitJtude Ejection Test (HAET), 181, 184 

High Speed Flight Station, 17 

Hill, Raymond D., 217 

Hjomevlk, Wesl~.>y r... , 62 

Hotrman, J., 36 

Hohmann, Bernhard A., xv, 133, 154, 220 

Holmes, D. Brnln~.>rd, 16, 17, 20, 40, 83, 85, 90,220 

Horizon sensor, 33 

House CQmmlttl!(' on Sclen('(' and Astronanti<'S, 1, 7, 85 

Subrommlttl!(' on Manned SpacE' Flight, R!i, R6 

Houston, Texas, 18, 23, 24, 45, 53, 55, 62, 119, 12!5, 129, 

139, 167, 170, 193 

Hudson, John B., 193, 218, 220 

Rueter, Hans, 73 

Ethel, 155 


Hilda, 158 


Isbell, 159 


Iluss, Carl R., 71, 73 


Hutchison, F. M., 156 


Hydrogen, 33 


Hypergollc propellants, 177, 248 


IBM. See International Business Machine C

Improved Mercury, 7 

urn. Sec Inertial measuring unit. 

Incremental velocity Indicator, 40 

India, 2M , Inertial guidance system, 26, 37, 102, 110, 

Inertial measuring unit (IMU), 36, 100 

Inertial platform, 34, 41, 43, ·92, 138 

stabilized, 36 

Ingress test, 182 

Instrument pallets, 101, 116, 117, 150 

Instrument panel, 97 

Instrumentation, 51, 222 

Instrumentation and Electronic Systems D

113,157 

Integrated Mission Control Center, 62, 84 

Sec also Mission Control Center. 

lntf'grated Systems Test, 109 

Interferometer, 85 

International Business Machines Corporat

·24, 40, 44, 52, 62, 84, 92, 102 

Space Guidance Center, 40 

Ionization zone, 51 

J 

J-1 computer, 111 

.JeflR, George W., 58 

.Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), 4 

J-FACT. See Joint Flight Acceptance CQm

Johnson, Caldwell C., 4 

Johnson, Harold I., 27, 28 

Johnston, Richard S., 64, 192 

Johnsville, Pennsylvania, 27, 102 

.Joint Combined Systems Test, 164, 167, 18

240,248,253,258 

Joint Flight Acceptance Composite Tl'St 

215, 234. 235, 241, 248, 253, 259 

Joint Guidance and Control Test, 163, 184, 20

Joplin, Missouri, 72 

JPIJ. Sec J~.>t Propulsion Laboratory. 

K 

KC-135 aircraft, 92, 145, 164, 177 

Kapryan, Walter J., 217 K~.>hlet, Alan B., 2, 4 K~.>nnedy Space C~.>nter, 193 

pad operations, 193 

Klndlf'y Air Force Base, Bermuda, 149 

Klf'lnknecht, Kenneth S., 145, 151 

Kline, Robert L., 31, 83 · 

Kratt, Christopher C., Jr., 56, 148, 176, 1

Kranz, Eug('ne F., 56 

Kuras, Alexander C., 117 

298 
Landing, 226, 229 

Landing and Recovery Division, 144, 149 

Landing gear, 30 

Landing point, 189, 194, 226, 229, 237, 252, 257, 261 

accuracy, 189,226,229,237,246,252,257,261 

Lunding rocket system, 109 

control system, 109 dro~tUe parachute, 100 

landing rocket, 109 

parasan, 109 

retrorocket, 109 

Lang, Dave W., 83 

J,angley Field, Virginia, 1 

Langley Research Center, 2, 4, 13, 17, 41, 67, 71, 144, 152 

wtnd tunnel tests, 5 

Large Launch Vehicle Planning Group (LINPG), 17 

Launch 

DOD support, 121 

Launch Guidance and Control Coordination Meeting, 75 

Launch Operations Building, 149 

Launch Operations Center, 74 

Launch pad, 32, 225 

Launch Preparations Group (LPG),129,145 

Launch schedule..,, 14, 15, 21, 27, 43 

Launch vehicle adapter, 19 

Launch vehicle autopilot, 41 

Launch Vehicle Spacecraft Interface Working Group, 

44 

Launch vehicle systems, 39, 137, 154, 163, 233 

Launch vehicles, 19 

Atlas, 12, 13, 14, 18, 73, 108 

Atlas-Agena B, 5, 14, 18, 22, 27, 44 

Atlas-Centaur, 11 

Nova,ll 

Saturn, 73 

Saturn C-3, 11 

Titan II, 8, 15, 74 

Titan II-1/2, 17 

Titan III, 17 

See also names of each. 

Launch windows, 83,101 

I..enticular vehicle, 4 

Letsch, Ernst R., 182 

Lewis Research Center, 2, 4, 73, 86 

I.ife raft, one-man, 185 

Life Systems Division, 32, 43, 48, 50, 60, 63 

Lifeboat rescue mission, 153 

Lift capability, 194 

T.ift-o,•er-drag ratio, 4, 5 

Lifting Mercury, 5 

Lightning strike, 154, 156, 157 

electromagnetic Incident, 154 

See alB() Weather. 

Lindley, Robert N., 19, 24, 102 

Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., 115, 147,162 

LLVPG. See Large Launch Vehicle Planning Group. 

Lockheed ~lissiles and Space Company, 14, 31, 41, 42, 

52-55, 61-63, 76, 86, 92, 112, 125, 133, 134, 138, 142, 

143, 146, 148, 14n, 1a7, 164, 167, 1s;,, 191, 19~. 203, 200. 

213,218-220,227,229,239,243 

!<ystems test complex C-10, 157, 164, 182, 187, 188, 

197,240,243,248,252 

Lockheed Super Constellation, 145 

U>s Alamitos, California, 38 

Los Angeles, California, 24, 55, 60, 87, 119 

Lovell, James A., Jr., 60, 75, 106, 151, 204, 223, 224, 231, 

239,247,259 

Low dynamic pressure, 78 

Low, George M., 9, 14, 20, 62, 75, 86, 133, 13!'i, 181, 192, 

209 

LPG. See Launch Preparations Group. 

"Lunar-lander," 11, 12 

Lunar landing program, 8, 18 

Lunar orbit reentry, 2 

Lunar-orbit-rendezvous, 11, 86 

Lunar Orbiter Program, ~7 

Lunar orbiting mission, 153 

Lunar reconnaissance, 5 

Lunar·surface, v 

M 

:\IcDivitt, James A., 60, 75, 106, 151, 161, 162, 167, 195, 

200,202 

l-IeDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 2-257, passim 

McGuire, Frank, 88 

:\IcKee, Daniel D.,17,19 

McMillan, Brockway M., 83, 114 

McNamara, Robert S.,17, 18, 73, 74, 83, 87,88 

MacDougall, George F ., Jr., 66, 68, 261 

}laggln, Bernard, 7 

:Malfunction dt"tectlon system (MDS), 22, 39, 51, 52, 

97,108,140 

Maneuver In orbit, 2, 3, 210, 227. 229, 245, 251, 26{1 

:\Ianeuverable Mercury spacecraft, 2, 6 

Manned circumlunar mission, 5 ~fanned lunar landing, 17 

~fanned maneuvering unit backpack, 219 

Manned orbital flight, v, lR, 87, 122, 160, HID, 2:24 

Manned orbiting laboratory, 78 

Manned reconnaissance, 2 

Manned !lpace exploration, 14 

Manned space flight, v, 1, 5, 6,13, 15, 38 

Manned space flight design certification review, 186 

Manned Space Flight Experiments Board, 135 

Manned Space Flight Network, 61 

Manned space ftight summary. Sec Appendix 8. 

Manned Space Flight Tracking Network, 63, 160, 184 

Mannl'd space laboratory, 1 

~fanned Spacecraft Center (l\:ISC), xlll, xlv, 15-261, 

pas.,(,m 

Crew Systems Division, 76, 126,141, 143, 177 

Engineering and De,·elopment Directorate, 177 

Engineering Division, 21 

Flight Crew Operations Directorate, 131 

Flight Crew Operations Division, 27, 32, 91, 122. 

141, 192 

Spacecraft Operations Branch, 27 

Flight Crew Support Division, l!'i1, 152, 15::i, 161 

Flight Operations Directorate, 149 

Flight Operations Division, 23, a2, :-.a, !l.'i, 71, 73, 

122,176,232 

Flight Oontrol Operations Branch, 55 

Rendez\·ous Analysis Branch, 98 

Gemini Program Office, xlll, xv, 146, 1::i1, 1!"'13, 

155, 161, 170, 1i6, 181, 182, 188, 191, 208, 211. 

222,230,257,261 

299 

Propulsion and Power Division, 153 

Spacecraft Technology Division, 84 

Systems Evaluation and Development Division, 

109,111 

Landing and Impact System Section, 109 

Technical Serl'lces Division, 111 

Manned Spacecraft Center-Atlantic Missile Range 

Operations Office, 96 

1\Ianned spacecraft del'elopment center, 7 

Manned Spacecraft Paragll<le Landing System, 8 

Manual data Insertion unit, 40 

Marine Corps. Sec United States Marine Corps. 

Mariner spacecraft, 60 

Mark II,13,14,17-20 

project development plan, 13, 14, 17 

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), 4, 22, 27, 31, 

52,53,54, 73,136 

:uartln-Baltlmore, 1+-248, passim 

functional test stand, 51, 52 

horizontal testing 208, 218, 220, 231, 234, 241 

vertical test facility, 61, 93-05, 113, 160, 162, 167, 

177, 183, 193, 194, 203, 215, 227, 232, 234, 241, 

248 

Martin Company, 8, 12, 13, 15, 24, 39, 44, 52, 62, 73, 76, 

70,80,122, 147,1~~. 1il6,167,207,217 

lfartin-Denver, 80, 100, 126, 136, 149, 154, 185, 193, 208, 

213,218,231 

1\lartln-1\farietta Space Sy!Jtems Division, 14 

Master Operations Control Set, 226 

Mathews, Charles W., l'i, 84, 89, 100, 104, 110, 117, 

121, 122, 135, 136, 145, 151, 157, 182, 193, 194, 205, 

207,208,222,241 

Maximum dynamic pressure, 49, 67, 79, 146 

1\Iay, H. E., 96 

Maynard, R. S., 83 

MDS. Sec l\falfunctlon detection system. 

Mechanical Systems Coordination Meeting, 44, 45, 61, 

61'i 

Medical assistance, DOD support, 121 

Melbourne, Florida, 63 

Mercury astronauts, 18, 39 

1\Iercury-Atlas, 12, 79, 94 

1\Iercury-Atlas 4, 51 

Mercury-Atlas 5, 51 

Mercury-Atlas 6, 51 

Mercury-Atlas 7, 51 

Mercury-Atlas 8, 51 

Mercury-Atlas 9, 76 

Mercury capsule,1, 9,18 

Mercury configuration modification, 4 

afterbody, 4 

landing systems, 4 

reotro-esC'IIpe system, 4 

Mercury 61ghts, 24,·290 

Mercury Mark II, xvl, 13-17, 19 

detailed speclflcatlon, 16 

aerodynamic shape, 16, 18 

beatshleld, 16 

impact hag, 16 

spacecraft-launch vehicle adaptPr, 16 

tractor rocket escape tower, 16 

redesignated "Gemini," 20 

~lerC'ury Network Operations Directive 61-1, 96 

Mercury program, v, 1, 7, 20, 32, 35, 51, 75 

Mercury Project Office, 55, 110, 111 

Mercury spacecraft, xvi, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 81'i 

Mercury-Titan program, 12 

Mesa, Arizona, 32 

Meyer, AndreJ., Jr., 24, 65, 83 

Michel, E. L., 50 

Micrometeorite collection package, 251, 259 

MILA. Sec Merritt Island Launch Area. 

Minimum change capsule, 10 

"Minimum cost manned space station," 5 

Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Compan

Aeronautical Division, 36, 83 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, 29 

Mlnners, Howard A., 102 

Missile Assembly Building, 155, 198 

Missile tracking and measurement sy

TRAM), 111 

l\flsslon Control Center, 27, 53, 54, 160, 184

Cape Kennedy, 170, 20G, 244 

Houston, 170, 205, 209, 228 

Integrated Mission Control C~nter, 

Mission planning, 6 

Mission Planning and Analysis Division, 1

:\fission Planning and Guidance Analysts 

Group, ~7. 59 

Mission Planning Coordination Group, 11

Mission simulator, 85 

MISTRAM. Sec missile tracking and 

system. Mitro~. Edward F., 159 

MMU. Sec Modular Maneuvering Unit. 

Mock-up review, 56, 57, 59 

ModifiE-d Elt'ctrlcal Interface Integrated 

205 

Modified Mercury spa<'ecraft, 2, 3, 8 

Modlflecl Titan II, 14, 18 

Modular Maneuvering Unit (1\fMU), 155, 

Modular systems design, 19 

lfoilularized equipment, 14 

1\lofrett Field, California, 1 

Morse, Mary Louise, xlll 

Motorola, Inc., 34 

Western Military Division, 34 

)fountain View, California, 33 

Moyers, William D., 217 

MSC. Sec lllnnned Spacecraft Oenter. 

MSC-Florlda 0pPrations, 139 

MSC-Gemlnl PClf Instrumentation Worki

MSFC. Sec Marshall Space Flight Center

Mueller, George E., 53, 13.''), 137, 151, 1

216-218, 222, 258 

Muhly, William C., 13 

Multlmanned vehicle, 5 

N 

Nagy, Alex P., 20 

NASA Centers and Other Governme

Participating in the Gemini Program. S

6. 

NASA-DOD Gemini Program Planning Bo

NASA Half Scale Test Vehicle De!!lgn Re

41 

NASA HPadquarters, ~9. 13, 15, 17-19, 2

104, 109, 127, 145, 158, 176, 208, 222, 2

Gemini Program OfficP, 20G 

Procurement Office, 1Rl 

See also National Aeronautics 

Adminlstra tlon. 

NASA-McDonnell Management Panel, 154

300 

Administrator, 17, 44, 53, 73,74, 83,217 , Associate Administrator, 8, 15, 17, 18, 87, 135, 

137.192,216,222 

Associate Administrator for Manned Space 

Flight, 133, 135, 137, 151, 177, 192, 204, 216, 

218, 258 

Deputy Administrator, 40 

Director of Aeronautical and Space Research, 1 

Director of Launch Vehicle Programs, 7 

Director of Launch Vehicles and Propulsion, 16 

Director of Manned Space Flight, 16, 17, 20, 85 

Director of Space Flight Development, 1 

Offtce of Manned Space Flight, vi, 16, 62, 75, 86, 

177, 181 

Ofllce of Space Flight Programs, 8, 13 

Naval Air Development Center, 27, 92, 102 

Naval Ordnance Test Station, 48, 51, 64, 78, 178 

Naval Parachute Facility, 124 

Navigation system, 4, 23, 209 

digital computer, 4 

stable platform, 4 

star tracker, 4 

Sec alao names of each. Navy. Sec United States Navy. 

Nebwork Coordination Meeting, 70 

New Projects Panel, 2 

See alao Space Task Group. 

Nitrogen, 233 

Nold, Winston D., 7 

North American Aviation, Inc., 8, 9, 16, 17, 27, 30, 41, 

48, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58, 66, 67, 71, 75, 83, 89, 92, 100, 

104, 105, 115, 118, 120, 122, 130, 135, 153, 168 

Space and Infonnation Systems Division, 8, 105 

Rocketdyne Division, 192 

Korth, Warren J., 13, 14, 192 

Northrop Corporation, 30 

Radloplane Division, 30, 44 

Northrop Ventura, 44, 48, 78, 79, 83, 91 

Nova, 11 

Nuclear radiation dose, 43 

Sec alao Bioinstrumentation. 

0 

OAMS. Sec Orbit attitude and maneuvering system. 

Objectives, 200-202, 224, 227, 235, 237, 239, 245, 251, 

254, 259 

Oldeg, Harry W., HJ 

O'Loughlln, John C., 75 

Onboard computer, 73, 92 

Onboard navigation Rystem, 16 

computer, 16 

Inertial platform, 16 

radar, 16, 260 

Sec also names of each. 

One-man space station, 5, 6 

"OperatiolUll and ManagemE>nt Plan for th<' G<'mlnl 

Program," 193 

"Operations Executive Group," 204 

Optical rendezvom1 maneuver, 86, 152 

Oral temperature. Sec Blolnstrnmentation. 

Orbit attitude and manE>nvering Rystem (OAMS), 26, 

29, ();';, 80, 100, 120, 123, 127, 130, 136, 146, l!'i!'i, 157, 

116, 189, 102, 201, 202, 211, 235, 261 

25-pound t.l!ntsten!, 27, 65, RO, 91, 00, HH 

85-pound thrusters, 119 

100-poun<l thnuJters, 27, 94, 108 

Orbital maneuvering, 16, 19, 42, 189, 190, 210, 211, 2i.i2 

operational problems, 16 

techniques, 7, 15 

Ordnance Associates, 155 

Oscillograph, 142 

Ostrander, Don R., 7 

0\vego, New York, 40 

Owings Mills, Maryland, 184 

Oxidizer, 68, 158, 159, 168, 218, 254 

Oxygen,33, 98,229,233,252 

supply system, 33, 209, 210, 233 

p 

Pacific Ocean, 236 

Pad 14, 53 

Pad 19, 12, 46, 47, 61, 187, 223 

Sec alBo Complex 19. 

Palo Alto, California, 41, 54 

Paoli, Pennsylrnnia, 26 

Parachute, 87, 161 

18-foot-dlameter ring-sail drogue, 45, 47, 78 

84.2-foot-dlameter main, Mercury type, 11, 44, 

66,78,79 

drag, 141 

drogue, 100, 111, 144 

personnel, 32, 51, 78, 141, 181, 184, 185 

pilot, 111 

recovery, 2, 45, 51i, 91, 100, 111 

Parachute landing system, 44, 50, 53, 170 

18-foot-dlameter rlng-sall drogue, 45, 78 

84.2-foot-dlameter ring-san main, 44, 48, 55, 78, 

79,00 

Parachute recovery system, 46, 83, 100, 111, 141, 170, 184, 185 

emergency, 30, 41, 48, 49, 54, 130 

phase III tests, 170 

qualification testing, 48, 50, 55, 78, 90, 106, 107, 

129, 140, 144, 170, 181, 184, 185 

Parachute test vehicle (Instrumented weight bomb) 

(PTV), 111, 140 

Paragllder, 19, 27, 30, 32, 43, 44, 46-48, 51, 56, 58, 62, 

71, 75, 80, 83, 87, 89, 93, 135 

concept, 16 

deployment hardware, 56 

Parngllder Development Program, 9, 16, 43, 47, 58, 83 

Phase I, 9, 16, 67 Phaseii-A,16,1~30,41,4~.51,~;,56,66,67 

Phase II-B, 16, 50, 71, 75 

Phase III, 16 

Paragllder drop tests, 50, 122 

Paraglider landing system, 8, 10, 16, 27, 43, 47, 53, 75, 

89, 00, 100 

Paragllder I..andlng System Coordination l-Ieetlng, 47 

Paragllder I...an<ling System Program, 83, 89, 92, 100, 

104,101i, 114,115,118,120,130,153,168 

Parnglldt-r recovery system, 47, 100, 135 

Paraglider study, 8 

Paragllder wing, 10, 48, 00, 90 

full-scale, 27-28, ~51, 118-U!l 

Pararescue crews, 140 

Parasall landing system, 109, 110 

Pasadena, California, 15G 

Patrick Air Force BaS(>, .Florida, 122, 217 

Prl{ tE'leml"try. Sec Pnlse·code modulated telemetry. 

PCli (Pulse Codl:' 1\lodnlntlon) Working Group, 79 

PDA. Sec Predellvery Acceptance Tes!:.ll. 

Pendley, David B., 94, 97, 108 

301 

Piggyback plan, 52, 96, 108 

Pilot safety, 22 

philosophy, 79 

Pioneer Astro Industries, 121 

Plan X, 98, 208, 211, 213, 229, 232, 235, 239, 240, 243, 

244,251,252,257 

POGO. Sec longitudinal oscillation. 

POGO kit, 126 

fuel surge chamber, 121, 126 

oxidizer standpipe, 126 

Pollux (star),20 

Poslgrade rocket, 10 

Power sources, 1, 21, 157,158 

batteries, 121,126, 157, 158 

fuel cells, 21, 121, 126, 157 

solar cells, 21 

See al11o names of each. 

Power tool, 280, 255 

minimum reaction, 255 

Predelivery Acceptance Tests (PDA), 143, 161 

Prt>fllght automatic checkout equipment, 75 

Preftightcheckout,57,66,80, 135 

Preliminary Flight Rating Tests (PFRT), 104, 133, 134, 

138,158 

Premate Simulated Flight Test, 157, 182, 203 

Premate Systems Tests, 182, 193, 203, 258 

Premate Verification Test, 203 

Prespnceeratt Mate Combined System Test, 192 

Prespncecrnft Mate Simulated Flight Test,193 

Prespacecraft Mate Verlli<•atlon Combined Systems 

Test,239, 246.~;2, 257 

Prespacecraft l'tlate Verification Test, 211, 213, 216, 217, 232 

Pressure, 169 

Pressure suits, v, 19, 37, 38, 43, 60, 64, 84, 1!'".4, 158, 161, 170,222 cover layer, 168 

G2C, 103, 126, 127, 143 

G8C, 127, 154, 190, 196 

G4C, 163,171,172,196,208 

G5C, 208, 222, 223 

lightweight, 208, 223, 224 

partial wear, quick assl:'mbly, 38, 63,64 

prototypes, advnn~ full, 88, 63, 64 

See also Suits. 

Pressure vessel, 7,10 

Preston, G. Merritt, 139 

Procurement and Contracts Divlslon, 154 

Project Apollo, xill, 62 

Project Development Plan, 13, 14, 21 

Project Domini<', 61 

Project Gemini, xllf, xiv, xv, xvl, 22, 27, 38, 47, 50, 

5u,U6,62,65,67,78,74,78,87,88,103,233 

Project Gemini Management Panel, 61, 62 

Project Mercury, v, xtil, 1-3, 14, 15, 24, 82, 39, 41, 43, 

58,62,96,139 

Projl'('t Orbit, 80 

Projl'('t Surefire, 220, 229, 280, 239 

Projl'('t Surefire Engine Development Task Force, 220 

Propellants, 165, 170,243, 251,254 

cryogenic, 103 

storable liquid, 12, 192 

Propulsion and Power Division, 153 

secondary, 42, 134, 138, 143, 148, 17

280, 232, 240, 244, 247, 251, 252, 2

second-stage, 3 

verification test program,177,179 

Propulsion test vehicle, 148 

Propulsion test vehicle assembly (PTVA), 1

Protection, Inc., 38 

PTV. See Parachute test vehicle. PTVA. See Propulsion test vehicle assembly. 

Public affairs, DOD support, 121 

Pulse-code-modulated (PCM) telemetry, 21, 

167,179 

ground stations, 114, 167, 179 

instrumentation systems, 42 

Pulse-code-modulation system, 42, 63, 85, 145 

Purser, Paul E., 2, 6, 13, 16, 19, 21 

Putnam, William D., xv Pyrotechnics, 111, 147, 155, 177, 179, 208, 21

241, 243, 251 

Pyrotechnics ln9tallatlon Building, 217,250 

Q 

Qualltlcatlon flights 

manned, 14, 32 

unmanned, 14, 32, 87 

Qualification tests, 133, 139, 143, 156, 169 

Quality control, 75, 186 

R 

Radar,28,8G,86,138, 151,227 

beacon,60,211 

program,112, 113 

Radar transponder, 28, 42, 210 

Radiation belts, 61 

Radiation hazard, 61 

Radiation, Inc., 63 

Radio frequency command system, 63 

Radio Frequency Interferenee Test, 125, 182 

Radio Frequency Susceptibility Tl'st 142 

Radioplane Division, 30, 44 

Radnofsky, Matthew 1., 64 

Range Safety Offici', 100 

Range support, 20 

Ranger Launch Dirt>etorate, 31 

RCS. See Reentry control system. 

Reactant supply system, 33 

Reaction control system, 26, 27, 29, 45, 47, 

Rl'al-tlme computer complex, 84 

Rl'('overy beacon, 98, 144 

Recovery forces, 36, 155 

DOD support, 19 

Recovl:'ry support, 20, 121 

Rt>dondo Beach, California, 52 

Reentry,v,146,188,222,226,229 

heat,87,121 

Reentry control experiment.<~, 3 

Rt't'ntry control system (RCS), 26, 27, 91, 9

100,111,121, 131,15r., 157,192,235 

Reentry guidance, 209, 224, 227 

Reentry module, 37, 100,104, 179 

Rl:'l:'ntry system, 2, 32 

302 
double, 230 

equi-period, 24!3 

fe:1sibility, 4 

at first apogee, 119, 145, 255 

fronlabove,230,24i> 

from concentric orbits, 148 

phantom, 230 

teehniques, 17, 22, 230, 24:> 

Rendf.'ZVOUS and d()('king, 1G, 11', 42, 57, 18!'i, 192, 21i>, 21!), 

23fl,237,24G,248,2fl1,255,2fi9,261 

Rend('ZVOU>: anti recovery section, 47, 66, 7R, 111, 121, 

12!),130, 144,145 

Sec also Gemini sp:1cecraft. Rl'mlezvous e'l'aluatlon pod, 41, 42, !iS, 87, 1!)1, 21H, 200 

Rt>nd!'Z'I'ons t>XJWrim('nts, 3, 4, 71, 122, 224 

Rendez,·ous flight t~. 17, {".4, 227 

Rt>ndezvous mission, 5, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, !iS, 63, 81, 86, 

87, !12, 101, 116, 133, 143, 148, H;t, 20:., 207, 20!1, 221, 

230,245 

Rt>ndt>z'!'ous radar, 28, 41, 58, 8;j, 161, 210, 222 

flight tt>sts, Hi7, 210 

systen1 , 20, 112,113 

Rt>ndez'l'ous targets, 22, 224, 227 

Rt>r('nd('Z\'Otts, 23fi, 2!)7 

Rl'S('arch and De,·etopmf.'nt Tt>sts, 109 

R('sf.'arch Stt>er1ng Commith•e on J\Iann('cl Space Flight, 

1, 2 

Respiration. Sec Bioinstrumentation. 

Restart capability, 3 

Retrofln•, 22G, 236, 246, 251, 261 

Rl'trogrnde rockets, 10, :l4, 44, 4;; 

Retroroekets, 34, 100, 133, 141, 176, 189, 202 

abort system, 44 

abort test, 99 

qualit!Pntlon tf.'sts, 17() 

Ritland, 0. J ., 216 

RIT"erdalP, Californln, 3R 

Rockl•t. motor test, 59 Rock~>t Power, Ine., 32 

Rocket.dyne Di,·ision, 26, G8, Gr., 80, 91, 94, 00, 108, 11!l, 

120,123,130,136,146, 192 

Sec alsu North American A'·iatlon, Inc. 

Root, L. K, 220 

Roae Knut, US~S, 14!i 

Rose, Jamt's T., 6, 11, 138 

Rosen, Milton W., 7, 16 

Rosenthal, Alfred, 160 

Rubel, .John H ., 17, 18 

Ryan A(•ronnuticnl Company, 8 

RyP Canyon Rl's~>areh Cl'nt~>r, 20!l 

s 

S-10 (l\IIcromcteorlte Colleetlon) experlmE>nt, 230, 231 

S-hand radar hencon, 38, 51 Sncrnm~>nto, Cnlifornia, 26, 54 

Salton Sl'a , California, 107 

Salton Sea Rang£>, Cnlifornln, 106 

San Di£>go, California, 8, 14, 16R, 208, 22(), 240 246 2:il 

2!J7 ' ' ' 

Sanders, FredE>rick .J., 7, 13 

Snutn Cruz Trst nasP, 134, 138, 148, 164, 167, 1m, 181 

Snra!lotn, Florida, 46, 63 

SntE>lllte ehaser mlR!>lon, 153 

Satl'lllte Checkout Ruilcling, 217 

Snturn (launch vehiele), 73 

Saturn C-3, 11 

303 

328 - 022 0- 89 - 21 

Seott, DnYid R., 119, 21u, 23r> Scott~dale, Arizonn, 34 

Sen urchin eggs, 191 

Seamans, Robert C., Jr., 8, lG, 17, 18, 40, 83, 87, 103, 

113,114, 13~, 137, 1!)2,216,217,222 

SrC'ondary guidance syst~>m, 163 

lauul'h vehieh• sccondnry flight control system, 

26, 163 

spacecrnft lnPrtinl guidance system, 163 

S!'t:ondnry propulsion systE>m, 23, 158, l!'i!l, 1G.'J, 1{)9 

Sec also AgE>nn D and Propulsion systems. Secretary of Defense, 17, 18, 73, R.1, 87 

St>e, F.lliot :\!., Jr., 60, 71'i, 106, 184, 21!l, 2.14 

SPlf-contain!'d gnldancP, 2 

SequPnc£> Compatibility Firing, 120, 127, 128 

Shf.'pnr<l, Alan n., Jr., 2.'J4 

Shlugles, spacecraft, 100 

Shirtsleeve enT"ironmt>nt, 5 

Shoa f, Ilnrry C., 12 

:-:hrond, l!}R, 205, 245 

S!.'paration, 200, 245 

!lystem, 205 

Shykc>n, rmnn, 16! 

Sih-ersteln, AbP, G, 8 

Slmpkimwn, Scott II., 44, 177, 217 

Simulatc>ll Flight TPst, 139, 100, 156, 167, 176, 186, 1!», 

100, 202, 203, 205, 208, 211, 21!i, 21!l, 2:26, 243, 248, 

2;)3, 218 

Slmul:lt~>d lunar modul~>, 230, 245 

abort, 230 

r!'ndt>Z\'OUS, 230, 24!) 

Shnulnh'd ofl'-th!'-PIId PjPction ( SOPE), 4!), iil, 59, 77, 

91, 177, 178 

Simulators, 27, 92 

abort, 147 

docking, 85 

flight, 143 

mission, 85 

Simultnn!'ous Lnunch Demonstration, 20'i, 2Hi, 210, 

235,241, 248,24!l,~i3,2!'iS,2!)!l 

Slayton, Donald K ., 73, 102, 100 

Sled t!'~ts, !l8, 146, 147 

SLV. Sec Atlas standard launch vehich'. 

Smith, Walter D., Hi 

Soln r cells, 21 

Solar fla rPs, 61 

SOPF.. Sec SimulutPd off-the-puc! ejf.'Ctlon. 

Spnce nnd Informntion Systt>ms Division, 16, UO, RS, 

114, 118 

Sec also Korth Amc>ri<.'nn Aviation, Inc. 

Spncp cnY!ronm('nt, 18, 43, 200, 200 

Space Explorntlon Progrnm Council, 5 

SptH'c Guidance C('nt!'r. Sec Intl'rnnUonal Busin!.'Ss 

J\lnchin('s Corporntion. 

Spn<'c> rendez-vous, 11, 1, 4, 

s,,a('e simnlntor chnmb!'r, 162 

SJm<·e stntion !'Xpt>rlm~>nt, 153 

Rpn<'l' SystE>ms Dh·islon, 1R 2.'~!}, passim 

Sec al.'JO Air Force Systems Command. 

Spacp Task Group, 1-Hi, 138 

Engineering nnd Contrac-t:; Dl'l'ision, 4 

F.ngln('('rlng Division, 6, !), 12, 13, 15 

Flight Systems DIT"i~ion, 2, 4 

~l'\\' Projpc-ts Panel, 2 

redf.'signnted, 15 

Space Technology Laboratories, Inc., 52, 6!, 85, 178 
pretllght readiness reflew, 135 

Spacecraft No. 2, 43, 73, 76, 79, 96, 102, 139, 143, 144, 

150, 155, 156, 177, 17~ 179 

arrival at Cape Kennedy, 156 

behind schedule, 100 

electrleal mate, 164 

guidance and control equipment, 122 

heatshleld, 132 

mechanical mate, 163 

systems tests, 129, 142, 177 

Spacecraft No.3, 58,80, 102,143,144,145,155,156,163, 

179, 181, 182, 191, 192 

delivered to Cape Kennedy, 156, 175 

electrical system modified, 121 

heatshleld, 132 

mechanical mat{', 182, 184 

systems test, 142 

thrusters static fired, 177 

Spacecraft No. 3A, 80, 161 

thE>rmal qualification test, 161, 171 

Spac{'CraftNo. 4,84, 126,155,181,186,189,191-193 

dellverE>d to Cape Kennedy, 192 

mE>chanical mate, 194 

Spacecraft No. 5, 96, 126, 131, 146, 155, 161, 188, 

191-194, 197, 204, 207, 210 

delivered to Cape Kennedy, 200 

mechanical mate, 204 

SpaC{'Craft No. 6, II, 146, 154, 156, 188, 192, 194, 202, 

203,207,208,211,213,217,224-226,229 

m{'Chanl<'al matE>, 213 

Spacecraft No.7, il, 83, 203, 208, 211, 212, 224, 227 

delivered to Cape Kennedy, 216 

electrical mat{', 219 

mechanical mate, 219 pa~Jslve target tor spacecraft 6, 224 

Spacecraft No. 8, 213, 214, 216, 222, 223, 229, 231-23-'i, 

235 

dell'fered to Cape KennE>dy, 229 

electrical mate, 233 

weight Increase, 133 

Spacecraft No. 9, 233-235, 239--241 

elE>ctrlcal matE', 240 

Spacecraft No. 10, 234, 244, 246, 251, 252 

dellven>d to Cape Kennedy, 243 

el{'Ctrical mat{', 248 

mechanical mate, 248 

Spacecraft No. 11, 250, 251, 253 

delivered to Cape K€'nnooy, 251 

electrical mate, 253 

mechanical mate, 253 

Spa<'E>cra!t No. 12, 258 

dellven>d to Cape Kennedy, 254 

electrlca1 mate, 258 

mechanical mate, 258 

Spacecraft accE>ptance review, 150, 156 

Spacecraft atmosphere, 24, 158 

Sp:tcE>craft docking bar, 255, 261 

Spac{'Crnft environment, 49 

Spacecraft/GLV Joint CombinE>d Systems TE>st, 194, 

204,213 

Spacecraft operations coordination meeting, 49 

Spacecraft p&ylond, 12 

Spacecraft syst{'ffis, 24, 3.'>, 94, 96 

communications, 36 

environmental ~ontrol, 24 

St. Louis Municipal Airport, 234 

St. Petersburg, Florida, 36 

Stnblt> platform, 4 

Stabilization systt>m, 2a 

Stafford, Thoma~r P., 60, 71), 106, 142, 1

227, 234, 245, 247 

Stnge I, 89, 90 

fuel tank, 76, 81 

oxidizer tank, 68, 81 

Stage II, 89, 90, 116 

fuel tank, 82 

oxidizer tank, 82 

Star <'hart and bolder, 141 

Star tracker, 4 

Stntlc test nrtldt>, 19, 39, 80 

Static article No. 1, 39, 80 

redesignated spacecraft No. 3A, 80 

Static article No. 2, 53 

Static articlt> No. 3, 80 

Static article No. 4, 80, 150 

Static arti<'le No. 4A, 170 

bollerplate No. 5, 129 

Static article No. 5, 11)8, 185 

open-Sf'a quallfl<'ation test, 139 

Static article ~o. 7, 111, 144, 170 

Stntionkt>eplng,201,202,224,227,229,230,

Stead Air Force Base, Nevada, 106 

Stiff, Ray, C., 103 

Stottard, R. L., 83 

Strnss, H. Kurt, 1-4 

Studebaker Corporation, 41, 6.'5 

CTL Dh1slon, 41, 65 

Subsystems Funrtlonal Verification Test

94, 132, 135, 149, 151, 155, 164, 181, 1&~. 

203,215,226,234,241,248 

Subsystems Re'ferlflratlon Tests 202, 211, 

239, 246, 252, 257, 

Subsystems Verification Tests, 105 

Suit temperatures, 24, 139 

Suits, 162, 166, 190, 100, 208 

boots, 84 

gloves, 63, 84 

helmets, 63, 208 

legs, 63 

quallflratlon tests, 169 

sleeves, 63 

Summary of Mercury and GE>mlni Flights

dlx8. Sunnyvale-, California, 14, 86, 119, 179, 1

195, 197, 203, 206, 220, 230-233, 239, 2

248, 2;';2, 25..'i 

Snrvh·al equipment, 19, 32 

pack, 00 

poetlanding kit, 43, 185 

SustalnE'r engine, 184, 247 

Sec aJ8o Engines. 

Swt>nson, Loyd S., Jr., xtfl, 61 

Symon.<r, John J., 181 

Syrnrus<', New York, 26 

Systems As81lrance Tests, 182, 186, 188, 1

203, 208, 213, 216, 231 

Systems Evaluation and Development D

111 

Landing and lmp&ct System Section

304 

Tandem actuators, 169 


Bee also Gemini launch vehicle (GLV) 2. 


Tape rpeorder, 224, 226 


onboard, 46 


telemetry playback, 224, 226, 229 


Targt>t acquisition equipment, 1 


Target docking adapter, 42, 80, 123, 143, 167, 198, 221, 


222, 224 


communications, 222 


electri<'Bl, 222 


guidance and control, 222 


lnstrumt>nration, 222 


n!tlctlon control, 222 


shroud, 123, 222 


Target docking adapter (TDA) No.1, 198 


Target docking adaptt>r {TDA) No. 5, 23.5 


Target docking adapter {TDA) No.6, 251 


Targt>t docking adapt('r {TDA) No. 7A, 257 


Target launch vehicle (TI..V) 5301, 170, 207, 215 


Target launch vehicle {TLV) 5302,233,234,235 


Target launch vehicle (TLV) 5303, 232, 240, 241, 243, 


244 


failure, 244 


Target launch vehicle (TLV) 5304,240,241 


Target launch vehicle (TLV) 5305,246,247,248 


TLV for Gemini X, 247 


'l'arget launch vehicle (TLV) 5306, 251,252,253 


TLV for Gemini X, 247 


Target launch vehicle (TLV) 5307,257,258 


Target vehicle, 14, 18, 19, 26, 28, 31, 63, 79, 86, 92, 198, 


207 


Agena,18,22,32,65,92,112 


Agena B, 14 


See al.so names of each. 


Target vehicle docking adapter, 19 


TDA. See Target docking adapter. 


TPChnlcal Operating Plan, 23 


Techni<'Bl Services Division, 111 


Telemetry, 19, 42, 216, 224, 226, 229 


equlpment,101,104 


pulse·code-modulated, 42 


''Ten-point Plan for C & C Equipment," 185 


Testing, 30, 162 


horizontal,125, 126,137,149, 171 


Tether, 84, 230, 255, 257, 261 


Tethered vehicle test, 255, 257, 259, 260, 261 


"The Advanced Gemini Mission Conceptual Study," 


153 


circumlunar orbiting mission, 153 


lifeboat rescue mission, 153 


lunar orbiting mission, 153 


satellite chaser mission, 153 


space station exJ)l'riment, 153 


Thiokol Chemi<>al Corporation, 34, 44, 108, 133 


Thomas, James B., 103 


Three-axis reference system {TARS), 26 


Thrust chamber asRembly, 26, 94, 108, 120, 123, 131, 


136,155,158,218,230 


16-pound, 134 
 ~pound,58,80,91,94,96,120, 131,146 


85-pound, 96, 108, 146 


1~pound,80,94,120,130,131,146 

20().pound, 134 


long-life, 146 


Thrust control capability, 3 


Thrust performan~ requirements, 96 


Tindall, Howard W., Jr., 23, 24, 138 


Titan {launch vehicle) ,12, 15,21 


Titan {weapon system), 15 


Titan I, 12, 46 


Titan 11,8,12,13,15,17-19,26,35,84,90,119,137 


cost, 44 


deficiencies, 125 


weapon system, 8, 17, 22, 52, 68, 76, 90, 93 


Bee also Launch vehicles. 


Titan II Augmented Engine Improvement Program, 112 


Titan II coordination mE-eting, 97 


'l'itan II de,·elopment and procurement. 21, 32, 77, 90, 93 


flights, 68, 75-77, 86, 93, 108, 116, 119, 121, 125, 


140 


GLV fixes, 90,93 


Titan II·Gemini Coordination Committee, 84,90 


Titan 11/Gemini launch vehicle, 22 


Titan 11/Geminf spacecraft systems integration, 19 


Titaq1 II {Intercontinental ballistic missile), 32, 54 


Titan II¥.,, 17 


Titan III, 17 


Titanium battery cases, 114 


Titusvll1e, Florida, 217 


TLV. Sec Target launch vehicle. 


Touchdown control, 2 


Tow test vehicle (TTV), 90, 114, 120, 148, 168 


captive-flight test, 90, 153, 168 


Tracking and communications equipment, 160 


Tracking and instrumenta.tlon network, 89, 96 


Tracking antenna acquisition aid system, 39, 63 


Tracking network, 71, 72, 180, 211 


DOD support, 121 


Tracking ship, 145 


Training 


t>gress,131,145 


ingress,131,145 


See also Astronaut training. 
 Training devices, 27 


centrifuge, 27 


docking trainer, 27 


egress trainer, 27 


simulators, 27, 85 


See also Simulators. 


Trajectories and Orbits Coordination Meeting, 61 


Trajectories and Orbits Panel, 138, 145, 157, 187 


TrajPCtory analysis, 6 


Trajecotory control, 23 


Translation and docking trainer, 139, 156 


Transponder,28,210,222 


rPCeiver, 28 


tran11mitter, 28 


See also Agena target vehicle. 


TTV. Sec Tow test vehicle. 


Tullahoma, Tennessee, 89 


Tulsa, Oklahoma, 123 


Tw~man Mercury, 1, 2, 6,10,11,14, 18 


Two-man paragllder trainer, 50 


u 

UHF voice transc<>lver, 36 


rnitl'd States Air FOI'('<', 14, 15, 19, 20, 32, 55, 56, 60, 


62, 68, 74, 80, 87, !)2, 119, 168, 215, 217, 229, 232, 233, 


239 


Aerospace Medical Resl'arch Laboratory 

(6750th), 02 

305 

• RoBERT L. RosrroLT, An Admimtrative Hiatqry of NASA, 1958

1969, NASA SP-4101, 1966, $4.00.* 

PROGRAM HISTORY SERIES 

• 	 LoYD S. SWENSON, JR., JAHEB M. GRIMWooD, and CHARLES C. ALExANDER, Thi8 New Ocemn: A History of Project Mercury, NASA 

SP-4201, 1966, $5.50. . 

• CoNSTANCE MeL. GREEN and MILTON Lo:MASK, V tmguard: A History 

(1969). 

CENTER IDSTORY SERIES 

• ALFRED RosENTHAL, Venture Into Space: Early Years of Goddard 

Space Flight Center, NASA SP-4301, 1968, $2.50. 

HISTORICAL S1UDIES: 

• 	 EuGENE M. EMME (ED.), History of Rocket Technology, special issue of 

Technology amd Culture (Fall 1963); augmented and published by 

Society for the History of Technology (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1964). 

• 	 MAE MILLS LINK, Space Medicine in Project MertJUry, NASA SP4003, 1965, $1.00. 

e Historical Sketch of NASA, NASA EP-29, 1965 (Out of Print). 

CHRONOLOGIES: 

• 	 Aeronautics and Astronautics: An American Chronology of Science and 

Technology in the EaJploration of Space, 1915-1960, compiled by 

Eugene M. Emme, Washington: NASA, 1961 (Out of Print). 

• 	 Aeronautical and Astronautical Events of1961, published by the House 

Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1962 (Out of Print). 

• 	 Astronautical and Aeronautical Event8 of1961!, published by the House 

Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1963, $1.00. 

• Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1969, NASA SP-4004, 1964, $1.75. 

• Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1961,., NASA SP-4005, 1965,$1.75. 

• Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1965, NASA SP-4006, 1966, $2.25. 

• Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1966, NASA SP-4007, 1967, $1.50. 

• Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1961, NASA SP-4008 (1968). 

• 	 Project Mercury: A Chronology, by James M. Grimwood, NASA SP4001, 1963, $1.50. 

• 	 The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Vol. I, through November 7, 

1961!, by Ivan D. Ert.el .and Mary L. Morse, NASA SP-4009 (1969). 

•AU tltlea with price. can be ordered from the Superintendent of Document&, GoTernment PrlDt· 

lug 011lce, Washington, D.C. 20402. 

3.08 

CPSIA information can be obtained at www

.ICGtesting.com 

Printed in the USA 


LYOW09sl5032 11 214 


419839L V00029B/762/P 9