Possible, I'd have to go back and look again. Though the idea of re-using at least part of the Apollo Spacecraft after use is something I'd see happening when they decided to for the Block IV variants.
Possible, I'd have to go back and look again. Though the idea of re-using at least part of the Apollo Spacecraft after use is something I'd see happening when they decided to for the Block IV variants.
Yeah, you'll note the pressures on the SFPP here compared to OTL equivalents from that.
Typo--meant Spacelab 13 and 14.
There were studies OTL and ITTL, but the need to essentially replace the entire TPS and the SM plus the MM for Block III+ makes it something that's likely to wait in reserve for a Block IV or Apollo successor--it's a good idea, but expensive modifications are needed for it to be possible.
NAA aka Rockwell International
made allot of studies on reuse of Apollo capsule around year 1968.
one idea was to land Apollo CM with parawing on land, even with landing-gear like a aircraft.
that would be funny, instead of shuttle test glide in 1970s
Apollo CM would drop from aircraft and glide under Parawing to Edwards ABF runway.
I'm guessing Skylab missions are numbered continuously throughout the program of American space stations (at least until the USA goes for something more grandiose), counting the actual "Skylab," the one and only IIRC, as the first three IIRC "Skylab missions".
Isn't the current manned satellite called "Spacelab," and a second one would be Spacelab II (or some third name, OrbitLab or HabLab or some such, possibly themed by focuses--an orbiting station geared toward developing microgravity industrial processes to attract private investment in space might be called FabLab
while one for assembling and supporting manned deep space missions might be called "AccessLab," say, or "VoyageLab," though I daresay they'll come up with something grander for that, "Asgard" or "Independence" (as in Independence, Missouri, famed jumping-off point for westward pioneers in US grade school history classes and to some extent in historical reality) or what have you. But it looks to me like NASA is going for an impressive run of high numbers of missions in a series, to avoid the impression US manned space ventures are just sporadic stunts.So starting with Skylab 1, the missions are counted consecutively forward into the foreseeable future, while the facilities they visit may carry serial names or special theme ones.
Just my inference! If I'm right, the first mission to Spacelab (which some might call Skylab II, unless there...)
Once again I start posting first then do the Bloody Research. In this case it was a matter of going over to the Eyes Turned Skyward Wiki page and looking at the Mission List. Nope, they start counting all over every time a new orbiting facility goes up. Original Skylab hosted 5 missions, the new Spacelab (NOT "Skylab II"
) starts over with Spacelab missions 1 through 8 so far. Presumably a third American orbiting station will get a new name, and the series will start over again. Perhaps that new name will be "Spacelab II," or something trendier.Anyway I guess "Skylab 13" is a typo for "Spacelab 13," which is certainly foreseeable. Though I don't know when Spacelab will hit its expiration date or whether mission 13 would be pushing it.
I forget whether we discussed the notion before of just growing Spacelab indefinitely until it becomes the core of a facility that will wind up being the first orbital city, but if we did I bet someone pointed out that Soviet/Russian experience OTL suggests this is really not a good idea. Aside from becoming quaintly obsolete and absurdly undersized for any really useful role, the originally launched core elements will also suffer wear and tear and become risky, even with a decent maintenance effort (which will cut into mission time for other projects, and payload launched mass).
If the Americans don't anticipate this now, they will understand it when they've pushed an old station too far!
Once again I start posting first then do the Bloody Research. In this case it was a matter of going over to the Eyes Turned Skyward Wiki page and looking at the Mission List. Nope, they start counting all over every time a new orbiting facility goes up. Original Skylab hosted 5 missions, the new Spacelab (NOT "Skylab II"
Oh, you'll see!
Indeed--we just missed that one in our editing phase. Whoops!
No, it's not a good idea. But Spacelab is designed to last a long time--when it was authorized, NASA didn't (and, technically, still doesn't, in-timeline) know when or whether there would be a replacement. So they designed it to last.
what have you in Mind ?
Apollo CSM with mission time maximum of 45 day, for AAP Lunar mission (the OTL Block III proposal)
A enlarge Apollo CSM from 12.8 ft/3.9 mø to 16.5 ft/5 mø, to get more crew into the CM and more cargo space in AARDV aka Aardvark
that CM would in size of Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle aka Orion, with 5.9 m3 (210 cu ft) 2.5 time more volume as Apollo CM.
That's place for 6 Astronauts.
Block III+ is brand-new at this point. It pretty much defines the break between Part 1 and Part 2! The capacity to send five people up has just now been implemented, so I suppose it will be some time before another increment of major improvement in some direction will happen.
To make that improvement amount to raising the capacity of the system to send 6 or more people up would mean I'd think requiring a more powerful launch rocket. (By the way it isn't clear to me whether the first Block III+ is launched on a Saturn Multibody M02, and Block III+ and Multibody automatically go together, precisely because even minimal Block III+ does indeed require a bigger rocket than Saturn 1C already, or whether there are early Block III+ using a 1C and the Multibody M02 launches coming soon will be improved by means of heavier mission modules, either for independent use or carrying more supplies for a space station mission). The flexibility of III+ lies in being able to vary the size and content of the Mission Module. The CM is a reconfiguration of the basic Block III CM to squeeze in two more astronauts and takes that design to the limit; since the only safe place for astronauts to be during launch, and the only possible place to be during reentry, is in the CM, it follows that to get more people still into a CM means breaking past the limits of Apollo designs and having a bigger one.
I suppose if NASA (or DOD) had some really good reason to send up more than 5 people for a launch, they could do it using an M02 or even 1C launcher, by eliminating the mission module and doing a major redesign of the CM; they might for instance have to have a wider base (to accomodate more volume without lengthening the capsule out of proportion and thus exposing the nose to excess reentry heating). They really didn't have the mass margin to accomplish much in that direction using a 1C but the M02 has more capability. But the advantage of the Mission Module approach is that a structure designed only to operate in space and not survive reentry makes much more effective use of limited mass, thus deleting it doesn't free up mass for really dramatic upgrades of the CM even if the designers are prepared for sweeping, comprehensive redesigns. The Block III+ is capable of cramming 5 astronauts (or 5 people, if NASA here as OTL has the pilots insisting that only they are real "astronauts" and everyone else is a "mission specialist"--that's why I've been avoiding saying just "astronauts" but I will henceforth!) into a CM originally designed for just 3 by relocating much of what they need for long-term living in space--including elbow room, but also supplies--into the MM, trying to expand the CM so it can include more astronauts minimally involves having not a deleted but expanded mission module, and doing without a mission module means a bigger expansion of the CM still. The only way around this would be if the mission could absolutely guarantee the craft will rendezvous with a space station very soon after launch, turning the craft into a space taxi only; that's the only way to launch more than 5 using the existing, proven launchers (M02 is not yet proven I think, but it is confidently expected to work and will be proven shortly, perhaps precisely with Spacelab 9 mission).
So--to launch more than 5 astronauts at once any way but marginally requires a bigger rocket. Fortunately Saturn Multibody offers just that! Unfortunately, I'm nervous about the wisdom of using the solid booster upgrade versions for manned launches. Maybe NASA won't be, and it will be precisely to enable a bigger CM capable of landing 8 or more astronauts at once that will be their motive for going over to one of these versions, or even all the way over to H03! (I'm a lot more sanguine about using liquid fuel boosters than solids, and so I'm cool with a manned Heavy, but it's overkill for anything not incredibly grandiose at this stage, and it is marginally more risky than a single M02 launch.
So, the next thing after Block III+ is not likely to be an increase in the number of astronauts per launch, which requires moving beyond Apollo.
The idea of another block of improvements after this one we are just now seeing implemented at last, that we've been discussing, is the possibility of revising the CM design so it can be reused.
I'm not sure what the point is exactly. In mass terms, the CM is a tiny fraction of the mass sitting on the launch pad. It is somewhat more expensive mass than average, involving as it does the lifesystem and control systems and thermal protection and so forth. But the authors evidently don't anticipate advances in thermal protection that would allow guaranteed reuse of it, so already we have stuff that definitely needs to be replaced anyway; the other systems will suffer some stress and wear and tear even if nothing goes out of parameters.
Considering that museums all around the world are clamoring for used Apollo CMs as exhibits, it might make more sense to go on making them one-shot, so every component aboard is brand new for every mission.
It depends on whether the cost of the CM itself really stands out in the mission budget far out of proportion to its share of the total system mass, the rest of which is being thrown away with every launch anyway.
Other improvements in the system one can imagine include improving its landing options (but the authors have been asserting the current system is working just fine, whereas it seems to me any dramatic improvement in any aspect of its descent/landing capabilities will probably involve serious mass costs hence a deluxe rocket or trading off some mission margin) and most anything else would be taken care of by customizing the Mission Module.
To make that improvement amount to raising the capacity of the system to send 6 or more people up would mean I'd think requiring a more powerful launch rocket. (By the way it isn't clear to me whether the first Block III+ is launched on a Saturn Multibody M02, and Block III+ and Multibody automatically go together, precisely because even minimal Block III+ does indeed require a bigger rocket than Saturn 1C already, or whether there are early Block III+ using a 1C and the Multibody M02 launches coming soon will be improved by means of heavier mission modules, either for independent use or carrying more supplies for a space station mission). The flexibility of III+ lies in being able to vary the size and content of the Mission Module. The CM is a reconfiguration of the basic Block III CM to squeeze in two more astronauts and takes that design to the limit; since the only safe place for astronauts to be during launch, and the only possible place to be during reentry, is in the CM, it follows that to get more people still into a CM means breaking past the limits of Apollo designs and having a bigger one.
I suppose if NASA (or DOD) had some really good reason to send up more than 5 people for a launch, they could do it using an M02 or even 1C launcher, by eliminating the mission module and doing a major redesign of the CM; they might for instance have to have a wider base (to accomodate more volume without lengthening the capsule out of proportion and thus exposing the nose to excess reentry heating). They really didn't have the mass margin to accomplish much in that direction using a 1C but the M02 has more capability. But the advantage of the Mission Module approach is that a structure designed only to operate in space and not survive reentry makes much more effective use of limited mass, thus deleting it doesn't free up mass for really dramatic upgrades of the CM even if the designers are prepared for sweeping, comprehensive redesigns. The Block III+ is capable of cramming 5 astronauts (or 5 people, if NASA here as OTL has the pilots insisting that only they are real "astronauts" and everyone else is a "mission specialist"--that's why I've been avoiding saying just "astronauts" but I will henceforth!) into a CM originally designed for just 3 by relocating much of what they need for long-term living in space--including elbow room, but also supplies--into the MM, trying to expand the CM so it can include more astronauts minimally involves having not a deleted but expanded mission module, and doing without a mission module means a bigger expansion of the CM still. The only way around this would be if the mission could absolutely guarantee the craft will rendezvous with a space station very soon after launch, turning the craft into a space taxi only; that's the only way to launch more than 5 using the existing, proven launchers (M02 is not yet proven I think, but it is confidently expected to work and will be proven shortly, perhaps precisely with Spacelab 9 mission).
So--to launch more than 5 astronauts at once any way but marginally requires a bigger rocket. Fortunately Saturn Multibody offers just that! Unfortunately, I'm nervous about the wisdom of using the solid booster upgrade versions for manned launches. Maybe NASA won't be, and it will be precisely to enable a bigger CM capable of landing 8 or more astronauts at once that will be their motive for going over to one of these versions, or even all the way over to H03! (I'm a lot more sanguine about using liquid fuel boosters than solids, and so I'm cool with a manned Heavy, but it's overkill for anything not incredibly grandiose at this stage, and it is marginally more risky than a single M02 launch.
So, the next thing after Block III+ is not likely to be an increase in the number of astronauts per launch, which requires moving beyond Apollo.
The idea of another block of improvements after this one we are just now seeing implemented at last, that we've been discussing, is the possibility of revising the CM design so it can be reused.
I'm not sure what the point is exactly. In mass terms, the CM is a tiny fraction of the mass sitting on the launch pad. It is somewhat more expensive mass than average, involving as it does the lifesystem and control systems and thermal protection and so forth. But the authors evidently don't anticipate advances in thermal protection that would allow guaranteed reuse of it, so already we have stuff that definitely needs to be replaced anyway; the other systems will suffer some stress and wear and tear even if nothing goes out of parameters.
Considering that museums all around the world are clamoring for used Apollo CMs as exhibits, it might make more sense to go on making them one-shot, so every component aboard is brand new for every mission.
It depends on whether the cost of the CM itself really stands out in the mission budget far out of proportion to its share of the total system mass, the rest of which is being thrown away with every launch anyway.
Other improvements in the system one can imagine include improving its landing options (but the authors have been asserting the current system is working just fine, whereas it seems to me any dramatic improvement in any aspect of its descent/landing capabilities will probably involve serious mass costs hence a deluxe rocket or trading off some mission margin) and most anything else would be taken care of by customizing the Mission Module.
Very minor point I know, but didn't NASA steer clear of having 13 in mission titles after Apollo XIII ?
Cheers,
Nigel.
there one improvement by landing on land for Apollo program.
Cost reduction: because NASA need US Navy for recover the Apollo CM from ocean.
for Gemini capsule recovery was for US NAVY a total cost of USD 314 million in 2012
They used 20~10 ship in ocean for that.
NASA pay USD 84 million to US NAVY and rest by DoD
source: NASA SP-4203 "On the Shoulders of Titans - A History of the Project Gemni" in Appendix G
USD 327.6 million is the total cost of Mars Climate Orbiter program.
Cost reduction: because NASA need US Navy for recover the Apollo CM from ocean.
for Gemini capsule recovery was for US NAVY a total cost of USD 314 million in 2012
They used 20~10 ship in ocean for that.
NASA pay USD 84 million to US NAVY and rest by DoD
source: NASA SP-4203 "On the Shoulders of Titans - A History of the Project Gemni" in Appendix G
USD 327.6 million is the total cost of Mars Climate Orbiter program.
The first Block III+ launch is in 1980 (which is incidentally why I cut off the mission list on the wiki at the point where it is--Spacelab 9 is the first Block III+) on its associated Saturn 1C which is the vehicle it was designed to fit, taking advantage of the 4-ton payload increase to add the MM for enough room for 5 people to comfortably live while in-transit to Spacelab.
See the above. Block III+ is initially for Saturn 1C launch and is first flown in 1980, where Multibody isn't even selected for ELVRP II until 1981 and won't fly until roughly 1985/86. There's another potential 3 or so tons available if/when they switch to M02, but that's not going to be online for a while, and like you said the natural evolution would be more crew through a larger CM (either larger diameter or a more Geminesque/Dragoneque sidewall to get more volume from the same heatshield diameter), but while that'd be nice it's a pretty serious change and Block III+ is still pretty new itself in 1982. NASA's budget isn't infinite, so there's likely to end up as a disconnect between what they like and what the budget can support.
Again, Multibody won't even be contracted by the time Spacelab 9 flies--that flight is in 1980, and Multibody isn't even picked until 1981. The boundary between Part I and Part II is not quite exactly 1982 for all topics.
Nice, nice to see the TL back and nice to see a focus on Japan in this one. I like the short stays being used in this manner, it makes sense from both diplomatic and PR standpoints. Good work again!
A little bit off topic, but still in EtS TL:
Voyager 1 to 4
i found some data about launch window and flyby date and put them together:
Voyager 1
Launch September 1977 - Jupiter December 1978 - Saturn November 1980 -> interstellar space
Voyager 2
Launch September 1977 - Jupiter March 1979 - Saturn July 1981 - Pluto September 1986 -> interstellar space
Voyager 3
Launch October 1978 - Jupiter April 1980 - Uranus January 1985 - Neptune May 1988 -> interstellar space
Voyager 4
Launch November 1978 - Jupiter April 1981 - Uranus July 1985 - Neptune August 1988 -> interstellar space
There no exact date, because the original Data imply launch delays.
Voyager 2 could fly as backup for Voyager 3 or 4, if one of the Titan IIIE explode during launch.
Then JLP correct in spring 1981 Voyager 2 flight pad for fly-by to Uranus/Neptune.
The one year pause between 1&2 and 3&4, would be use to fix problem on 3&4.
The Fly-by one after another date, are 3 to 15 months away what give scientist time to make adaptations or change target's
like more focus on Triton and Neptune Dark spot by Voyager 4
It would have be great: Voyager 2 to take picture of Pluto and it five moons in september 1986. In OTL we have to wait until 14 july 2015
Could the Voyager's make exploratory work on Kuiper belt ? like make periodically picture to defined movement of small planets.
Source on launch window and flyby data:
"Kursbuch für das Sonnensystem"
by Bruno Stanek
1971 Hallwag AG, Switzerland
Voyager 1 to 4
i found some data about launch window and flyby date and put them together:
Voyager 1
Launch September 1977 - Jupiter December 1978 - Saturn November 1980 -> interstellar space
Voyager 2
Launch September 1977 - Jupiter March 1979 - Saturn July 1981 - Pluto September 1986 -> interstellar space
Voyager 3
Launch October 1978 - Jupiter April 1980 - Uranus January 1985 - Neptune May 1988 -> interstellar space
Voyager 4
Launch November 1978 - Jupiter April 1981 - Uranus July 1985 - Neptune August 1988 -> interstellar space
There no exact date, because the original Data imply launch delays.
Voyager 2 could fly as backup for Voyager 3 or 4, if one of the Titan IIIE explode during launch.
Then JLP correct in spring 1981 Voyager 2 flight pad for fly-by to Uranus/Neptune.
The one year pause between 1&2 and 3&4, would be use to fix problem on 3&4.
The Fly-by one after another date, are 3 to 15 months away what give scientist time to make adaptations or change target's
like more focus on Triton and Neptune Dark spot by Voyager 4
It would have be great: Voyager 2 to take picture of Pluto and it five moons in september 1986. In OTL we have to wait until 14 july 2015
Could the Voyager's make exploratory work on Kuiper belt ? like make periodically picture to defined movement of small planets.
Source on launch window and flyby data:
"Kursbuch für das Sonnensystem"
by Bruno Stanek
1971 Hallwag AG, Switzerland
Nigel,
The STS switch from straight numerals to "mission codes" was the result of one specific person's triskaidecaphobia--James M. Beggs, Reagan's appointee to NASA Administrator. Spacelab 13 is in September 1981 ITTL, and if Beggs is still Reagan's appointee he's likely to take office in July. Two months before launch isn't a great time to be renaming missions, and it wasn't until almost 2 years after his appointment that he put the naming scheme into effect OTL. So I'm just going to say if he grits his teeth, crosses his fingers, and lives with it and NASA sticks with straight numerals.
Technically you don't need the Navy, you just need a boat. By the late APollo era, they no longer needed the speed of a carrier as they were pretty reliably hitting targets with accuracy measured in miles--a barge with a crane would suffice, roughly the same infrastructure Dragon's using today. I'm figuring that's going to be maybe $1 million or so a launch, and it's in place from 1978, implemented as part of the logistics changes from Block II to Block III. It's not cheap, exactly, but it's minor compared to the engineering cost of redesigning with a paraglider or other land-landing system.
Thanks to both of you--it's good to be back.
Specifically about the Spaceflight Participation Program, yeah, it's a pretty sensible thing, and we did much the same with Shuttle mission specialist slots, but of course we had more of those to go around.Some interesting guesses, I won't comment on how they compare to our Voyager stuff--I'll just say that Post 5 covers all that, and give you something to look forward to, eh?
Again, it's good to be back! I'm pleased by how much people seem to have been anticipating this coming off haitus.
Yes, and any more would be some spoilers, wouldn't they? All part of truth's nearly 15,000 words of unmanned coverage (with more still to write!). It's some amazing stuff. Post 3 will have an overview, and then major destinations like Mars, Venus, comets, and asteroids all have their own dedicated posts, plus some for flagship missions like Hubble, Voyager, Galileo, and others. We're tossing around adding some others to that list, but that's more truth's realm than mine and he's been looking at how much time he'll have to add updates or keep up with the thread this semester.
OK, I wrongly telescoped the Multibody and Block III+ together into a package deal which they clearly are not. I think this rather underscores what I was saying, mainly to Michel Van--that it's much too early to be looking beyond III+ when that is just about to have its very first flight.
With a 66 percent boost in numbers of astronauts that can be sent up at once, no mean increment! Or a 300 percent boost in the number of non-"astronauts" in NASA pilot jock jargon, what they call "Mission Specialists." An even greater achievement--only half as many as STS could but it took a while for STS to work up to launching 8 people at once, and we've got 5 manned missions in the bag already, for 15 people orbiting who didn't OTL until after 1980. So it would take 5 fully manned STS missions to pull ahead, assuming Block III+ missions are launched at the same rate as STS was before the Challenger disaster OTL.
I'm guessing they may not keep up that pace, or they might since I hope a Saturn 1C/Block III+ launch is overall cheaper than an STS one worked out to actually be. And given your political foreshadowing, the pace will pick up.
Darn. Multibody is what really hooked me into believing passionately in this timeline, though actually the Block III+ was pretty exciting too, and now that at least is at hand!
Actually I was saying sort of the opposite, supporting the idea we need not run ahead of ourselves too much just yet, by stressing that the Block III+ is itself a big step forward but pushing it any farther than that is asking for too much. We need a bigger rocket to put up anything bigger, and a bigger return capsule, which is absolutely necessary to launch more than 5 people at a time, is particularly heavier. Plus of course we'd have to be designing a completely new capsule. Designs for bigger Apollo CMs probably exist in abundance on paper, but the current design has a track record of success in about 20 missions so far--whatever else went wrong, the Block II and III CMs never failed. Even in the extreme emergency of Apollo 13, which IIRC carries over to this timeline, the CM delivered (as well as it could with its power and critical supplies crippled by the SM failure). Most of all it landed the 3 astronauts safely despite a rather jury-rigged and somewhat disrupted entry trajectory.
So going up to a bigger one, even a very conservative evolution of the existing design, is a new risk with new equipment. Part of the genius of Block III+ is that that one very crucial piece of the mission, while revamped internally, is externally exactly the same piece of hardware that landed all the previous Apollo astronauts safely. It's a known quantity, which is good for risk management and also good for manufacturing economics.
Reminding us that Block III+ is designed around Saturn 1C and not Multibody capabilities should as I said underscore my point that if NASA is going to dream of a bigger capsule for more people per mission (8 say, or 10) they're going to have to wait until at least M02 is available and man-rated, which is half a decade hence. If indeed 3 tonnes plus as much as they can scant the MM (when that MM has to provide for the needs of the extra people, or if foregone the CM has to be that much bigger) is even enough to expand the CM signifcantly. I suppose it would be, since the CM is IIRC about 5 tonnes, so making it 66 percent more massive should allow a fair volume increase. But of course if the bigger capsule has the same density as the standard Block II/III/III+ module then the area per mass of the heat shield is higher, so either the thing enters that much hotter and faster or some redesign of the basic shape is in order. It could be that we could increase the surface area by 66 percent with an extra 3 tonnes rather than increase the volume by that much--meaning extra volume, which is good since the 5 person load of the standard capsule leaves them scanty room and makes the MM mandatory. Still I would not be confident the extra 3 tonnes capacity will really allow for a dramatic increase in the CM size, whereas accepting the limit of 5 space travelers and using it for a big MM or lots of supplies for the station could have a more impressive impact.
I'm just saying, Block III+ is pretty darn good, we don't need more just yet!
I have been tempted to ask for upgrades in the Apollo CM TPS, to make it renewable, but I've already acknowledged that perhaps keeping the CMs one-use is good economics, since we don't want missions to fail due to overaged equipment retained in false economies. When we have a one-shot ablative TPS that has to be completely replaced anyway, the economics of reusing the rest of the capsule has to be very persuasive indeed; if we could reuse the heat shield too then investing in a reusable capsule would look a lot more attractive.
On one hand, the Block II standard ablative heat shield was designed for returns from Lunar missions, essentially at escape rather than orbital velocities; the energies to be disposed of in braking are twice as high for moon missions as for returns from orbit. So designing a fully or mostly reusable TPS (by mostly, I mean something like OTL STS tiles, but under a protective thin ablative coating that would have to be renewed each time) would be that much less challenging at least until very high orbit or translunar missions are again in the offing.
On the other hand, retaining the Block II type shield in the later blocks, even if it is overkill, strikes me as the kind of conservatism that is smart!
My guess is that if the mantra of reusabilty becomes fashionable in this timeline it will be after the Block III+'s have had a long service life and everyone is looking forward to something newer anyway. Say during Part III?
I'm settling down to enjoy Part II first!
... And presumably holds on to his lucky rabbit's foot during the mission.
Thanks for the detailed answer. I hadn't realised that NASA's triskaidecaphobia (not a word I use very often) was instituted so long after Apollo.
Cheers,
Nigel.
My condolences on the loss of your uncle. I know my uncle worked on the development of the Titan 1a and 2 at Martin Marietta before he joined NASA. I've heard how horrible those chemicals were and when I saw videos of the failed launch of Gemini 6A, I saw clouds of the stuff billowing out. IIRC, I think the astronauts had to wait inside the Gemini before coming out for some time so the fumes could clear. I can just look at it and know it is nasty. I know with the Titan, it seems like we are barking up the wrong tree on that one, as you pointed out, I think a Saturn 1B or 1C could have done the job just as well.