There were several proposals for lunar Gemini, right up to the very end of the program:
At its birth Gemini was known as the Mercury Mark II programme. NASA was already committed to the three-man Apollo spacecraft and considered Gemini an interim spacecraft to test rendezvous, docking, and EVA techniques before Apollo was available. But NASA's James Chamberlin and McDonnell Aircraft considered Gemini as a viable competitor to Apollo for the circumlunar and lunar landing missions. Such proposals might be welcomed by the current 'cheaper, better, faster' NASA. But in 1961, as a direct challenge to the Apollo project and Lyndon Johnson's dream of a Southern High Technology Crescent, they were anathema.
The Centaur would be launched atop a Titan II booster. The lunar Gemini spacecraft would have weighed 3,170 kg, an extra 270 kg over the basic rendezvous Gemini. The difference consisted of a backup inertial navigator and additional heat shielding for re-entry at 11 km/sec instead of 8 km/sec. This program was estimated to put an American around the moon for only $ 60 million more than the basic $ 356 million program. An even more aggressive alternative, a nine-flight program, was promised to cost only $ 8.5 million more than the basic program and fly around the moon in May 1964! This first attempt to fly Gemini to the moon was quickly suppressed, and a revision of the plan was issued only a week later, with all mention of lunar flights deleted.
| Lunar Orbit Rescue | Lunar Surface Survival Shelter | Lunar Surface Rescue |
| Gemini | Apollo | Gemini | Apollo | Gemini | Apollo |
| Vehicle Description | Modified Gemini & repackaged LM Ascent Stage | Apollo CSM | Modified Gemini & Modified LM Descent Stage | Modified SM & Modified LM | Modified Gemini, repackaged LM Ascent Stage & Modified LM Descent Stages | Apollo CSM & LM |
| Mission | Unmanned to lunar orbit, three man direct return | Unmanned to lunar orbit, three man direct return | Unmanned to lunar surface, 28 day quiescent storage, 28 day 2-man operation | Unmanned to lunar surface, 30 day manned operation | Unmanned to lunar orbit, 30 day unmanned quiescent stay, 2 man direct return | Unmanned to lunar orbit, LM to lunar surface, LM to lunar orbit, 2 man return |
| Advantages | Uses developed equipment | No new development Can be accomplished with current acquisitions | Extension of lunar orbit vehicle | Similar to planned post-Apollo exploration shelter | Extension of lunar orbit/shelter vehicle No rendezvous required Direct return | No new development Same as existing mission |
| Disadvantages | New spacecraft development | Possibility of same failure mode | New spacecraft development | Requires modifications to existing hardware | New spacecraft development | Rendezvous required May be difficult to automate transpose docking |
| Recommendations | Do not develop-rescue capability too limited. Greatest emergency potential at lunar surface | Do not develop - need for shelter and total number of Saturn launches reduced by providing an on-station backup return capability | Modify to a 'Universal' Rescue Vehicle by improving capability to cover three-man cases |
McDonnell concluded that an unmanned Gemini 'Universal Lunar Rescue Vehicle' could be developed that would perform all three tasks. The Gemini capsule would be extended to allow up to three rescued Apollo crew members to be returned. Such a craft could rescue the entire Apollo crew at any point along the Apollo mission profile. Some sketches appear to show a two-man Gemini crew in addition to three crew couches in the Gemini capsule extension. The unspoken point was that the Saturn V was in fact large enough to land men on the moon using the direct-ascent method. Use of lunar orbit rendezvous was only necessary because of NASA's adherence to the 6 tonne, three-crew Apollo command module design. The 2 tonne Gemini capsule, even in a form stretched to accommodate three to five crew, could accomplish a direct landing on the moon using Apollo components.
This last attempt to resuscitate Lunar Gemini failed as well. At that point in the Apollo program cut-backs already had begun. No funds would be forthcoming to build additional launch vehicles and spacecraft beyond those already purchased. There was definitely no money to provide a rescue capability, using either Apollo or Gemini hardware.
Not considered at the time, but truly having the potential for a reduced-cost, reduced-risk program would have been a purely Titan-based, USAF-managed project. By using earth-orbit rendezvous and Titan 2 and Titan 3C as the launch vehicles, a program can be constructed that would have landed an American on the moon much earlier than Apollo. With a 2,500 kg open-cockpit LM the moon landing could be accomplished using only two Titan 3 launches: one a Titan 3E, putting a Centaur upper stage into low earth orbit; the other a Titan 3D, putting a Lunar Gemini-LM combination into low earth orbit, which would dock with the Centaur and then proceed to the moon. Such a program, taking into account the actual Gemini and Titan 3C development schedules, would have looked something like this:
Such a program could have achieved a manned lunar landing two years earlier than Apollo at half the cost, a savings of $ 9 billion.