AH Challenge; Skylab B + Salyut 6 = ISS in 1976?

[Riain]

What a combination. Skylab B was as big as a 3 bedroom house, had an extensive equipment fit-out, generated a lot of electricity and had gyro stabilisation. Salyut 6 had moveable solar panels, on board rockets, resupply capability and a system which exrtacted moisture from the atmosphere for recyling. Apollo was similarly impressive compared to Soyuz, but there were only 4 left after the first Skylab.

So is there a way to get the 2 space stations launched and joined into 1 complex in about 1976? The only caveat I would add is that Skylab should only have minimum mods for the mission, nothing structural in light of the US economy and attitude to space post moon landings.

 

[Archibald]

Here's my own scenario. First Skylab is not salvaged, all funds and CSM goes to Skylab-2, orbited in 1975. NASA decide first that ATSP will use Skylab-2. This save the CSM used for ATSP, so now NASA has four Apollo CSM in reserve, not three. Maybe the CSM-115 can be salvaged, then you would have five CSM available in the 1975-1981 era. So what to do with them ? First, send Skylab-2 to LEO using Saturn SA-514. According to Astronautix this was planned for May 1975. The very last Saturne V, SA-515 is still available and can launch a 118 metric ton-load in LEO, so why wasting it? Build a big module from a S-II or a S-IVB and launch it using SA-515. Once again Astronautix help, mentioning that an "International / Advanced Skylab" was drawn in 1975 but never past the drawing board. Fill this module with Spacelab or Columbus modules, AAP experiments palets... Then dock it with Skylab-2. You have now a 110+75= 185 tons space station in LEO, but its building is not finished. Then Saliut 6 dock to the station, too. Four or five remaining CSM plus Soyuz will bring passengers and cargo in the 1975-1980 era. Then TKS and Shuttle will replace them for the 80's. Trouble with this scenario lie in Reagan and Afghanistan crisis in the 80's. This ended "detente in space " after 1979, so what would happen to the Saliut part of the complex ?

 

[Michel Van]

the TL is not Bad
but has not enoff Saturn IB for Apollo Flight until Shuttle is launch ready in 1981

There was Alternative of using Titan III to launch 15 Ton Apollo CSM to Orbit.
Study of Rockwell in 1968 as prodution run of Saturn IB was Stop

Spacelab is shuttle only hardware. works in Shuttle Payloadbay only

how this Skylab look like give his PDF
is about reactivation of Skylab 1 by Shuttle in 1979.
an put external modul on to it.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790075817_1979075817.pdf

NASA decide first that ATSP

is called Apollo Soyuz Test Program ASTP
the next step of ASTP was the Docking Apollo CSM with a Salut Space Station !
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750067869_1975067869.pdf

and there were also plans for Space Shuttle docks with Salut Space Station

Trouble with this scenario lie in Reagan and Afghanistan crisis in the 80's

the Afghanistan war was the brain child of Yuri Andropov, so get lost of him
also of Ronald Reagan because he is major disaster to Manned US Spaceflight and rest Space Program. (in 1980s)

wat you need is a World were Jimmy Carter is Prasident from 1976 to 1984 and in Peace proces with USSR under ASTP
no Afganistan war and no Iran Islamic Revolution, last one hast intressting POD:

Iran Airforce Pilot loyal to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi,
shot down the airplane how brings Ayatollah Khomeini back to Iran
later the Revolution is break down by Iranian Military, how turn iran into a military dictatorship.

with out the Iran Islamic Revolution. Jimmy Carter win over Ronald Reagan in 1980.

 

[Riain]

Can anyone with more computer skill than me rig that Shuttle picture to make Salyut into Skylab?

The political scenario I'd see leading to S-B+S-6 would be a one upmanship game to show who was the most comitted to making a big show in space. It starts with a pair of capsules and escaltes into a giant space construction with unforseen long term benefits.

In hardware, Skylab B is already built in when negotiations start so it will have to be virtually unmodified, and Salyut 6 was not built until 1975/6 so it is fair game for mods. I'd go for the mooted 3rd docking port, which would leave 2 spare once it docked with Skaylab. The Soyuz could be designated the rescue craft, so all 4 Apollos could be used, and they have a space life of 100-120 days, making the SS mission at least 480 days long. The Soyuz only lasts 90 days and they only carry 2 men so to match the NASA effort the SU would have to conduct 6 soyuz missions, all in all the opportunity to keep a continuous presence in space for a year and a half.

Supply may be a sticking point, but the US does have Titan 3Ds to shunt up a cargo craft and the Progress could be accelerated to conduct missions later on in the SS's life.

 

[Michel Van]

here Space Shuttle dock on Skylab
source
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790075817_1979075817.pdf

 

[Riain]

Is that a cut down version of a large picture? I went to look at the link and they wanted me to save the whole archive, all 21Mb on dialup, so I didn't look myself.

Would the Shuttle be seen differently if it had an existing space station to service from day 1?

 

[Michel Van]

Is that a cut down version of a large picture?

nope, the real picture from PDF

I post here the second Pictur from PDF
the Small Module on top, you can take als Saljut Space Station

Would the Shuttle be seen differently if it had an existing space station to service from day 1 ?

Yes, it was build for that

but with out Space Station Skylab, NASA went with Space Shuttle in launching communications satellites !
and lost against Lowtech Europe Ariane 3 and 4 Rocket !
then came Challenger

to "Shuttle build a Space Station" NASA concept had only in 1984 politcal support.
because Ronald Reagan wanted something bigger as new Sovjet Space Station MIR

Space Station Freedom was never constructed or completed as originally designed, and after several cutbacks, the remnants of the project became part of the International Space Station.

 

[Riain]

Good picture for size comparison.

Anyway back to the 1976 ISS. If 3 Apollos can each to 120 missions from mid 1976 that takes the station into the 2nd half of 1977, and if the 4th can be squeezed in that sees 1977 out. The problem then is the 5 years until the Shuttle can visit it. Would a political solution to this problem be found (ie Astronauts on Soyuz's) or would the stations be seperated and Skylab B be put into a parking orbit for 5 years?

 

[Michel Van]

the Orginal Skylab was left in a parking orbit expected to last at least eight years.

Increased solar activity, heating the outer layers of the Earth's atmosphere and thereby increasing drag on Skylab,
led to an early reentry at approximately 16:37 UTC 11 July 1979

the same happen to Skylab B !

Alternative ?
Progress (Soyuz - freighter spacecraft) dock and push Skylab B higher
or

NASA build Apollo CSM Block III (planed for AAP in first place, but never build) and Launch them with Titan IIID
wat look like if they...

 

[robertsconley]

What a combination. Skylab B was as big as a 3 bedroom house, had an extensive equipment fit-out, generated a lot of electricity and had gyro stabilisation. Salyut 6 had moveable solar panels, on board rockets, resupply capability and a system which exrtacted moisture from the atmosphere for recyling. Apollo was similarly impressive compared to Soyuz, but there were only 4 left after the first Skylab.

So is there a way to get the 2 space stations launched and joined into 1 complex in about 1976? The only caveat I would add is that Skylab should only have minimum mods for the mission, nothing structural in light of the US economy and attitude to space post moon landings.

Technically yes. But there are major issues

Skylab was designed to be launched into a 28.2 deg inclination orbit. Launching into the higher Salyut inclination would require a reduction in weight with a reduction of mission capacity for Skylab.

Skylab was not designed to be refuelable. It would not be likely until the second generation of Skylabs that a refuelable space station could be built. This is similar to how the russian program developed.

Skylab did not have any second port in the rear. The only point of contact between Skylab and Salyut would have been through a docking adapter between the front port of the skylab and the front port of the salyut.

At the time of Skylab's launch the Salyut design did not posses either refueling capabilities or a second docking port. These capabilities debuted with Salyut 6 launched in 1977.

In short it is not likely that any joint station happening in the 70's without a point of departure in the 1960's. However an early 80's joint station could have happened.

There were two Saturn Vs left after the initial Skylab. In an alternate history the first one could have launched a Skylab B, essentially the same as Skylab A, and the second a Skylab II with refueling and more docking ports also capable of hooking up with the Salyut.

This would require an alternate outcome to the decision that lead to the shuttle. Either the shuttle AND space station would have to be decided. Or the CSM/Saturn IB program continued with space station using the existing Saturn Vs.

Plus a reason for detente to continue or to be sustained will need to happen for a joint space craft to happen.

 

[Archibald]

Love the Shuttle- station pictures, thanks for sharing!

 

[Michel Van]

Technically yes. But there are major issues

Skylab was designed to be launched into a 28.2 deg inclination orbit. Launching into the higher Salyut inclination would require a reduction in weight with a reduction of mission capacity for Skylab.

Wrong = Skylab is launched into a 50.2 deg inclination orbit.
the orginal plan for Skylab was to use spend S-IVB stage of Saturn IB and build to Skylab in 28.2 deg inclination orbit.

Skylab was not designed to be refuelable. It would not be likely until the second generation of Skylabs that a refuelable space station could be built. This is similar to how the russian program developed.

NASA still had plan to reactivate Skylab with Shuttle, with bypass of most old system.

Skylab did not have any second port in the rear. The only point of contact between Skylab and Salyut would have been through a docking adapter between the front port of the skylab and the front port of the salyut.

NASA want do dock a New Modul at Skylab frontport with 4 new dockingports see picture i post.

At the time of Skylab's launch the Salyut design did not posses either refueling capabilities or a second docking port. These capabilities debuted with Salyut 6 launched in 1977.

Salyut 3 and 5 were pure military Station so no way they dock on Skylab B, Salyut 4 civil test proving the systems' long-term durability
and Skylab B is launch 1976 with first US mission is take until 1977 so in 1978 Salyut 6B (backup) can dock on Skylab B
but Salyut must be adaptet for Skylab because there this problem

one:
Salyut need universal docking System of ASTP to connect to Skylab B and viceversa.
two:
Compatible Atmospheres
Apollo's cabin atmosphere was 100 percent oxygen at 0.34 atmosphere (5.0 psi) pressure,
while that of Soyuz was nitrogen/oxygen at 1.0 atmosphere (10.4 psi).
in ASTP it work : the Soyuz pressure to 0.68 atmospheres pressure,
with help of airlock to raise or lower the pressure between 0.34 and 0.68 atmospheres
when moving from one spacecraft to the other. (take 120 minute time)
three:
Orbit Hight of Skylab 434 km
maxium orbit of Soyuz and Salyut is 220 km !
alterative ? yes Proton Rocket was used for Lunar Soyuz flight (zond)
so why not launch Soyuz to Skylab B with Proton ? TKS had to be launch by Proton also
Salyut 6B is Launch with Proton in 220 km orbit docks with Progress or TKS modul
and is push step for step to 434 km high orbit for Docking with Skylab B

 

[Riain]

Skylab was launched into a 52 deg orbital inclination at an original altitude of something like 500 miles, which says a hell of a lot for the grunt of the Saturn V and IB. Sakylab was launched at a lull in the sun's 11 heat cycle so the size of the atmosphere increased and dragged it down, 5 years after the last boost from the Apollo. Launching Skylab B in 1976, and giving it periodic boosts with the Apollo, Salyut and Soyuz throughout 1977 would see it in a parking orbit until at least 1982 when the Shuttle comes into service.

The POD would be in the late 60s, that's when the ASTP was first mooted. instead agreeing on a minimum mission they try to outdo each other until the US ends up commiting almost every piece of hardware it has left, and the Soviets to build a virtually custom module for the mission, you know how politicians like to big note themslves. 6 years would give enough time to sort out the engineering issues.

 

[robertsconley]

Wrong = Skylab is launched into a 50.2 deg inclination orbit.
the orginal plan for Skylab was to use spend S-IVB stage of Saturn IB and build to Skylab in 28.2 deg inclination orbit.

You are right, I had a brain fart on that. Baikonur still can launch only to a 51.7 but likely that would be a minor obstacle

NASA still had plan to reactivate Skylab with Shuttle, with bypass of most old system.

It not the same as something that is designed to be refuelable. I think that more capable Skylab B would have been launched followed by the use of the 3rd Saturn V with a Skylab II that design for long term maintainance in orbit.

NASA want do dock a New Modul at Skylab frontport with 4 new dockingports see picture i post.

I see that and there not the room to put the salyut there. Better to go with a Skylab II with both a rear and front port. Plus there going to be issues with the Russians resupplying and docking with the Salyut with the Igla docking system. You need clear line of sight to dock with that system.

Salyut 3 and 5 were pure military Station so no way they dock on Skylab B, Salyut 4 civil test proving the systems' long-term durability
and Skylab B is launch 1976 with first US mission is take until 1977 so in 1978 Salyut 6B (backup) can dock on Skylab B
but Salyut must be adaptet for Skylab because there this problem

Any thing with Skylab B will be a stunt and of limited duration. If you want some like the ISS then you need a Skylab B along with Salyut 6. You will need a better Russian Docking system or all your resupply mission will be done with automated progress missions with no cosmosnauts aboard.

They could do what we did partially did with the shuttle and launch a five man CSM to the station. However I doubt national pride would like the Soviets axe the role of the Soyuz in the project.

 

[Riain]

The reason I keep saying Skylab B is becuase it was built and available in a climate where space spending is dropping and much cash is being poured into the Shuttle. In this environment the money isn't going to be available to do the big mods on Skylab B or build a Skylab II to make it more sustainable. However I could see a few smaller mods in light of the dual mission and operational experience, but nothing like a 3rd docking port, moveable solar panels and integral rockets.

On the other hand the Soviets have a proper production programme going on for their Salyut/Almaz. I'd think they would build their station section from scratch, tailored to the mission's needs and have it ready, loaded with everything they had; moveable solar panels, internal rockets, replenishment capability, moisture extraction etc. Indeed, it is that the Soviets had their spacecraft in continual development and construction that I think a joint space station is technically feasable at all.

 

[Michel Van]

NASA play with idea in 1972 !

more here
http://altairvi.blogspot.com/2008/04/skylab-salyut-space-laboratory-1972.html

source :
US/USSR Cooperative Space Laboratory (Skylab/Salyut), McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company Eastern Division, 23 June 1972.

 

[Riain]

Good find. Interestingly enough between the 1972 study and an actual mission in 1975-6 Soyuz extended it's flight duration to at least 63 days.

 

[Archibald]

guys while reading this I had a idea to dock Saliut and Skylab B more easily.
don't know if it's realistic or not btw

When skylab A was launched in may 1973, the big S-II stage which put in in orbit... went it in orbit with it.
This remind the "wet workshop" idea (and if you seek astronautix you'll find that Von Braun made a rough sketch of a wet workshop S-II in november 1964!)

so my idea is
Keep the S-II attached to Skylab B and change it into a crude "wet workshop" using Skylab B as living quarter. This boost internal volume a lot.

Would be it possible to add small modifications to the S-II on the ground while keeping it as a rocket stage ? ok, this would add mass and complexity. My idea was to add two solar pannels similar to Skylab.

The final goal = using this wet workshop S-II as an adapter between Soyouz and Skylab. I mean, give the wet workshop an internal atmopshere similar to russian hardware. Of course there would be an airlock between the S-II and skylab B.

Trouble with the idea = no docking port on the S-II of course. So here's a question
: is it possible to dug a hole on the side of the S-II and add later an ATSP airlock on it ?
Another idea I had was to remove one of the five J-2 (the one in the middle) and put the hole there.
This mean that the S-II would only have 4 engine, less power Ie lower orbit.
Not a bad thing : as said in the article "the soyouz could'nt climb higher than 200 / 300 km orbit...

Modifications to the S-II in the end would be
- two solar pannels
- hatches in the hydrogen and LOX tanks for astronauts acess later
- 4 J-2 only, a docking port added there.
- Later an ATSP module is put there by an Apollo CM.

 

[alt_historian]

Interesting stuff, Archie...

 

[Archibald]

Salyut 6B is Launch with Proton in 220 km orbit docks with Progress or TKS modul
and is push step for step to 434 km high orbit for Docking with Skylab B

that's more cleaver than what I've imagined in my ATL.

I had Skylab lowering its orbit to Salyut level...

At least this helped solving the unavoidable post 1979 crisis : when Soviets and USA stopped detente-in-space, they also stopped reboosting the station which quickly fell .

I'm rather obsessed by Big Gemini these days but having Apollo block.3 on top of Titan III would be interesting, too.

This Apollo block.3 would have to drop its SPS and Service Module. Not only its way too heavy for Titan III (18 tons), it is also totally unuseful in LEO...

Even Saturn IB never lofted a fully fueled Apollo in LEO, and titan III payload is not better.

The Apollo capsule alone weighed 5.8 tons.
Titan III payload was around 17 tons with uprated, 7-segments boosters.
This give a 10 tons cargo module for Apollo block.3

slightly off topic (sorry)
NASA only option if shuttle get's scrapped is Titan III.

There's more options opened for manned spacecraft
- Apollo block.3
- Big Gemini
- Orbital X-24 (USAF send two X-24A in orbit with a Titan III in February and May 1972).

Less realistic option is Saturn INT-20...