One for the space nuts.

The ASTP docking module was launched munch like the LEM, inside the fairing between the Apollo CSM and the upper stage of the Saturn. When in orbit the A-CSM did a 180 degree turn, docked with the docking module and removed it from it container, much like the moon missions. The entire A-CSM and DM then docked with the Soyuz.

The strikes me as a method to resupply Skylab and attach a boosting rocket to Skylab. Surely NASA could rig up a rocket that an Apollo could attach to the 2nd docking port of Skylab and leave it there when the manned missions are finished. I'm assuming that the Saturn IB has the grunt to lift the A-CSM plus some rocket thingy to 500 miles at 52 degrees inclination. Or perhaps, with the serious rocket power of the A-SM it doesn't need to, the service module could lift the combo up to the full orbit.
 
NASA indeed had a similar plan to enable Skylab to be used for Shuttle missions while they thought that the Shuttle would be in service in the 1970's. The plan was to use a Shuttle Orbiter to attach what was called the Teleoperated Reboost System to Skylab and push it into a higher orbit. Subsequent shuttle flights would have refitted the station to expand it's life. The delays in the Shuttle programme put paid to this plan.

You can read about it in the "Plans for Re-Use" section on the Wikipedia article. ;)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?search=Skylab

As for doing this with Apollo, I'm not sure you could have docked a TRS on to Skylab with a manned Apollo flight. The Saturn 1B didn't have the power to put a full Apollo CSM and LEM into Earth orbit on one flight, that's why Apollo 9 was launched on a Saturn V. You could have sent the TRS up with the 1B but you would have needed to dock it automatically.
 
I know all about that, but the combination of Shuttle delay and the increase in solar activity decaying Skylab's orbit means that it didn't come together so I'm thinking about another way to keep Skylab. In my mind a still orbiting Skylab means the Shuttle is seen as a success.
 
Obviously keeping Skylab going was no real technical challenge, the problem was more NASA politics. Skylab was part of the Apollo Applications Programme and seen as a way of using up excess Apollo-Saturn hardware as well as obtaining experience in long duration spaceflight. When the last mission left it NASA's intention was to abandon it as it had no part in the Shuttle based future. It was only about 1977 when they started to think about using it as a station for the Shuttle to supply as they believed the Shuttle would be operational within 18 months. But when it became clear the Shuttle wouldn't be ready and that Skylab was doomed anyway they wrote it off. So perhaps in 1974 NASA decides to include a reprieved Skylab in its plans for the Shuttle and a TRS is launched to boost the orbit thereby preventing Skylab being affected by the solar decay.

Personally I'm sad that they didn't put more effort into keeping the Skylab Programme going, I've seen the Skylab-B in the National Air and Space Museum and it's sad to think what they could have achieved with it.
 
The problem is that the Saturn 1B didn't have much capacity. It could fit a CSM and the docking module, but not much else. If you tried to have meaningful amounts of fuel or provisions (like the Progress carried to Salyut and Mir and still carries to ISS), you're out of luck unless you either develop an unmanned resupply craft (like Progress) or build a bigger rocket (there were plenty of suggestions for this, my favorite of which was the Saturn INT-20).

If you want to save Skylab, you'd have to reboost it with an Apollo CSM flight (planned) and have it still up in 1981. Then, as this article currently in Encyclopedia Astronautica shows, you either operate the Shuttle at just 5 psi so as not to destroy the airlock or modify the airlock to withstand 14.7 psi, after which point you can do as you please with Skylab.
 
That article says that Skylab could handle 14.7 psi and the airlock 8 or 9 psi, even 8 psi would alleviate a lot of the hassle of Shuttle-Sklylab operations.

Ideally Skylab B and 2 Apollo mission would be the go, but since money is the problem I think NASA could maybe swing some lash-up into an existing mission to give Skylab some more life.
 
Personally I'm sad that they didn't put more effort into keeping the Skylab Programme going, I've seen the Skylab-B in the National Air and Space Museum and it's sad to think what they could have achieved with it.

They tried. Congress told NASA it could have Skylab OR the Space Shuttle, but not both. Personally, I would have picked Skylab. The indication from some of the Apollo/Saturn plans that got shelved in favour of the the Space Shuttle indicates that the Apollo-Saturn system was incredibly rugged, as demonstrated by Apollo 13, and almost infintely adaptable. Additionally, by the mid-70s the Apollo-Saturn stack had the added benifit of being proven technology. At one point NASA even floated the idea of a manned Venus fly-by mission using an Apollo Command Module docked to a Saturn V third stage converted into a wet workshop.:eek:
 
Last edited:
As it happens, Truth is Life and I are hard at work on a stations-instead-of-shuttle TL, so I've been thinking much the same things. Skylab B actually has some interesting roles in our TL. Riain, the issue is that there really isn't excess mass for such a unit as you describe on a normal mission. A reboost unit would have to be something like 4 or 5 tons, and the Saturn 1B just didn't have the margin for it--they couldn't even fly a fully-fueled CSM with the docking module on ATSP and that only massed 2 tons.

Now one option would be an American version of Progress--use the same service module from your Apollo, but hook an automated pressurized can on the front, so you can carry 10 tons or so of cargo and fuel to a station. If they also did trash disposal as Progresses do (a pretty obvious leap), then you could also use the LOX tank in the S-IVB base stage of a Skylab for habitation volume instead of a giant trash can--increasing the workshop size by something like a third for the same launch mass.

However, with all these changes, you'd be better off modifying and flying Skylab B then trying to reuse Skylab A.
 
They tried. Congress told NASA it could have Skylab OR the Space Shuttle, but not both. Personally, I would have picked Skylab. The indication from some of the Apollo/Saturn plans that got shelved in favour of the the Space Shuttle indicates that the Apollo-Saturn system was incredibly rugged, as demonstrated by Apollo 13, and almost infintely adaptable. Additionally, by the mid-70s the Apollo-Saturn stack had the added benifit of being proven technology. At one point NASA even floated the idea of a manned Venus fly-by mission using an Apollo Command Module docked to a Saturn V third stage converted into a wet workshop.:eek:

Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing but I'm of the opinion that NASA would have been better continuing to develop Apollo instead of the Shuttle. Like Soyuz Apollo could have been made into an Earth orbit ferry with a Progress style cargo version. As you say the hardware was very reliable and wouldn't have cost as much to launch and operate as STS.

One of the problems that affects the U S Space program is that the contractors always want to develop new hardware for each project instead of adapting what exists. Today's Soyuz rocket is basically the same launcher that sent Gagarin into space nearly 50 years ago, in that time NASA has used 6 different launchers for manned flights!
 
Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing but I'm of the opinion that NASA would have been better continuing to develop Apollo instead of the Shuttle. Like Soyuz Apollo could have been made into an Earth orbit ferry with a Progress style cargo version. As you say the hardware was very reliable and wouldn't have cost as much to launch and operate as STS.

One of the problems that affects the U S Space program is that the contractors always want to develop new hardware for each project instead of adapting what exists. Today's Soyuz rocket is basically the same launcher that sent Gagarin into space nearly 50 years ago, in that time NASA has used 6 different launchers for manned flights!

NASA's stuff has in most cases been more capable, and it's not like the Russians haven't been trying to ditch Soyuz every chance they had--TKS, Buran, and now this. I'll agree NASA is a bit too free in clean-sheet designs, but stretching a system far beyond its original design can less capable in the role than a dedicated development for the same role, and Soyuz and Progress are my favorite example of that--the ATV is about 3 times more capable than Progress in Progress's resupply role, while something like TKS or a theoretical Apollo-taxi to a large station would allow its crew much more comfort and upmass than Soyuz--the difference between 7.5 tons and 20 tons is a big jump in capability. Soyuz and Progress have an impressive history, but they are not ideal or even close to it for their roles.

However, I agree with the general point that continuing Apollo development and focusing on something like stations might have been better than focusing on Shuttle and hoping other stuf would follow from that. I'm sad to see the Shuttle go, especially with nothing solid yet to replace it, but as Soyuz and Progress are not ideal vehicles because they over-reach their original capabilities a bit too much, the Shuttle is not ideal because it tried to do everything and ended up failing on a couple key points. Interesting contrast, I think.
 
Now one option would be an American version of Progress--use the same service module from your Apollo, but hook an automated pressurized can on the front, so you can carry 10 tons or so of cargo and fuel to a station.

Well, if you intend to make it a station resupply vehicle, I'd take off the big SPS engine. That was used for LOI and TEI, both of which required far more delta-v than reboosting Skylab would, and which took valuable weight away.

You'd end up with truncated Service Module, with smaller fuel tanks (whose purpose would be fueling the RCS, which would TTL also serve to boost Skylab when needed), and two forms of command module: one with a heat shield for crew reentry (developed from the Block II CM, with possible modifications such as two extra seats (if you're increasing your volume, increase crew accordingly) and partial reusability), and one that's just a pressurized can like the Multipurpose Logistics Module or the ATV.
 
Well, if you intend to make it a station resupply vehicle, I'd take off the big SPS engine. That was used for LOI and TEI, both of which required far more delta-v than reboosting Skylab would, and which took valuable weight away.

Delta-v is a function of fuel fraction, not engine size, but the Apollo SPS was over sized for LEO-only work in terms of both thrust and base fuel load. However, the engine had a slightly higher ISP than comparable vacuum engines I can find at the time, so for a prospective Block III, you might as well stick with it. Change the engine, and you need to re-certify a lot of the vehicle--makes flying within two or three years hard. Now for a Block IV....R4Ds are nice engines, too. Switch to those, ditch the heavy fuel cells for solar arrays....that could be a sweet machine.

You'd end up with truncated Service Module, with smaller fuel tanks (whose purpose would be fueling the RCS, which would TTL also serve to boost Skylab when needed), and two forms of command module: one with a heat shield for crew reentry (developed from the Block II CM, with possible modifications such as two extra seats (if you're increasing your volume, increase crew accordingly) and partial reusability), and one that's just a pressurized can like the Multipurpose Logistics Module or the ATV.

I don't know about extra seats on a Block III, personally. Rescue Skylab (the 5-seat proposed modification) had to lose most of its storage lockers to make room for the extra seats, and that was only to be used during undocking and re-entry. For full missions, I wouldn't want to add any extra seats without the addition of some kind of orbital module like Soyuz has, but launched like the Docking Module was behind the CSM. If you can get a 24 metric ton IMLEO capability, a Block IV could add about a substantial Orbital Module, including such luxuries as a proper toilet. But now I'm getting to the point where I might as well post some of the models I've been working on for the timeline Truth and I are working on, so I'll stop talking before I spoil everything.
 
A reboost unit would have to be something like 4 or 5 tons, and the Saturn 1B just didn't have the margin for it--they couldn't even fly a fully-fueled CSM with the docking module on ATSP and that only massed 2 tons.

This surprises me, ASTP was very low altitude for the Saturn/Apollo even considering the high inclination.
 
interestingly enough during the study for Skylab called Orbital Workshop (OWS)
they planed the resupply the Workshop this way

In orginal plan used a spend S-IVB stage in Orbit launch by Saturn-IB
payload: the spend S-IVB with airlock, MDA filled with equipment and Solarcells
then a Apollo CSM with a Mapping and Survey System Hardware (MSS) is launch
like the ASTP docking module its pull out the S-IVB stage
then dockt first MSS on OWS, then CSM
the next 28 days the 3 astronaut rebuild the empty fueltank into a space station
they use supply stored in EOM

after the mission the OWS is shut down for 3 mounths until next launch
the ATM here is a LM ascent stage with telescope and solarcells
also ATM has supply for the OWS for next 56 days
after rendevous and docking with CSM it's go to OWS


earlyskylab2.gif

Source: the Unwanted Blog
 
Two ideas they were throwing around for the SM were to replace the SPS with the LM descent engine, and to replace the fuel cells with solar panels and water tanks. I don't think using the descent engine would work for a space station ferry, though (corrosive propellants).
 
Two ideas they were throwing around for the SM were to replace the SPS with the LM descent engine, and to replace the fuel cells with solar panels and water tanks. I don't think using the descent engine would work for a space station ferry, though (corrosive propellants).

that's NAA CSM as Ferry craft proposal, i presided this in other Apollo WI in this forum
the caft dock with Space Station
the CSM Cargobay is emptied out and Liquids are pump into station
then the SM is separate from CM and is deorbit (no proplem with the corrosive propellants)
the CM remain for months on station, it's equipped with solid rocket motorfor return to earth
 
Two ideas they were throwing around for the SM were to replace the SPS with the LM descent engine, and to replace the fuel cells with solar panels and water tanks. I don't think using the descent engine would work for a space station ferry, though (corrosive propellants).

But the Apollo Service Module and LM both used the same propellants. It's just that the LEM descent stage is only half as strong but lighter in weight.
 
But the Apollo Service Module and LM both used the same propellants. It's just that the LEM descent stage is only half as strong but lighter in weight.

yes that true
but the CSM engine was needed for to get in Lunar Orbit with dockt LM and return to earth from lunar Orbit
there for is the CSM engine bigger as LM descent engine

so only CSM use in low earth orbit a smaller engine is better like LM descent engine
the other advance to replace the CSM engine and fueltanks with LM descent engine with fueltanks
you get more space inside the service module

so why was it not made in practice ?
for Skylab were to much Apollo CSM over so no need to build new version or modify them.
and there was the space shuttle
but if the shuttle had canceld, this version of Apollo had might fly into space...
 
Two ideas they were throwing around for the SM were to replace the SPS with the LM descent engine, and to replace the fuel cells with solar panels and water tanks. I don't think using the descent engine would work for a space station ferry, though (corrosive propellants).

The Russian Soyuz, Progress and ESA ATV use corrosive, hypergolic propellents as well - N2O4/UMDH - and can remain attached to a space station for months at a time. You just need tanks that can safely hold them for more than the desired time.

So far as potential Block III Apollo SM is concerned, the LM ascent stage engine - which could achieve about 1590 Kg thrust and a vacuum specific impulse of 311s, only 3s less than the SPS on the Block II CSM - would be the ideal choice. The switch-over from O2/H2 Fuel Cells to Solar Panels and Water Tanks will ensure a major extension to the Apollo CSM standby lifespan. Next, use of small solid retrorockets to permit land landings as is the case with Soyuz and Shenzhou - esentially an upgraded copy of Soyuz. Finally, the introduction of at least partial reusability, which would at least allow NASA to obtain real experience in this field for lower costs, and allow them to design better setups for fully reusable spacecraft with some experience of it under their belts, should they ever decide to switch to such a design.

Anyways, that's my two cents on it, think what you will.
 
Top