WI, while the Shuttle was in its final tests, the US sends up its Skylab backup on one of the last Saturn Vs? (Skylab B is the second Skylab, currently on display in Washington, D.C.). What would the effects of an early Space Station, perhaps in 1981, be? Might the Russians send Soyuz craft to it in a version of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project?
Skylab B
- Thread starter Polish Eagle
- Start date
Cook
Banned
We’ll take it as a given that they do some design changes based on their experiences with Skylab A, especially to improve resupply and capacity to dock further expansion modules.
It’d be nice also if the Shuttle had stayed small and primarily a passenger vehicle, with a separate vehicle for cargo as Freeman Dyson believed it should have been.
It’s also tragic that NASA, having payed for it, turned a Saturn V rocket into a lawn ornament.
Reminds me of that fan song that goes; “If it weren’t for fuckin’ NASA…”
It’d be nice also if the Shuttle had stayed small and primarily a passenger vehicle, with a separate vehicle for cargo as Freeman Dyson believed it should have been.
It’s also tragic that NASA, having payed for it, turned a Saturn V rocket into a lawn ornament.
Reminds me of that fan song that goes; “If it weren’t for fuckin’ NASA…”
This is an interesting topic (and coincidentally sort-of related to something I'm going to do in my TL, eventually). It will aid the US space program, and maybe accelerate the space station quite a bit. Might help get a SDHLV up oh, at all.
They were planning on boosting Skylab A on STS 2 so they could keep using it while they built a better station, so it wouldn't be all that different from that.
ASTP II is unlikely since this was the second Cold War--Reagan had just got elected, and détente was officially dead.
They were planning on boosting Skylab A on STS 2 so they could keep using it while they built a better station, so it wouldn't be all that different from that.
ASTP II is unlikely since this was the second Cold War--Reagan had just got elected, and détente was officially dead.
There were issues with Skylab, such as the lox tank being used as a garbage tank which filled up, the docking ports were much smaller than the shuttle used, no onboard rocket for altitude keeping for example. But it was huge, had gyro stabilisation, huge power generation capacity and so would have been awesome up there in 1981.
I think that if the Shuttle had something to go to in 1981 it would have been hailed as a success.
I think that if the Shuttle had something to go to in 1981 it would have been hailed as a success.
on Skylab
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/skylab.htm
in 1973 NASA had this plan
launch of Skylab backup with Saturn V around 1975 or 1976
modified so the problem of Skylab-A not happen again
and use the lasts Saturn IB and Apollo CSM for it until Shuttel is ready in 1979.
then Skylab-B would be modifed in Orbit for Shuttel docks and resupply
there were even proposal to dock Spyuz or even Salut Space Station on Skylab-B
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2009/09/skylab-salyut-space-laboratory-1972.html
other stuff
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2009/04/post-skylab-missions-study-1971.html
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/skylab.htm
in 1973 NASA had this plan
launch of Skylab backup with Saturn V around 1975 or 1976
modified so the problem of Skylab-A not happen again
and use the lasts Saturn IB and Apollo CSM for it until Shuttel is ready in 1979.
then Skylab-B would be modifed in Orbit for Shuttel docks and resupply
there were even proposal to dock Spyuz or even Salut Space Station on Skylab-B
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2009/09/skylab-salyut-space-laboratory-1972.html
other stuff
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2009/04/post-skylab-missions-study-1971.html
here Study for reuse of Skylab by Space Shuttle
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790075817_1979075817.pdf
29,79 MB big PDF
in this TL 1976 Skylab B would be still in Orbit in 1981, but it need a reboost.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790075817_1979075817.pdf
29,79 MB big PDF
in this TL 1976 Skylab B would be still in Orbit in 1981, but it need a reboost.
It could have been launched on a different plane, 28 deg instead of 51 deg. This would get it into a higher orbit for longer life but reduce the earth sciences capability. It could also be launched with much less stuff on board, no water and other supplies which would again get the higher orbit for longer life. A launch in 1976 would be at a time of declining solar activity and a shrinking atmosphere which gives a longer orbit life.
Archibald
Banned
This is the definite ressource on all Skylab studies.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13040.msg338109#msg338109
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13040.0;attach=106506
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13040.msg338109#msg338109
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13040.0;attach=106506
I'm sure those problems could be fixed. As on Station, with the interface between Node 1 and the ROS, an adapter between Shuttle and Skylab can be devised. A rocket can be added, as Lockheed Martin (Martin Marietta at this time?) offered to do with a Titan. The gyros, which were failing on Skylab after a few years, can be changed (as shown on the Hubble).
But I think there is one problem on Skylab that can't be resolved so easily. I read on astronautix that the airlock on Skylab couldn't tolerate pressures much above 5 psi, though the rest could. This means that either an airlock will be necessary for Skylab-Shuttle operations, or Shuttle will need to depress to 5 psi.
A decision on this would have to be made by 1976, when the Saturns became museum pieces.
If Skylab lasts into the 90s, might it become an American version of Mir? With constant repair and modification, serving for twenty years?