Skylab Survives

great update Simon, I really like what you've done with the place!

there's an interesting forum akin to this conversation at Orbit Forum, with some great images:

Skylab80.jpg



Skylab80%20Refurb.jpg



The images from "Usonian" give a great impression of what it would look like going into the mid-80's... I think it would mean much bigger things for the space program in the United States and the West, and space exploration going into the late '80's, obviously meaning big changes for the '90's!
Link:
http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=4269
 
This is interesting. How much can be done with Skylab in the 1980s? Can attempts at making it into an orbital shipyard be made, or more attempts at building satellites and spacecraft on orbit?
 
there's an interesting forum akin to this conversation at Orbit Forum, with some great images:

Very nice images of the bits and pieces from the Martin report! In addition to those, the E1 would look something like a shorter Columbus (as it's just a Spacelab pressurized module), and the CEV something between Apollo and CST-100 (as it doesn't have an SM, just a retro pack). I also added the airlock both as something Canada could do, and because Skylab's airlock was a bit too awkward for much real use (it basically separated the Orbital Workshop from the rest of the station).
 
This of something to note, what could have most likely happened was that Skylab B would have been launched in the mid seventieus, as the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project and once the shuttle enters service, ASTP ends.
 
Taking a bit of a darker tone...

Anatomy of Disaster: The Presidential Blue Ribbon Committee Report on the Crash of the NASA Space Shuttle Atlantis
Executive Summary


The crash of the Space Shuttle Atlantis on its maiden flight is worst disaster that NASA has ever faced. It is the purpose of this committee and its report to elucidate the reasons for this tragedy and prevent it from happening again in the future.

...

Space Shuttle Main Engine number 2 (SSME-2) failed 30 seconds into the flight. CDR Young immediately initiated the Return-To-Launch-Site (RTLS) abort sequence. This sequence was designed to completely deplete both the SRBs and the External Tank, so as to allow the Orbiter to safely detach. The Shuttle stack began a slow pitch down, until the SRBs finished their burn and were jettisoned. Then, at an altitude sufficiently high that the aerodynamic forces were minimized, the Orbiter and ET turned around and began a retrograde burn on the remaining two SSMEs. The ET was 60% empty when the controller on SSME-3 failed as well. With this second failure, the Shuttle no longer had enough impulse to reach the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center. Knowing this, CDR Young redirected the vehicle further north, in the hope to ditch in shallower water. Once the ET was finally detached, Young and PLT Shriver piloted Atlantis towards the Outer Banks of North Carolina, impacting 20 miles from Cape Lookout in 120 ft of water.

CDR Young and MS1 Peterson died on impact. PLT Shriver and MS3 Musgrave survived with several broken bones, while MS3 Resnik survived with a severe spinal injury and was rendered unconscious. After the impact, Shriver and Musgrave worked quickly to open the orbiter's side hatch and put flotation vests on the other crew members. A Coast Guard helicopter then sent a driver to assist in removing the crew from the vehicle before it settled below the surface. They were then rushed inland for medical attention.

...

SSME-2 failed due to a leak in the liquid hydrogen (LH2) feed line, which resulted in the engine controller triggering an automatic shutdown. Had this been the only failure, it is possible (and likely) that the orbiter could have safely returned to the Kennedy Space Center. However, the secondary failure of SSME-3 (due to the lateral forces of the RTLS profile) prevented this from happening. Still, if the crew had had a means of bailing out of the vehicle, it is possible they could have all survived. But no provision for this has been included by NASA since the early flights of Columbia, thus committing the crew to ditching at sea.

...

Spaceflight is dangerous. The loss of Atlantis and two of her crew, however, was avoidable. Such errors are unacceptable, and it is the option of this committee that all measures be taken to prevent its reoccurrence, and to promote a culture of safety at NASA.
 

Hyperion

Banned
So a shuttle disaster where several of the crew managed to survive, if pretty banged up.

I wonder how this would effect future space travel, having a major loss, but some of the crew still surviving. Would any of them want to drop support for NASA or space exploration, or might they become good advocates for getting more resources pumped into the program.
 
Reading through this thread, I'm wondering why the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project was chosen as the point of divergence? It seems like this one event, which is almost casually mentioned, is an even larger point of divergence than even the "what if" about Skylab.

My primary reasoning here is that the ASTP laid the groundwork for joint Russian-American projects including the Shuttle missions to Mir and of course the construction of the ISS. It could also have an even greater role in terms of geo-politics in the sense that one of the major roles of the ISS construction was explicitly to help subsidize the Russian space industry following the collapse of the Soviet Union so those working in the Russian space companies would have something to do and not go to work for Iran, Iraq, China, or some of the other countries that the American government thought were "dangerous".

You can argue as to if that was effective or not in terms of spreading ICBM technology from the old Soviet Union to other nations around the world, but the current health of the Russian space launcher companies (particularly RKK Energia) can be directly attributed to essentially a direct subsidy by the U.S. Congress to keep them afloat. In fact, if you wrote an alternate timeline where American astronauts would have the only way to go into space would be on Russian Soyuz space capsules (as is the case right now for the American astronaut corps), such a theory would be rejected completely as impossible.

The butterflies from that one event really does overwhelm anything that might have been different as a result of Skylab sticking around past the launch of STS-1. What is more, there are many other ways you could have Skylab still around even with the ASTP happening.

There were numerous parts of the Apollo program that never did get launched, including a complete Saturn V that currently sits in Huntsville, Alabama. It was still in pristine shape in the mid-1970's. The command module intended to be used for the Skylab Rescue Mission currently sits at the museum at the Kennedy Space Center. Another command module that had been ordered and partially completed is currently at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. In addition, there were four additional Saturn I-B rockets that were ordered and had at least the first stage built, with one of them that simply has never flown at all and was intended to be used as a back-up for the ASTP. It certainly wouldn't be too much a stretch to suggest that this last Saturn I-B could have launched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_Rescuewith either of the two remaining command capsules, assuming some last-minute appropriations could have been dug up to pay for the flight itself.

Anyway, I think the implications of having no ASTP seem a little more interesting by itself and can add a whole new dimension to the story. Having the Russian and American space programs be more belligerent towards each other for a longer period of time and more Russian-American competition in space could prove to be interesting. Seeing a Russian-Iranian or Russian-Iraqi partnership for spaceflight in the 1990's would be very interesting. I don't know if you would have "Saddam Hussein in space", but it could make for a bunch of interesting story lines of which the space aspect would be almost just a back story. You might be able to argue perhaps that the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq might have been moved up or abandoned depending on other various developments... as a direct result of the cancellation of the ASTP. It really is that big of a deal.
 
I chose ASTP as the PoD as it was the easiest way of getting an extra Apollo up to reboost Skylab. This instead shifted the cooperation to the unmanned program, with the US and Soviets flying each other's instruments on their respective unmanned Mars and Venus missions. In LEO, the Soviet program is going pretty much as per OTL, with progressively larger Saluyts.

And honestly, Shuttle-Mir and ISS had nothing to do with ASTP (beyond the docking system). Those two programs were pushed by the Clinton administration as a means of keeping Russian space engineers from leaving to other less friendly countries and building ICBMs. That same incentive would have been there without ASTP.
 
And honestly, Shuttle-Mir and ISS had nothing to do with ASTP (beyond the docking system). Those two programs were pushed by the Clinton administration as a means of keeping Russian space engineers from leaving to other less friendly countries and building ICBMs. That same incentive would have been there without ASTP.

I'm not really convinced on that, particularly having talked with some of the astronauts who were involved. Some very key contacts were made during the ASTP that really did put in the foundation for the later projects, but I think we can agree to disagree here.

In the process of going through the steps to work together, they shared a whole bunch of information and people at nearly every level of NASA had to contact their counter parts in Russia. As a direct result of that effort, organizations like the Association of Space Explorers would never have been organized in the first place, or at least it would not have been used to start those connections when those other programs got going later and instead they would have been required to start from scratch with the whole diplomatic protocols that were bypassed because of the personal relationships between NASA and the Russian/Soviet space program.

Arguably, the situation with the Russian engineers was made known to the Clinton administration because of these contacts, as the relationships for cooperation did continue past the ASTP.

Like I said, it is an interesting time line to make, and it will be interesting to see what else you think might be different here. I do consider it to be nearly a singular tragedy that Skylab was trashed mainly because a comparatively small investment was not made at the right moment of time.

BTW, I'm curious how you intend to deal with the atmospheric composition differences between the Shuttle and Skylab. Apollo/Skylab used a 100% oxygen atmosphere (partial pressure of oxygen was equivalent to the same amount at sea level) while the Shuttle uses a full mix of atmospheric gasses. It makes for a much more complicated airlock and you can't simply leave the hatch open like is done between the ISS and the Shuttle.

I'm sure that would have been compensated in some extensive "refurbishment" of the station, but simply tacking up some additional modules wouldn't have been sufficient. While there were some additional supplies on board Skylab to certainly cope with a couple extra mission, dealing with such simple things like sewage (which accumulated in one of the tanks on board the station and was never emptied) and other waste issues would become a significant issue that never were dealt with due to the fact that it was originally anticipated as only having a limited lifespan. Progress supply ships as well as the "multi-purpose logistics modules" from the Shuttle have dealt with this issue on the ISS, not to mention the resupply ships by the ESA and the new Dragon module that SpaceX is flying. It would be quite the construction effort to make Skylab a more permanent station than it was when it was built.
 
I too have questions about the POD. It would seem a lot less butterfly inducing (and not really that hard to pull off) to have some kind of joint flight to Skylab; politically it probably would actually require two ASTP missions, one with an Apollo visiting whichever Salyut was up at the time and a Soyuz visit to Skylab but there was at least one more Saturb IB available and few Apollo's. Only real complication here is that I believe Soyuz might have a problem getting to Skylab's orbit, but I think we could hand wave (and for that matter the obvious expedient solution of putting a standard Soyuz on top of a Proton probably wouldn't be that huge a program).

For that matter we could just skip all that and hand wave away the essentially random combination of excess solar activity and bad orbit deterioration calculations that brought down Skylab before the Shuttle flew.

More broadly speaking I agree that the impact of killing the shuttle has bigger and potentially more interesting consequences than this, but there are two big problems. First is that this is simply a lot harder to do. It's not exactly implausible, but really does mean more than a single very small POD. Second but related is that while there is lots of room for interesting TLs keeping the Apollo tech realistically they are wide open, Skylab, OTOH is very well suited to examining likely scenarios between the real world studies, hardware and STS missions. In short, different enough to be interesting, but not so different as to make the relevant bits of OTL unrecognisable. Both good AH projects, but really quite different in nature.

So yes, another vote to continue this. My one big question for early in the program is whether we're going to see a rescue configured Apollo launched as an escape vehicle. I believe that at the time NASA didn't really consider always available crew rescue a necessity, but OTOH in the real world it probably is and there was a study somewhere that showed an Apollo capsule in the cargo bay could be a realistic shuttle escape system (mostly valuable in showing the idea was out there somewhere, and that an Apollo could be jammed in the cargo bay).

PS: I'm very interested to see where you're going with the loss of Atlantis.
 
Given that we have a large Skylab here, that is in use, but is NOT built for resupply, might there be pressure to use Shuttle ETs for a new station/add-on to the existing one?

One could do it a couple of ways : 1) do a wet lab (all the equipment etc in the oxygen tank of an ET) or 2) simply build docking ports on the tank and fill it with equipment flown up on something else - heck, cargo could be delivered by Deltas which probably had the lowest price/kg to LEO.
 
Given that we have a large Skylab here, that is in use, but is NOT built for resupply, might there be pressure to use Shuttle ETs for a new station/add-on to the existing one?

One could do it a couple of ways : 1) do a wet lab (all the equipment etc in the oxygen tank of an ET) or 2) simply build docking ports on the tank and fill it with equipment flown up on something else - heck, cargo could be delivered by Deltas which probably had the lowest price/kg to LEO.

The trouble with using any STS ET's in orbit is all that foam.
 

Cook

Banned
The trouble with using any STS ET's in orbit is all that foam.

Following the Columbia’s destruction NASA spent a couple of billion dollars trying to develop a foam insulation that wouldn’t flake off, and failed. Someone else calculated that a Kevlar condom big enough to cover the entire External Tank would onlt cost a few million.

Think laterally.
 
BTW, I'm curious how you intend to deal with the atmospheric composition differences between the Shuttle and Skylab. Apollo/Skylab used a 100% oxygen atmosphere (partial pressure of oxygen was equivalent to the same amount at sea level) while the Shuttle uses a full mix of atmospheric gasses. It makes for a much more complicated airlock and you can't simply leave the hatch open like is done between the ISS and the Shuttle.

Excellent point; half the reason for the docking adapter on ASTP was for exactly that.

ITTL, part of the STS-3 refurbishment process was the addition of N2 canisters (via EVA) which bring the N2 partial pressure up to Shuttle levels. Before they are enabled, the crew use the Shuttle's airlock to separate the two vehicles. IIRC, the Martin report covers this.

WRT to an ET on orbit: it really wouldn't last very long on orbit. The spray-on insulation is not designed for surviving micrometeorite bombardment and solar UV/EUV radiation. It would therefore popcorn off in large and small chunks, and outgas all sorts of nasty condensible stuff. Changing all that would require a major redesign.

Update tomorrow (or Sunday)!
 
USA Today
April 12, 1985

SKYLAB CREW RETURNS IN EMERGENCY VEHICLE


Yesterday, the crew of the NASA Skylab space station returned to earth using their Crew Escape Vehicle (CEV). The CEV, based on the old Apollo lunar
spacecraft, was designed to return the crew in the even they needed to return before a Space Shuttle could reach them. With the crash of Shuttle
Atlantis last week, NASA Administrator Beggs made the decision to end the current Skylab mission and have the crew of three return. NASA astronauts
James Buchli and Guion Bluford and European Space Agency astronaut Wubbo Ockels then prepped the CEV for a landing off the coast of California. On
landing, Buchli said, "It's shame that we were unable to complete the mission, but with the Shuttles grounded, there was no choice. We hope to return
soon and continue our work." A NASA spokesman said that the Shuttle and Skylab programs are on both indefinite hold pending the results of the Blue
Ribbon Commission.

New York Times
June 23, 1985

RESNIK TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESS; NEW VEHICLE MULLED


Judy Resnik, one of the surviving crew members of the Shuttle Atlantis crash testified before the Senate Science and Transportation Subcommittee. She
endorsed the Blue Ribbon Report's findings and recommendations on improving the culture of safety at NASA. Resnik, who was paralyzed by the crash,
also made an impassioned plea for a safer means of sending crew to space. This comes as several proposals have been floated recently for a new "crew
taxi" dedicated to transporting crew and supplies to Skylab. NASA's Langley Research Center has proposed a lifting-body vehicle, while Rockwell
International has proposed a new capsule based on the Apollo-derived Crew Escape Vehicle. A spokesman for NASA Administrator Beggs said that any new
vehicle would be policy decision up to Congress and the White House.

USA Today
August 1, 1985

REAGAN ANNOUNCES "ORBITAL CLIPPER"


In a press conference at the White House today, President Reagan announced a new spacecraft called the "Orbital Clipper". After paying tribute to the
two crewmen that died in the crash of Atlantis, said that the new vehicle would be able to carry seven crew to Skylab, or three crew and four months
of supplies, and could stay at the station for up to half a year. The Clipper be ready for an unmanned flight test in 1988 and begin rotating crew to
Skylab a year later. Clipper would not replace Shuttle completely, but rather allow Shuttle to focus on Skylab assembly and non-Skylab missions, like
the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope. The remaining three Shuttle orbiters would also be retrofitted with additional safety measures to allow the
crew to bail out in the event of an emergency, and return to flight next year.

Aviation Week & Space Technology
August 5, 1985

ORBITAL CLIPPER DESIGNS PROPOSED


Several companies have responded to NASA's RPF for building the new Orbital Clipper spacecraft and launcher. Lockheed has paired with NASA Langley to
propose a lifting body based on Soviet designs. Rockwell is proposing a new Apollo-shaped capsule based on its Crew Escape Vehicle. And, in a
surprise move, Martin Marietta and General Dynamics have jointly proposed another lifting body based on Martin's X-24A. On the launcher front, Boeing
has proposed a vehicle using two 3-segment Shuttle SRBs and a single Space Shuttle Main Engine. Martin and GD, meanwhile, proposed a version of the
Titan III with a Centaur upper stage. Lockheed and Boeing are considered the frontrunners, though Rockwell is putting a concerted lobbying effort for
its capsule and the construction of a fifth Shuttle orbiter to replace Atlantis.
 
Top