Continued Skylab then Space Station rather than STS

[pmn1]

This has probably been done but i cant seem to find it if it has.<br /><br />On another board I am on a question has come up 'What if Skylabd instead of the Shuttle'<br /><br />http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=29816<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In the mid 1970s as Apollo was winding down and Shuttle developement was picking up steam, NASA went to Congress to ask for money to continue their Skylab flights and the continue working on the prototype Space Shuttle. Congress only gave them half of the money they needed and the result was that NASA had to choose and focus on either Skylab OR the Shuttle not both. NASA choose the Space Shuttle, but if it had chosen Skylab instead?</font><br /><br />What do people here think would have happened had a continued Skylab program been chosen? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Well we were out of Apollo spacecraft and I believe Saturn-IBs as well.<br /><br />That would of meant starting the lines again on Apollo Capsules possibly with some changes (reusable capsule, smaller SM, cargo area for SkyLab, Etc)<br /><br />I think an uprated Titan IIIB would of been used for the launches to replace the Saturns, so the VAB would be retired to something else.<br /><br />The Last Saturn IV would of launched with the 2nd Skylab, which would of been docked with the first.

 

[nacnud]

I found this interesting Skylab B.

 

[frodo1008]

All of this makes for interesting speculation. But in reality, is quite moot, isn't it? What happened is what happened, and can't be changed at this point in history!<br /><br />What IS important are the decisions that are being made NOW that will affect the FUTURE!<br /><br />So I really wouldn't spend too much time and cyber-space effort on this sort of thing.

 

[tomnackid]

"I think an uprated Titan IIIB would of been used for the launches to replace the Saturns, so the VAB would be retired to something else. "<br />-------------------------<br />I read somewhere that the Saturn IBs were very expensive for their launch capacity.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"So I really wouldn't spend too much time and cyber-space effort on this sort of thing."</font><br /><br />Different strokes for different folks. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />With all due respect, you may not find it interesting, while others might. Ignore it and don't waste your time commenting on it if it doesn't interest you. There's no harm in speculating, is there?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I assume they were originally created to test the technology that went into the Saturn V. So in that regard, they could have been seen at the time as cheap. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[llivinglarge]

Skylab was doomed from the start... The thing was a damn sauna...

 

[mikejz]

The Millitary in the beginning expressed intrest in the Saturn I as launcher, however the cost drove them to the Titan IIIB

 

[drwayne]

The work done to save Skylab after its boost phase damage was truelly remarkable.<br /><br />A general observation:<br /><br />Keep in mind, Skylab was an experiment, a means to an end using residual hardware, it was not an end in itself. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nolirogari]

You're correct Wayne.<br /><br />Reading some of the other posts here, however, I wonder who writes this stuff? We were NOT out of Saturn IBs AS-209 and AS-210 and their Apollo SCs were in the hangar- and AS-209 is on display outside KSC's visitor center. Skylab was only a sweat box for a few weeks- and that was a launch problem, not some defect designed in. The lab was just fine after the SL-2 crew repaired it. Also- before speculation about Titan IIIs and IVs being used- remember there's this little thing called man-rating a vehicle that takes quite a while to do. Lastly- do not look at history through the eyes of "today." See it as it really was. In the public, the media and the Congress in 1973 and 1974 there was almost zero support for manned spaceflight. The 3 networks did not even bother to show the SL-4 splashdown- instead they showed The Match Game, The Price is Right and a Gomer Pyle re-run. The only reason why the Space Shuttle exists today is because its funding passed through Congress by a one vote. We're lucky that when Skylab ended, the whole US space program did not go out with it. That's what's real.

 

[mikejz]

When I said that we were out of Saturn IBs, the I did not mean that we had zero, rather that enough did not exist to keep up a long term manned space flight program. If the Shuttle program did not happen, then it can be assumed that Apollo would of been flying into the 1980s, at a flight rate of 3-5 flights per year, we did not have enought Saturn IBs.<br /><br />As far at Titan IIIB and man ratting, progress in that area had already been made with MOL.

 

[nolirogari]

I've not seen any information on the Titan IIIB being compleatly man-rated for the MOL. Can you direct me to a source so I can read up on it?

 

[mikejz]

It was the Titan IIIM M for 'Man-Rated'. It was a a part of the MOL.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory<br /><br /><br />http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/SPACEFLIGHT/titan/SP11.htm<br /><br />"Designated the Titan IIIM (“M” for manned), the new launch vehicle would be “man-rated” (that is, incorporating numerous safety features to permit its use by humans) and powered by a pair of improved seven-segment solid rocket motors. The Titan IIIM was never flown-the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program was canceled in June 1969-but the technologies developed would be reused in later versions of the Titan."

 

[frodo1008]

Remeber, that while the Titan was indeed a good launch vehicle, it was way over priced. So far so that the Air Force was willing to put several billion dollars into the development of the EELV program to replace it!<br /><br />This was also one of the largest factors in the cancelling of the MOL itself! I believe it also even had some affect on the cancelling of the otherwise very worthy military Dyna-sour project. The man-rated STS system had a per pound cost to LEO that was (at least at one time) even at least the same than that of the Titan system! I really don't know why this was, but it was! When you think of something as being too expensive for the military, then it MUST really be very expensive!

 

[carp]

Look this: http://www.forumastronautico.it/viewtopic.php?t=520 http://www.forumastronautico.it/viewtopic.php?t=653 http://www.forumastronautico.it/viewtopic.php?t=851

 

[nolirogari]

Before I go on I want to say that I am NOT flame -throwing at ANYONE here at all. I'm simply digging for the truth and want to keep the facts correct so I'll know for myself what went on with the Titan III series and man-rating.That being said- I followed the trail presented here and this is what I have found so far...<br /><br />Number 1, we have to seperate the MOL "Lab" itself from the Titan IIIM booster. I'm talkin' about the booster. One source here listed Wikipedia as a referance- not my favorite for facts folks. But it does list Mark Wade's site and he always is good about listing his sources and does some pretty darned good research. If you go to his area of the Titan IIIM and read with care, you will find that the Titan III M apparently never flew. It was only scheduled to fly- but was cancelled before it could do so. The actual Man-Rating of the Titan III series goes only as far as the test firing of the seven segment SRM to be used for the Titan IIIM.<br /><br />I'll do some more digging, and if anyone here has some additional referances- (other than forums and opinions) I would honestly like to read them. Until then- however- I'll stick with my point, and as quoted here by another writer- that the Titan III series of boosters was NEVER fully man-rated.

 

[mikejz]

When I talk of costs I talk ONLY of the cost of Titan Vs. Saturn I<br /><br />From Wikipedia on Saturn I:<br /><br />"In the end, the Department of Defense decided that the Saturn was simply too big and expensive for any military mission, and that included men in space. They also thought that big boosters of the Saturn class should be NASA's responsibility because there was no urgent military application for them. The ABMA was transferred to NASA on July 1, 1960, and the Saturn became part of the Apollo program. The Department of Defense turned to the Titan family of rockets for its heavy lift needs, in the form of the Titan III and Titan IV. A Titan III has about the same lift capability of a Saturn IB, but costs less to manufacture and launch."