Did shuttle cost us Skylab?

moonmadness · Jul 10, 2006

With all the talk about how we NEED the shuttle because we NEED to finish the ISS. I found the comment about earlier projects interesting if true. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> From astronautix.com Skylab Reboost Module Class: Manned. Type: Rescue. Nation: USA. Agency: NASA. Module developed for Shuttle to deliver to Skylab to boost it to a higher orbit for use during the Shuttle program. Due to Shuttle development delays/b>, Skylab re-entered and burned up over Australia before the first Shuttle mission, and NASA would have to wait another twenty years for a space station. Length: 3.29 m (10.79 ft). Maximum Diameter: 3.17 m (10.40 ft). Span: 3.35 m (10.99 ft). Mass: 4,392 kg (9,682 lb). RCS Impulse: 6,115 kgf-sec. Main Engine Propellants: 2,744 kg (6,049 lb). Associated Launch Vehicle: Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind. </div>

qso1 · Jul 10, 2006

The shuttle was originally supposed to make an orbital flight in 1978. The schedule called for a shuttle resue attempt on the fourth flight IIRC. That flight would have come around mid to late 1979, too late to rescue the lab and the reboost stage was canceled in the 1978 budget cycle. Skylab came down on July 11, 1979. Shuttle didn't cost us Skylab. Public apathy, the cost barrier, and politicians following suit cost us skylab. If Skylab had been equipped with attitude control thrusters, they could have raised its orbit rather than be forced to develop the reboost module which was actually called something else but I cannot recall what. The Skylab ACS was part of late 1960s budget cuts when the lab was called the "Apollo Applications Program. Skylab itself was originally intended as an interim station. A larger Saturn-V launched station was being planned for IOC in 1975. It was nailed by the budget cuts of Nixons Administration in 1971-72 IIRC. The space station proposal floating around in 1979 was something called the "Space Operations Center" (SOC). The budget forced NASA to hold off on stations during the next five years. Space station was finally announced by President Reagan in his January 1984 State Of The Union message. It took 16 years for it to finally come on line (IOC 2000). This due to numerous redesigns and budget problems that were more related to station than to shuttle. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Skylab.html His account is pretty close to what I remember as a young adult then. Even with the shuttle delays, the planned fith mission rescue of the latter part of 1979 would not have been possible with the lab coming down that summer. Events were too close to say for sure if shuttle delays actually impacted the lab rescue. It was a combination of events. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

JonClarke · Jul 10, 2006

I recall reading that Skylab came down much sooner than expected because someone forgot to allow for increased atmospheric drag because the the solar maximum. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

3488 · Jul 10, 2006

Yes. The Space Shuttle did result in the loss of Skylab, pure & simple. If the shuttle had been on time, Skylab would have been saved. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

qso1 · Jul 10, 2006

Thats correct. The projected re-entry was 1982 but the revised entry was based on the atmosphere being expanded somewhat by solar activity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jul 10, 2006

Shuttle bashers will of course, blame the whole thing on the shuttle. True, funds were being mostly directed towards shuttle development but NASA budgets were already hacked to around 50% of Apollo levels so there was not enough to go around. Shuttle encountered developmental problems as the normal course of any complicated crafts development cycle. Can you name a craft that had a completely trouble free, on schedule development? And did you consider the other factors where Skylabs fate was concerned? Of course not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

gofer · Jul 10, 2006

There was no real need for the STS. The Saturns, Titans, and Skylabs would have worked just fine. The problem was they couldn't figure what to do with manned space after the Lunar landings had been accomplished and the race had been won. So the politicians came up another toy to work on and keep them busy. The STS. The scientists and engineers of course had big plans for lunar bases, and geological excavation on the Moon with the Apollo tech. Skylab like stations, artificial gravity, lagrange point way-stations, Mars (and even manned Venus! missions). Etc... There was a lot of great stuff on the drawing board. Alas,.... (didn't Von Braun resign and was bitter due to the STS development? as some rumors have it, some accounts have it that, as an engineer, he ridiculed the STS)

JonClarke · Jul 10, 2006

A reusable space plane was part of WvB's portrait of the post Apollo era. It was neither his fault for the fault of STS that the politicians did not buy into the whole scheme. but only the one that promised to be the cheapest and most immediately useful. Blaming the demise of the rickety of Skylab and the retirement of WvB on the shuttle is risible. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

gofer · Jul 10, 2006

"A reusable space plane was part of WvB's portrait of the post Apollo era. " This is certainly news to me. Any links, per chance? I'm more baffled by the fact that a "reusable space plane" would somehow fit into his rather ambitious plans for the Moon and Mars, and his negative attitude towards the STS ("you make the same mistakes we Germans did"). "It was neither his fault for the fault of STS that the politicians did not buy into the whole scheme." Well, that's just it, even "the whole scheme" was not needed. It was a pile of poop to begin with. They had all they needed to embark on ambitious space exploration right there right then. The STS did not help, but rather hindered. "Blaming the demise of the rickety of Skylab and the retirement of WvB on the shuttle is risible. " I think it's plausible. The "rickety" Skylab produced some great scientific results (remember the operational telescope and the geodesic research) and was by volume close to the current ISS. Just looking at the photos of the Skylab (the kitchen, the "gym", ) makes it look like a Hilton compared to the Motel-6 crampiness of the ISS. Not half bad for a left over Saturn stage, eh? One weak spot was that it didn't have a 100% regenerative life support system, but "even" the ISS doesn't really (I'm not even talking about that really rickety MIR -- the actual prototype of the ISS) [edit] I think, based on the straightforward comparison of what could be done then to what can be done now, the 30 years of the shuttle was a self inflicted handicap.

tomnackid · Jul 10, 2006

The reboost module for Skylab was cancelled because it became painfully obvious that the station was deorbiting far more quickly than anyone had anticipated. As other pointed out this was do to increased solar activity heating and expanding the atmosphere. There was no way to anticipate it. Skylab was intended to be temporary in any case. It was launched with all consumables already packed onboard. Garbage was shoved into an empty fuel tank. There was no provision for resupplying it or removing accumulated trash. By the time the crew of Sklab 3 closed it up it had already performed it primary mission. Any reboost would have been primarily for the purposes of deoribting it in a controlled manner. There was also the possibility of conducting a few more missions if the equipment was still in good shape--kinda like the way NASA has extended Spirit and Discovery's mission beyond their primary goals--but it was never a done deal. Skylab was intended to be temporary, pure and simple. That is why is was designated an "orbital workshop" rather than a "space station". After Skylab the shuttle became the US's temporary reusable space workshop. Contrary to popular conception serving as a launch vehicle was only a small part of the shuttle's role. Its mid deck was packed with experiment bays that were pretty much filled for every non DOD mission (I know. I tried to get experiments on board! Even before Challenger the wait was years.), not to mention lab modules and palettes that went in the payload bay. If we compare Russian and US manned space programs during the 80s and 90s I think a good analogy would be that the Russians had a cabin in the woods (Salyut then Mir) that they drove back and forth to in a compact SUV (Soyuz) while the Americans had a big motorhome (the shuttle) that they took out for week long trips in the country.

radarredux · Jul 10, 2006

> recall reading that Skylab came down much sooner than expected because someone forgot to allow for increased atmospheric drag because the the solar maximum./i> Just this last week I heard that there is a plan to boost ISS's altitude around 2010 for the same phenomenom. I can't recall where I heard/read it. Does anyone know if this is the case?

radarredux · Jul 10, 2006

> There was no real need for the STS. The Saturns, Titans, and Skylabs would have worked just fine./i> If I recall, there was a lot of criticism of the cost of expendable rockets at the time, so the STS was supposed to bring launch costs down dramatically. Had we known then what we know now, perhaps NASA would have spent funds differently. But that is life.

CalliArcale · Jul 10, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'm more baffled by the fact that a "reusable space plane" would somehow fit into his rather ambitious plans for the Moon and Mars, and his negative attitude towards the STS ("you make the same mistakes we Germans did"). <hr /></blockquote> Von Braun wanted a reusable spaceplane to service his orbiting space station. He did not envision an ISS-like spacestation, though. He envisioned it as more of a spacedock. Unmanned heavy-lift boosters would loft components, and the spaceplanes would carry people. The resident crew of the station would assemble deep space vehicles, for which crew would arrive via shuttle. You can get somewhat of the flavor of his vision from the book and movie "2001", actually. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I think it's plausible. The "rickety" Skylab produced some great scientific results (remember the operational telescope and the geodesic research) and was by volume close to the current ISS. Just looking at the photos of the Skylab (the kitchen, the "gym", ) makes it look like a Hilton compared to the Motel-6 crampiness of the ISS. Not half bad for a left over Saturn stage, eh?<hr /></blockquote> Skylab was awesome. However, one shouldn't get too tied up in volume comparisons. The middle of that caverous area was basically useless. One lesson from Skylab is that crews should avoid getting beyond comfortable arm-reach of a wall. Skylab would probably have been even more useful if they'd had some sort of column up the middle to which equipment could have been attached, reducing space in which to be stranded while greatly increasing the useable volume. This is similar to what has often been proposed for inflatable modules, actually. Skylab had its own set of problems, of course; being built out of an S-IVB imposed certain design decisions on it. Some were advantages; it would never have been built so big otherwise <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

egom · Jul 10, 2006

Well, if we consider Apollo as capsule 1.0, shuttle as winged TSTO 1.0 then US goes like this: capusle 1.0 - /> winged TSTO 1.0 -> capsule 2.0 Not a smart way to go because a lot of the knowledge of winged TSTO will be destoryed when the people that worked on the project will retire. Also capsule 2.0 (CEV) will be basically redone from scratch and it won't be an iterative improvement over Capsule 1.0 becuase so much of the Apollo knowledge is lost. Think that in the documentation is written how things work, not how things DON'T work and why things work in a certain way. Sometimes knowing why something is not working is as important as knowing why something is working. We will see what comes from CEV, but I believe from my position that a new itreration of the shuttle would have been the way to go. The list of enhancements that can be done to the shuttle is countless. EgoM

radarredux · Jul 10, 2006

> The middle of that caverous area was basically useless./i> I think Bigelow plan to have a "floor" run the vertical length of his space station tubes/units to divide it into two long, low levels. This is different than NASA's earlier plan of a floor across the horizontal section of the tube.

JonClarke · Jul 10, 2006

Von Braun's vision of the post Apollo future was encapsulated by the work of the Space Task group. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/taskgrp.html . It's all there - space shuttle, modular space stations, ongoing missions to the Moon, lunar orbit stations, Moon bases, missions to Mars. The shuttle/STS was the core of this system. In their shortness of vision the politicians funded only the core, and the fruit. There was deep opposition from many against further ventures to the Moon let alone beyond. Even in NASA there were those who thought that repeated flights to the Moon were too risky. But at least they funded the STS which proved to be a flexible system of great utility, they could have easily dropped that. In the context of the first oilshock, inflation, recession, and political and economic crises of of the 70's I can understand why the decided the way they did even though in the long run it was a great pity. As for Skylab, by the end of the three missions the station was very rickety. Severely damaged during launch, it was patched up several times and occupied much longer than originally planned. It carried out a magnificent science program and was an immense achievement and advance in many areas. It was 6 years before its achievements began to be surpassed and 20 before it was completely so. But its gyros were getting noisy, its onboard consumables were largely expended (and, with the expection of solids, incapable of replenishment) and the trash tank was filling up. The reality is the most that could have been gotten out of Skylab in the Shuttle era, even with reboost was a brief visit ort two. It would never have served as a permanent station. Reboost would have allowed this but more importantly allowed for a controlled reentry rather than raining debris overy inhabited areas. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

vogon13 · Jul 10, 2006

A major delay to the shuttle program occured when the shuttle Columbia, attached to the shuttle carrier aircraft, was flown through a rainstorm. No one realized that rainfall would scour off the thermal tiles. Thousands of tile were destroyed and had to be replaced. Delay was considerable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

qso1 · Jul 12, 2006

Look at the actual history of the program. Saturn production ended with Apollo. Titan production was dedicated largely to military payloads and Titans are limited in payload capacity compared to Saturn or even shuttle. Skylab was a station launched by the Saturn-V which was out of production after 1973. The shuttle was not proposed as some toy. It was proposed as a replacement for existing expendable launchers an at the time. Pressure to turn NASA into a much more economical operation was on, particularly in manned spaceflight. The big plans you mentioned were all wiped out by the Nixon Administrations decree in 1971-72 that NASA would get to develop only the shuttle. The development costs were capped (Though in the Carter Administration, exceeded) at $5.5 B dollars. Forget moon bases, Mars missions, only the shuttle or STS was authorized. At the time this made sense because the shuttles early projections were for 60 flights per year based on 7 orbiters. Von Braun might not have liked the particular design which by 1977, was frozen. But his plans always called for some sort of reusable transport system. In 1970, the phase "A" shuttle study was the centerpiece of NASAs post Apollo space stations, lunar bases, and mars missions. The shuttle was to carry up people and payloads up to around 20,000 lbs while the Saturns would lift the 200,000 lb plus payloads and stations designed from second stages of the Saturn V. The STS was a stunning technical achievement and provided the starting points for some of NASAs most spectacular successes like Hubble telescope. The STS was however, an economic failure but the failing was mostly in underestimating the requirements of operating such a complex system on an airliner type basis which never occured therefore keeping costs high. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

pathfinder_01 · Jul 13, 2006

So it sounds like the shuttle program was both cash strapped and rushed.

vulture2 · Jul 13, 2006

Reuse was simply not part of the original Skylab plan; had the funds been available a second orbital workshop would have been launched instead. When Shuttle was approaching operational status and it was realized that Skylab was still functional the mission was added. When it became clear Shuttle would not be ready shifting the reboost module to an ELV launch was considered but there wasn't time to make the change. Skylab was only possible because the cancellation of the later moon landings left an anused Saturn V. Now, ironically, the resumption of lunar landings may kill the ISS. If it was wrong to abandon Skylab, it cannot be right to abandon ISS.

qso1 · Jul 13, 2006

I would like to have seen Skylab salvaged and utilized myself but circumstances of the day forced its abandonment. I don't think ISS will suffer the same fate given the CEV is planned for ISS missions as well as lunar. Of course, its still a bit early in the game to know for sure if CEV will survive a new incoming Presidential Administration that may wish to distance itself from all things Bush. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

willpittenger · Jul 13, 2006

If we used the last Saturn V to launch Skylab, how was Skylab 2 supposed to be launched? I thought I heard one had been debated. Would they have used one of the museum Saturns? <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>

nyarlathotep · Jul 14, 2006

Skylab was only possible because the cancellation of the later moon landings left an anused Saturn V The moonlandings left three unused Saturn V's, two of which were left out in the sun to rust after the program was terminated. It's a shame that only one was used to launch a station. If we'd kept the S-V program going just another year instead of destroying all of its support equipment we could have had a second skylab with working solar panels ready for the arrival of the shuttle.

halman · Jul 14, 2006

gofer, The Apollo program may have been a technological triumph, but it was a public relations disaster. By the time the Apollo 11 mission was on the pad, there were many people who were opposed to the whole thing. A big part of the reason why had to do with the fact that out of the entire Saturn 5/Apollo stack, only the Command Module returned to Earth. The rest of the vehicle was thrown away. Now, trying to explain the logic of that to someone who lived in VW microbus was just about impossible. They saw a huge rocket that cost millions of dollars thrown away just so that three military types could play golf on the Moon. Just as there was no thought of offering passenger air service when the pilots were lying on the wing, the idea of tourists traveling into space in capsules that had to be recovered by naval task forces was unthinkable. All the evidence pointed to the spaceplane as being the vehicle of the future, supplemented with large rockets that would carry the big payloads. NASA developed an elegant design for a vehicle that would be completely reusable, with liquid fueled flyback boosters carrying a small spaceplane to an altitude where its own rockets could lift it into orbit. Then, all those plans were scrapped, because the budget had been cut severely in favor of funding the police action in Vietnam. NASA was about to get out of the manned space exploration business after the budget cuts of the late 1960's, because there was just no way to do it with the money that they had available. But then, the Air Force made it known that not having a manned space capabilty was a major security threat to the nation, so NASA suddenly found itself back in the manned space exploration business, but with a partner that demanded certain things if the money was going to flow. The demands of the Air Force brought about the compromise we call the shuttle, which no one ever imagined at the beginning. The only way that NASA could <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

JonClarke · Jul 14, 2006

The trouble is that Skylab did not have that much more life left in it. The consumables were largely consumed and could not be easily replenished. The trash tank was filling up, and a lot of the equipment was getting rickety by the time the last crew left. Remember that Skylab was very experimental and not designed for long term usage. Lots of things were tried and some were succesful and some were not. The science package was designed on the basis of what was known in the late 60's. So let's say Skylab was successful reboosted in 1979. It would have been an aging station with limited ability to be resupplied, and inefficient configuration, and an obsolute payload. It would have been a useful target for the shuttle to rendezvous and dock with, and engineers and scientists would have been very interested to see how key items and aged and would have wanted to see samples brought back. So perhaps a brief occupation or two for a few days to a couple of weeks, then a deliberate deorbit so it wouldn't tonnes of debris across inhabited areas - as it ended up doing. It would have made much more sense for any permanent facility to be designed from scratch using what had been learned from Skylab and the Shuttle. This is what was planned and this is what has happened, it has just taken about 15-20 years years longer than expected. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Did shuttle cost us Skylab?

moonmadness

Guest

qso1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

3488

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

gofer

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

gofer

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

egom

Guest

radarredux

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

vogon13

Guest

qso1

Guest

pathfinder_01

Guest

vulture2

Guest

qso1

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

halman

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page