Skylab 2 - A What If

[drwayne]

As y'all probably know, there was a second SIVB that was configured as a Skylab lab. It was the backup or second Skylab. As it turned out, it was never launched, and now is a cut open museum piece.<br /><br />Imagine though that you are there, knowing what was learned from the first Skylab. What would you change for the second mission to make it better than the first.<br /><br />Clearly, you would make sure that the ascent problems that damaged the first vehicle did not recur - that a given.<br /><br />Any additional experiments you would configure the lab with? (Remember, Skylab has LOTS of space, probably way too much empty space), A different orbit?<br /><br />My suggestion would be to have used the empty second stage as a "wet lab" experiment - learning to take spent stages and turn them into useful habitat. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

I always thought a space station in polar orbit would be interesting. Skylab II might as well have been the one.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

There are issues with polar orbits for radiation aren't there?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Yes, the charged particles trapped in the Earth's magnetic field (the Van Allan belts) reach all the way down to the atmosphere at the poles, producing the northern and southern lights. On a polar orbit you'd fly through these twice.

 

[vogon13]

I just said interesting, not 'good' interesting, or 'bad' interesting.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Understand your concerns.<br /><br />It is interesting that the debate about whether to go wet or dry for Skylab was not decided till fairly late in the timeline. von Braun actually liked the wet lab better, from what I have heard.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I would prefer if they could of figured a way to dock it to Skylab (I) and have it as a single station. Skylab was never ment for multiple segments however. I would perfer if it served most for deep space astronomy. Sort of a 70s Hubble. <br /><br />Polar seems out of the question as they could only launch if from the cape, so they could only do polar by flying it over Miami!<br /><br />The wetlab was never a perfect idea, but you have to admit the amount of volume you would get would be amazing. <br /><br />I would have a feeling that they would first build out the wet section with pressure suits, and not occupy the space until some sort of proper shielding had been installed. <br /><br />Actually, flying parts to build out the wet-section of skylab and installing shielding would of been the perfect job for the shuttle.

 

[mikejz]

Mind you that the reason that Skylab only had three flights was in large part due to the fact that Apollo capsules had stopped being produced and they were simply flying surplus AFAIK.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is interesting that the debate about whether to go wet or dry for Skylab was not decided till fairly late in the timeline.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, the wet-lab has major cool factor for an intellectual. If you can do it, then you've managed something really quite remarkable -- and also extremely useful. But it's a complicated problem, and not one that is very tolerant of shifting political climates or dwindling funding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Mind you that the reason that Skylab only had three flights was in large part due to the fact that Apollo capsules had stopped being produced and they were simply flying surplus AFAIK.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually, Skylab (the original one) was going to be serviced by Shuttle once they ran out of Apollo hardware, but Shuttle kept getting delayed. They were working on a Skylab Reboost Module to be flown up on Shuttle. If you look at the concept drawings, it's even got an RMS grapple fixture on it so it can be attached to Skylab. But again, Shuttle kept getting delayed, and then fate made the final decision -- unexpectedly high activity in the upper atmosphere meant that Skylab was receiving more drag than expected, and it deorbited uncontrollably over Australia.<br /><br />In theory, Skylab B could've been sent up as its replacement and serviced by Shuttle, as originally planned. But it had really only been built as a backup in case Skylab blew up on the pad, and the Saturn Vs had officially been mothballed. Plus, of course, Shuttle was still delayed, and it was neccesary to modify the two pads at LC-39 for Shuttle (which made them unusable for Saturn). And the rest is history.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"major cool factor for an intellectual"<br /><br />I'll take that as a compliment! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />"But it's a complicated problem"<br /><br />Agree 100%. Of course, developing the skills would help with using those external tanks we are throwing away...<br /><br />On a general Skylab note:<br /><br />Some internal design work would help more of the space in the SIVB usable (center of the stage).<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

One thing that springs to mind about a partial wet lab Skylab compared to say the ISS the that you could put a lot of the electronics current outside the ISS (and therefore space hardened) inside the pressurised wet lab section. Remember the hassle of changing a circuit breaker on one of the CMGs a while back, that took a couple of man-days to fix - let alone all the planning. Changing the same breaker in a pressurise wet lab would just be a case of donning a pressure suit and going and doing it. Also because the pressure suit wouldn't be inflated unless there was and emergency there wouldn't be a drop of dexterity normally associated with pressure suits.<br /><br />Fair idea?<br /><br />PS I think these electronic were probably inside on the Skylab anyway…<br />

 

[mattblack]

Excellent thread; Skylab was always one of my favourite programs!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Just some general comments.<br /><br />1 - It's probably worth remembering that Skylab 2 was largely complete when it was cancelled. This means the payload was already decided. Rather than speculating what we would like to have seen it equipped with, it might be a useful start to discover what it actually carried. I have not seen this listed anywhere, BTW (not that I have looked).<br /><br />2 - Skylab 1 was becoming very rickety at the end of the last mission, especially the gyros. It was also not capable of resupply. Once it ran out of consumables that was it. The same applies to Skylab 2. <br /><br />3 - Because of this neither Skylab could have been continuously used until the shuttle era, for example. As I recall the shuttle mission to Skylab would have only have been a brief visit to inspect it and reboost. In this regard both Skylabs were not as advanced as the smaller and later Salyuts, which could be kept resupplied indefinitely.<br /><br />4 - The missions to Skylab 1 were (very very roughly) of one, two and three months duration. If this trend continued, maybe Skylab 2 would have seen missions of 4, 5 and 6 month durations. <br /><br />5 - wet vs dry. The only fundamental difference between the original wet Saturn workshop and Skylab was that Skylab was launched dry and fitted out. It still had all the tankage of the Saturn IVB. The main pressurised volume was the H2 tank, the O2 tank was the waste compartment.<br /><br />6 - I don't think Skylab could have been put into polar orbit, at least not given the payload as fitted. Does anyone know what a two stage Saturn V could put into polar orbit? Maybe a wet version could have done this, I recall reading that a wet version could have even been put into lunar orbit.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"The only fundamental difference between the original wet Saturn workshop and Skylab was that Skylab was launched dry and fitted out."<br /><br />Actually, Skylab was launched fitted out already.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I tend to make a distinction that others don't. In my way of thinking, you could have an empty shell, that you later put equipment in. Its a tank, but it never had fuel or oxidizer in it - so its dry, but not fitted out. Fitting out is done progressively over later flights.<br /><br />Skylab was dry, and essentially all the equipment was already in place at launch. (Wish it had stayed that way)<br /><br />Sometimes these internal ideas/models come popping out unbidden...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jmd2003]

I always liked the idea of a single launch station in the mold of skylab. <br /><br />The ISS has shown that the US does not do on orbit assembly well. The potential for cost overruns and delays from on orbit assembly is too great. <br /><br />I would prefer to see the emerging HLV used for a single shot station. It would be a good use of existing (soon I hope) infrastructure and give us a second attractive target to launch to in LEO.<br /><br />Brian<br /><br />

 

[mikejz]

yeah assemble on orbit has proven to be a bad idea. The ISS might actually of been something if we had build a shuttle-c and launched it in a few large segments

 

[drwayne]

With the same "gut feeling" caveat - I think you are right...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

On orbit assembly is a good idea provided it is done the right way. It is essential for large construction projects or interplanetary missions. The largest booster on the horizon is the SDLV, with a payload of the order of 125 tonnes. Anything you want in orbit that is bigger than this is going to need orbital construction.<br /><br />We have been assembling stuff in orbit for nearly twenty years. The ideal way to go is to use modules that can be docked together, as with Mir and the Russian segment of the ISS. using modules carried up on another spacecraft and which extensive work to plug in once attached, as done with US modules, is not a good way to go. But that is the advantage of experience.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Wet Skylab was envsioned to be used with a Saturn IB launch. The shift to the dry version was made possible when suprlus Saturn Vs were available, plus when people realised how much time would be required to actually fit out the empty stage.<br /><br />Jon <br /><br />PS Have fun with this guys and gals - I am off line for the rest of the week.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"The largest booster on the horizon is the SDLV, with a payload of the order of 125 tonnes. Anything you want in orbit that is bigger than this is going to need orbital construction. "<br /><br />I liked the Comet booster that Goldin was proposing in the early 90's. 250T to LEO with a nice big 10m fairing. You could launch two ISS's in one shot with that thing. <br /><br />I figure that if you're going to build a monsterously uneconomic heavy launch vehicle, you may aswell go for something a little more dramatic.

 

[mattblack]

>>I figure that if you're going to build a monsterously uneconomic heavy launch vehicle, you may aswell go for something a little more dramatic.<<<br /><br />Amen, brother! Although larger launchers are usually more efficient from an economy-of-scale standpoint. And I'm reasonably satisifed with the specs for the SDHLV, if money were no object (hah!) then still using the External Tank tooling, but converting the prop. tank ratios for LOX/Kerosene, it might have gone like this: <br /><br />ET-based "stretched" Corestage, powered by 4x F-1A or RD-170s. 2x strap-on (or flyback) boosters, each with 2x F-1A or RD-170s. Upper stage powered by 3x J-2S or 2x SSMEs. Payload?: 200 tons to LEO, 70 tons to Earth escape. Liftoff Thrust: 12 million pounds.<br /><br />However, such a thing is virtually a "Clean Sheet" design and would so change Launchpads 39A & B as to make them all-new. But you'd have ESAS Moon missions in one shot, and a Mars mission with two launches.<br /><br />So: No money for such fantasies, the SDHLV and CLV is about as good as we're going to get for the forseeable future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[ace5]

SKYLAB 2<br /><br />1-core stage: main Skylab 2 vehicle upgraded with an orbit maintenance engine like Salyut´s; Solar observatory integrated to the main cylinder structure (in the place of the waste depot in the original Skylab); addition of waste-disposal airlocks, besides more science-airlocks around the core vehicle; operational use of the lateral docking port (or its transfer to the center of the aft section of main cylinder to make dockings easier); change in the airlock to use a better solution that a gemini-derived hatch that opens outwards for a - bigger - circular-shaped hatch that opened inwards; instalation of more handrails outside the core station, and plug-in points to external fittings, like more solar panels, a RMS and truss-like structures.<br /><br />2- Apollo - change in its capabilitities for more than 180 day missions.<br /><br />**** mattblack - please link us to the source of the picture of that huge launcher (it is the FLO, I guess)***<br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

It's from my archive harddrive, I'm not sure where. But I'll have a scout around... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>