Skylab still around mid eighties

[spd405]

Could Skylab's final mission have out it into an orbit that would have kept it there until the mid 80's?<br /><br />If Skylab was still in orbit in the mid 80's and could be reactivated, how would this affect the international Space Station design and development?

 

[elguapoguano]

The Original plan was for Skylab to survive long enough to be boosted by Shuttle. However, it was unknown at that time that there was enough atmospheric drag to make it's orbit decay quicker than was estimated. Plus, Shuttle was supposed to fly in '77, but didn't make it to orbit till '81. But since the atmospheric drag was more than expected, Skylab didn't last into the '80's and burned up in the atmosphere, part of it hitting Australia.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

I think that the Skylab "replica" at the Smithsonian was actually a real "Skylab II" that never got launched. Too bad...

 

[elguapoguano]

<font color="yellow"><br />I think that the Skylab "replica" at the Smithsonian was actually a real "Skylab II" that never got launched. Too bad...</font><br />Yes, that is true. I've seen it in person. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[spd405]

So they boosted it to what they thought would be a safe orbit but was there anything to prevent it from being boosted higher to an even safer orbit - cost, available fuel??

 

[nacnud]

I don't think there was a remote docking system available to the US to boost the skylab and there wasn't the Apollo hardware left for a manned mission.

 

[mattblack]

Here's a webpage about this very subject:<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/articles/skyyfate.htm<br /> <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't think there was a remote docking system available to the US to boost the skylab and there wasn't the Apollo hardware left for a manned mission.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Correct. Work was being done on a Skylab Reboost Module, which was to be installed by Columbia. The graphics of it even show an RMS grapple fixture. It would've performed the reboost. shuttle_guy could probably reminisce on that a bit. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Alas, it was never to be. The last time anything visited Skylab was during the Skylab 4 mission, when its final crew docked their Apollo module to it.<br /><br />There was only one Apollo flight after that -- ASTP in July of 1975. Even that flight only flew because of political reasons and commitments to the Russians. The pressure was on to scrap the Apollo hardware and fly Shuttle. <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>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">how would this affect the international Space Station design and development?</font>/i><br /><br />There probably would not have been an ISS.<br /><br />There is a certain amount of irony that one space station platform died soon before the shuttle reached orbit (in part because of delays in the shuttle development), and then the shuttle will be retired when a space station is finally completed.<br /><br />Two space stations serving as bookends to the shuttle's 30 year history.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The pressure was on to scrap the Apollo hardware and fly Shuttle.</font>/i><br /><br />There was pressure to kill the Apollo legacy in order to move to the new vision, the shuttle.<br /><br />When Russia wanted to keep Mir flying, NASA put pressure on Russia to kill Mir and devote all their resources to the new vision, ISS.<br /><br />So when you hear calls to kill the shuttle and ISS to devote resources to the new vision (VSE this time), remember that this follows an established tradition!</i>

 

[georgeniebling]

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/skyyfate.htm<br /><br />I went back and re-read the article ... and wow, it's just so sad that it had that way ....<br /><br />imagine how different the 80's would have been ...

 

[steve82]

I was working that Teleoperator Retrieval System (TRS) prior to the Skylab splat-down and it was pretty interesting. The TRS would be carried up in the payload bay, and would be operated by remote control from the Shuttle's aft flight deck to a rendezvous with the Skylab docking port. They were talking STS-2 at the time, alas increased drag and shuttle program delays got in the way so Skylab was allowed to reenter. I always wondered if there might have been a capability to go ahead and launch the TRS unmanned to within the neighborhood and just control it from the ground to save Skylab. We would have been way ahead of where we are now-not the least of which we wouldn't have gone into the space station biz as an insane export/ITAR controlled international partnership.

 

[drwayne]

Skylab was not really designed to be a permanent space station, it was a convenient stepping stone, taking maximum advantage of off the shelf technology to do a space station experiment on the cheap.<br /><br />Keep in mind its nature as a reworked SIVB meant that there was a lot of wasted space.<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 have seen at varous times over the years semi-serious proposals to put it back together and fly it. (I know it has been cut open for museum use). <br /><br />These proposals haven't gone very far... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I dunno; that hasn't been a problem for Rosaviacosmos and their unmanned Progress vehicles. I know the Progress can dock automatically, but they have to do it while they could take over and dock it manually from ground control. They do not have a TDRS network, so it's always done while the station is over Russia. Of course, Russia is a damn big country, spanning eleven time zones, so that probably makes the lack TDRS tolerable. <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>

 

[georgeniebling]

I know this is a hornet's nest but ....<br /><br />would it be possible to effectively reseal the hole cut into Skylab II (now residing at the Smithsonian)?<br /><br />could it be "attached" to the ISS?<br /><br />would there be any benefit to having a second station or simply and American station?<br /><br /><donning flame retardant suit />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"could it be "attached" to the ISS? "</font><br /><br />What exactly were you planning to launch it on? It took the Saturn V for the original one. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[georgeniebling]

yeah, I know ... like I said ... even the idea is a hornet's nest .....

 

[cyrostir]

if they had kept Skylab and built it up, I wonder how that would of affected our unmanned probes such as Galileo, cassini, voyager, mars rovers and so on...

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I wonder how that would of affected our unmanned probes such as Galileo, cassini, voyager, mars rovers and so on... "</font><br /><br />Astronauts on-board Skylab might have been able to wave bye-bye as the boosters for those craft passed by. I don't really see any other potential effects... at all.

 

[drwayne]

As I mumbled earlier in this thread, Skylab was an experiment done largely on the cheap (relative to Apollo for sure), it was not intended to become the basis for either a bigger station or to support semi-permanent occupancy in space.<br /><br />To my perspective, its greatest legacy is the efforts that saved the program after the damage of the launch.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Wasn't Skylab launched with all its consumables already packed onboard? And wasn't all the garbage and human waste (whatever wasn't sent back for testing) stuffed through a hatch into a garbage holding chamber below the workshop "floor"? I'm not sure what the projected life span of Skylab was intended to be, but I gather that the reboost was more for safety--to prevent an uncontrolled reentry--than to prolong its life as a working space station.

 

[georgeniebling]

Knowing the cause of the damage to the station during launch ... would a second launch (Skylab II) have been feasible? Or was it a systemic problem that would have occured again due to dynamic stresses?<br /><br />When was the decision made to scuttle (yeah, I hate that term) Skylab II? Was there an actual timeline to a launch and would both SI and SII have been in orbit at the same time?<br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"When was the decision made to scuttle (yeah, I hate that term) Skylab II? "</font><br /><br />Astronautix is our friend.<br />Skylab B was cancelled on 01 January 1975. The article contains additional info and dates. Text search for 'skylab b' to find them all.

 

[radarredux]

Just a friendly jab here. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> />> <i>"I think that the Skylab "replica" at the Smithsonian was actually a real "Skylab II" that never got launched. Too bad..."</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Correct, it is, or was, flight ready hardware.</font>/i><br /><br />So there is precedent for choosing not to fly already built space station components and sticking them in a museum instead. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /></i>