Skylab

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Nice graphic, did you do that? If so, what program?"</font><br /><br />I wish <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br /><br />No, I stole it directly from this space.com page. <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>

 

[gofer]

Speaking of Bigelow... the first test is upon us... the 12th of July.... http://www.federalspace.ru/PlanQuart.asp?Lang=ENG Hope it works.

 

[j05h]

Wow, they launch the test module in a couple days! Woot! <br /><br />The graphic looks very much like it was built in 3DS Max. The colors on a couple of the objects resemble the base colors (pseudo-earth tones) that 3DS assigns to objects. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This would have been possible even in 1992 when space station Freedom was still being proposed. The current method of using shuttle to construct ISS has proven very expensive in terms of shuttle flight costs ($500 mil each). Heavy lifters would have been better suited to send station components up.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The main problem is that the US launcher with the biggest payload capacity is . . . <drum roll /> . . . the Space Shuttle. It's a real shame they made NASA ditch the Saturn program. Can you imagine the kind of station we could have today if we had Saturn Vs to boost stuff? That was a monster of a booster.<br /><br />Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy may get into the same range as Shuttle payloads, so this problem of having to rely on Shuttle for the big stuff may not be a problem any longer. Trouble is, you have to design stuff years ahead of time, so it'll be years before we start seeing any exploitation of those boosters for ISS (or, more likely, never, since ISS is already pretty much designed). And it sounds like NASA wants a new super heavy lift launcher along the lines of Saturn V, so that could also change the outlook quite a bit. <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>

 

[j05h]

If station components were built/flown lighter, they could have already been launched. It's a design and political choice that needed to be made. Future components should be designed launcher-neutral, IMHO.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"the first test is upon us... the 12th of July..."</font><br /><br />Thanks for that link gofer. I've been trying to find out when the launch was going to happen and could only find that it was expected any day now.<br /><br />I'll be standing by for news to see if everything goes as planned. I hope so. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If station components were built/flown lighter, they could have already been launched. It's a design and political choice that needed to be made. Future components should be designed launcher-neutral, IMHO<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's a good thing to want, but it's yet another engineering trade-off. If the components were built lighter (and they'd have to be narrower too; the Shuttle has a very spacious payload bay compared to typical payload fairings), then they could not fit as much in them. Consider the enormous size of the Universal Mating Adapters (I may be misremembering the term; I get those wrong all the time -- the things on the sides of the Unity Node). Diameter puts an upper limit on the hatch size. With existing unmanned launch vehicles, I don't think they could be as big as they are, and it might not be possible to fit big stuff like Destiny experiment racks through them. They would likely be as constrained as the Zarya, Zvezda, and Pirs modules are.<br /><br />You also lose useful upmass to a propulsion system. The Shuttle's payload capacity does not include the mass required to deliver the module; that's counted instead under the Orbiter's own mass. For ELVs, the payload capacity *does* include any propulsion system, avionics, and docking mechanism required to deliver the module. So you have to consider that as well as part of the trade-off.<br /><br />I do agree that launcher-neutral payloads offer considerable flexibility. One enormous benefit of the USAF's EELV program is that it's easier to build payloads that can go on Delta IV or Atlas V. This came very much in handy for them when the Boeing scandal broke and the USAF pulled a large number of payloads off of Delta IV as punishment. It makes you less dependent on the launcher manufacturer, which is a good thing for the market. <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]

lampblack ... if you read my original post carefully you'd see I *was* referring to the second Skylab which *is* in the Smithsonian ..... when it was installed a large hole was cut for walk-through" tours ....<br /><br />

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">lampblack ... if you read my original post carefully you'd see I *was* referring to the second Skylab which *is* in the Smithsonian ..... when it was installed a large hole was cut for walk-through" tours .... </font><br /><br />Well, I sort of specialize in reading things carefully -- and it wasn't clear. The first Skylab -- the one that fell from orbit -- had a big gaping hole in its side, too. At least, it <i>did</i> -- before it fell from orbit. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I'm just glad we understand each other now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>