Skylab's place in history;

[oker59]

seems the longer time goes on, the more historic Skylab becomes; how many spacestations can you talk about that had astronauts spinning around in such volumous spaces?

 

[oker59]

well, i suppose the iss is pretty volumous(comparativelly); but, that is today, and not the last few decades of space activities;

 

[qso1]

I think ISS has more enclosed volume (425 m³) but its spread out in smaller modules. Skylab was a huge chunk of volume in one module. Not only that, we had no permanent station during the decades between Skylab and ISS. We did have Spacelab which was a pretty flexible and useful system but small and shuttle dependant.<br /><br />Skylab has definetely earned its place in history. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

The huge upper deck volume was useful on Skylab as it allowed in testing of various astronaut manuevering systems and evaluated how people would use such space. On all subsequent missions. It was also fun! The volume was better used on later missons for equipment and the more enclosed volume made it easier for people to move round. I am sure in future space hotels there will be some large spaces for people to cavort in.<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]

If you ever visit the town of Esperance in Western Australia, or the roadhouse at Balladonia on the Nullarbor, be sure to visit their skylab exhibits. They have some very large pieces - panelling, a film vault, gas bottles, and other bits and bobs.<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>

 

[qso1]

newsartist:<br />As a lark, several Skylab astronauts, "stranded" themslves in the middle of that huge lockeroom,<br /><br />Me:<br />Couldn't they swim, lol? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[halman]

newsartist,<br /><br />What a difference between Skylab and the International Space Station! Skylab went up complete in one launch, and the ISS is still only partially completed after how many flights? But Skylab was not very well set up to do materials sciences, and it was more of a promotional program than a serious, long term approach to space science. My impression from the whole thing, looking back on it now, was a subtle attempt to blackmail Congress into shaking loose some more money. If they got the thing into orbit, it would have to be taken care of, and no one could imagine Congress just turning its back on a space project. But Congress did, probably in part out of angst that NASA didn't really go through all the proper channels to get Skylab off the ground.<br /><br />Instead of requesting funding from Congress, NASA just cobbled together what they could out of spare parts, off the shelf equipment, and modified systems originally meant for other applications. So, it came as kind of a surprise to Congress when NASA announced that it was launching a space station. I think that NASA hoped that Skylab would be like a big bill board, saying "Hey, everybody, we're still up here!" But, the U. S. had Disco Fever at the time, and wasn't paying attention. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

Skylab was actually an interim space station all along and that was well known to anyone with any influence at NASA and known to Congress. NASAs 1969 grand plan which was revealed in September that year, was to have a permanent space station in 1975. A station based on Apollo hardware but less so than Skylab.<br /><br />Congress would have been well aware of Skylab because it began in 1966 IIRC although Wiki says 1968, as the Apollo applications program. More on this program at the link below:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program<br /><br />As you mentioned, the public had lost interest in NASA and human spaceflight which many increasingly saw as a luxury America could not afford. The Skylab re-entry and splashdown (SL-30 had the dubious distinction of being the first splashdown not covered live.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

You are being unfair to Skylab. Yes it was provisional structure, using existing components. TSkylab was the result ofa serious committment to space science and had many long term scientific results.<br /><br />The station was the culmination of a lot of work under the Apollo Applications program, which looked at a very wide range of uses to which Apollo and Saturn hardware could be put in Earth orbit. Some ideas were better than others, and in the end only Skylab and the experiments on the ASTP flew. <br /><br />Lots of things were tried out in Skylab in a diverse research program of biomedical, earth observation, engineering, architectural, life support, materials science and solar astronomical studies some of which worked well and some of which didn't. Which is the whole point. The shuttle program benefited greatly from Skylab, especially the Spacelab missions, and there were implications for unmanned earth and solar observation missions. They were among the most technically challenging missions NASA had flown at the time and some of the astronauts, Al bean included, considered it the apex of their careers.<br /><br />Jon<br /><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>

 

[JonClarke]

There is irony there. Public and political opinion turned against Apollo because of lack of short term applicability. But Skylab, which had immediate applicability in terms of solar research and earth imagery could not reverse the trend. Basically human spaceflight was out of favour and the supposed lack of practical application was just an excuse.<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>

 

[bpfeifer]

I'm currently working on a book that argues, among other things, that state sponsored space programs thrive when they have apperent economic or security benefits. NASA programs truely moved away from these goals during the middle of the Apollo program when Web shifted the primary justification to scientific research. While this helped legitimize the program in the scientific and international communities, it lead to the eventual loss of Congressional support. And yes, the public's focus wandered elswhere after the fisrt succesfull lunar landing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

Sorry, I wandered a bit far afield on that last one. What I was getting at was that NASA's support was diminishing for a long time before they got around to launching Skylab. Skylab was only meant to be our first attempt at a space station. It was not a permanent station. It had no provision for resupply. All of the food, fuel, water, and oxygen for the three Skylab crews were already on board at launch time. <br /><br />It was a first attempt, they just weren't permitted to make a second attempt. Which must have beeen frustrating since the Soviets were busy with their space station program that put up three stations including the venerable Mir. The Russians were conducting long duration flights that NASA could only drool at.<br /><br />Congress simply didn't see the economic or security value in trying to match the Russian program since we had already beaten them to the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[qso1]

JonClarke:<br />Basically human spaceflight was out of favour and the supposed lack of practical application was just an excuse.<br /><br />Me:<br />And it still is by a large segment of the population which is why the argument that "We could spend the money better on Earth" still prevails...long after NASA spending was slashed. NASA is the only government agency I know of that was cut roughly 50% and remained operating. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

No NASA centers bear the name Mondale or Proxmire either, lol. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Fritz and Fleece...I like that, lol. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>