On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 1:58:55 AM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-08-11 21:44, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
Could it have taken the thrust from the CSM main engine (which had the most
fuel available) or only the quads?
Wikipedia tells me that for Skylab, the CSM was partially fueled because
it was launched on Saturn 1B, not 5, so less patload capability.
The Low Earth Orbit payload capability of the Saturn IB booster used to
launch the Low Earth Orbit missions (Apollo 1 (planned), Apollo 7,
Skylab 2, Skylab 3, Skylab 4, and Apollo-Soyuz) could not handle the
66,900-pound (30,300 kg) mass of the fully fueled CSM. This was not a
problem, because the delta-V requirement of these missions was much
smaller than that of the lunar mission; therefore they could be launched
with less than half of the full SPS propellant load, by filling only the
SPS sump tanks and leaving the storage tanks empty. The CSMs launched in
orbit on Saturn IB ranged from 32,558 pounds (14,768 kg) (Apollo-Soyuz),
to 46,000 pounds (21,000 kg) (Skylab 4).!
More importantly, I am thinking of structural issues.
With main CSM engine firing, Would Apollo be able to push Skylab without
crushing the docking adpator?
Something I just realised. In "Apollo 13", we don't see any discussion
on whether the LEM could structurally push Apollo and CSM withough
stressing the docking adaptor. Was there such discussion, or was that
ability always part of mission requirements ?
nasa ended the appollo lunar program with leftover full saturn 5 stacks..
if they had planned for it the final skylab flight could of launched o a saturn 5, with a full fuel load, and had boosted skylab to a much higher orbit
heck they could of done this with the 2 complete saturn 5 stacks