Why not Skylab Redux?

I was thinking about NASA's Moon plan, and it occurs to me the heavy
lifter's
SRBs and first stage should be powerful enough to orbit a deaprture stage
that doesn't have any fuel in it, so it could be oribtted as a dry workshop,
just as the original Skylab was a modified S-IVB stage orbitted by the first
two stages of a Saturn V.

But what to do with it? Two possibilities spring to mind:

1. The neo-Skylab could be built with docking ports at both ends. One end
could be connected to what is now the Shuttle's docking port; a node at the
other end could be used for CEVs to tie on, as well as for further expansion
of the station.

2. It could be orbitted on its own as a second station. Why not? The
military doesn't have just one base. Why should we have just one space
station in orbit.

Also, a departure stage work shop makes an ideal candidate for a habitat
module used on a Mars mission; no way are six people going to be crammed
into something with as much room as my car for almost tow years!

Just a thought. You may now tear it down.

Mike





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:41:46 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Michael
Gallagher" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I was thinking about NASA's Moon plan, and it occurs to me the heavy
lifter's
SRBs and first stage should be powerful enough to orbit a deaprture stage
that doesn't have any fuel in it, so it could be oribtted as a dry workshop,
just as the original Skylab was a modified S-IVB stage orbitted by the first
two stages of a Saturn V.

But what to do with it? Two possibilities spring to mind:

Oh, you must be referring to the initial module of a much larger
propellant depot. ;-)

Looking at Skylab at the Air and Space Museum, it is a surprisingly
impressive structure. However, I note that a space structure of
roughly equal volume to Skylab could be orbited in the near-term
timeframe with two EELV Heavy-class launches launching two Bigelow
BA-330 modules at a total price tag of about $300 million. We have
better methods of getting things done nowadays.

Michael Gallagher wrote:
I was thinking about NASA's Moon plan, and it occurs to me the heavy
lifter's
SRBs and first stage should be powerful enough to orbit a deaprture stage
that doesn't have any fuel in it, so it could be oribtted as a dry workshop,
just as the original Skylab was a modified S-IVB stage orbitted by the first
two stages of a Saturn V.

But what to do with it? Two possibilities spring to mind:

It would be nice to put a space station into a Highly elliptical Earth
orbit. Then a CEV could launch form Earth and dock with the station at
perigee. Its apogee would pass near the moon. A lunar tug (fueled on
the surface of the moon) would rendezvous, bringing a returning CEV and
leaving with the CEV.

This way 8 people cold be put into the CEV for a short flight of a few
hours.

The orbital period of this "cycler" station could be lunar period / 3.
Once per month it would enable a crew of 8 to transfer to the moon. The
other 2 missions could be used for tourists.

Alex Terrell wrote:

It would be nice to put a space station into a Highly elliptical Earth
orbit. Then a CEV could launch form Earth and dock with the station at
perigee. Its apogee would pass near the moon. A lunar tug (fueled on
the surface of the moon) would rendezvous, bringing a returning CEV and
leaving with the CEV.

This way 8 people cold be put into the CEV for a short flight of a few
hours.

The orbital period of this "cycler" station could be lunar period / 3.
Once per month it would enable a crew of 8 to transfer to the moon. The
other 2 missions could be used for tourists.



This leaves the problem with the station passing through the inner and
outer Van Allen belts on each orbit- unless the intention is to orbit it
at such a altitude that its perigee is above them.

Pat

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:41:46 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Michael
Gallagher" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I was thinking about NASA's Moon plan, and it occurs to me the heavy
lifter's
SRBs and first stage should be powerful enough to orbit a deaprture stage
that doesn't have any fuel in it, so it could be oribtted as a dry
workshop,
just as the original Skylab was a modified S-IVB stage orbitted by the
first
two stages of a Saturn V.

But what to do with it? Two possibilities spring to mind:

Oh, you must be referring to the initial module of a much larger
propellant depot. ;-)

Has there ever been any refutation of the Profac nuclear air scoop concept?

http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/...ac/profac.html

If the numbers are to be believed, this could scoop enough propellant every
couple months to launch a lunar mission.

JRS: In article . com,
dated Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:13:57, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Alex
Terrell posted :

The orbital period of this "cycler" station could be lunar period / 3.
Once per month it would enable a crew of 8 to transfer to the moon. The
other 2 missions could be used for tourists.

Kepler observed that the square of the period is proportional to the
cube of the semi-major axis. If the ratio of the periods is 1/3, that
of the axes must be 0.481, which is not long enough to reach from Earth
to Moon.

Alternatively (Clarke, Jupiter Five; me, gravity2.htm#Kep) we know that
to drop to the centre of a circular orbit takes 0.177 (0.5^2.5) of a
period, which is greater than half of a third.

Try lunar period times two-fifths.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article . com,
dated Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:13:57, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Alex
Terrell posted :

The orbital period of this "cycler" station could be lunar period / 3.
Once per month it would enable a crew of 8 to transfer to the moon. The
other 2 missions could be used for tourists.

Kepler observed that the square of the period is proportional to the
cube of the semi-major axis. If the ratio of the periods is 1/3, that
of the axes must be 0.481, which is not long enough to reach from Earth
to Moon.

But it should get to L1?

Perigee =3D 7000km, Apogee =3D 360,000km, axis =3D 367,000km, semi-major ax=
is
=3D 183,500km.

Lunar orbit =3D 400,000km. Max semi major axis can be 0.481*400,000km =3D
192,400km

So it could just get beyond L1, which may have consequences.

Alternatively (Clarke, Jupiter Five; me, gravity2.htm#Kep) we know that
to drop to the centre of a circular orbit takes 0.177 (0.5^2.5) of a
period, which is greater than half of a third.

Try lunar period times two-fifths.

--
=A9 John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 =
MIME. =A9
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & l=
inks;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, =
etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail=
News.

Pat Flannery wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:

It would be nice to put a space station into a Highly elliptical Earth
orbit. Then a CEV could launch form Earth and dock with the station at
perigee. Its apogee would pass near the moon. A lunar tug (fueled on
the surface of the moon) would rendezvous, bringing a returning CEV and
leaving with the CEV.

This way 8 people cold be put into the CEV for a short flight of a few
hours.

The orbital period of this "cycler" station could be lunar period / 3.
Once per month it would enable a crew of 8 to transfer to the moon. The
other 2 missions could be used for tourists.



This leaves the problem with the station passing through the inner and
outer Van Allen belts on each orbit- unless the intention is to orbit it
at such a altitude that its perigee is above them.

The CEV would have the same problem.

This is actually the reason I proposed a cycler in the first place.
Once at L1, it could be shielded with lunar water (assuming it exists).
Then put into a cycler orbit, enabling comfortable, safe transit.

Alex Terrell wrote:

This leaves the problem with the station passing through the inner and
outer Van Allen belts on each orbit- unless the intention is to orbit it
at such a altitude that its perigee is above them.


The CEV would have the same problem.

Yes, but.

Yes, it would have to pass the Van Allen Belts, but as with Apollo
speed, angle, and timing would minimize exposure.


This is actually the reason I proposed a cycler in the first place.
Once at L1, it could be shielded with lunar water (assuming it exists).
Then put into a cycler orbit, enabling comfortable, safe transit.

How much water would have to be used? Say, a 10 person crew, 2 week
transit time. Assume that no crew member will do more than 1
out-and-back trip (new crew every occupied cycle), so you can use up
most of the lifetime exposure limit.

/dps