Never mind the shuttle crash, the real threat is the CAIB report

But it was hundreds of millions of dollars of hardware! We're talking
about an entire space station and five Saturn rockets. And they had
a plan too. But management said, "Nah, the first one is working and
we have other commitments."

::raises hand::

I was under the impression only two flight ready Saturn V's remain...they could
have supported Apollo's 18 and 19 which was why those two were on the books for
so long.

Apollo 20 was nixed early once it was clear one Saturn would be needed to
launch Skylab.

-A.L.

Question: How feasible was the idea of Skylab being repaired, upgraded and
resupplied by shuttle missions? Because all three of those would need to be
done to have made it worth while to make shuttle visits to Skylab.


It was considered but was not designed for in orbit upgrades. It was a real
loss though.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:05:35 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

All of this gets back to why every space station or shuttle developed
by any country has been cursed with bad management. It is because none
of them ever served a clear purpose.

Well, at least not a purpose that was clear to all. The real problem
is that the actual purpose is different than the stated one.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:05:35 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
All of this gets back to why every space station or shuttle developed
by any country has been cursed with bad management. It is because none
of them ever served a clear purpose.
Well, at least not a purpose that was clear to all.

Sorry, what I meant to say is that none of them served a *rational* purpose.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:40:39 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

All of this gets back to why every space station or shuttle developed
by any country has been cursed with bad management. It is because none
of them ever served a clear purpose.
Well, at least not a purpose that was clear to all.

Sorry, what I meant to say is that none of them served a *rational* purpose.

Just because you disagree with a purpose doesn't make it irrational.
It depends on your premises.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
All of this gets back to why every space station or shuttle developed
by any country has been cursed with bad management.

A statement which you can only support by expanding the definition of
'manager' far beyond that commonly used.

shakes head

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
On top of everything the cancellation [of Skylab B] came when Skylab
A had only been in orbit for three months.
What the hell are you talking about?

14 May 1973 Skylab 1 Program: Skylab. Launch Site: Cape Canaveral.
Launch Vehicle: Saturn V

...

13 August 1973 Skylab backup Saturn V Orbital Workshop launch
capability cancelled

NASA decided to delete the Skylab backup Saturn V Orbital Workshop
launch capability effective 15 August. All work associated with
the completion, checkout, and support of Skylab backup hardware,
experiments, software, facilities, and ground support equipment would
be canceled immediately, except for the work that would directly
support SL-3, SL-4, and rescue missions.

(http://www.astronautix.com/craft/skylab.htm)

And if anyone still believes that there was no management failure
(counting Congress as part of management), the page concludes:

01 January 1975 Skylab B Program: Skylab. Launch Vehicle: Saturn IB,
Saturn V.

The decision was taken to mothball surplus hardware in August
1973. In December 1976, the boosters and spacecraft were handed over
to museums. The opportunity to launch an International Space Station,
at a tenth of the cost and twenty years earlier, was lost.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:06:59 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I just see it a little hard to see how a population who was pro-Saddam
could change so quickly.

I find it extremely hard to see how you can imagine that the
population was *ever* pro-Saddam.

Very many people in Iraq were pro-Saddam. After all only his enemies
(mostly) faced his wraith.

Points supporting this are...

Utter barking moonbattery snipped

Simply amazing.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Congress is not part of management. There's no point in discussing
things if we can't have a common vocabulary.

Okay, fine, even NOT counting Congress as part of management. NASA still
mismanaged Skylab A's launch. It still mismanaged Skylab B. It still
mismanaged Skylab A's termination. And in a final and colossal act
of mismanagement, it abandoned Skylab for an even less spaceworthy
reincarnation.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

"Greg Kuperberg" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
On top of everything the cancellation [of Skylab B] came when Skylab
A had only been in orbit for three months.
What the hell are you talking about?

14 May 1973 Skylab 1 Program: Skylab. Launch Site: Cape Canaveral.
Launch Vehicle: Saturn V

...

13 August 1973 Skylab backup Saturn V Orbital Workshop launch
capability cancelled

NASA decided to delete the Skylab backup Saturn V Orbital Workshop
launch capability effective 15 August. All work associated with
the completion, checkout, and support of Skylab backup hardware,
experiments, software, facilities, and ground support equipment would
be canceled immediately, except for the work that would directly
support SL-3, SL-4, and rescue missions.

Note the word used several times the BACKUP.

As the primary one was now functioning, there was no need for the BACKUP.


(http://www.astronautix.com/craft/skylab.htm)

And if anyone still believes that there was no management failure
(counting Congress as part of management), the page concludes:

01 January 1975 Skylab B Program: Skylab. Launch Vehicle: Saturn IB,
Saturn V.

The decision was taken to mothball surplus hardware in August
1973. In December 1976, the boosters and spacecraft were handed over
to museums. The opportunity to launch an International Space Station,
at a tenth of the cost and twenty years earlier, was lost.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *