Could/Should Skylab Have Been Saved?

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/skyyfate.htm

"Jim Oberg" wrote:


http://www.astronautix.com/articles/skyyfate.htm


The article can be summarized simply:

Yes, if the shuttle came on time, if nothing had deteriorated beyond
expectations, if nothing unexpected went wrong, if considerable money
had been spent, and if considerable man-hours (on the ground and on
orbit) were spent... *Then* we'd have an ageing core to use for
further expansion.

--- End Summary ---

It's quite obvious that the folks who came up with the plan had taken
a fair dose of optimism pills. The article was written in 1992 -
before Shuttle/Mir where we learned the costs and problems inherent in
relying on ageing core system.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
a fair dose of optimism pills. The article was written in 1992 -
before Shuttle/Mir where we learned the costs and problems inherent in
relying on ageing core system.


This need not be. Consider the ISS. The plans called for the russian
segment initially being the full station controls and progressively
transfer responsabilities to the newer USA segment made up of totally
different systems/technology. Had the USA been able to complete its side
of the station fully, the russian segment would have morphed from a key
segment to just a parasitic segment that tags along.

Also, the experience with ISS shows it is possible to progressively
shift control from the old to the new. Consider guidance/navigation,
communications etc.


In the case of Skylab, they could have added new modules to it with the
eventual ghoal of shifting control to the new modules and eventually
just dumping the old core. The advantage is that you can use the old
stuff while building up the new stuff.

John Doe wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
a fair dose of optimism pills. The article was written in 1992 -
before Shuttle/Mir where we learned the costs and problems inherent in
relying on ageing core system.

This need not be. Consider the ISS. The plans called for the russian
segment initially being the full station controls and progressively
transfer responsabilities to the newer USA segment made up of totally
different systems/technology. Had the USA been able to complete its side
of the station fully, the russian segment would have morphed from a key
segment to just a parasitic segment that tags along.

Utterly irrelevant. The transfer will take place long before ageing
becomes a problem (with the Russian segment). The ISS is also an
integrated unit, not the patchwork that was MIR.

In the case of Skylab, they could have added new modules to it with the
eventual ghoal of shifting control to the new modules and eventually
just dumping the old core. The advantage is that you can use the old
stuff while building up the new stuff.

The *disadvantage* is that you have to spend $MEGA_BUCKS getting the
old operational (Skylab) and more $MEGA_BUCKS *keeping* it operational
while adding the new modules.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
Utterly irrelevant. The transfer will take place long before ageing
becomes a problem (with the Russian segment). The ISS is also an
integrated unit, not the patchwork that was MIR.

The russian segment has already had aging problems: the elektron unit
stopped working and needed to be replaced. And its basic designs are
much older than that of the US segment.

The *disadvantage* is that you have to spend $MEGA_BUCKS getting the
old operational (Skylab) and more $MEGA_BUCKS *keeping* it operational
while adding the new modules.

If they had started to add new modules to Skylab in early 1980s, Skylab
wouldn't have been "so old". And as soon as the new modules provided all
the services Skylab provided, then Skylab can be shutdown and thrown
away, or simply kept as a storage module.


When you look at ISS assembly sequence, the first module up had early
russian comms and attitude control. The USA added Unity to it just to
claim a stake and also provide S-band comms and essentially allow the
shuttle to dock and deliver supplies. Unity didn't provide any life support.

Zvezda came up, and then they had to isolate/shutdown Unity because
there wasn't enough power to keep it heated. It wasn't until Z1 and P6
came up that they were able to turn Unity back on. And it wasn't until
Destiny was sent up that the USA segment gained ability to clean air.
Quest gave it ability to inject O2 and N2 into cabin (not used). But
still no toilet or kitchen on the US segment.

So, when you start a station from scratch, it takes far longer to get it
to support human life.

If you start with something basic like Skylab or Zvezda, you can very
quickly start to use the station and can ditch that early part later on
if it is too old or cause too many problems. The other option is to
send up a new skylab (self contained mini station) as a base to build
on, or wait many many years of assembly before the station is usable.

Using an exsiting tin can that provides basic stuff may in fact turn out
to be cheaper.


Remember that expedition 1 started off basically camping in Zvezda with
minimal electrical power, and Elektron wasn't even running when they got
there. Probably not very different from Skylab.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Utterly irrelevant. The transfer will take place long before ageing
becomes a problem (with the Russian segment). The ISS is also an
integrated unit, not the patchwork that was MIR.

Actually the Russian segment of ISS has *a lot* in common with Mir. In fact,
the two big Russian modules on ISS were originally intended to be used to
build Mir 2. The only bit that's really significantly different from Mir is
the docking/airlock module (Pirs).

Unfortunately, the more the administration and NASA cuts pieces off of the
US segment, the more ISS grows dependant on the Russian segment and the more
likely ISS will have Mir like problems as it ages. :-(

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

John Doe ) writes:
Derek Lyons wrote:
a fair dose of optimism pills. The article was written in 1992 -
before Shuttle/Mir where we learned the costs and problems inherent in
relying on ageing core system.

This need not be. Consider the ISS. The plans called for the russian
segment initially being the full station controls and progressively
transfer responsabilities to the newer USA segment made up of totally
different systems/technology. Had the USA been able to complete its side
of the station fully, the russian segment would have morphed from a key
segment to just a parasitic segment that tags along.

Also, the experience with ISS shows it is possible to progressively
shift control from the old to the new. Consider guidance/navigation,
communications etc.

In the case of Skylab, they could have added new modules to it with the
eventual ghoal of shifting control to the new modules and eventually
just dumping the old core.

Since Skylab had but one full service docking port, how would you
make this happen ? Dock another module to Skylab, and the CSM has...

nowhere to dock.

The advantage is that you can use the old stuff while building up the
new stuff.

Maybe.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...

Since Skylab had but one full service docking port, how would you
make this happen ? Dock another module to Skylab, and the CSM has...

nowhere to dock.

You dock a module to it that has a docking port on each end of its axis.
Better yet, how about sticking some radial docking ports on it as well? Now
it's starting to sound a lot like the US nodes on ISS (shown here with a PMA
on one end):

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/issunity.htm
http://space.skyrocket.de/index_fram...dat/node-1.htm
http://iss.cet.edu/designlayout/popu...es/n1wpma1.gif

Stick one of these sorts of modules on Skylab (on the axial port) and you're
on your way.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Utterly irrelevant. The transfer will take place long before ageing
becomes a problem (with the Russian segment). The ISS is also an
integrated unit, not the patchwork that was MIR.

Actually the Russian segment of ISS has *a lot* in common with Mir. In fact,
the two big Russian modules on ISS were originally intended to be used to
build Mir 2. The only bit that's really significantly different from Mir is
the docking/airlock module (Pirs).

Of course - all the bits intended to interface with the US portions of
ISS come from MIR 2 as well...

Unfortunately, the more the administration and NASA cuts pieces off of the
US segment, the more ISS grows dependant on the Russian segment and the more
likely ISS will have Mir like problems as it ages. :-(

Nonsense. Ageing effects occur regardless of who built the module.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Jeff Findley" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...

Since Skylab had but one full service docking port, how would you
make this happen ? Dock another module to Skylab, and the CSM has...

nowhere to dock.

You dock a module to it that has a docking port on each end of its axis.
Better yet, how about sticking some radial docking ports on it as well? Now
it's starting to sound a lot like the US nodes on ISS (shown here with a PMA
on one end):

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/issunity.htm
http://space.skyrocket.de/index_fram...dat/node-1.htm
http://iss.cet.edu/designlayout/popu...es/n1wpma1.gif

Stick one of these sorts of modules on Skylab (on the axial port) and you're
on your way.

All well and good, but the pair of Skylabs as *actually built* and flown,
has no such things.

No such things, no attaching any other modules to them. Period. Real World.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.