Could/Should Skylab Have Been Saved?

John Doe wrote:

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.

Overaged design != overaged hardware. Elektron is failing because of
a problematical design, not aging.

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.

By the early 1980's Skylab is *already* old - it already has a variety
of hardware problems.

snippage handwaving bull****

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

That depends greatly on the design of the station.

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.

ROTFLMAO.

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

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

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...

"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.


Pair?

On 26 Aug 2005 19:41:47 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:


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.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the MDA for Skylab equipped with 2
docking ports?

Kelly McDonald

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

Maybe.

Andre

"Kelly McDonald sympatico.ca" kellymcdonald@nospam wrote in message
...
On 26 Aug 2005 19:41:47 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:


John Doe ) writes:

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.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the MDA for Skylab equipped with 2
docking ports?

Kelly McDonald


Yes, there were two. You can see it in a drawing he
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec22.html

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:56:29 -0500, Dr. P. Quackenbush wrote
(in article et):


"Kelly McDonald sympatico.ca" kellymcdonald@nospam wrote in message
...
On 26 Aug 2005 19:41:47 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:


John Doe ) writes:

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.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the MDA for Skylab equipped with 2
docking ports?

Kelly McDonald


Yes, there were two. You can see it in a drawing he
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec22.html






Only one was fully functional though, the axial port. That's what
Andre referred to as "full service." The radial port lacked any
provision for CSM/MDA umbilicals.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:56:29 -0500, Dr. P. Quackenbush wrote
(in article et):


"Kelly McDonald sympatico.ca" kellymcdonald@nospam wrote in message
...
On 26 Aug 2005 19:41:47 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:


John Doe ) writes:

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.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the MDA for Skylab equipped with 2
docking ports?

Kelly McDonald


Yes, there were two. You can see it in a drawing he
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec22.html






Only one was fully functional though, the axial port. That's what
Andre referred to as "full service." The radial port lacked any
provision for CSM/MDA umbilicals.


Correct. It was for back-up/rescue/eva only.

Herb Schaltegger ) writes:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:56:29 -0500, Dr. P. Quackenbush wrote
(in article et):

"Kelly McDonald sympatico.ca" kellymcdonald@nospam wrote in message
...
On 26 Aug 2005 19:41:47 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

John Doe ) writes:

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the MDA for Skylab equipped with 2
docking ports?

Kelly McDonald

Yes, there were two. You can see it in a drawing he
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec22.html

Only one was fully functional though, the axial port. That's what
Andre referred to as "full service." The radial port lacked any
provision for CSM/MDA umbilicals.

Exactly my point, yes. Thank you.

Andre

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

"Dr. P. Quackenbush" wrote:

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...

"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.

Pair?


Yes. Back-up hardware was built, but is now a museum piece. (With
holes cut in it for tourist access, so don't even ask about dusting it
off, and launching it on...something.)

--

You know what to remove, to reply....

"Joann Evans" wrote in message
...
"Dr. P. Quackenbush" wrote:

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Findley" ) writes:

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.

Pair?


Yes. Back-up hardware was built, but is now a museum piece. (With
holes cut in it for tourist access, so don't even ask about dusting it
off, and launching it on...something.)


That's exactly my point. I was responding to the poster that talked about
the pair being flown, which is crap.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
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.

I'll feel better when the US has a complete life support system independent
of the Russian segment. The US CO2 removal system has been regularly acting
up and the current US H2O and O2 supplies are directly dependant on the
shuttle supplying O2 (to the airlock tanks) and H2O (surplus from the
shuttle's fuel cells). Once the shuttle program completely ends, this must
be replaced by some other source, regenerative or otherwise.

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