|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Could/Should Skylab Have Been Saved?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Could/Should Skylab Have Been Saved? | Jim Oberg | History | 64 | September 7th 05 08:08 AM |
Could/Should Skylab Have Been Saved? | Jim Oberg | Space Shuttle | 37 | September 6th 05 12:35 AM |
NASA PDF Mercury, Gemini, Apollo reports free online | Rusty Barton | History | 81 | October 3rd 04 05:33 PM |
Florida Today article on Skylab B | Greg Kuperberg | Space Shuttle | 69 | August 13th 03 06:23 PM |
Florida Today article on Skylab B | Greg Kuperberg | Policy | 25 | August 13th 03 02:14 AM |