Florida Today article on Skylab B

In article ,
MasterShrink wrote:
} It wasn't just a Skylab space station that they threw away,
}it was a Skylab with *five* Saturn rockets. Saturn rockets don't grow
}on trees, you know.
}Again with this number "five"...I was under the impression only two Saturn V's
}remained after Skylab was launched.

According to the Astronautix page, it was 2 Saturn V's + 3 Saturn IB's.

And to think, they ditched all of that in favor of 20 years of no space
station at all. You might call it good management, if you hate space
stations.
--
/\ 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 article ,
MasterShrink wrote:
} It wasn't just a Skylab space station that they threw away,
}it was a Skylab with *five* Saturn rockets. Saturn rockets don't grow
}on trees, you know.
}Again with this number "five"...I was under the impression only two Saturn V's
}remained after Skylab was launched.

According to the Astronautix page, it was 2 Saturn V's + 3 Saturn IB's.

Which means you get the OWS and two missions to it. (One of the IB's
has to be retained for rescue capability.)

And to think, they ditched all of that in favor of 20 years of no space
station at all. You might call it good management, if you hate space
stations.

And to think... When Congress showed no interest in repeating Skylab,
nobody *knew* that the delays would be that long. It seems that NASA
(if not the whole human race) has lost it's 20/20 vision as regards
the future.

And just what would have been the point of repeating Skylab anyhow?

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.

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:03:59 +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:

And to think, they ditched all of that in favor of 20 years of no space
station at all. You might call it good management, if you hate space
stations.

Why, after being repeatedly corrected, do you continue to confuse
bollixed-up national policy with "management"? Are you utterly dim
outside the field of mathematics?

--
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 3f32f8b6.13448175@localhost,
Derek Lyons wrote:
And just what would have been the point of repeating Skylab anyhow?

Well, it would have been a cheaper fiasco than ISS. :-)
--
/\ 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 article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Why, after being repeatedly corrected, do you continue to confuse
bollixed-up national policy with "management"?

None of the postings or web pages name a single politician who cheaped
Skylab. On the contrary, my historical sources imply that NASA itself
cheaped Skylab (at the end anyway) in order to close ranks behind the
space shuttle.

NASA itself chose the path that they knew Congress would fund. But
such a fine point probably escapes your simple conception.

Now maybe you can tell me who went to bat before Congress to launch
the extra space station and five extra Saturns, and who in Congress
obstinately sacrificed them regardless.

Ah, if nobody openly fought for it, then NASA must be at fault. NASA
couldn't possibly have done what they have done before and since, not
asking for something they knew an already antsy Congress would not
deliver.

If so, I would learn something and I would happily stand corrected.

ROTFLMAO.

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.

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:07:44 +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:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Why, after being repeatedly corrected, do you continue to confuse
bollixed-up national policy with "management"?

None of the postings or web pages name a single politician who cheaped
Skylab.

Nor does it indicate any who indicated that they wanted to see a
second one flown.

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:07:44 +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:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Why, after being repeatedly corrected, do you continue to confuse
bollixed-up national policy with "management"?

None of the postings or web pages name a single politician who cheaped
Skylab.

Nor does it indicate any who indicated that they wanted to see a
second one flown.

Ever wonder if in an alternate universe, all the people
who bash the Shuttle and ISS decisions and praise
"what might have been" with more Apollo and Skylab
missions, are instead arguing about what a waste of
money all those non-reusable launches and short-lived
stations were and if only NASA had gone with the
Shuttle instead we'd have had hundreds of missions
and on to Mars by now?

Bruce

In article ,
Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote:
}Ever wonder if in an alternate universe, all the people who bash the
}Shuttle and ISS decisions and praise "what might have been" with more
}Apollo and Skylab missions, are instead arguing about what a waste of
}money all those non-reusable launches and short-lived stations were and
}if only NASA had gone with the Shuttle instead we'd have had hundreds
}of missions and on to Mars by now?

But that's exactly the point. Unless there is a Cold War on, every
direction to take manned spaceflight is going to look wrong. It's like
watching bad TV: the promos looked interesting, but you keep
wondering why it sucks. Maybe if you keep changing the channel...
--
/\ 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 ,
Rand Simberg wrote:


Now maybe you can tell me who went to bat before Congress to launch
the extra space station and five extra Saturns, and who in Congress
obstinately sacrificed them regardless. If so, I would learn something
and I would happily stand corrected.

Senator Lowell Weicker(R-CT) did.

See my article "Skylab B: Unflown Missions, Lost Opportunities in
Quest magazine, vol. 5, no. 4, 1996, pg. 12-21 for the whole Skylab B
story.