Origins of Skylab MDA and Airlock Module

I would surely like to find a source of information that would describe
exactly when the flown version of the Skylab AM and MDA (ie the "dry"
workshop versions) were given ATP, or at least when they got to PDR.

My working theory is that serious work on these modules began around
July 1969, the time that Skylab was converted from the wet to the dry
workshop concept. This happened to be the time that the DoD cancelled
the similarly sized MOL program, which happened to be located next door
to the Skylab hanger at the McDonnell Douglas plant in Huntington
Beach.

I don't know the answer to your question but I suspect that you might
find something if you have a look at:

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/h...lab/skylab.htm

I also suspect that in the process of looking, you will stumble across
a bunch of other interesting things. Sorry I couldnt help more, but
enjoy the search!

Blue skies

John

On 2 May 2005 13:54:04 -0700, wrote:

I would surely like to find a source of information that would describe
exactly when the flown version of the Skylab AM and MDA (ie the "dry"
workshop versions) were given ATP, or at least when they got to PDR.

My working theory is that serious work on these modules began around
July 1969, the time that Skylab was converted from the wet to the dry
workshop concept. This happened to be the time that the DoD cancelled
the similarly sized MOL program, which happened to be located next door
to the Skylab hanger at the McDonnell Douglas plant in Huntington
Beach.

....I had the same theory some years ago, but as I've learned about the
only thing that really carried over from MOL to Skylab's MDA - and I'm
stretching it a bit - is the Gemini hatch that was adapted for airlock
use. There has been some arguements that some of the scientific
equipment from MOL was either adapted, cannibalized or converted over
to Skylab use, but so far I've found AbZero evidence of this save for
speculation and some contradictory rumors. The closest thing I've seen
to being valid on the latter were the "squawk boxes" that were used as
a voice communications terminal and located in numerous spots around
the habitat - apparently some of the basic circuitry was the same,
although the arrangement and housings were different.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

wrote in message
oups.com...
I would surely like to find a source of information that would describe
exactly when the flown version of the Skylab AM and MDA (ie the "dry"
workshop versions) were given ATP, or at least when they got to PDR.

My working theory is that serious work on these modules began around
July 1969, the time that Skylab was converted from the wet to the dry
workshop concept. This happened to be the time that the DoD cancelled
the similarly sized MOL program, which happened to be located next door
to the Skylab hanger at the McDonnell Douglas plant in Huntington
Beach.

My question is why the numbering for the ports ended up the way they did.

OM wrote:

...I had the same theory some years ago, but as I've learned about the
only thing that really carried over from MOL to Skylab's MDA - and I'm
stretching it a bit - is the Gemini hatch that was adapted for airlock
use. There has been some arguements that some of the scientific
equipment from MOL was either adapted, cannibalized or converted over
to Skylab use, but so far I've found AbZero evidence of this save for
speculation and some contradictory rumors.


It's still almost impossible to get decent and noncontradictory info on
the details of MOL- has anyone tried a FOIA request on this?
When I built my model one, I had around ten different artist concepts of
it- about all they agreed on was that it was cylindrical and had a Blue
Gemini at one end. I actually was able to find far more detailed info on
Almaz than on MOL.

Pat

What does the numbering of the ports have to do with anything?

I appreciate the comments advising me to check the NASA web sites, and
how someone else had the same theory but now they don't. In regard to
the former advice, I have checked that site out, as well as many
others, and in regards to the latter, please provide the evidence that
convinced you that the AM and MDA did not originate with MOL, anecdotes
are not that useful.

On 2 May 2005 23:16:19 -0700, wrote:

What does the numbering of the ports have to do with anything?

I appreciate the comments advising me to check the NASA web sites, and
how someone else had the same theory but now they don't. In regard to
the former advice, I have checked that site out, as well as many
others, and in regards to the latter, please provide the evidence that
convinced you that the AM and MDA did not originate with MOL, anecdotes
are not that useful.

....I'm detecting a rather snotty attitude here for a newbie. Tell you
what, explain *why* you're so gung-ho for the material, and we'll see
whether or not you're worth the effort.

[Shakes head in utter dismay]

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

wrote in message
ups.com...
What does the numbering of the ports have to do with anything?

I appreciate the comments advising me to check the NASA web sites, and
how someone else had the same theory but now they don't. In regard to
the former advice, I have checked that site out, as well as many
others, and in regards to the latter, please provide the evidence that
convinced you that the AM and MDA did not originate with MOL, anecdotes
are not that useful.

This is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory when you're essentially
asking everyone to prove that something did *not* happen.

Actually, the burdon of proof lies with proving that MOL hardware was used
on Skylab. Based on all the work NASA did on Skylab (e.g. the Wet
Workshop), it's doubtful that much was transferred from MOL when it was
cancelled in July of 1969.

Here's some NASA history of Skylab:

http://history.nasa.gov/EP-107/contents.htm

Take a look at the timeline in Chapter 2:
http://history.nasa.gov/EP-107/ch2.htm

One of the glaring bits of evidence that the MDA didn't come from MOL is the
fact that the docking ports on the MDA are clearly built for an Apollo CSM,
not a Gemini, as MOL would have used.

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

Jeff Findley wrote:


One of the glaring bits of evidence that the MDA didn't come from MOL is the
fact that the docking ports on the MDA are clearly built for an Apollo CSM,
not a Gemini, as MOL would have used.



I'd be interested to know how crew movement was to occur between the
modules of a multiMOL station like this:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mol_triple_2.jpg
Did they connect the rear EVA tunnels with flexible tunnels, or are
there docking adapters on the vehicle's sides?
This is a pretty wild idea also:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mol_antenna_2.jpg

Pat

On Tue, 3 May 2005 11:58:48 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

This is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory when you're essentially
asking everyone to prove that something did *not* happen.

....Precisely why I decided to stop helping him unless he explains
*why* he wants the info. The second you start acting like CT or one of
the other trolls, any help from me suddenly ceases to flow.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr