Did the early end of Apollo kill sklabs reuse?

Hey if Apollo had continued the infrastructure to launch a skylab reboost
mission would of still been around.

Did the early end of apollo thus kill skylab as a side effect.

I am aware skylab did its original mission in full. I am thinking of the
possiblity of a reboost, repair, and keep going extended operation.

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
Hey if Apollo had continued the infrastructure to launch a skylab reboost
mission would of still been around.

Hey, if you answer my question it will go away.

My understanding is that the delays in the Space Shuttle was what
doomed Skylab. THere was supposed to be a boost mission with an early
shuttle mission, but the delays in the program was what doomed it.

At least that's my recollection. Can I get an Amen or an "well, not
exactly?"

(JGDeRuvo) wrote in
om:

My understanding is that the delays in the Space Shuttle was what
doomed Skylab. THere was supposed to be a boost mission with an early
shuttle mission, but the delays in the program was what doomed it.

At least that's my recollection. Can I get an Amen or an "well, not
exactly?"


Half-true. The other half is that the sun was more active than normal,
heating up the atmosphere and causing Skylab's orbit to decay faster than
predicted.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

My understanding is that the delays in the Space Shuttle was what
doomed Skylab. THere was supposed to be a boost mission with an early
shuttle mission, but the delays in the program was what doomed it.

At least that's my recollection. Can I get an Amen or an "well, not
exactly?"


Question: There was talk of launching a fourth Skylab mission using the backup
CSM and Saturn IB. Had this been done in '74 or '75 could it have boosted
Skylab into a higher orbit, sufficient to last until the shuttle actually began
flights in 1981?

-A.L.

Question: There was talk of launching a fourth Skylab mission using the
backup
CSM and Saturn IB. Had this been done in '74 or '75 could it have boosted
Skylab into a higher orbit, sufficient to last until the shuttle actually
began

I believe so. Plus the last skylab flight could of oosted it higher.

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
I believe so.

You believe a lot of unsubstantiated things. How about showing us the basis
for your flames about NASA management from the time you made them?

In article ,
MasterShrink wrote:
Question: There was talk of launching a fourth Skylab mission using the backup
CSM and Saturn IB. Had this been done in '74 or '75 could it have boosted
Skylab into a higher orbit, sufficient to last until the shuttle actually began
flights in 1981?

Probably not. The Apollos had very limited Skylab-reboost capability,
because Skylab wasn't structurally strong enough to take a firing of the
SM's main engine, and the RCS system had rather limited fuel capacity
(despite some extensions added for this very purpose).

Note that there was no reason to make strenuous efforts to add some more
reboost capability, because Skylab's orbit *was* thought to be high enough
to last until shuttle flights began.

Also note that Skylab was not really all that reusable. It was not built
to be resupplied in orbit, and even at the time of the third crew, various
of its systems were visibly aging. Even in the days when a shuttle
reboost was confidently thought possible, there were no particular plans
to make further *use* of Skylab, and the reboost propulsion package was
required to be capable of deorbiting it instead.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

On 18 Jan 2004 18:41:04 -0800, (JGDeRuvo) wrote:

My understanding is that the delays in the Space Shuttle was what
doomed Skylab. THere was supposed to be a boost mission with an early
shuttle mission, but the delays in the program was what doomed it.

When SkyLab was launched, it was predicted to have an orbital lifetime
of 10 years... or through 1982-83. Shuttle was expected to be flying
in 1978-79.

Instead, SkyLab fell from orbit in 1979.

The Shuttle first flew in 1981.

If the atmospheric models had been correct, SkyLab could have been
saved.

If the Shuttle had flown on-time, SkyLab could have been saved.

Neither turned out to be the case, and SkyLab was lost.

Brian

(MasterShrink) writes:

Question: There was talk of launching a fourth Skylab mission using the backup
CSM and Saturn IB. Had this been done in '74 or '75 could it have boosted
Skylab into a higher orbit, sufficient to last until the shuttle actually began
flights in 1981?

While the hardware certainly existed (i.e. the backup Saturn IB and
backup CSM for ASTP), the funding for the mission didn't. The funding
was going towards shuttle development.

http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldgu...dex/home1.html

Some early Skylab/ASTP proposals would have launched the backup Skylab
Orbital Workshop and used that to host a Soyuz docking. But, there is
no sense wondering what could have been.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.