Why not Skylab Redux?

I was thinking about NASA's Moon plan, and it occurs to me the heavy
lifter's
SRBs and first stage should be powerful enough to orbit a deaprture stage
that doesn't have any fuel in it, so it could be oribtted as a dry workshop,
just as the original Skylab was a modified S-IVB stage orbitted by the first
two stages of a Saturn V.

But what to do with it? Two possibilities spring to mind:

1. The neo-Skylab could be built with docking ports at both ends. One end
could be connected to what is now the Shuttle's docking port; a node at the
other end could be used for CEVs to tie on, as well as for further expansion
of the station.

2. It could be orbitted on its own as a second station. Why not? The
military doesn't have just one base. Why should we have just one space
station in orbit.

Also, a departure stage work shop makes an ideal candidate for a habitat
module used on a Mars mission; no way are six people going to be crammed
into something with as much room as my car for almost tow years!

Just a thought. You may now tear it down.

Mike





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:41:46 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Michael
Gallagher" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I was thinking about NASA's Moon plan, and it occurs to me the heavy
lifter's
SRBs and first stage should be powerful enough to orbit a deaprture stage
that doesn't have any fuel in it, so it could be oribtted as a dry workshop,
just as the original Skylab was a modified S-IVB stage orbitted by the first
two stages of a Saturn V.

But what to do with it? Two possibilities spring to mind:

Oh, you must be referring to the initial module of a much larger
propellant depot. ;-)

Looking at Skylab at the Air and Space Museum, it is a surprisingly
impressive structure. However, I note that a space structure of
roughly equal volume to Skylab could be orbited in the near-term
timeframe with two EELV Heavy-class launches launching two Bigelow
BA-330 modules at a total price tag of about $300 million. We have
better methods of getting things done nowadays.

Michael Gallagher wrote:
I was thinking about NASA's Moon plan, and it occurs to me the heavy
lifter's
SRBs and first stage should be powerful enough to orbit a deaprture stage
that doesn't have any fuel in it, so it could be oribtted as a dry workshop,
just as the original Skylab was a modified S-IVB stage orbitted by the first
two stages of a Saturn V.

But what to do with it? Two possibilities spring to mind:

It would be nice to put a space station into a Highly elliptical Earth
orbit. Then a CEV could launch form Earth and dock with the station at
perigee. Its apogee would pass near the moon. A lunar tug (fueled on
the surface of the moon) would rendezvous, bringing a returning CEV and
leaving with the CEV.

This way 8 people cold be put into the CEV for a short flight of a few
hours.

The orbital period of this "cycler" station could be lunar period / 3.
Once per month it would enable a crew of 8 to transfer to the moon. The
other 2 missions could be used for tourists.

On 26 Sep 2005 11:13:57 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

It would be nice to put a space station into a Highly elliptical Earth
orbit. Then a CEV could launch form Earth and dock with the station at
perigee. Its apogee would pass near the moon. A lunar tug (fueled on
the surface of the moon) would rendezvous, bringing a returning CEV and
leaving with the CEV.

Very probably a dumb question, but could you dock with such a station
without being in the same highly elliptical orbit? Is that why you
suggest doing it at perigee?

Darren J Longhorn ) writes:
On 26 Sep 2005 11:13:57 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

It would be nice to put a space station into a Highly elliptical Earth
orbit. Then a CEV could launch form Earth and dock with the station at
perigee. Its apogee would pass near the moon. A lunar tug (fueled on
the surface of the moon) would rendezvous, bringing a returning CEV and
leaving with the CEV.

Very probably a dumb question, but could you dock with such a station
without being in the same highly elliptical orbit?

Not only is that not a " dumb " question, it carries a simple orbital
truth: That any object needing to rendezvous and dock with another in
such an orbit, MUST have the same velocity, so the basic utility of
the repeater station becomes less obvious.

That said, the use of such a base might be useful, if what you wish
to do is not get a free ride from it, but rather use it's larger than
CEV space/facilities.

The question remains, though, what would be the cost ( In propulsion/
fuel ) in having to undock a CEV type spacecraft from such a repeating
orbit base, and firing engines to attain lunar orbit, V/ flying the
CEV ( Or, any Earth orbit-Moon orbit ship ) on a minimum trajectory.

Is that why you suggest doing it at perigee?

Which makes no sense, as such a base would be primarily orbiting the
Earth, so it's perigee speed would be higher than an LEO base at
the same orbital altitude.

Andre




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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:59:39 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:55:28 +0100, in a place far, far away, Darren J
Longhorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On 26 Sep 2005 11:13:57 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

It would be nice to put a space station into a Highly elliptical Earth
orbit. Then a CEV could launch form Earth and dock with the station at
perigee. Its apogee would pass near the moon. A lunar tug (fueled on
the surface of the moon) would rendezvous, bringing a returning CEV and
leaving with the CEV.

Very probably a dumb question, but could you dock with such a station
without being in the same highly elliptical orbit?

Yes, but it would be a very hard dock...

....and, presumably, vehicle doing the docking would have to be of
negligible mass compared to the station?

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:55:28 +0100, in a place far, far away, Darren J
Longhorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On 26 Sep 2005 11:13:57 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

It would be nice to put a space station into a Highly elliptical Earth
orbit. Then a CEV could launch form Earth and dock with the station at
perigee. Its apogee would pass near the moon. A lunar tug (fueled on
the surface of the moon) would rendezvous, bringing a returning CEV and
leaving with the CEV.

Very probably a dumb question, but could you dock with such a station
without being in the same highly elliptical orbit?

Yes, but it would be a very hard dock...

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:07:35 +0100, in a place far, far away, Darren J
Longhorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Very probably a dumb question, but could you dock with such a station
without being in the same highly elliptical orbit?

Yes, but it would be a very hard dock...

...and, presumably, vehicle doing the docking would have to be of
negligible mass compared to the station?

That would depend on how you wanted to apportion the damage.

Alex Terrell wrote:

It would be nice to put a space station into a Highly elliptical Earth
orbit. Then a CEV could launch form Earth and dock with the station at
perigee. Its apogee would pass near the moon. A lunar tug (fueled on
the surface of the moon) would rendezvous, bringing a returning CEV and
leaving with the CEV.

This way 8 people cold be put into the CEV for a short flight of a few
hours.

The orbital period of this "cycler" station could be lunar period / 3.
Once per month it would enable a crew of 8 to transfer to the moon. The
other 2 missions could be used for tourists.



This leaves the problem with the station passing through the inner and
outer Van Allen belts on each orbit- unless the intention is to orbit it
at such a altitude that its perigee is above them.

Pat