Author Topic: Skylab Reuse study- 1978  (Read 39235 times)

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1020
Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« on: 05/13/2008 01:02 am »
An interesting look back at what could have been.  This paper talks about the reuse of skylab by the shuttle.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790075817_1979075817.pdf

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #1 on: 05/13/2008 01:16 am »
FWIW, the 35th anniversary of the launch of the station is Wednesday and a program is scheduled to run on NASA TV that morning (with replays later):

Quote
May 14, Wednesday
9 a.m. - Skylab: A Home Above Our Home Planet -- A profile of America's First Space Station Produced by the Kennedy Space Center -
HQ (Public and Media Channels)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #2 on: 05/13/2008 02:24 am »
Probably the best thing written on this was an article by Tom Frieling that appeared in Quest magazine ca 1998 or so.  You could look through back issues to find the exact citation.  I'll ask him for it.  Anyway, he looked at the possibilities of using the Skylab B (now in the Smithsonian).  It's not the same as reusing the one that was on orbit, but the options were all evaluated together.

Offline Shadow Spork

  • Regular
  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #3 on: 05/13/2008 02:41 am »
That's very interesting. If Skylab hadn't re-entered, things would have been a lot different by now.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #4 on: 05/13/2008 02:59 am »
I recently had the opportunity to talk to Owen Garrot about the Skylab program and he was most - perhaps bitter is too strong - bitter about not using the 2nd Skylab.  The first had one Gyro out, one failing, and the third was next.  He also is saddened about Saturn Vs sitting on their side like dead flies and grieves for what we could have accomplished.  Or, at least that was my take on it.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #5 on: 05/13/2008 09:42 am »
Which is why Garriott and others have been trying to ensure that a similar thing doesn't happen again with any loss of Shuttle-derived Heavy Lift capability.I too think a mistake was made not launching the second Skylab. It was also a fact that despite there being several Block 2 Command & Service Modules left at the time (about 4), there were also only two Saturn 1B boosters left. Would it have been worth it to only send 2 crews up to Skylab 2? Building on the experiences of the first Workshop, it would have been relatively straightforward to allow 3 or 4 crews of 60-90 days duration each to safely operate the station. But without enough Saturn 1Bs to launch the CSMs, alternative ways to launch them, example: man-rated Titan 34-D, would have cost too much to develop in an era when funding for space was even more miserable than it is now.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #6 on: 05/13/2008 10:47 am »
One of the ways Skylab 5 (because 1 was visited by 2-3-4) could have been put to good use would have been with at least one (possibly two) open-ended missions. Send the Skylab 6 crew up for 180 days (2x Skylab 4), and if that went well, send up Skylab 7 for as long as they could stay. Maybe shoot for 1 year. Of course, if there were only 2 remaining 1Bs, that last mission would not have had a rescue vehicle. But those were more risk-taking times. Given the time frame, maybe the final Skylab crew could have been brought down by STS-1...

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #7 on: 05/13/2008 11:22 am »
Quote
MATTBLAK - 13/5/2008  10:42 AM

I too think a mistake was made not launching the second Skylab. It was also a fact that despite there being several Block 2 Command & Service Modules left at the time (about 4), there were also only two Saturn 1B boosters left.
It seems to me that there would have been 3 Saturn IBs available at the time: 12 were built, 5 were used in Apollo and 3 in the first set of Skylab missions. That's a total of 4 remaining, which becomes 3 if you reserve one for ASTP.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #8 on: 05/13/2008 12:35 pm »
According to the "Field Guide To American Spacecraft" website:   http://www.americanspacecraft.com/    there are only 2x complete boosters left and the second S-IVB stage of a third 1B used in the Huntsville display. No-one seems to know where the first stage of the third booster is, though a complete Saturn 1 does also exist at Huntsville.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #9 on: 05/13/2008 09:49 pm »
But that's just the thing; it's OK if only two Apollo CSMs go to Skylab II, as long as the darn thing is still in orbit long enough for Columbia to slap on a reboost stage...

That simple (relatively) act of launching Skylab II could have had a significant impact on the history of NASA. Probably half of STS flights would be to the station from the very beginning. Regan would probably have wanted to significantly build up the station (our Skylab is better than your Salyut). What happens after an STS fatality in the 1980's could get really interesting...

Simon ;)

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #10 on: 05/14/2008 12:55 am »
Quote
Proponent - 13/5/2008  7:22 AM
Quote
MATTBLAK - 13/5/2008  10:42 AMI too think a mistake was made not launching the second Skylab. It was also a fact that despite there being several Block 2 Command & Service Modules left at the time (about 4), there were also only two Saturn 1B boosters left.
It seems to me that there would have been 3 Saturn IBs available at the time: 12 were built, 5 were used in Apollo and 3 in the first set of Skylab missions. That's a total of 4 remaining, which becomes 3 if you reserve one for ASTP.
The rescue skylab Saturn IB and CSM is at KSC.  The rescue skylab launcher on its side in the rocket garden and the CSM in the Saturn V exhibit.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #11 on: 05/14/2008 01:08 am »
Yup! I've got a photo somewhere of myself posing with that booster.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #12 on: 05/14/2008 02:35 am »
Got the reference:

Frieling, Thomas J, Quest, "Skylab B: Unflown Missions, Lost Opportunities", 1996, Volume 5, Issue 4, page 12.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_B

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183

Offline faustod

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
  • Italy
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #14 on: 05/20/2008 12:01 pm »
Quote
Proponent - 13/5/2008  6:22 AM

It seems to me that there would have been 3 Saturn IBs available at the time: 12 were built, 5 were used in Apollo and 3 in the first set of Skylab missions. That's a total of 4 remaining, which becomes 3 if you reserve one for ASTP.

At the time (1974), there were  three complete Saturn IB:
SA-209, for Skylab rescue, now on display at KCS.
SA-210, then flown for ASTP.
SA-211, available, now on display in Alabama.

However, the already completed SA-212, was disrupted, when the second stage become..
.... Skylab .
The complete first stage of SA-212, was set aside.
I don't know where it is now.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2008 02:37 pm by faustod »

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #15 on: 11/23/2008 02:22 pm »
What orbit would Skylab have had to been in to still be up there when the Shuttle became available?

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #16 on: 11/23/2008 02:54 pm »
Is anybody able to play devil's advocate and explain why the surplus Apollo/Skylab hardware never flew? I know it was about 'funding' but you don't have to be a genius to see that it's crazy to throw away perfectly good equipment whilst having the stated intention of building a space station a few years later. They must have expected STS to be really cheap if they actually believed it would save money to wait for it to come on line.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #17 on: 11/23/2008 03:23 pm »
My humble understanding of things -

Skylab/ ASTP Saturn IB were launched from LC-39B+ Milkstool.

BUT as soon as ASTP concluded - July 1975- NASA started modifying LC-39s for the Shuttle.
Say goodbye to Saturn V (LC-39A) and Saturn IB/ CSM (LC-39B)

At the time the Shuttle was supposed to fly in 1978; the "gap" was supposed to be short.

Delays plagued the Shuttle program only from 1977, with SSME exploding on the bench, silica tiles falling...

The only way of having one Apollo a year between 1976 and 1980 consists of launching them from LC-34, as Apollo 7 did.

Problem : NASA moved Skylab / ASTP flight to LC-39B in May 1970.

Then, in November 1971 with the Shuttle nearly secured, order come to scrap LC-34 and LC-37s. The demolition went very fast, the pads were scrapped as early as spring 1972!

No LC-34 = no Apollo 1975-1980.

Check your message box for more details






Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #18 on: 11/23/2008 03:26 pm »
Is anybody able to play devil's advocate and explain why the surplus Apollo/Skylab hardware never flew? I know it was about 'funding' but you don't have to be a genius to see that it's crazy to throw away perfectly good equipment whilst having the stated intention of building a space station a few years later. They must have expected STS to be really cheap if they actually believed it would save money to wait for it to come on line.

Read the Frieling article that was cited earlier.  It really was about funding.  The problem was that launching the Skylab B would result in essentially repeating the work performed on the first one.  They did a calculation that said that it would cost X amount of dollars (which they did not have) and all they would be able to do is repeat work already done.  Plus, there were no more Apollo spacecraft to send up to it.

They determined that in order to do significantly new work, they would have to spend even more money--which they also did not have.

It seems ludicrous that they had a fully usable space station on the ground and did not fly it.  But this is the classic example of "sunk costs."  They had paid for that station, but in order to use it, they would have to spend additional money that they did not have in their budget.  It's like having a new car and no money for gas.  So you cannot drive it.

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #19 on: 11/23/2008 03:42 pm »
My humble understanding of things -

Skylab/ ASTP Saturn IB were launched from LC-39B+ Milkstool.

BUT as soon as ASTP concluded - July 1975- NASA started modifying LC-39s for the Shuttle.
Say goodbye to Saturn V (LC-39A) and Saturn IB/ CSM (LC-39B)


I don't see why Shuttle and Saturn couldn't co-exist, the way Shuttle and Ares 1 are today, had a decision been made to do so. The VAB then had three working High Bays, so NASA could still leave one for Saturn while converting two for Shuttle. Overhaul Pad 39A Shuttle, leave 39B for Saturn. The LCC had four Firing Rooms and at least one was overhauled for Shuttle, perhaps KSC could have left that one alone and built a new Shuttle Firing Room. KSC didn't start overhauling 39B until much later than 39A, and 39B didn't host its first Shuttle until late 1985. This would have cost more money, of course, but it doesn't seem to me to be cost prohibitive.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0