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. SNIPThis would have cost more money, of course, but it doesn't seem to me to be cost prohibitive.
Quote from: Kaputnik on 11/23/2008 02:54 pmIs 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.
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.
Money, money, money. NASA didn't have any. Their budget was essentially flat at the time, with all available funds going to shuttle development. In order to preserve/launch Skylab B, it would have taken more money than they had.
I am aware of that, hence I said it would have required more money (but not, I think, a great deal more money).
Perhaps the design of Skylab B was unsuited to longer missions? A repeat of the first Skylab would obviously have been of limited value.
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.
While certainly not as sexy as the Freedom proposal, at least it would have been something. Depending on how you want to configure this station, operational capability could have been reached in 1-2 Shuttle flights.
Quote from: DfwRevolutionWhile certainly not as sexy as the Freedom proposal, at least it would have been something. Depending on how you want to configure this station, operational capability could have been reached in 1-2 Shuttle flights.To do what? There wouldn't be any room or resources to do anything.
I think the real missed opportunity wasn't Skylab II in the 70s, but in not flying *any* space station during the 80s. Perhaps we could have flown a modest, low-cost space station (in comparison to Freedom) by salvaging the Skylab II systems and integrating them into a new pressure vessel for launch in the Shuttle payload bay. What I'm describing is basically an American Mir. While certainly not as sexy as the Freedom proposal, at least it would have been something. Depending on how you want to configure this station, operational capability could have been reached in 1-2 Shuttle flights.
And what about use Skylab B ONLY for STS missions?Launch it in 1975-76,and upgrade it with Shuttle in 1982-83.
Quote from: carmelo on 11/25/2008 07:52 pmAnd what about use Skylab B ONLY for STS missions?Launch it in 1975-76,and upgrade it with Shuttle in 1982-83.How do you resupply it for 6-7 years with no US manned spaceflight capability? And where does the money come from?
Resupply for what?after the launch Skylab B is simply waiting for the first STS mission to laboratory.All systems in Skylab B for 6-7 years are "sleeping". Is a bad idea?