Author Topic: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets  (Read 17567 times)

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« on: 12/09/2009 05:31 pm »
I have a new solution to save Skylab.  A proposed series of cooperative manned missions to Skylab using Soviet spacecraft in the interim before the Shuttle comes online.  A joint manned program between nations to utilize the station, while demonstrating further cooperation between the two space powers.  This would be a follow on to the partnership experience gained through the Apollo-Soyuz test program, and a continued evolution of the ideals behind it.  The American-Soviet Station project would consist of one or a series of Soyuz and Progress missions to reboost and man the station with international crews, with perhaps the docking of a specially configured Soviet Salyut module to Skylab.  This project would be pursued for its own merit, and only incidentally come into play to save Skylab when the Shuttle operational start is delayed.

This then leads to continued joint missions to Skylab after the Shuttle is operational.  NASA politically positions itself as the high minded instrument of peace and joint co-operation between the cold warriors; in space, humanity works together for the betterment of mankind.  Perhaps a joint station project would later form with Russia adding more modules to Skylab, and a future joint station planned.

ISS starts in the late seventies, rather than 1993.  Any thoughts?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #1 on: 12/09/2009 05:40 pm »
The Soyuz spacecraft and rocket did not have the performance to reach Skylab.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #2 on: 12/09/2009 05:53 pm »
Oh yeah, the orbit thing.  Nevermind, bad thread.

Unless this joint mission is conceived prior to the launch of Skylab, and it is placed in an orbit accessible by the Soviets, assuming Skylab could be placed in such an orbit and the American missions to Skylab were not overtly constrained by this orbit.

edit: Or, alternatively, NASA with this proposal is given extra financial resources to launch the second Skylab into a Soviet accessible orbit, thus allowing this joint station project to exist, but doing nothing to save the first Skylab, barring a further budget increase to support a mission to an independent American only Skylab until Shuttle is operational.

*Googles "Second Skylab"*

From Astronautix:

"NASA realized that after the completion of the Apollo, Skylab, and ASTP programs there would still be significant Apollo surplus hardware. This amounted to two Saturn V and three Saturn IB boosters; one Skylab space station, three Apollo CSM's and two Lunar Modules. After many iterations NASA considered use of these assets for a second Skylab station in May 1973. A range of options were considered. Saturn V SA-515 would boost the backup Skylab station into orbit somewhere between January 1975 and April 1976. It would serve as a space station for Apollo and Soyuz spacecraft in the context of the Apollo ASTP mission. The Advanced or International Skylab variants proposed use of Saturn V SA-514 to launch a second workshop module and international payloads. This station would be serviced first by Apollo and Soyuz, then by the space shuttle. Using the existing hardware, these options would cost anywhere from $ 220 to $ 650 million. But funds were not forthcoming. The decision was taken to mothball surplus hardware in August 1973. In December 1976, the boosters and spacecraft were handed over to museums. The opportunity to launch an International Space Station, at a tenth of the cost and twenty years earlier, was lost. "

Actually proposed, didn't work out that way anyway.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2009 06:06 pm by libs0n »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #3 on: 12/09/2009 06:12 pm »
That raises another interesting question, although this might be a better question for a different part of the forum...

What is the maximum altitude that Soyuz can realistically reach?

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #4 on: 12/09/2009 06:20 pm »
That raises another interesting question, although this might be a better question for a different part of the forum...

What is the maximum altitude that Soyuz can realistically reach?

Ross.

425 km.
JRF

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #5 on: 12/09/2009 06:49 pm »
I believe that NASA, in conjunction with the Air Force, should have instigated the EELVs in the 1970s rather than pursue the Space Shuttle program in the post-Apollo program era.  By EELVs I mean a commercial expendable launch vehicle program construed along the lines of the EELV competition, where commercial organizations submit a conceptual launch vehicle design in accordance with determined NASA and Air Force criteria and are then competitively awarded development funds and launch contracts, while being expected to invest their own funding in the establishment and further competition of their independent launch programs.  NASA and the Air Force would then launch their payloads, both manned and unmanned, on these launch vehicles and divorce themselves from the launch business, instead becoming a customer of domestic launch services and instigator and steward of the American commercial launch industry.  I believe that sufficiently competent commercial organizations existed in this time period who had or could recruit competent personal and who had access to sufficient capital reserves to successfully compete and see through to operation their own vehicle designs.  Furthermore, development had already been completed on engines that could be utilized in such a commercial launch vehicle programs, the RL-10, the RS-27, the J-2, and the F-1, depending upon what arrangement the commercial organization decided to pursue; me, I favour a multiple RS-27 powered first stage and a RL-10 powered second stage.  In short, the ingredients for a successful launch of the commercial space industry existed and were a viable alternative path for the conduct of NASA rather than the pursuit of an internal launch vehicle in the form of the Space Shuttle.

This 1970s EELV would launch a commercial crew capsule devised under a similar commercial program.

Such a NASA EELV program, by being of presumed lesser development and operational cost in comparison with actual Shuttle track, could have allowed NASA to launch remaining Apollo hardware such as the second Skylab in this joint Soviet mission, as well as allowed the continuation of the first Skylab, either through more Apollo missions to it or through the earlier operational date of this EELV system, it being of lesser scope than the Shuttle and thus becoming operational sooner.

So, this joint-Soviet American Skylab program, and the continued operation of a Skylab, could have taken place within the conceptual confines of this alternate commercial path open to NASA in the post-Apollo era, but obviously the commitment to Shuttle development superseded it in the reality of history.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #6 on: 12/09/2009 06:53 pm »
There wasn't a need for EELV., DoD had Titan 3, a biproduct of Blue Gemini from the previous decade.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #7 on: 12/09/2009 06:56 pm »
There wasn't a need for EELV., DoD had Titan 3, a biproduct of Blue Gemini from the previous decade.

Incorrect, the need would be the inherent NASA human and robotic spaceflight demand, and the recruitment of the DoD into this program for the presumed operational costs savings of a joint launch services program, as they were recruited into the Shuttle program despite their operational Titan system.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #8 on: 12/09/2009 06:58 pm »
There wasn't a need for EELV., DoD had Titan 3, a biproduct of Blue Gemini from the previous decade.

Incorrect, the need would be the inherent NASA human and robotic spaceflight demand, and the recruitment of the DoD into this program for the presumed operational costs savings of a joint launch services program, as they were recruited into the Shuttle program despite their operational Titan system.

Which could have been covered by Titan III, Atlas and Delta.  A new system wasn't needed.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #9 on: 12/09/2009 07:03 pm »
I believe that NASA, in conjunction with the Air Force, should have instigated the EELVs in the 1970s rather than pursue the Space Shuttle program in the post-Apollo program era.


Plus, everybody gets a pony!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #10 on: 12/09/2009 07:03 pm »

What if they used a tether tied to skylab to deorbit, what then using all the soyuz fuel would be the max altitude they could have achieved? Can soyuz reach a 50 degree orbit?

If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #11 on: 12/09/2009 07:08 pm »
There wasn't a need for EELV., DoD had Titan 3, a biproduct of Blue Gemini from the previous decade.

Incorrect, the need would be the inherent NASA human and robotic spaceflight demand, and the recruitment of the DoD into this program for the presumed operational costs savings of a joint launch services program, as they were recruited into the Shuttle program despite their operational Titan system.

Which could have been covered by Titan III, Atlas and Delta.  A new system wasn't needed.

Alright, not strictly needed, NASA could have conformed its missions to operational vehicles, but a new evolved program instigated for the desired characteristics of the proposed new vehicle product, whatever they may be: cost, single modular vehicle encompassing both small and large launch demand, safety(all liquid).  The EELVs were not needed as well, Titan existed, but were pursued for perceived advantages of a new program start.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #12 on: 12/09/2009 07:08 pm »
There wasn't a need for EELV., DoD had Titan 3, a biproduct of Blue Gemini from the previous decade.

Incorrect, the need would be the inherent NASA human and robotic spaceflight demand, and the recruitment of the DoD into this program for the presumed operational costs savings of a joint launch services program, as they were recruited into the Shuttle program despite their operational Titan system.

I've seen nothing that shows NASA and DoD were hurting for some launch that they didn't have in the 1970's. There are static displays of Saturn V's to attest of that.

Just off hand there were:

Titan, Titan III, Atlas, Delta, Scout, Saturn V, Saturn Ib, and Thorad-Agena. They had it covered.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #13 on: 12/09/2009 07:11 pm »
Additional ELV's required in the absence of the shuttle

1982  2 Deltas
83  3 Delta  1 Atlas/Titan
84  6 Delta  2 Atlas/Titan
85  8 Delta  5 Atlas/Titan
86  2 Atlas/Titan
88  2 Atlas/Titan
89  5 Atlas/Titan
90  5 Atlas/Titan

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #14 on: 12/09/2009 07:23 pm »
I believe that NASA, in conjunction with the Air Force, should have instigated the EELVs in the 1970s rather than pursue the Space Shuttle program in the post-Apollo program era.


Plus, everybody gets a pony!

NASA got their pony, the Shuttle.  My conceptual alternative requires no new implicit engine dev(SRB or SSME), and evolved versions of existing paths pursued(expendable launch vehicles and capsules).  As well as the injection of private capital into the development of this new system.  As well as operational costs shared by presumed further utilization in the launching of DoD, robotic, and commercial payloads.

The lesser scope and lesser development and operational budget would allow for things I mentioned, like this joint Soviet program, and whatever else NASA is mandated or decides to embark upon.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2009 07:24 pm by libs0n »

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #15 on: 12/09/2009 07:32 pm »
Additional ELV's required in the absence of the shuttle

1982  2 Deltas
83  3 Delta  1 Atlas/Titan
84  6 Delta  2 Atlas/Titan
85  8 Delta  5 Atlas/Titan
86  2 Atlas/Titan
88  2 Atlas/Titan
89  5 Atlas/Titan
90  5 Atlas/Titan

Cool: more demand for the commercial space industry, lowering of launch costs through increased flight rate, further leading to possible new market utilization that did not exist with the Shuttle and the slow phaseout of ELVs until Challenger and in the lack of NASA demand being placed upon the commercial industry throughout that period.

Instead of 150 billion being spent on the Shuttle over the past 30 years, NASA would have spent that on buying the products and launch services of the American commercial space industry, and we'd be living in the product of that world and not one where NASA's demand was serviced by the Shuttle bubble and the near wasteland that is the space industry as the result of that lack of utilization by the national space agency.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2009 07:33 pm by libs0n »

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #16 on: 12/09/2009 07:39 pm »
I believe that NASA, in conjunction with the Air Force, should have instigated the EELVs in the 1970s rather than pursue the Space Shuttle program in the post-Apollo program era. 
snip

In hindsight it's easy to say that the US would have had a more robust manned spaced program if it had stayed with Apollo and forgot about the Space Shuttle.

Except, I think NASA was close to being zeroed out of the Federal budget during the 70s. Two planned lunar missions were cut and Apollo Applications, which would have used already paid for Saturns and Apollo vehicles didn't go anywhere either.  I think NASA needed a new bright-and-shiny object to dangle in front of Congress.  Something to lure congress into spending more money on space.  So I don;t think we can ask how we could have spent the Shuttle money different, because without the shuttle there would not be any money.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #17 on: 12/09/2009 07:40 pm »
And someone would be posting on a message board that things would have been better if we'd only built a semi-resuable government owned LV back in 1982. If only we'd have been able to demonstrate satellite return and repair, modular construction, especially since Uncle Leonid was doing all those friendly space projects with us, and Lockeed was turning swords to plowshares by turning unused D-21 drones into nanosat microlaunchers, and there was a chicken in every pot.

There were two commercial launch attempts in the 80's (Orbital first launched 1990, I believe), both Connstoaga and Dolphin failed. The market just wasn't mature enough for what we have now, back then.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #18 on: 12/09/2009 07:45 pm »
because without the shuttle there would not be any money.

I disagree; I believe that the context of the cold war and the continuation of Soviet manned flight would have continued to mandate a manned American space program.  America abandoning the high frontier to the Soviets in that period is inconceivable and the cries that the Shuttle was the only thing that saved the continuation of American human spaceflight false.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #19 on: 12/09/2009 07:49 pm »
That doesn't take into account that the initial shuttle proposed was quite a bit different than the requiements that forced it to be what it became (and delayed matters considerably).

Jim Oberg has a very good article somewhere on some proposals that could have been done to save Skylab. I don't have the link right now, but it might be  on his site. It's an excellent read. None of it required an extended detante or EELV's 30 years early.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #20 on: 12/09/2009 07:54 pm »

There were two commercial launch attempts in the 80's (Orbital first launched 1990, I believe), both Connstoaga and Dolphin failed. The market just wasn't mature enough for what we have now, back then.

You're comparing a market devoid of intensive NASA and DoD utilization of it, and where the Space Shuttle also sucked up payloads from it, to what I propose, an inherent increase of the space launch market by adding NASA's human and robotic spaceflight demand to it, and the DoD's needs.

Small market, little chance of new launch vehicle makers attracting enough capital to launch and then to survive.

Larger market, better chance of new launch vehicle makers attracting capital to launch and surviving by meeting that larger demand.

That progress enabled by the larger market provides the opportunity for new payload demands to develop and further increase the market, while the small market that formed in the wake of the commitment to the  Space Shuttle allowed little progress to occur.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #21 on: 12/09/2009 07:55 pm »
That doesn't take into account that the initial shuttle proposed was quite a bit different than the requiements that forced it to be what it became (and delayed matters considerably).

Jim Oberg has a very good article somewhere on some proposals that could have been done to save Skylab. I don't have the link right now, but it might be  on his site. It's an excellent read. None of it required an extended detante or EELV's 30 years early.

Many things could have been done.  This is what should have been done.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #22 on: 12/09/2009 08:08 pm »
This is what should have been done.

In your alternate reality.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #23 on: 12/09/2009 09:41 pm »
This is what should have been done.

In your alternate reality.

Yes.  I am no longer saying that Skylab could have been saved.  I am saying that in the confines of a conceptual existence of a NASA that did not pursue the Space Shuttle but instead departed upon the path of using either existing operational vehicles, or a newly instigated commercial program, then Skylab would not need saving, it would have been supported and also probably its sister station and the joint-Soviet-American expeditions to it.  Many things could have been done to save Skylab in the confines of the reality that includes the Space Shuttle, but the Space Shuttle superseded it.  Skylab can only exist in an alternate reality that did not include the Space Shuttle, for the Space Shuttle effectively competed with it for existence within the confines of NASA's allocated budget.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2009 09:42 pm by libs0n »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #24 on: 12/09/2009 09:42 pm »
The Soyuz spacecraft and rocket did not have the performance to reach Skylab.
Soyuz spacecraft did, Soyuz rocket did not.  However, the Proton was designed for manned spaceflight, and even launched several lunar capsules for pre-manned flight.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #25 on: 12/09/2009 11:20 pm »
This is what should have been done.

In your alternate reality.

In my world, what should have been done is the alternate reality described by Stephan Baxter in the book "Voyage".  Men and women on Mars in 1986.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #26 on: 12/09/2009 11:33 pm »
Could Soyuz reach the Skylab orbit?

NASA seemed to think so, back in 1971 they were seriously considering a Soyuz docking with Salyut:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17449571/NASA-1971-Proposed-ApolloSalyut-Space-Station-Mission

One interesting quirk of the Skylab orbit was that it was at 50 degrees; in theory, a Soyuz could access that orbit, in fact, there would be a minor performance gain. The problem is that the drop zones would be non-standard.  We have seen, however, that for occasional missions, a change in drop zones can be arranged. The other risk would be a little overflight of Mongolia, but that might have been tolerable.

The ASTP docking module was to have been modified to connect with Skylab, thus allowing Soyuz to dock.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #27 on: 12/10/2009 12:32 am »
Could Soyuz reach the Skylab orbit?

NASA seemed to think so, back in 1971 they were seriously considering a Soyuz docking with Salyut:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17449571/NASA-1971-Proposed-ApolloSalyut-Space-Station-Mission

One interesting quirk of the Skylab orbit was that it was at 50 degrees; in theory, a Soyuz could access that orbit, in fact, there would be a minor performance gain. The problem is that the drop zones would be non-standard.  We have seen, however, that for occasional missions, a change in drop zones can be arranged. The other risk would be a little overflight of Mongolia, but that might have been tolerable.

The ASTP docking module was to have been modified to connect with Skylab, thus allowing Soyuz to dock.



No, as I said.  Soyuz could not reach Skylab.  The document that you refer to, is about Apollo docking to Salyut using a DM.

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #28 on: 12/10/2009 02:35 am »
NASA seemed to think so, back in 1971 they were seriously considering a Soyuz docking with Salyut:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17449571/NASA-1971-Proposed-ApolloSalyut-Space-Station-Mission

Thanks for the link anyway, that's an amazing piece of history! Had no idea there was such a proposal, would have achieved far more than the actual ASTP mission. No way the Soviets would have allowed Americans on board a working Soviet space station at that time though.

And it's remarkably prescient, the intention to have two docking ports on a Salyut as shown in the figure wasn't actually accomplished until Salyut 6 in 1977, six years later.

Offline daniela

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #29 on: 12/10/2009 02:44 am »
Could Soyuz reach the Skylab orbit?

NASA seemed to think so, back in 1971 they were seriously considering a Soyuz docking with Salyut:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17449571/NASA-1971-Proposed-ApolloSalyut-Space-Station-Mission

One interesting quirk of the Skylab orbit was that it was at 50 degrees; in theory, a Soyuz could access that orbit, in fact, there would be a minor performance gain. The problem is that the drop zones would be non-standard.  We have seen, however, that for occasional missions, a change in drop zones can be arranged. The other risk would be a little overflight of Mongolia, but that might have been tolerable.

The ASTP docking module was to have been modified to connect with Skylab, thus allowing Soyuz to dock.




The document (thanks for sharing it) refers to a proposed docking of Apollo with Salyut-Soyuz space station. Apollo could easily reach the Salyut orbits, I think they were 220km at perigee and 270km at apogee. Soyuz would have needed to be stretched to its limits to reach Skylab, if it had been possible at all.

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #30 on: 12/10/2009 03:02 am »
The inclination is one thing (I'm not sure either way) but there is absolutely no reason why Soyuz could not have reached Skylab as far as orbital altitude is concerned. FFS: it fell out of the sky because it's orbit got too low due to drag. All they had to do was wait until drag brought it down low enough.

In retrospect, it seems like quite a good idea assuming it was physically possible.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2009 03:02 am by madscientist197 »
John

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #31 on: 12/10/2009 07:33 am »
No, as I said.  Soyuz could not reach Skylab.  The document that you refer to, is about Apollo docking to Salyut using a DM.

You are correct. My memory of the document is that it contained a docking module that was to be used at Skylab for Soyuz, when in reality, there was a docking module at Skylab, for Apollo to use with Soyuz.

HOWEVER ... AFAIK, Soyuzes were being launched the Soyuz-U launcher as early as 1974, and Soyuz U was used for Soyuzes to reach ISS not that long ago. Was Skylab in an orbit much higher than ISS?



Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #32 on: 12/10/2009 08:08 am »
Was Skylab in an orbit much higher than ISS?

Initially in a 435km orbit.

I hate repeating myself, but the altitude isn't a limitation as all the Soviets had to do to reach Skylab was to launch later on as there was no provision for reboosting.
John

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #33 on: 12/10/2009 08:27 am »
This is what should have been done.

In your alternate reality.

In my world, what should have been done is the alternate reality described by Stephan Baxter in the book "Voyage".  Men and women on Mars in 1986.

In my world, shuttle gets canned in October 1971 by Cap Weinberger. Big G and Titan III replace the shuttle.
Because Nixon needs to save California jobs for the presidential election, in september 1972 he agree on a small modular space station. "Liberty" is launched in 1980.

In the 90's Liberty get desorbited, and an attempt at a SSTO fail. After 2000 NASA get out of the LEO paradigm.
 "Flexible path" to EML-2. 14 days sorties to the Moon, trips to NEO, Venus, Phobos...
« Last Edit: 12/10/2009 08:35 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #34 on: 12/10/2009 08:38 am »
Was Skylab in an orbit much higher than ISS?

Initially in a 435km orbit.

I hate repeating myself, but the altitude isn't a limitation as all the Soviets had to do to reach Skylab was to launch later on as there was no provision for reboosting.

ISS is around 380 km, as was Mir.
Salyut orbits were incredibly lower, around  200-250 km.
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline daniela

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #35 on: 12/10/2009 09:57 am »

Initially in a 435km orbit.

I hate repeating myself, but the altitude isn't a limitation as all the Soviets had to do to reach Skylab was to launch later on as there was no provision for reboosting.

In regards to inclination, it was a stretch but possible to reach. I wonder if a ballistic reentry might have caused with serious likelyhood a landing in china or mongolia though.

The fact is, after Apollo-Soyuz there was no further flightworthy Apollo as the hardware had already been decommissioned. So what does a Soyuz do? Photograph Skylab? Then what? With no docking module, the Soyuz can not dock. Also the DM would not have fit on the Soyuz. How to send that? On another, unmanned one? Who pays for it? Not NASA who had to send to museums a number of flightworthy toys, from Apollo program boosters and modules all the way through the third Pioneer. Even if someone had succeeded in arranging in sending up two Soyuzes, they dock in orbit, everything goes well and they dock the whole thing with Skylab and boost it before undocking (the manned Soyuz; the adapter stays there for further use) this would never have solved the problems till Shuttle was ready. The stations with a Salyut-type orbit need frequent and regular reebosts and at an active solar maximum things were much worse. A regular program of Soyuzes that fly for the U.S. space program would have needed to be established. It appears it will come to be, but much too late for Skylab.

Offline gwiz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
  • Cornwall
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #36 on: 12/10/2009 10:46 am »
For what it's worth, Kosmos 670, an unmanned test of the military version of Soyuz, went into a 50.6 deg orbit in 1974.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #37 on: 12/10/2009 01:24 pm »
Was Skylab in an orbit much higher than ISS?

Initially in a 435km orbit.

I hate repeating myself, but the altitude isn't a limitation as all the Soviets had to do to reach Skylab was to launch later on as there was no provision for reboosting.

The discussions of a Soyuz Skylab mission were undertaken in 1971, with the idea of conducting the missions around 1975; if this had been approved, Apollo hardware would have been made available.

So, the question is the real Skylab orbit in the 1975-76 time frame.

« Last Edit: 12/10/2009 01:28 pm by Danderman »

Offline daniela

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #38 on: 12/10/2009 05:29 pm »
In 1971-72 the political decision to the joint mission was made. If you remember, there was the "distension", people put back the atomic doomsday clock, etc. In order to design a joint mission many options were explored, and of course they included the space stations, Skylab and Salyut. In 1971 yes indeed it was considered possible that the joint mission would fly to Skylab. Please notice that even the nominal orbit was just barely out of reach of Soyuz or perhaps even reachable with a stretch.... (however, that would allow no space for multiple dockings and the many other rendez-vous activities that were carried out successfully by Soyuz-Apollo) but very soon (not that long after the first successful mission that commissioned a crippled Skylab) it became clear that there would be no vehicle to fly there before Shuttle, and that the crew of the last Apollo-derived vehicle to fly there, would shut the lights. Skylab was basically abandoned in 1974, with the idea that before 1979 there'd be an automated reboost and later Shuttle crews would recommission it. There was no way Skylab could have supported a crew flying there on Apollo + Soyuz, not without a previous recommissioning mission that lacked the money and the vehicle.
If I recall correctly, a Salyut was not chosen due to the identical design to the military space stations of USSR, and many details needed to be shared with the counterpart esp. in regards to docking (of course opening the opportunity for a hostile docking in the future, etc, etc).

The original question, however, was different. Even if a Soyuz that had docked there, it would have been able to do any significant reboost only in an orbit not much different from a Salyut-like; and these require regular reboosting. A single Soyuz docking would not have kept Skylab in orbit till STS program was able to dock with it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #39 on: 12/10/2009 05:34 pm »

I hate repeating myself, but the altitude isn't a limitation as all the Soviets had to do to reach Skylab was to launch later on as there was no provision for reboosting.

During its active, it was reboosted by the CSM RCS

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #40 on: 12/10/2009 06:16 pm »
This is what should have been done.

In your alternate reality.

Yes.  I am no longer saying that Skylab could have been saved.  I am saying that in the confines of a conceptual existence of a NASA that did not pursue the Space Shuttle but instead departed upon the path of using either existing operational vehicles, or a newly instigated commercial program, then Skylab would not need saving, it would have been supported and also probably its sister station and the joint-Soviet-American expeditions to it.

This is silliness.  It's like writing a comic book version of history.  You can postulate that the past was completely different than it was and come up with all kinds of whiz-bang fantasies.  But is there a point to doing so?  No, it illuminates nothing and educates nobody.  It's space geek onanism.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #41 on: 12/10/2009 09:43 pm »
OK, in the spirit of technogeek discussion, I worked out what it would take Soyuz to raise Skylab's orbit by one kilometer. For this hypothetical calculation, I used the following parameters:

1976 Skylab orbit: 425 km circular.

Skylab mass: 100 metric tons.

Soyuz mass: 7 tons.

To put Skylab into a 426 km orbit, the Soyuz would have to expend 20 kg of propellant.


Offline daniela

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #42 on: 12/10/2009 09:59 pm »
OK, in the spirit of technogeek discussion, I worked out what it would take Soyuz to raise Skylab's orbit by one kilometer. For this hypothetical calculation, I used the following parameters:

1976 Skylab orbit: 425 km circular.

Skylab mass: 100 metric tons.

Soyuz mass: 7 tons.

To put Skylab into a 426 km orbit, the Soyuz would have to expend 20 kg of propellant.




I believe Skylab was perigee about 425Km and apogee a little bit higher. Also, 425Km is already the very maximum stretch for Soyuz. If it does catch up with that orbit and does rendezvous, it's good enough if there are enough safety margins to approve the mission (even with Soviet safety margins for a propaganda stunt). I do not think there'd be any propellant to be expended lightheartedly.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #43 on: 12/10/2009 10:15 pm »
In 1971-72 the political decision to the joint mission was made. If you remember, there was the "distension", people put back the atomic doomsday clock, etc. In order to design a joint mission many options were explored, and of course they included the space stations, Skylab and Salyut. In 1971 yes indeed it was considered possible that the joint mission would fly to Skylab. Please notice that even the nominal orbit was just barely out of reach of Soyuz or perhaps even reachable with a stretch.... (however, that would allow no space for multiple dockings and the many other rendez-vous activities that were carried out successfully by Soyuz-Apollo) but very soon (not that long after the first successful mission that commissioned a crippled Skylab) it became clear that there would be no vehicle to fly there before Shuttle, and that the crew of the last Apollo-derived vehicle to fly there, would shut the lights. Skylab was basically abandoned in 1974, with the idea that before 1979 there'd be an automated reboost and later Shuttle crews would recommission it. There was no way Skylab could have supported a crew flying there on Apollo + Soyuz, not without a previous recommissioning mission that lacked the money and the vehicle.
If I recall correctly, a Salyut was not chosen due to the identical design to the military space stations of USSR, and many details needed to be shared with the counterpart esp. in regards to docking (of course opening the opportunity for a hostile docking in the future, etc, etc).

The original question, however, was different. Even if a Soyuz that had docked there, it would have been able to do any significant reboost only in an orbit not much different from a Salyut-like; and these require regular reboosting. A single Soyuz docking would not have kept Skylab in orbit till STS program was able to dock with it.

Didn't they also believe Skylab's orbit would have remained stable until well into the 80s?

Even if the Shuttle wasn't delayed it probably still would not have been able to save Skylab before it reentered in 1979.

The shuttle didn't carry a payload with a booster until STS 5 and the skylab reboost module also probably would have had to wait until then.

Pretty much the only option would have been legacy Apollo hardware or Soyuz.

Though they did have several unflown Apollo CSMs and I think enough parts for a few Saturn IB's and even Saturn Vs.
http://www.apollosaturn.com/otherhw.htm

Though one problem the launch facilities were already being converted to shuttle operations.

Sounds like a problem we have today.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2009 10:21 pm by Patchouli »

Offline daniela

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #44 on: 12/10/2009 10:31 pm »
In the beginning the idea was to send to Skylab many different expeditions, first with existing hardware and later with the "next thing". By the time Skylab was ready, the next thing was going to be Shuttle and was not going to be ready for a while, and there was no vehicle besides those four (one of them flied as Apollo-Soyuz and not to Skylab), so it was basically "shut off the lights". Yes it was supposed that the orbit would have stayed stable for longer, but Skylab was not even regularly tracked. The reboost module was supposed to fly standalone on another LV, then I think the idea was that around sts-4 or 5 the Orbiter would have docked with Skylab, recommissioned, stocked, and reboosted orbit with its own engines, in preparation to "scientific" missions.

Offline daniela

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #45 on: 12/10/2009 10:43 pm »
Yes indeed! In the beginning, the idea was to use all the Apollo surplus hardware and send up expeditions to Skylab. But one cut after another, only four flightworthy rockets remained, all the rest was safed and donated.
Pad A modifications started after Skylab hardware was launched, but pad B remained able to support Apollo-derived rockets till the end of the program.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #46 on: 12/12/2009 06:57 pm »
I believe Skylab was perigee about 425Km and apogee a little bit higher. Also, 425Km is already the very maximum stretch for Soyuz. If it does catch up with that orbit and does rendezvous, it's good enough if there are enough safety margins to approve the mission (even with Soviet safety margins for a propaganda stunt). I do not think there'd be any propellant to be expended lightheartedly.

Given the original Soyuz prop tank capacity, I agree that 425 km altitude would be difficult.

However, your message implies that 425 km is a current limitation for Soyuz TMA, if so, what are the constraints to a higher altitude?

Offline Skylon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #47 on: 12/13/2009 05:15 pm »
This is what should have been done.

In your alternate reality.

In my world, what should have been done is the alternate reality described by Stephan Baxter in the book "Voyage".  Men and women on Mars in 1986.

A little OT here, but having read "Voyage" I really can't say that is a history I'd like.

- No Apollo past 14 (which flys as the one and only J-mission).
- No Voyager Probes
- No HST, Chandra or Compton
- No Galileo

Not even a promise of Mars missions past the "one shot" Baxter portrays. I really liked that Baxter did not sugar-coat his image of the budgetary nightmare a manned Mars mission would produce, making an honest question to the reader "is this really better than what actually happened?"

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #48 on: 12/13/2009 05:57 pm »
Quote
A little OT here, but having read "Voyage" I really can't say that is a history I'd like.

- No Apollo past 14 (which flys as the one and only J-mission).
- No Voyager Probes
- No HST, Chandra or Compton
- No Galileo

Very true. No Magellan either, just a manned flyby mapping a vague strip of Venus.

Quote
I really liked that Baxter did not sugar-coat his image of the budgetary nightmare a manned Mars mission would produce, making an honest question to the reader "is this really better than what actually happened?"

However  once the NERVA dropped, Baxter mars ship consists of
- a S-II injection stage (with tanks)
- a Skylab habitation module
- a CSM.

That leave only the MEM as new development.  According to a North American paper of 1967 development costs were $4 billion, against the shuttle $7 billion. So Baxter Mars program may have been affordable in the end !

Quote
Not even a promise of Mars missions past the "one shot" Baxter portrays.

Baxter MEM features LOX/Methane engines, and at a training cession an astronaut briefly mention an ISSP or ISRU experiment. Looks like Ares may evolve into Mars Direct :)
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline daniela

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New way to save Skylab; the Soviets
« Reply #49 on: 12/13/2009 06:24 pm »
Danderman: I am not aware of limitations of the Soyuz spacecraft to fly higher, keep in mind they flied no problem around the moon in a free return trajectory (the Zond variants) and they were, basically, the planned manned version, in fact two Soviet turtles (do animals have nationality? ;) ) were abord one of the Zond and were returned to earth in good health. But, what carries the Soyuz to higher orbit? Not the R7. Yes of course in principle Proton or other launch vehicle could have been used. But, this would have required something pretty complex. Such as:
- USA send up people to reactivate Skylab (on which vehicle?) which they succeed in doing
- USSR man-rates Proton or something (if they didn't do it for the much more prestigious lunar mission, it means it was not possible to do with the resources available or likely to be allocated and keeping risks withing "acceptable" margins, even for the margins that the Soviets would have accepted for such a feat)
- with the Skylab up and running (where is Apollo going to be? Loitering? you understand it's a highly complex choreography) perhaps with an astronaut or two on board (how does he get down? have we got only one vehicle? Is his life relying on all those multiple redockings?) the command module detaches from the adapter (please notice we have to leave that on Skylab, I assume the androgyne it's only passive on skylab) and there arrives Soyuz which successfully docks, we hope
- a photo is made and the presidents make a call, but no scientific joint activity, no playing around of any kind
- and the Soyuz people - while the US shut down attitude control and hand it over - proceed to reboosting. But it cant be that enormous, as they need to deorbit from that very unusual higher orbit. And they have the improved thermal protection (much heavier)
- The Soviets undock and hopefully land safely, on a return which is way less forgiving than the usual ones 
- the apollo command module redocks and the station is evacuated. The Apollo undocks and proceed to splashdown.

Now, if this exercise did not hurt, or worse, anybody (which you have to agree it is very, very risky) we have boosted the orbit of an empty station, which is no use to anybody as there is no vehicle to reach it for the next N years. All that, at a cost much higher than sending up Skylab 2, which, sure enough, ended up in some museum.
It would have been very different if the Apollo hardware (including LV) had been kept and that USA had expressed an interest in manned presence in LEO, also in those years there was plenty to learn. Then Skylab would have been used, Skylab 2 would have flown, and after that, the Shuttle would have been used to set up another wet workshop station, this time a modular one, perhaps some modules would have attached to MIR with others in different trajectories, in any case, we would have learned a lot about LEO well before and well cheaper than ISS, we would basically mass-produce small stations and perhaps have already one orbiting the moon, which would be a more interesting place for AMS-2, but, things went differently, as we all know.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2009 07:09 pm by daniela »

Tags:
 

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