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.
There wasn't a need for EELV., DoD had Titan 3, a biproduct of Blue Gemini from the previous decade.
Quote from: bad_astra on 12/09/2009 06:53 pmThere 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 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.
Quote from: libs0n on 12/09/2009 06:56 pmQuote from: bad_astra on 12/09/2009 06:53 pmThere 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.
Quote from: libs0n on 12/09/2009 06:49 pmI 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!
Additional ELV's required in the absence of the shuttle1982 2 Deltas83 3 Delta 1 Atlas/Titan84 6 Delta 2 Atlas/Titan85 8 Delta 5 Atlas/Titan86 2 Atlas/Titan88 2 Atlas/Titan89 5 Atlas/Titan90 5 Atlas/Titan
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
because without the shuttle there would not be any money.
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.
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.
This is what should have been done.
Quote from: libs0n on 12/09/2009 07:55 pmThis is what should have been done.In your alternate reality.
The Soyuz spacecraft and rocket did not have the performance to reach Skylab.
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-MissionOne 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.
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
No, as I said. Soyuz could not reach Skylab. The document that you refer to, is about Apollo docking to Salyut using a DM.
Was Skylab in an orbit much higher than ISS?
Quote from: bad_astra on 12/09/2009 08:08 pmQuote from: libs0n on 12/09/2009 07:55 pmThis 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.
Quote from: Danderman on 12/10/2009 07:33 amWas 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: bad_astra on 12/09/2009 08:08 pmQuote from: libs0n on 12/09/2009 07:55 pmThis 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?"
Not even a promise of Mars missions past the "one shot" Baxter portrays.