Skylab Survives: What does NASA do with it?

[Not James Stockdale]

Obviously, NASA failed to boost Skylab high enough to handle the 1979 sunspot cycle and the station made an uncontrolled reentry in July 1979. Let's say that, in this ATL, Skylab is either boosted high enough to last until the first Space Shuttle flights, or they manage to put together some kind of unmanned reboost vehicle in 1978 or 1979, and Skylab is in a stable orbit that will last at least into the mid-1980s.

What plans did NASA have for using Skylab with the Shuttle? What kind of condition would the station have been in after half a decade in orbit without any maintenance. Skylab was not initially designed to be resupplied; how would more extended operations have been conducted? Was there any thought of adding additional modules?

 

[TimothyC]

Obviously, NASA failed to boost Skylab high enough to handle the 1979 sunspot cycle and the station made an uncontrolled reentry in July 1979. Let's say that, in this ATL, Skylab is either boosted high enough to last until the first Space Shuttle flights, or they manage to put together some kind of unmanned reboost vehicle in 1978 or 1979, and Skylab is in a stable orbit that will last at least into the mid-1980s.

What plans did NASA have for using Skylab with the Shuttle? What kind of condition would the station have been in after half a decade in orbit without any maintenance. Skylab was not initially designed to be resupplied; how would more extended operations have been conducted? Was there any thought of adding additional modules?

The big problem for using Skylab with the Space Shuttle is the differences in atmosphere. Skylab used an atmosphere that was 74% oxygen and 26% nitrogen at 5 psi. The shuttle uses an atmosphere that is 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen at 14.7 psi. While the main orbital workshop can certainly take the higher pressure (as a hydrogen tank it was rated for more than 20psi), the airlock and docking adapter are more questionable, and would likely require a new lining pressure bladder. As for resupply, the attitude control system used nitrogen gas, and could be resupplied on orbit, so that is easy enough, and internal water and air tanks could also be refilled.

When it comes to the utility of the station, it gives a lot of volume, but not a lot else. The solar panels had limited capacity when they were launched, and after nearly a decade in space the power generated would be marginal. Moving equipment in and out via an Apollo docking adapter would be hard, and I expect the volume would be used, at most, as a living volume. Most of the long term plans would involve adding a power module that would provide 25 kW, and a pair of APAS ports so that a spacelab derived laboratory module could be added and left on-station for crew-tended operations.

Given all of this, the main advantage is that it would give the shuttle someplace to go, and something to do, which might drive a station that organically grows off of Skylab before 'budding' off.

 

[Workable Goblin]

As for resupply, the attitude control system used nitrogen gas, and could be resupplied on orbit, so that is easy enough, and internal water and air tanks could also be refilled.

There was probably damage to some of the internal plumbing from water freezing, which would have complicated repairs. I feel that Skylab would probably prove to be a bit of a booby prize--superficially attractive but from a more holistic viewpoint not really worth the bother compared to a new station.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

There was probably damage to some of the internal plumbing from water freezing, which would have complicated repairs. I feel that Skylab would probably prove to be a bit of a booby prize--superficially attractive but from a more holistic viewpoint not really worth the bother compared to a new station.

Yep a new Spacestation would have been a better idea. Heck we still had 3 Saturn-Vs around to launch one(albeit at the cost of not having any to put in museums)

 

[TimothyC]

Yep a new Spacestation would have been a better idea. Heck we still had 3 Saturn-Vs around to launch one(albeit at the cost of not having any to put in museums)

The infrastructure to launch any Saturn Vs was either abandoned or dismantled in the second half of the 1970s.

 

[marathag]

The infrastructure to launch any Saturn Vs was either abandoned or dismantled in the second half of the 1970s.

Last chance, IIRC, was early 1977 for a IB launch, and that wouldn't have been easy. Saturn V, that was done in 1974 or so

 

[Aghasverov]

This may be a stupid question - I haven't kept up much with current space exploration - but is there now, or have there ever been, any plans to put a manned station into a GSO? Or is there simply too much junk floating around there to do it safely now?

 

[e of pi]

This may be a stupid question - I haven't kept up much with current space exploration - but is there now, or have there ever been, any plans to put a manned station into a GSO? Or is there simply too much junk floating around there to do it safely now?

Back in the early days, there were a lot of plans--it was expected there would be a station in GSO as a communication relay (because you'd need people to service all the vacuum tubes and such, of course) or an assembly platform (for all the big GSO-based solar power satellites). It never came to pass less for debris safety issues (GSO debris is less common and less energetic than LEO debris, AIUI) than for lack of a reason to have humans there given the current state of spaceflight. It's no better for the vast majority of Earth-orbital research than LEO, and harder to get to.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

This may be a stupid question - I haven't kept up much with current space exploration - but is there now, or have there ever been, any plans to put a manned station into a GSO? Or is there simply too much junk floating around there to do it safely now?

The space debris problem in GSO is orders of magnitude less severe than it is in LEO. There is a lot less debris, and most of it is all moving together at relatively low relative velocities. I don't know what the radiation environment would be like for astronauts that far from Earth.

The big problem for using Skylab with the Space Shuttle is the differences in atmosphere. Skylab used an atmosphere that was 74% oxygen and 26% nitrogen at 5 psi. The shuttle uses an atmosphere that is 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen at 14.7 psi. While the main orbital workshop can certainly take the higher pressure (as a hydrogen tank it was rated for more than 20psi), the airlock and docking adapter are more questionable, and would likely require a new lining pressure bladder.

I imagine the Shuttle could use an Apollo-Soyuz docking adaptor as an airlock between the Shuttle and Skylab before they do anything.

Moving equipment in and out via an Apollo docking adapter would be hard, and I expect the volume would be used, at most, as a living volume.

The Apollo hatch and all the versions of APAS are about 31 or 32 inches, so there's no real difference between the Apollo hardware and Shuttle for this. The ISS CBM is 50 inches on compatible spacecraft, but that has been pretty rare compared to APAS.

There was probably damage to some of the internal plumbing from water freezing, which would have complicated repairs. I feel that Skylab would probably prove to be a bit of a booby prize--superficially attractive but from a more holistic viewpoint not really worth the bother compared to a new station.

This was pretty much my thinking, although I'm also wondering how having a space station to go to in the pre-Challenger era would impact the perception of the Shuttle as an all-purpose satellite LV. Of the 24 pre-Challenger missions, 4 were test flights, 4 were Spacelab flights, and 16 were satellite deployments. If NASA had a space station they had to maintain in this period, extra flights would have eaten into the number of satellites they could launch, which would have put more pressure on the expendable launch vehicles and possibly created a situation where NASA is forced to admit that it can't both support a space station and launch every satellite.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

The infrastructure to launch any Saturn Vs was either abandoned or dismantled in the second half of the 1970s.

We could always have William Proxmire slip on a banana peel since that was his fault: salting the earth on billions of dollars worth of infrastructre to prevent NASA from doing anything more with Apollo / Saturn rockets.

 

[e of pi]

We could always have William Proxmire slip on a banana peel since that was his fault: salting the earth on billions of dollars worth of infrastructre to prevent NASA from doing anything more with Apollo / Saturn rockets.

It really wasn't him, or not anything like him alone. NASA's budget was unsustainable--they got more money than the VA in the middle of Vietnam, and almost half as much as the Department of the Health, Education, and Welfare (combined!). Cuts were inevitable, I think. A bit slower trim could have preserved more of it, but all of it...I don't think that was ever reasonable, and nor should it have been.

 

[TimothyC]

I imagine the Shuttle could use an Apollo-Soyuz docking adaptor as an airlock between the Shuttle and Skylab before they do anything.

While you can do this, until Skylab can be brought up to the same atmosphere as Shuttle, you're looking at multiple trips through the airlock every day, with compression/decompression issues if you go too fast.

The Apollo hatch and all the versions of APAS are about 31 or 32 inches, so there's no real difference between the Apollo hardware and Shuttle for this. The ISS CBM is 50 inches on compatible spacecraft, but that has been pretty rare compared to APAS.

Some of the APAS versions have slightly larger passages, but it also drives the point home that getting things into and out of the orbital workshop is not going to be easy.

 

[Riain]

I think Skylab would be pretty knackered by the time the Shuttle could get to in in 1982 or so, probably not worth saving. The best bet would have been to launch Skylab B (currently in the Smithsonian) in 1976 into the highest parking orbit possible.

I've heard Skylab was strong enough to handle higher internal pressures, maybe 9-10psi, which would make the chore of airlock pressure differences much less annoying. If the Shuttle could be bought down to the same pressure while the two were docked this problem would go away altogether.

 

[phx1138]

NASA's budget was unsustainable

🙄 What was it, under 0.5%? 1%? The budget for F-4s or F-22s is higher.

 

[e of pi]

🙄 What was it, under 0.5%? 1%? The budget for F-4s or F-22s is higher.

When Proxmire was pitching his biggest fits? Over 4%.

 

[phx1138]

When Proxmire was pitching his biggest fits? Over 4%.

Still not outrageous, compared to DoD. Or any other department, frankly. (Yes, I'm biased. ) Call it an investment in the future, & a program for creating high-wage jobs (with large attendant spinoffs), & tell Proxmire to stuff his fleece.

 

[Workable Goblin]

🙄 What was it, under 0.5%? 1%? The budget for F-4s or F-22s is higher.

You can look at the numbers e posted...NASA was getting five percent of the budget in 1966, more than all but three departments (Health, Education and Welfare; the Treasury Department; and the Department of Defense). Strictly speaking this might not be unsustainable in raw numerical terms, but in practical terms it is going to be a massive uphill struggle to continue justifying NASA that much money short of Armstrong and Aldrin landing on top of an alien base or something on that level. There is just not enough practical utility to the spending (beyond merely creating jobs, that is) to justify that level of funding in the face of many other important needs.

 

[e of pi]

Still not outrageous, compared to DoD. Or any other department, frankly. (Yes, I'm biased. ) Call it an investment in the future, & a program for creating high-wage jobs (with large attendant spinoffs), & tell Proxmire to stuff his fleece.

I dunno. I'm a space nut, but I'd rather see us spending $100b/year on local transit and interstate trains and HSR than on rockets, and schools that aren't starved of funds. We're doing everything we are now on half a percent for space, and I'd support 0.75% to 1% for space, but not more unless it really starts paying back real benefits.

 

[marathag]

I imagine the Shuttle could use an Apollo-Soyuz docking adaptor as an airlock between the Shuttle and Skylab before they do anything.

yep from the wiki
The docking module was designed as both an airlock — as the Apollo was pressurized at about 5 psi (34 kPa) using pure oxygen, while the Soyuz used a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere at sea level pressure (about 15 psi (100 kPa))

 

[phx1138]

I dunno. I'm a space nut, but I'd rather see us spending $100b/year on local transit and interstate trains and HSR than on rockets, and schools that aren't starved of funds. We're doing everything we are now on half a percent for space, and I'd support 0.75% to 1% for space, but not more unless it really starts paying back real benefits.

That's just it. It would. It'll come back from the wages of the engineers, but also the movers, car dealers, gas jockeys, grocers, movie theatre owners (or streaming services, now, I guess {showing my age }), & others that keep them supplied & entertained. It would go to schools through property taxes. It would, perhaps indirectly, help reduce crime (jobs rather than welfare). And, yes, it would create all manner of cool new stuff (& not just rockets).

I'm not going to go as far as I'd like, & say it would directly lead to SPS & O'Neill habitats, but I can dream.

There is just not enough practical utility to the spending (beyond merely creating jobs, that is) to justify that level of funding in the face of many other important needs.

Except it would create a lot of jobs, & not just directly at NASA. How many people were working at building the Saturn lifters & Apollo spacecraft, in all? How many are now involved in building, flying, & operating comsats?

Is reducing the need for welfare programs, prisons, & police worth 5% of the budget? Or even 2.5%? I think so.

I'd also suggest the pool of money isn't fixed: as the economy grows, the amount available for taxes goes up, so it might be possible to meet the OTL "other needs" & still increase the NASA budget fairly substantially. (I'll acknowledge, maybe not 5%; I'll leave the number to people who know better than me--but that's where I'd be aiming.)