|
Author
|
Topic: Large laboratory in late 70s
|
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-05-2005 07:32 PM
   
Technically would have been,in mid-late 70s,an automatic rendez-vous and docking between two skylab type laboratory to realize a large space station for the space shuttle ? |
LT Scott Schneeweis
unregistered
|
posted 04-05-2005 07:59 PM
Seems unlikely... autonomous rendevous is not a forte of the U.S. program...the Russians have been doing it for quite a while. NASA is getting onboard with the DART initiative...it remains to be seen how well that progresses (launch due this month)....------------------
Scott Schneeweis URL: http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/ |
micropooz
Member Posts: 1532
From: Washington, DC, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 04-05-2005 08:27 PM
Well, I have to respectfully disagree with Scott here. Automated rendezvous and docking was not a priority of the US program until recently since our philosophy was always to use manned control in all of our docking endeavors. Had there been a plan to dock two Skylabs (or any two unmanned craft) together, NASA would have developed the capability. Priorities have recently changed, so DART, XSS-11 and Orbital Express are all being developed and flown now to test and validate our automated rendezvous capabilities. The Russians on the other hand have the total opposite philosophy on manned docking: automatic control first with the men as the backup. So they developed the capability in the '60's. NASA could have also if the priority was elevated. Now to answer Carmelo's question, by the time Skylab rolled around, there just was not enough money to have developed the automated rendezvous and docking plus launch two labs. Remember that three lunar landings had gotten canceled at that point and a lot of the remaining space budget was starting to get syphoned into Shuttle development. So, although it was technically possible to dock two Skylabs, it was not financially possible. Dennis Dillman |
DavidH
Member Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 04-06-2005 08:29 AM
An immediate concern would be the lack of a rescue vehicle. Without someway of bringing crew home, stays on the station would be limited to the length of Space Shuttle visits, prohibiting its use as a long-duration facility.------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972 |
spaceuk
Member Posts: 2113
From: Staffs, UK
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 04-06-2005 09:51 AM
The US program in early and mid 70's was more headed towards modular space stations - using modules that would fit into cargo bay and be carried into space by the shuttle.There were dozens of paper designs done for NASA by aerospace contractors - and in some cases - full scale mockups. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-06-2005 04:26 PM
In theory, NASA could have created an enormous space-station in the mid-1970's by using a combination of the "wet-workshop" and "dry-workshop" concepts. Remember that in order to orbit the completely un-powered third stage (i.e. the Skylab space-station) it was necessary to put the S-II Saturn V second stage into orbit. (It was the only S-II to be orbited, and I suspect the combined S-II/Skylab may have been the largest object ever orbited). Imagine if the S-II had been modified to be used as a "wet-workshop" once all the fuel was used up, with an air-lock assembly of some sort linking the two stages.
As a school-boy I raised this with NASA. They confirmed that, in theory, it was possible, but they just didn't have the funds. (I still have the letter) |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-06-2005 06:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DavidH:
An immediate concern would be the lack of a rescue vehicle. Without someway of bringing crew home, stays on the station would be limited to the length of Space Shuttle visits, prohibiting its use as a long-duration facility.
 |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-06-2005 06:24 PM
Escape capsule using Apollo CM studied by Rockwell for NASA in late 1970s. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-06-2005 06:31 PM
 |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-06-2005 06:34 PM
THE FUTURE THAT WE HAVE LOST.  http://img83.exs.cx/img83/418/station167wd.jpg [This message has been edited by carmelo (edited April 06, 2005).] [This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited April 06, 2005).] |
spaceuk
Member Posts: 2113
From: Staffs, UK
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 04-07-2005 06:14 AM
The large lab you show in images was more late 60's very early 70's . By end 70's theyw ere definitely into modular style space stations before moving on to the Alpha,Freedom and now ISS style stations.I wrote some articles in this period about modular space stations and America's 21st century space industrialisation ideas and concepts
Phill
UK
|
DavidH
Member Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 04-07-2005 09:00 AM
The CM-based escape vehicle would have been a great idea, sure. The problem remains, though, that there weren't any, nor where there any launch vehicles to carry them to the Station.
Sure, none of these problems are insurmountable, but basically, at the point where you're developing or building new automated docking technology, new escape vehicles, new launch vehicles, an additional laboratory, etc., you're getting pretty close to being back at square one.------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972 |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-07-2005 10:05 AM
Modified CM escape capsule was studied for to be transported in the space shuttle cargo bay.An idea reproposed from the assessment team (Vance Brand,John Young,Dale Myers,Kenneth Szlai)in 2003 for CRV. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9031 |
LT Scott Schneeweis
unregistered
|
posted 04-16-2005 10:23 PM
Apparently were not there yet...DART missed the bullseye...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050416/D89GJ9000.html
quote:
Originally posted by micropooz:
Well, I have to respectfully disagree with Scott here. Automated rendezvous and docking was not a priority of the US program until recently since our philosophy was always to use manned control in all of our docking endeavors. Had there been a plan to dock two Skylabs (or any two unmanned craft) together, NASA would have developed the capability. Priorities have recently changed, so DART, XSS-11 and Orbital Express are all being developed and flown now to test and validate our automated rendezvous capabilities. Dennis Dillman
------------------
Scott Schneeweis URL: http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/ [This message has been edited by LT Scott Schneeweis (edited April 16, 2005).] |
LT Scott Schneeweis
unregistered
|
posted 04-16-2005 10:27 PM
Apparently were not there yet...DART missed the bulls-eye...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050416/D89GJ9000.html ------------------
Scott Schneeweis URL: http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/ [This message has been edited by LT Scott Schneeweis (edited April 16, 2005).] |
advertisement