|
Author
|
Topic: Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Destination: Skylab
|
cddfspace
Member Posts: 609
From: Morris County, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 07-15-2010 07:34 AM
   
Since this is the 35th Anniversary of ASTP, I thought I’d ask a what if question... Was it possible for Apollo and Soyuz to dock with Skylab simultaneously? If so, was that ever considered an option? Think of having a combined long duration stay for Stafford, Brand and Slayton with the Soviets dropping by for a visit. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-15-2010 07:42 AM
Since Skylab had two docking ports, such an operation was possible but I don't think it was ever discussed.I'm not sure how much consumables it had left to support another long-duration flight or even if the U.S. crew wanted to be up there for a month or longer. However, that would have been a better mission than what they planned. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4494
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-15-2010 07:43 AM
The Soyuz docking system was not interoperable with Skylab (for ASTP a special docking module was required to facilitate the lash-up between the CM and Soyuz). |
cddfspace
Member Posts: 609
From: Morris County, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 07-15-2010 07:52 AM
Good question on the consumables... according to Wikipedia "...It still had 180 man-days of water and 420 man-days of oxygen..." Looks like it was possible. Regarding the crew desires- why not? Also, when did crew desire interfere with a mission objectives? Regarding the docking port- couldn't Apollo have gone first and used an EVA (or 2) to fit the docking ring they used for the second port on Skylab? |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2516
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 07-15-2010 08:11 AM
Was the Skylab orbital inclination such that it allowed a Soyuz launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome to catch it? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4494
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-15-2010 08:12 AM
The docking module was not just a ring... it was a largish assembly containing an airlock with interfaces on both ends that allowed it to be compatible with each flight vehicle (the airlock feature was required because operating cabin pressures and atmospheric mixtures were different). We see today that ISS construction has benefited from Shuttle and integrated space station robotic arms to interconnect subassembies; probably something of a similar nature would have been required in Skylab's case to attach a Soyuz comparable docking system to that space station. Using the CSM alone to install it wouldn't have been feasible since the docking module obstructed the forward view through the rendezvous windows when mated to the spacecraft. |
cddfspace
Member Posts: 609
From: Morris County, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 07-15-2010 08:17 AM
Thanks for the clarification on the docking module. I did not realize how detailed it was. |
alanh_7
Member Posts: 1252
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 07-15-2010 08:37 AM
I think the ASTP docking ring had a female docking port for the Apollo spacecraft's male docking probe.As Skylab did not have a male docking probe for the Apollo docking ring, and the Soyuz side of the airlock was not able to dock with Skylab either, I cannot see how ASTP Soyuz or docking adaptor was able to dock with Skylab. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-15-2010 08:57 AM
I'm not certain that either Slayton or Stafford would have liked a marathon mission. |
jasonelam
Member Posts: 691
From: Monticello, KY USA
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 07-15-2010 09:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by GACspaceguy:
Was the Skylab orbital inclination such that it allowed a Soyuz launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome to catch it?
Skylab was at a 50 degree inclination, and considering ISS is in a 51.6 degree orbit, I don't see why it could not. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 07-15-2010 09:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I'm not certain that either Slayton or Stafford would have liked a marathon mission.
My feeling is that Deke would have taken whatever he could get. As for Stafford, there's a passage in "Deke" I believe with regard to the possibility of Tom Stafford going on to command Skylab I after Apollo 10 (although it might have been somewhere else), stating that Stafford wasn't particularly enthusiastic about spending a month in orbit. |
jasonelam
Member Posts: 691
From: Monticello, KY USA
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 07-15-2010 11:58 AM
Couldn't they have retrofitted a Salyut docking collar on the Skylab secondary port? |
KenDavis
Member Posts: 187
From: W.Sussex United Kingdom
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-15-2010 01:54 PM
The common docking port was at one end of the docking module but the other end was (so i though) a standard Apollo probe and drogue as used on all other missions. Therefore i would have thought the US crew could have carried out joint ops with the russians then jettisoned the docking module so they could dock with Skylab in the same way the other mission did.Another thought is, given that the Apollo CSM had enough fuel capacity for the TEI burn could the CSM have been used to re-boost Skylab into a higher orbit? I know in 1975 no-one was really thinking of the need to raise Skylab's orbit - but if they had though of it could it have been done? And now that this thread has got me thinking; how about a crew swap with Slayton returing with Leonov in the Soyuz and Stafford Brand and Kubasov going on to fly a 14 day Skylab re-boost mission - now there is a mission that should have happened! |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2516
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 07-15-2010 02:23 PM
As far as a reboost with the CSM I asked Bill Pogue that question. His answer was that the CSM main engine was either on or off and the thought at the time was the Skylab docking module structure could not take the instant load applied. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4494
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-15-2010 03:58 PM
A reboost capability was developed for Skylab and would have been attached to a docking port during one of the early Shuttle missions via its robotic arm (overcoming a similar challenge discussed above with any attempt to connect a Soyuz interoperable docking module). Because initial operational capability of the Shuttle shifted right (program delays), reboost was not an option before orbital decay. There is also a possibility Skylab would not have tolerated reboost due to structural damage sustained during launch. |
FFrench
Member Posts: 3165
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-15-2010 03:59 PM
Judging by the official histories, there seems to have been quite a bit of thought and time given initially to doing the opposite - having Apollo dock with a Soviet Salyut space station. I recall anecdotally hearing about similar ideas with Soyuz and Skylab, but judging by the official account it appears to have been considered and officially ruled out by December 1971. In part, this looks to have happened because Skylab was mostly a Marshall project, and ASTP docking issues were worked on instead at JSC. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1428
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-15-2010 04:32 PM
I remember an article in TIME magazine in the early 70s which did discuss some early options. One of the suggested arrangements was an Apollo - Salyut and Soyuz - Skylab linkup. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-15-2010 04:47 PM
I certainly remember early talk about an Apollo/Salyut docking mission. Ah, but all this discussion about Apollo-Soyuz is making me feel quite nostalgic. Exactly 35 years ago I was nearing the end of a long, slow bus-journey from KSC to the Atlantis Beach Lodge, Cocoa Beach, with a grin from ear to ear and a camera full of memories of the launch of the Last Apollo. A happy day! |
KenDavis
Member Posts: 187
From: W.Sussex United Kingdom
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-15-2010 05:00 PM
I am sure there was an article in an early edition of 'Quest' about the Soyuz/Skylab and Apollo/Salyut options (I'll try and find it). The point I remember was that both options were dismissed as in the former the larger Skylab would make the Americans appear superior and in the latter the larger Salyut would make the Russians appear superior. Apollo/Soyuz was a natural compromise. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1428
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-15-2010 05:49 PM
Yep... in the lead up negotiations between the Soviet Union and the U.S. even the colour of the spacecraft docking lights became an issue. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 07-15-2010 06:41 PM
The Soviets had considered asking about a docking with Skylab since they knew NASA had a backup module built. But they were puzzled that we weren't planning to fly it. Soviet mentality was if the hardware was ready to fly, they flew it in those days.Indeed, early on with the first meetings, Salyut was seriously being considered for a joint flight with both the American and Soviet crews docking and occupying it. But around mid-1972, it was quietly dropped from the considerations as it then became a Soyuz only mission. Politics didn't really have a play in that as there were many in NASA circles who were curious about the Salyut modules. When some of the engineers visited Moscow, they were shown the Salyut simulator as I understand it. Although the reasons were never made clear on the Soviet side, Almaz was likely the reason. The problems with the launch of Cosmos whatever it was (it would have become Salyut 2 if it launched successfully) and Salyut 2's depressurization in orbit delayed that program to the point where Salyut 3 was next in line to fly, and all three of those stations were the military Almaz stations intended for recon work, not the DOS Salyut stations for peaceful science work. Of course, the core module sections were about the same (internal instrumentation was different) since the DOS modules were taken from the Almaz line and altered. So problems with one series would have affected the other line in the investigation to determine what happened. I would say if Almaz Salyut 2 had flown successfully either the first or second time, that would likely have put what became Salyut 4 next in the pipeline to be available for a possible Apollo docking flight. As such, negotiations for such a mission would have likely continued. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1332
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 07-15-2010 07:40 PM
All of the combinations were discussed.After all was said and done the docking systems were not compatible. An adaptor was needed for both the mechanics and the atmospheric. The spacecraft were just too different. Don't forget the U.S.- U.S.S.R relationship was going south. Both sides wanted to fly a simple a mission as possible. |
mikej
Member Posts: 481
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 07-15-2010 09:06 PM
I posted a number of ASTP-related picture sets on my web site for the anniversary of ASTP's launch.Most applicable to the discussion at hand are
|
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-16-2010 02:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Exactly 35 years ago I was nearing the end of a long, slow bus-journey from KSC to the Atlantis Beach Lodge, Cocoa Beach, with a grin from ear to ear and a camera full of memories of the launch of the Last Apollo.
Me too! But then I also spent a very happy day and a half by the pool with Linda Ball, the original National Airlines 'Fly Me' girl. You didn't go with Trans-Solar did you? On edit - as an afterthought. I flew into Orlando from Huntsville sitting next to a NASA computer programmer who was going to the Cape to extend the Apollo launch window by eight minutes. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 07-17-2010 12:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
Don't forget the U.S.- U.S.S.R relationship was going south. Both sides wanted to fly a simple a mission as possible.
Things were actually about as good as they were going to get in the early to mid 1970s. Even the Yom Kippur war of October 1973 didn't really through that big a monkey wrench into Apollo Soyuz as both sides knew what it represented in terms of prestige. It wasn't until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 that things really cooled off and the Reagan years kept the pressure on.The Soviets really put fourth a lot of effort into Apollo Soyuz. The US side supplied the docking adaptor design of course, but the Soviets had not one, but two rockets and Soyuz craft prepared and ready for the mission. They also had to alter their own design and checkout culture to correspond with NASA's since there were so many question marks when it came to the Soyuz systems that had to be answered before the flight. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-17-2010 01:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
You didn't go with Trans-Solar did you?
Yes, it was Transolar Travel in conjunction with the B.I.S. Small world! I'm going to try to email you off-site. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-17-2010 09:12 PM
Bringing this thread back to its original topic (sort of), since the premise of Soyuz docking to Skylab has been discussed, and Apollo docking with Salyut, how about Salyut with Skylab? At the time Salyut 1 flew, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were negotiating toward a U.S. spacecraft docking with a Soviet spacecraft. By the end of 1971, the sides had settled on an Apollo CSM docking with a Salyut station. The spacecraft would each carry a new-design International Docking Mechanism (IDM).In April 1972, however, Soviet negotiators declared that the Salyut design could not easily be modified to include a second docking port. They suggested that a CSM dock instead with a modified Soyuz. On May 24, 1972, at a summit meeting in Moscow, U.S. President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin signed the Space Cooperation Agreement, an international treaty that called for a wide range of cooperative ventures, including an Apollo-Soyuz docking. On June 30, 1972, NASA named the new cooperative program the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP). The Soviets called it Soyuz-Apollo. A week earlier, a McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company team had pitched to NASA a cooperative space mission much more ambitious than either Apollo-Soyuz or Apollo-Salyut. The team proposed a docking between the backup Skylab (Skylab B) and a Salyut... |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1332
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 07-25-2010 09:54 AM
I'm sure we'll both agree that relations between the two countries got a lot worse after July 1975.The Soviets did a put a lot of effort into Apollo-Soyuz. They not only had a back-up rocket and Soyuz. But they had two back-up crews as well. Four crews training for one flight. The Soviets were not keen on us seeing a Sayut up close. They were showing the astronauts around Star City, when Stafford stopped them cold. He insisted on seeing the actual flight hardware. I think the thing that ultimately killed Salyut was funding. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2216
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 07-25-2010 10:46 AM
Would they or did they see Skylab during their mission? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4494
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-25-2010 11:11 AM
(Would they?) Absent concurrent ephemeris for Skylab and ASTP probably unknowable. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-25-2010 12:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
(Would they?) Absent concurrent ephemeris for Skylab and ASTP probably unknowable.
Can we have a translation into plain English please? |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2216
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 07-25-2010 12:32 PM
Would they have seen it if they had bothered to look or did they see it and I don't know about it!! Ok? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-25-2010 12:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Can we have a translation into plain English please?
An ephemeris is a table of values that gives the positions of objects in the sky at a given time or times. For satellites, the values are also referred to as two-line elements, given the formatting for the data.To simplify Scott's reply even further, we'd need to know the orbital tracks of both ASTP and Skylab in order to calculate if they passed within the line of sight of each other. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 07-25-2010 04:41 PM
Doubtful Skylab would have been seen except for some fleeting passes maybe. The ASTP launches were about 51 degree inclination (same as the current ISS) while Skylab was a much lower inclination and a higher orbit. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4494
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-25-2010 05:33 PM
50 degrees (Skylab) with a circularized orbit of 269NM altitude vs 51.8 (ASTP) with a mean (non-circularized) altitude of 203NM - it would have been possible for the two spacecraft to have closed within viewing range (with ASTP, due to its slightly shorter orbital period, gradually overtaking and passing below Skylab) contingent upon an interim alignment of other orbital attributes. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-23-2010 08:55 AM
Some thought must have given to the possibility of the ASTP crew returning to Skylab as the last crew on board left behind a 'time capsule.'This was a sealed container filled with food items, film, electric cables, flight plans and electronic equipment. One has to assume that this would not have been done if there was not some chance, however remote, of it being retrieved. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3446
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 08-23-2010 11:34 AM
I think that might have been left for a possible Skylab 5, or for the Haise-Lousma Shuttle mission to reboost Skylab. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-23-2010 01:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
I think that might have been left for a possible Skylab 5, or for the Haise-Lousma Shuttle mission to reboost Skylab.
You may well be correct. However, contemporary press reports written at the time specifically mention ASTP. |
advertisement