Conference 7.286::space

    	No, it's just that, unfortunately, the general public wouldn't
    know the difference if they put even a MERCURY capsule in there
    instead!
    
    	But it is odd to put such an old space station in a technical
    magazine for those knowledgable in the field.  It sounds like an
    error on the ad company's part, and maybe someone who knows where
    it was made should tell them to at least put in an artist's sketch
    of the new Space Station (They're probably reluctant to use the
    Space Shuttle these days).
    
    	People's ignorance of the greatest and most beneficial
    accomplishment in human history - space exploration -  is a 
    frightening and even dangerous phenomenon.
    
    	Larry
    

< Note 236.1

>   	No, it's just that, unfortunately, the general public wouldn't
>   know the difference if they put even a MERCURY capsule in there
>   instead!

It  *does*  say  a lot when the advertiser feels it is UNIMPORTANT to
appeal to the  informed  public  by  presenting  an  appropriate  and
accurate representation of their message.

>   	People's ignorance of the greatest and most beneficial
>   accomplishment in human history - space exploration -  is a
>   frightening and even dangerous phenomenon.

Especially  so  when  it  is propagated by people who blithely assume
"most people won't know the difference anyway." That type of response
is doubly damning to the  advertiser  because  they  are  propagating
ignorance rather then presenting pertinent information.

	-SES

    Yes it was a bad add, I would have assume they would have a
    communicaiton satellite as that is the most likly thing a vax would
    talk to
    
    but this is not the first time they have made a bad pic
    
    the T_11 a single board PDP-11 had been introduced by marketing
    as the FALCON, the adds had a nice picture of a HAWK
    one of our competitors did pick up on it but did not make
    a big deal of it as it was not there style
    
    jb
    

>       SKYLAB represents the technology of the early to mid 60's.  And it
>       crashed to earth nearly 10 years ago before the first VAX ever
>       booted!  This is the DIGITAL image? 

        Gee, Burns, since it is your nodename, you should get the facts
        right. Skylab went up in 1973 or so (I'm at work, my reference
        material is at home), and fell in 1979. Last I recall, we sold
        VAXEN in 1978, and they must have been running in the lab a few
        years before that. 
        
        I didn't see the ad, but would agree that a communications
        satellite might make a better choice for a picture, especially if
        some airbrush work showed some VAXEN communicating over it. 

    	A friend suggested placing this notice about the old
     technology representing the latest in DEC in a new ad in Note
     HUMAN::MARKETING.  Perhaps someone who did this ad or someone who
     knows who did this ad will spread the word, and perhaps we will
     see an advanced communincations satellite in its place (or the new
     Space Station at least). 
    
    	What do you think of this idea?
    
        BTW - SKYLAB may have been used in the 1970's, but it is
     BASED on 1960's technology (re-read what 236.0 said). 

    	Larry
    
                                                          

    Actually, I'd rather someone send KO a copy of the ad and a few
    choice words about our choice of advertising companies and/or
    the intelligence of our marketing people.  When you want to sell
    to someone you had better learn to speak the same language.  It
    seems to me Digital just lost a great deal of face in the aerospace
    industry.
    

    	It will be interesting to see if someone (besides DEC employees
    who know their space technology) will inform either AW&ST or DEC,
    or both.  
    
    	Larry
    

    re .4:  Oops.  Caught in the act.  I knew that it crashed before
    I came to Digital (Sep 79), but I did not remember that it was only
    a few months before.
    
    Sigh.  Another great comparison shot.
    
    Burns

    Theory:
    
    The advertisers did a lot of homework. They wanted a jazzy space
    picture, something with a recognizable human artifact in the
    foreground, with the cosmos as a backdrop. Of course, the most recent
    and jazziest of these photos involved space shuttles. The advertisers
    then asked themselves, "Do we really want to associate Digital with
    the shuttle program, at this point in history?" They then delved
    deeper into the pile, and found the most recent soul-stirring picture
    that did not produce a feeling of guilt by association.
    
    Their real mistake was in making so great a departure from the previous
    "Digital Has It Now!" ads. They have always shown a factory, office
    or captain of the target industry, and talked about how Digital solved
    some real industry-related problem. Surely we have reduced paperwork,
    eased communications and increased throughput somewhere in the
    aerospace industry, and you can bet your boosters it wasn't in space.
    In short, the picure, the whole ad in fact, does not illuminate
    what Digital has now for AW&ST readers.

    I have to admit the most pictures in AWST do not have much to do
    with the ad they appear in.
    
    Burns

    yes most of the pic in the adds have nothing to do with the product
    but how about the one advertising "Zero defects" and thats is why
     you should buy our products with the Shuttle Pic
    some times you win some times not
    

Article        33741
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: More on reusing space vehicles: Skylab Plus?
Date: 25 Jul 91 20:48:55 GMT
Sender: news@ksr.com
 
    In the 12 July 1991 issue of Science, there appears the following
article (in the Briefings page, page 143): 
 
    "Skylab Rides Again

   A wave of nostalgia is hitting NASA this year.  First it was a
congressional proposal to bring back the Saturn V, the heavy-lift launch
vehicle that took the Apollo missions to the moon (Science, 15 February,
p. 733).  Now it's a scheme to dislodge the old Skylab module from its
display position in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington and
launch it into orbit, following the trail blazed by its twin 18 years ago.

   The Skylab advocates are an anonymous group of NASA space station
engineers who are apparently frustrated by the project's many setbacks.
Calling themselves the Center for Strategic Space Studies, they propose
a rough-and-ready solution:  Postpone the new space station and refurbish
Skylab.

   In a 12-page report, the engineers note that while the need for a large,
permanently man-tended station "is not intuitively obvious nor deducible,"
the value of a manned orbital laboratory is "readily established" for
biological and materials science.  They argue that "Skylab Pluss" could
provide just such a laboratory by the mid-1990s, for just $3.5 billion.
The total cost just barely exceeds what NASA wants to spend on the current
station in a single year.

   Could the Smithsonian-based Skylab be made spaceworthy?  The engineers
clearly think so, but they don't go into much detail.  They do explain how
to launch the massive, one-piece station, which is too large to fit on the
space shuttle:  either build a new heavy-lift vehicle (the Saturn V, maybe?)
or buy a rocket from either the Soviets or the Europeans.

   Although the engineers appear to be serious, don't count on official
Washington paying much attention to them.  A spokesperson for the National
Space Council said the council had received the report a few days earlier,
but no one had bothered to read it."
 
    My own editorialization:

(1) Note that the Skylab in the Smithsonian was the backup unit; it currently
is in two pieces (I think) and has lots of holes drilled into it for the
installation of plexiglass dividers and supports.

I'm sure Burns would know for sure, but I believe that the Skylab on display in
Washington was not intended as a backup unit but as a real flight article.  The
placards on it say that if the Skylab rescue mission had failed, NASA was 
prepared to launch the second station.  I distinctly remember feeling completely
depressed that such an amazing machine was sitting on the ground with a hole
cut in its side for visitors to walk through.  Not that I support this silly
proposal...

re .13:  "Burns would know for sure"??   Thanks, but my memory for details is
somewhat questionable.  I also remember that there was talk of launching
the backup.  I don't know for sure whether it is that self-same backup which
is in the ASM or not.  It would not surprise me, though.

Burns

Article: 893
From: findley@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey N. Findley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Apollo rescue vehicle for Skylab missions
Date: 22 Jan 92 20:46:54 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
 
In article <w72r_j+@rpi.edu> strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

>	While we are discussing resurrecting old hardware, what about
>the Apollo CSM, or more specifically, the design proposed for a Skylab
>rescue.  That has a capacity of 5 people (2 crew, 3 passengers).  I
>don't think metal was ever built for it, but I know the plans are out
>there.  Leik Myrabo here at RPI proposed using it for his Apollo
>LightCraft.
 
Actually, hardware was built.  The Skylab rescue vehicle was identical
to the Skylab/Apollo CSM with two additional crew couches and life
support hook-ups below the three original crew couches.  Between the
additional crew couches was a locker (or something similar) to hold
valuable materials to be returned to Earth.  For the Skylab missions,
there were four separate Saturn IB launch vehicles and Apollo-type
CSM's.  While the first CSM was in orbit, the one for the second
mission would have been used for the rescue mission, if it was needed,
by putting the extra couches in the CSM.  The third mission's CSM was
the rescue capsule for the second Skylab mission, and the fourth CSM
was the dedicated rescue vehicle for the third Skylab mission.  In
this way, only one launcher and vehicle was needed in a flight ready
condition while Skylab was manned. 
 
I believe the fourth launcher/CSM was eventually used for the
Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975. 
 
On a side note, my seinor design project (done in groups of five) is
to design a Personal Launch System (PLS).  This would be similar to
the HL-20 design looked at by NASA.  It would have a capacity of 2
crew with 8 passengers for a total of 10 people on board.  It's
primary mission would be crew rotation for Fred, with a secondary
mission as a rescue vehicle for a stranded shuttle.  Low initial and
per-flight cost is being emphasized. 
 
             Jeff Findley
               Aerospace Engineering Senior
                 Purdue University

Article: 81871
From: loss@husky.bloomu.edu (Doug Loss)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: 1994 Asimov Seminar
Date: 24 Jan 94 20:23:32 GMT
Organization: Bloomsburg University
 
The Asimov Seminars
 
Press Release:  For Immediate Release
 
  Astronaut Joins Seminar Advisor Panel
 
Dr. William Pogue, Skylab 4 astronaut and space program consultant,
has agreed to serve as an advisor for the 1994 Isaac Asimov
Seminar, The Development of Space. The seminar will be held at The
Rensselaerville Institute August 6-10, 1994. Bill's background
includes piloting the third Skylab mission and he has been a
independent consultant to the space program for over ten years.
 
On November 16, 1973, Bill, along with fellow astronauts Jerry Carr
and Ed Gibson, launched for the third and final manned visit to
Skylab. The crew spent the next eighty-four days orbiting the
Earth, during which time Bill completed two space walks. On
Christmas day, 1973, Bill and Jerry Carr set a new record for the
longest EVA (just over seven hours). Bill left NASA in 1977 to
pursue a new career working as an independent contractor to
aerospace and energy companies. This has included work on several
advanced technology and future mission studies. He is working
currently with the Boeing company in support of the Space Station
Freedom Project.
 
The seminar advisor panel will also include Ben Bova, renowned
science fiction author and past editor of Analog and Omni
Magazines, and Byron Lichtenberg, a NASA mission specialist. With
their help, the participants will find  the  best way to create
habitats, foster commercial concerns, and pursue scientific
endeavors in space. 
 
  Background
 
In 1972, world-renowned author Isaac Asimov thought that discussing
current technology and social topics with a group of interesting
and diverse people in a casual and beautiful rural setting might
make a great summer vacation. The Rensselaerville Institute, a non-
profit research organization located in the foothills of the
Catskill Mountains in Albany County, NY, invited Dr. Asimov to host
a four-day retreat. During this retreat, 50-70 people gathered to
think about the future of life in large cities.  This successful
event became one of the regular summer programs at the Institute.
Today, the program is still going strong.
 
Each year a different topic is chosen.  These topics will often
have a technological or scientifically based theme or be related to
science fiction or futurism. This relationship is not guaranteed.
Past themes have included the governing of a closed, limited colony
in space, bioengineering, the search for extraterrestrial
intelligence, treaties in space, global warming, artificial
intelligence, the human response to global-scale catastrophes, and
alternate histories.  Normally,  these topics are presented in a
manner that invites role-playing to a great extent.
 
The whole session is not taken up by work on the given topic,
however. There are plenty of opportunities for hiking, swimming,
boating, tennis, and other recreational activities. Occasionally
these activities include cross-country croquet and "Calvin ball." 
One evening  features an outdoor barbecue.
 
Although Isaac is no longer with us, his design and direction of
the seminar is maintained by a steering committee selected from the
participants every year. More information about the seminar and
this year's topic, "The Development of Space," can be obtained by
writing to the address below.
 
The Asimov Seminar          or call 1994 Steering Committee member
P.O. Box 54                 Don McGrain at (609) 629-3732, or send
Rensselaerville, NY 12147   e-mail to 71554.3331@compuserve.com.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Doug Loss                        Americans will accept your idea
Data Network Coordinator         much more readily if you tell them
Bloomsburg University            Benjamin Franklin said it first.
loss@husky.bloomu.edu
Voice (717) 389-4797

Article: 18485
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: slamkin@ollie.jsc.nasa.gov (Stephen Lamkin)
Subject: Re: Skylab 4
Sender: usenet@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News Client)
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 08:39:32 +0600
 
In article <2mkp0m$hb3@news.tamu.edu>, shahidb@cs.tamu.edu (Shahid A
Bhaidani) wrote:
> Could someone kindly tell me what was the launch date of skylab 4, duration
> of the mission, and the names of the crew members?  Thanx in advance.
 
Skylab 4 was launched on November 16, 1973 at 9:01 am EST, and landed
on February 8, 1974 at 11:17 am EDT. The mission lasted 84 days, 1
hopur, 14 minutes. 

The launch vehicle was a Saturn IB, using SA-208 and CSM-118.

The crew was Jerry Carr, Commander, Ed Gibson, Scientist-Pilot, and
Bill Pogue, Pilot. The crew was aboard for 1214 orbits of the earth.
They performed 4 EVAs for a total of 22 hours, 21 minutes. 
 
Reference: "Living and Working in Space: A History of Skylab".
Published in 1983 as part of the NASA History Series, (NASA Sp-4208).
Written  by David Compton and Charles Benson. - An outstanding book. 
 
Steve Lamkin

Article: 18510
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Skylab 4
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 14:01:43 GMT
Organization: University of Constance, Dept. of Physics
 
rstein%jscdm@jesnic.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
 
>Just in case someone asks: Skylab 1 was the launch of the
>Lab itself. The first Manned Skylab mission was Skylab 2. (I think)
 
The numbering of the Skylab (and Apollo-ASTP) missions apparently
never came to an official agreement.  Everything was clear until Apollo
17, but there are different naming schemes for the later Apollo cabins: 
 
1. Space Station Skylab (lauched unmanned by modified Saturn V):
   Skylab 1  OR  Skylab [w/o] any number
 
2. Skylab 1st manned mission:
   Skylab 2  OR  Skylab 1  OR  Apollo 18 (I also saw that)
 
3. Skylab 2nd manned mission:
   Skylab 3  OR  Skylab 2  OR  Apollo 19
 
4. Skylab 3rd manned misson:
   Skylab 4  OR  Skylab 3  OR  Apollo 20
 
5. ASTP Apollo CSM:
   Apollo 18               OR  Apollo 21  
   OR  Apollo ASTP (simply)
 
Especially uncomfortable is the nonuniqueness of the names Skylab 1-3
and Apollo 18. The first column seems to be somewhat dominant, but e.g. 
"Life in Space" used the second.  I'd prefer the safe title line given. :)
 
BTW I forgot if there were proper names (like Apollo 11 CSM = "Columbia")
  for the Skylab/ASTP spacecraft and if, where to find them. Also I remember
  that they has some pre-launch number. Can anyone help ?
 
  Hartmut Frommert             | Russia HAS a Space Station !
  <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> | Mars Observer 2 would have survived.

Article: 18516
From: dmckiss@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov (DAVE MCKISSOCK)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Skylab 4
Date: 23 Mar 1994 11:27 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
 
In article <phfrom.184.764431302@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>,
phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes... 

>The numbering of the Skylab (and Apollo-ASTP) missions apparently never came 
>to an official agreement. Everything was clear until Apollo 17, but there 
>are different naming schemes for the later Apollo cabins:
   <Skylab numbering schemes deleted>
 
According to the "NASA Historical Data Book, Volume III, Programs and
Projects 1969 - 1978," (NASA SP-4012, published in 1988), the
"Spacecraft/mission designation" for the launch of the Skylab facility
on May 14, 1973 was Skylab 1 (also called Skylab Workshop in "NASA
Pocket Statistics"). 
 
The data for the other launches is as follows:
 
Skylab 2
	Date of Launch:	May 25, 1973 (39B)
	Mission Designation: Skylab 2
	Spacecraft designation: SM-116
				CM-116
	Launch Vehicle Designation (class): SA-206 (Saturn IB)
 
Skylab 3
	Date of Launch: July 28, 1973 (39B)
	Mission designation: Skylab 3
	Spacecraft designation: SM-117
				CM-117
	Launch Vehicle Designation (class): SA-207 (Saturn IB)
 
Skylab 4
	Date of Launch: Nov 16, 1973 (39B)
	Mission Designation: Skylab 4
	Spacecraft designation: SM-118
				CM-118
	Launch Vehicle Designation (class): SA-208 (Saturn IB)
 
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project
	Date of Launch: July 15, 1975 (39B)
	Official mission designation: Apollo Soyuz Test Project (ASTP)
	Spacecraft designation: SM-111
				CM-111
	Launch Vehicle Designation (class): SA-210 (Saturn IB)
 
I assume part of the confusion in number is due to the changes in 
the number of flights in the Apollo program.  On June 11, 1969, Sam
Phillips (Director of the Apollo Program at NASA Headquarters) said
missions had been approved through Apollo 20. 
 
Six months later, on Jan. 4, 1970, because of budget cuts NASA
cancelled plans for Apollo 20 and stretched out the schedule for
Apollo 13-19 to 6-month intervals.  Eight months later, on September
2, 1970 (note, Apollo 13 flew in April 1970), NASA announced budget
cuts forced cancellation of the original Apollo 15-19 missions; the
remaining flights were designated Apollo 14 through 17. 
 
> BTW I forgot if there were proper names (like Apollo 11 CSM = "Columbia")
>  for the Skylab/ASTP spacecraft and if, where to find them. Also I remember
>  that they has some pre-launch number. Can anyone help ?
 
For the Apollo missions, the book shows the spacecraft name after the
designation.  For example, it lists the names of the Command Module and
Service Module for Apollo 16 as Casper and Orion, respectively.  No
names are mentioned for the Skylab/ASTP spacecraft, which would imply
no names were given to them. 

Article: 18607
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: jcm@cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Skylab 4
Sender: news@cfanews.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 17:52:58 GMT
 
Subject: Re: Skylab 4
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
References: <1994Mar22.153157.17083@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <phfrom.184.764431302@nyx
 
gary l. schroeder (schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov) wrote:
 
: No.  The Skylab missions were never referred to as "Apollo <x>".
: The correct mission designations are as follows:
 
: Skylab 1-     first crew to visit
: Skylab 2-     second crew to visit
: Skylab 3-     third and final crew (check the crew patches!)
: Apollo/Soyuz- Apollo/Soyuz Test Project (ASTP)
 
My understanding of this perennial issue is as follows:
 
The crew patches reflected the Public Affairs Office numbering of the
flights, 'first second and third crew' which is not the same as the
internal JSC designations for the flights, SL-2, SL-3, and SL-4. PAO
thought that having the first piloted crew be SL-2 would be too
confusing for the general public. Most technical and historical works
refer to the piloted flights as Skylab SL-2, etc., with the station
itself as Skylab SL-1. I believe that this should be considered
correct, and the crew patches as an anomaly. You are correct that the
designations Apollo 18, etc. are spurious. 
 
  - Jonathan McDowell
 

Article: 18608
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: jcm@cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: No Apollo-Soyuz callsigns?
Sender: news@cfanews.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 18:01:02 GMT
 
Subject: Re: No Apollo-Soyuz callsigns? (was Re: Skylab 4)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
References: <1994Mar22.153157.17083@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <phfrom.184.764431302@nyx
 
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey (higgins@fnalv.fnal.gov) wrote:

: In article <1994Mar24.205903.4114@bnlux1.bnl.gov>, schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (g
: > In article <phfrom.184.764431302@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> phfrom@nyx.uni-konsta
: >>BTW I forgot if there were proper names (like Apollo 11 CSM = "Columbia")
: >>  for the Skylab/ASTP spacecraft and if, where to find them. Also I remember
: >>  that they has some pre-launch number. Can anyone help ?
: >
: > No Apollo spacecraft had call signs following Apollo 17.  The call
: > signs were used specifically to distinguish between the CSM and LM
: > during radio communication.  Most good refernces refer to the actual
: > spacecraft by their production number, e.g. CSM-105, etc.
 
: Which suggests a question:  How did they distinguish the ASTP   
: (numberless) Apollo from the ASTP Soyuz (perhaps known as the SATP Soyuz)?
 
Should be the EPSA Soyuz (Eksperimental'niy Proekt Soyuz-Apollon) !
Callsigns used on ASTP were simply 'Apollo' and 'Soyuz'. The callsigns
'Almaz-1' and 'Almaz-2' were reportedly used by the Soyuz cosmonauts
after the joint part of the mission (Almaz was originally the personal
callsign of the late Pavel Belyaev, later adopted by Leonov who was
Belyaev's copilot). ASTP spacecraft were  Apollo CSM 111, Docking
Module DM-2, and Soyuz 7K-TM 11F615A12 No. 75. 
 
  - Jonathan McDowell
 

Article: 1263
From: gregw@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Greg Wilkins)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: SkyLab bits forsale!
Date: 28 Mar 1994 04:46:32 GMT
Organization: Telecom Australia - CSSC
 
I heard on the radio this morning that another large piece of SkyLab
has been found in the desert of Western Australia.   The guy who found
it is looking for a buyer (no idea of the asking price). 
 
It is a large Spherical Titanium O2 tank, covered in a kevlar mesh.  I
saw a similar one in the museum at Esperence and it is very
impressive, no dents just big round and impossible to move (and they
call it lightweight!). Apparently it has been sitting in the desert
for 14 years (was it that long ago?), but looks like it just fell from
the sky yesterday.  They described several crators where it hit and
bounced!!! 
 
If you are interested in owning your own big bit of SkyLab, the Radio
station was 2BL, on the Andrew Olie program.  I think their phone
number is +612 333 1234. 
 
-gregw
 

Article: 18691
From: "Ashot W Bakunts" <ashot@alexbank.msk.su>
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Some Skylab information
Date: 30 Mar 1994 13:30:51 +0400
Organization: unknown
Sender: newsserv@fagot.pczz.msk.su
 
Here is some information about Skylab missions:
 
Mission  Launch Vehicle  Launch - Landing       Crew            Backup Crew
 
Skylab 1    AS-513       14.5.73                 no                no
 
Skylab 2    AS-206       25.5.73-22.6.73  CDR: C.Conrad,Jr.   R.L.Schweickart
                                          PLT: P.J.Weitz      B.McCandlessII
                                          ScP: J.P.Kerwin     F.S.Musgrave
 
Skylab 3    AS-207       28.7.73-25.9.73  CDR: A.L.Bean       V.D.Brand
                                          PLT: J.R.Lousma     D.L.Lind
                                          ScP: O.K.Garriott   W.B.Lenoir
 
Skylab 4    AS-208      16.11.73-8.2.74   CDR: G.P.Carr       V.D.Brand
                                          PLT: W.R.Pogue      D.L.Lind
                                          ScP: E.G.Gibson     W.B.Lenoir
 
Rescue Skylab AS-209(?) never launched    CDR: V.D.Brand
                                          PLT: D.L.Lind 
____________
 
Ashot        <ashot@alexbank.msk.su>

 
Article: 18712
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Skylab 4
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 18:20:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
In article <phfrom.202.765012334@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes: 

>There might have been some reasonable logic: Weren't the CSMs of the manned
>Skylab flights those which were originally scheduled as Moon missions 
>Apollo 18-20 ?
 
Nope.  Apollo 17 used CM 114.  115 was never flown.  The Skylab crews
used 116-118, and 119 was the one held in reserve for a Skylab rescue
mission. And oh yes, ASTP used 111, slated for the *original* Apollo
15.  (The three cancelled Apollo flights were not 18-20, but 15, 19,
and 20.  15 was to have been the last of the "H" missions -- short
stay, no rover -- and so was an obvious candidate to be cancelled in
favor of keeping a third "J" mission.) 
 
Exactly why 115 vanished from the lineup, I'm not sure.  Maybe
somebody was hoping that money for one more lunar mission might be
found, and so wanted 115 preserved in a lunar configuration rather
than modified for Skylab use? 
 
>And wasn't the "official" pre-flight project name "Orbital
>Workshop", also "Apollo Applications Project (AAP)" occurring ? ... 
 
It started out as part of AAP (Apollo Applications Program, which 
for a while was a generic name for all later missions using Apollo
hardware, including advanced lunar missions), eventually ended up as
*all* of AAP, and was renamed Skylab once it became clear that this
situation was permanent, long before flight.  It had a number of
informal names en route, some of them including "workshop", but a
quick look doesn't find any evidence that it was ever officially
dubbed "Orbital Workshop". 
-- 
Critics have long said "NASA specializes| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
in pork"; now that's White House policy.| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
 

Hmmmm.  I thought that the Orbital Workshop was the "main" part of Skylab, as
opposed to the ATM (Apollo Telescope Mount).

Burns

Article: 2090
From: tfrielin@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu (Thomas J. Frieling)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Skylab Anniversary This Saturady
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 19:48:35
Organization: Bainbridge College
 
This Saturday, May 14, 1994 marks the twenty first anniversary of the
launch of the first US space station, Skylab. Perhaps we should all
take a moment to remember that we once did, for a brief shining
moment, actually have a manned space station. 
 
I was proud to stand in front of the VAB and watch the last Saturn V
thunder off Pad 39A to place the 200,000 lb station into orbit. And I
remember the disappointment when the news filtered out that there was
a problem with the solar panels that would delay the manned launch the
next day, thus dashing our hopes for seeing a Saturn V/Saturn 1B
launch doubleheader--the only one ever planned. 
 
I struck up a conversation with the guy next to me and it turned out
he worked on Skylab, doing something with the environmental control
system, as I recall. I asked him how long did it take to actually
build Skylab. He replied that they "laid the keel" sometime in the
fall of 1969 as best he could remember. This would jibe with the
decision to switch from the wet to dry workshop mode that was made
after Apollo 11 completed the moon landing goal, thus freeing a Saturn
V for Skylab. 
 
At the time, being not much more than a kid, I remember thinking why
did it take nearly four years to put the thing together? Heck, we'd
already been to the moon--how hard could a space station be? 
 
But, as I said, I was much younger then.  
 
Anyway, let's get out there and celebrate the memory of Skylab. For a
cobbled together kluge, it did OK for itself. Let's hope we can say
the same about Ralpha in another twenty one years. 

Article: 2099
From: ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Skylab Anniversary This Saturady
Date: 13 May 1994 14:21:37 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University
 
My dad worked on it at Plumb Brook, specifically with testing of the
separation of its shroud which was done it the big vacuum tank. They
had to ensure that it could be done cleanly w/out gunk from explosive
bolts etc damaging the lab, hence the need for a vacuum test. 
 
Some of the engineers were sailors so they constructed catch-nets for
the 3 or 4 shroud "petals" out of some off-the-shelf mainsheet line,
Harken ball-bearing blocks I believe, shock cord, Barient winches (but
with vacuum-rated oil!), and a big 6' deep ring of dock foam for the
pieces to land on. Dad felt they could have blown some money
engineering such stuff from scratch. 
 
I was in college at the time, got to walk into the tank when it was
all being set up. As Sylvester the Cat would say, it was "B-b-big!
Thtupendouth!! G-g-g-iant!!" Later he showed me some high-speed film
of the test, which went like clockwork I understand. 
 
>Anyway, let's get out there and celebrate the memory of Skylab. For a
>cobbled together kluge, it did OK for itself.
 
More kludging than many people know, perhaps. Yep, and a real shame to
see it fall.
-- 
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| David Daye   DAYE.1@OSU.EDU     | Given any set of circumstances,        |
| All opinions solely mine, etc.  |  they are against you.  -- Bolz' Law.  |
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------------+

My workstation has been named in its honor for many years.  What really
impressed me was the fact that after years of neglect, it could be reactivated
and put under active control for the last months of its life.  And as it made
its last orbit feeling more and more pressure from the atmosphere, it continued
reporting its condition to the ground.  I believe its last message indicated
that its only good solar wing had broken off.  Amazing.

Burns

    	Fifteen years ago today, Skylab was scattered over the Indian
    Ocean and Australia as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere.  Skylab
    just couldn't wait any longer for a Space Shuttle mission to put
    it back into a higher orbit.  
    
    	Larry
    

Article: 3732
From: rogerg7389@aol.com (RogerG7389)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: MOL
Date: 22 Jul 1994 23:24:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
 
In article <940717101246283@digcir.cts.com>, david.anderman@digcir.cts.com
(David Anderman) writes:
 
All of your questions about MOL will probably be answered this Fall in
QUEST - The History of Spaceflight Magazine. The Fall and Winter issues
will be devoted to MOL, photographs, diagrams, history, politics,
everything. I'm writing a history of the MOL version of Space Launch
Complex 6 at Vandenberg.
 
Gemini was modified - most of the life support supplies were deleted since
it was only going to be used as a ferry.
 
For sample issues of QUEST and subscription information, write to: Quest
Magazine, PO Box 9331, Grand Rapids, MI 49509-0331.
 
Article: 3733
From: rogerg7389@aol.com (RogerG7389)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: MOL
Date: 22 Jul 1994 23:28:09 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
 
In article <30bv6i$mtt@umd5.umd.edu>, jbytof@astro.umd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
writes:
 
MOL was canceled in June 1969 by President Nixon. At the time of its
cancellation, the first flight had been slipped out until at least 1972 or
almost into the Skylab era - it was decided that MOL's life sciences
functions would be better served by Skylab and most of its military value
has been taken over by unmanned reconaissance satellites.
 

Article: 3415
From: croth@omnifest.uwm.edu (Chris Roth)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Skylab 4 rescue vehicle prepared
Date: 9 Sep 1994 18:50:03 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
 
I remember, in 1974, seeing an issue of the CHICAGO TRIBUNE  Two
diagrams. One showed two CSMs docked to the Skylab cluster. A dramatic
painting, with a front page headline that read something like RESCUE
ROCKET PREPARED AS XXXX FAILS. 
 
And another diagram, this one a line drawing of a command module
redone to hold five men. 
 
Is my memory correct here...were they going to use the Apollo/Soyuz
ship to possibly rescue Skylab 4 by docking in the second port
(multiple docking adapter)? 
 
What was wrong with the spaceborne CSM....did they need the big engine
to get down? I recall that the reaction control system (quads) were
messing up. How were they messing up? Why doesn't this sort of thing
happen today? 
 
(I recall the men being told later that the splashdown wasn't
televised...they were bugged by this. Maybe they were told--my
speculation only--that the return would be televised? Probably
not...I'm guessing that they assumed it would be, given that the two
prvious manned missions were televised during splashdown.) 
 
Now: IF Apollo/Soyuz had been used to bring down the Skylab 4 crew,
who would've gone up? Was it two men in the side couches? And what
would've happened to the 1975 US/USSR linkup? 
 
--Chris Roth

Article: 3421
From: jamesoberg@aol.com (JamesOberg)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Skylab 4 rescue vehicle prepared
Date: 10 Sep 1994 13:20:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
 
In article <9409092350.AA15901@omnifest.uwm.edu>, croth@omnifest.uwm.edu
(Chris Roth) writes: who?
 
The "next-in-line" crew without science pilot would have flown a
rescue mission. For the second Skylab crew and their RCS leak, it
would have been Carr and Pogue. If a rescue of the last crew were
needed, it would have been their backup CDR/PLT, or Brand and Lind.
The third man on that backup crew knew this before Lind realized it,
and tried at one point to swap out official seat positions since Lind
was a pilot AND a scientist and was really more interested in science
activities. If it had worked out, that "rescue crew" might have turned
out to have been Brand and Lenoir. But it never came close to being
needed, or even decided on selection, so it's a real trivial history
footnote. But interesting! 
 
If the FIRST Skylab crew needed to be rescued, the rescue ship would
have been flown by Bean and Lousma. 
 
Article: 3428
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Skylab 4 rescue vehicle prepared
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 23:28:37 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
In article <9409092350.AA15901@omnifest.uwm.edu>
croth@omnifest.uwm.edu (Chris Roth) writes: 

>Is my memory correct here...were they going to use
>the Apollo/Soyuz ship to possibly rescue Skylab 4 by
>docking in the second port (multiple docking adapter)?
 
Not the Apollo/Soyuz CSM, but another -- they had CSMs to spare.  And
yes, there was a plan to mount a rescue mission if necessary during
Skylab, and at one point in the second mission (Skylab 3, not 4),
early preparations for a rescue were started. 
 
>What was wrong with the spaceborne CSM....did they
>need the big engine to get down? I recall that the
>reaction control system (quads) were messing up. How
>were they messing up? Why doesn't this sort of thing
>happen today?
 
Apollo could do a retrofire with its RCS in most situations, but that
was irrelevant in this case because there was never a problem with the
big engine.  The problems with the Skylab 3 CSM were in the RCS:  the
oxidizer tanks in two of the four RCS clusters ("quads") were leaking.
It was eventually decided that the problem was manageable, and rescue
preparations were called off.  As for why it doesn't happen today,
well, you don't hear much about it but it does:  the shuttle RCS
system has a history of minor leakage problems and other headaches,
and there have been serious proposals to redesign it with something
like LOX/alcohol, to at least reduce the problems caused when it leaks. 
 
>Now: IF Apollo/Soyuz had been used to bring down
>the Skylab 4 crew, who would've gone up? Was it two
>men in the side couches? And what would've happened
>to the 1975 US/USSR linkup?
 
Vance Brand and Don Lind, commander and pilot of the Skylab 3+4 backup
crew, would have flown it.  The modified CM had the shock absorbers on
the outside couches disabled, and passenger couches inserted
underneath.  The center couch retained its full shock-absorber travel,
in case a rescue mission was needed for medical evacuation.  (The
shock absorbers were heavily overdesigned for normal splashdowns, but
might have been important to an already-unwell man in an off-nominal
landing.)  I don't know offhand where the 2-man crew would have been
during launch, but they'd have been in the outside couches for reentry. 
 
As for what would have happened to Apollo/Soyuz:  Nothing much.  The
Skylab-rescue CSM was later used as the backup CSM for A/S, but never
actually flew, and there was at least one more spare available. 
-- 
"It was blasphemy that made us free."              |       Henry Spencer
                        -- Leon Wieseltler         |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Article: 3440
From: jamesoberg@aol.com (JamesOberg)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Skylab 4 rescue vehicle prepared
Date: 12 Sep 1994 07:38:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
 
In article <Cvxt7r.EIp@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) writes:

 <<Apollo could do a retrofire with its RCS in most situations>>
 
Henry, let me go check this, I'm not sure they had OMS/RCS interconnect in
those days. I'll post when I find out. That was one reason they could NOT
boost Skylab high enough at end-of-mission, they could only use the small
engines (big one could have hinged ATM  back up and hit Apollo), not
enough RCS prop left for serious orbt raise.