Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Skylab vs the ISS
      #6241043 - 12/08/13 03:41 PM

Isn't there any research, or actually ANYTHING, done on the ISS that could not have been done on the Skylab?
Perhaps even on a much cheaper Salyut station and Chinese derivatives?
Why justify then the exorbitant cost of the ISS?

Is there anything less rational than to say that the ISS was designed for the space shuttle, and the space shuttle was designed for the ISS?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6241226 - 12/08/13 05:41 PM

CAN OF WORMS ALERT!!!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
The Mighty Mo
professor emeritus


Reged: 10/12/13

Loc: South of North, North of South...
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #6241235 - 12/08/13 05:44 PM



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jay_Bird
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 01/04/06

Loc: USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: The Mighty Mo]
      #6241305 - 12/08/13 06:17 PM

Learning to build in space vs. unfold Skylab. Skylab did offer some repair experience.

Flying crews of more than 3.

Having a purpose-designed station architecture?

Otherwise, maybe not so much difference, but an assemblage of Skylab modules, if Saturn technology had been used, starts to become more like the ISS and dilute the cost difference implied in the question.

The other part of you cost question is the STS shuttle. Maybe it ate up more money than ISS?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: Jay_Bird]
      #6241349 - 12/08/13 06:53 PM

I can't be bothered to actually, you know, look things up, but my current impression is that ISS has more electric power available than Skylab. It certainly has more docking ports, and the robot arm and truss design gives it more flexibility, I believe. That said, keeping Saturn V around and launching multiple Skylab-style modules for a single giant space station would have thrilled me no end.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
herrointment
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 03/12/11

Loc: North of Hwy. 64
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6241372 - 12/08/13 07:03 PM

Time marches on.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: Jay_Bird]
      #6241412 - 12/08/13 07:30 PM

Quote:

Learning to build in space vs. unfold Skylab. Skylab did offer some repair experience.



Right, but 2 Skylabs could be joined together, and also there was an Apollo/Soyuz rendez-vous and joined mission that proved that it could have been possible to assemble the big Russian Salyut stations with a Skylab: good for Assemblage technology, good for international relations, and good for cultural diversity, which certainly everybody with an open mind supports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo-Soyuz_Test_Project
(as opposed to US tax-payer build ISS entirely served with Russian ships because the US is flat broke)
Oh and the cost? 1 (one!) billion dollar
Program cost?
Quote from wiki:"The United States spent $245 million on Apollo-Soyuz, or $1 billion in 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars.[16]"
=Peanuts, when you recall that the US is now printing 85 billions every months.
Quote:

Flying crews of more than 3.



yes but it's the complexity of the iss that requires that. Otherwise, a skylab crew of 3 is more than enough.

What are we doing there anyways? growing cristals in space, not new. Breeding drosophila or worms to see how well they adapt to zero gravity? not new. What else?

Quote:

Having a purpose-designed station architecture?



In the 70's it was science in zero gravity, and medicine of long flight in low or zero gravity. Anything new?


Quote:

The other part of you cost question is the STS shuttle. Maybe it ate up more money than ISS?



yep


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starlon
super member


Reged: 04/18/06

Loc: desert, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6241892 - 12/09/13 12:39 AM

First thing - Skylab was a product of the 1960's. The 'finalized' sketch, lol,drawn in felt tip pen, was in August 1966. It is amazing, the length of time back - almost half a century! So, these images may surprise the younger people who weren't even born when this 100 ton, about 12,000 cu ft space station was launched - all in one shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awe6vOXURpY

Shades of 2001, A Space Odyssey.. and the comments at the link - one says: "My God, look at the size of the free space inside the station. That is HUGE." Another says.."that's such a pity. This could have advanced everything so much further forward:-(" and another: "It amazes that Skylab sometimes gets lost amid the Apollo fuss... you mention it to teens or kids now, and they have never even heard of it. Such a shame, because we did some amazing science on that space station, and learned a lot about life in weightlessness..."

Yep, big enough to run around like the guys on 2001 inside their spacecraft. Also, it was big enough to fly inside, testing the maneuvering unit.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqDz1r_THo

Salyut = 3,500 cubic feet.

Quote:

Isn't there any research, or actually ANYTHING, done on the ISS that could not have been done on the Skylab?




Sure - but we were cheated out of the future we nearly had, more like, a LOT more like, the future people dreamed of. For instance, did you ever see a gas-turbine car.. on the street? I did. They had a few loaned out to be driven by average people: http://www.google.com/imgres?safe=off&hl=en&biw=1440&bih=780&...,r:4,s:0,i:93&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=178&tbnw=274&start=0&ndsp=22&tx=175&ty=104

But - that was 50+ years ago! And of course, it was quickly stopped. IF it had been in mass production, or planned for that, the car would have been greatly refined - years ago. But, all of the things we didn't get to see and have in our everyday lives have been shunted off into oblivion. And we are living under the thumb of a 'new urbanism' multinational corporate syndicate.

It is hard to imagine how far we would have come, the technology we could have. The diseases we could have cured. The type of houses we should have built. We know how to do so very much better!!! We have been cheated... I didn't mean to get into this. It is because of the prolonged research that I wound up doing a few years ago, I was soooo incensed at what has become of our country! And having the will and the wherewithal to do so - I did. And it is like.. finding out much more than I wanted to. But I couldn't stop!

Skylab was the last gasp we had. The engineers knew it. And von Braun knew it. But - we had great plans for - ah, at least 2 bases on the Moon. One on the far side for radio astronomy. And of course Mars manned missions. But - that was because men - people in NASA & many many more, had it in their blood!! Progress!! A word not in use these days.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
johnsshipp
member


Reged: 10/29/12

Loc: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: Starlon]
      #6241943 - 12/09/13 01:46 AM

Just watched that video. Utterly amazed. I fall into the category of young people who don't know much about Skylab. I'd heard of it but I had no idea of the size. It makes me sad to see it all wasted. I don't see how anybody could argue that a station like that could ever be less effective than the ISS. Don't get me wrong, I like the ISS too but it looks like the tubes my hamster plays in compared to Skylab.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mister T
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/01/08

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: johnsshipp]
      #6242077 - 12/09/13 06:13 AM

considering skylab is now remnants scattered across the globe...

I'd say, pretty much everything!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: Mister T]
      #6242273 - 12/09/13 09:53 AM

Yes Skylab was big, I visited the replica in the Space & Air museum in Washington.
Old ? perhaps, but keep in mind that from an engineering point of view, an old concept can still prevail over a new one. Like a bike, invented in the 18th century and powered by human muscles, is still a superior concept than a bike powered by a nuclear reactor. What would justify the extra complexity and cost of a nuclear reactor on a bike, what would be the point?
Retrofitted with new materials and computers, perhaps with an inflatable attachable module, the 'Skylab' concept of a space station serviceable with 3 men at a reduced cost, is far superior in my opinion to the overly complex ISS.
That is, unless the research done requires something as big as the ISS, which is not the case.
In fact, the same kind of research done in the 70's (physic of material, crystallization of proteins, physiology in near-zero gravity or long duration) is still carried out now. The new Chinese Salyut-equivalent stations, which are even smaller than skylab, can do that, and probably will do it, for 50 million $ instead of 400 billion $, including 'amazing videos of orbital flight' to be posted on U-Tube, if that's the goal of a space station.
The ISS is not a launch platform, it doesn't have the structural strength to do interplanetary flight and can't be converted to a space ship, it was never used to test physiology at 0.33g with the installation of a centrifuge, it was not used to test space interferometry and the flight in formation of 'flying' mirrors, and it will fall back in the ocean soon or later, an maybe sooner than later.
Its only credit is to demonstrate the technology of assemblage of dozen of elements in orbit.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: Mister T]
      #6242291 - 12/09/13 10:00 AM

Quote:

considering skylab is now remnants scattered across the globe...

I'd say, pretty much everything!




No, because the launch capacity of the US remained about the same with the shuttle system than with a saturnV: about 100 tons, i.e., one skylab equivalent, if you consider the orbiter's weight plus its load. So, a modernized skylab could have been launched, serviced with Atlas/ArianeV/Hermes class vehicles.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6242394 - 12/09/13 10:52 AM

You can't consider the orbiter's weight plus it's load. You can only consider cargo capacity.

With the upcoming SLS, the U.S. will in about a decade have the capacity to launch payloads greater than the Saturn V could, by about 12 tons. The BlockII SLS should have about 130 ton capacity to Low Earth Orbit, whereas the Saturn V could launch 118 tons.

It could not only launch habitats bigger than Skylab, thanks to ISS we now have a better knowledge of how to assemble them and how to use cranes and robotics in space. We also have Bigelow Aerospace designing inflatable modules that could be used as large-volume addons to a solid base module.

I don't think we should really look at it as a Skylab vs ISS kind of thing. Both are transitional steps toward allowing us to do practical work in space. Neither should be the final word. If we can get various governments off their respective duffs, (and the citizens that are supposed to motivate and judge them), we can continue to make progress in that area, and end up doing something useful.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6242439 - 12/09/13 11:24 AM

Quote:

You can't consider the orbiter's weight plus it's load. You can only consider cargo capacity.



The modification was proposed to make the shuttle (plus cargo) as the entire payload.

Quote:

With the upcoming SLS, the U.S. will in about a decade have the capacity to launch payloads greater than the Saturn V could...


yes, it Will.

Quote:

It could not only launch habitats bigger than Skylab, thanks to ISS we now have a better knowledge of how to assemble them and how to use cranes and robotics in space.



I wasn't clear enough: we don't need such big stations because the science done in there is the same science that can be done in a much smaller and cheaper Salyut station, and cost is part of the engineering design.

Quote:

We also have Bigelow Aerospace designing inflatable modules that could be used as large-volume addons to a solid base module.



Most likely for recreative space for billionaires. or Mars.

Quote:

I don't think we should really look at it as a Skylab vs ISS kind of thing. Both are transitional steps toward allowing us to do practical work in space...



What 'practical work', specifically?

Quote:

If we can get various governments off their respective duffs


unlikelly,
Quote:

(and the citizens that are supposed to motivate and judge them)


unlikelly, 50 millions americans on food stamps and possibly more if we consider a major financial crisis is still very possible. .

Quote:

we can continue to make progress in that area, and end up doing something useful.



The way forward...circularly.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6242447 - 12/09/13 11:29 AM

Put that into your equation:

from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program
Quote:

In the 2012 fiscal year, $74.6 billion in food assistance was distributed.[4] As of September 2012, 47.7 million Americans were receiving on average $134.29 per month in food assistance.[4] More than 15% of the U.S. population receive food assistance




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jay_Bird
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 01/04/06

Loc: USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6242552 - 12/09/13 12:28 PM

Well back in the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo “good old days” a LOT of things were different in terms of wages, middle class share of economy, and much bigger societal issues. There were a few wars in the mix too. There’s a LOT more that’s changed than food stamp statistic ‘talking points’.

The seldom-discussed economic background of Apollo was the dividend from the 1950’s that we spent in the 1960’s. “Ike” left “JFK” a nearly balanced budget (and tax rates 50% to 100% greater than present) and a top-secret surprise: there was no “bomber gap” or “missile gap” with the Soviets. We knew that thanks to Ike’s push to know what we were up against and the dedication of the Lockheed “skunk works” making the U-2 and pilots like Francis Gary Powers. The Red threat hyped in press political coverage was more of a “Potemkin Village” bluff, but we couldn’t say we knew that let alone how we knew that.

JFK also learned as President that we had rocket technology which had started slow during IGY, but was building speed with plans laid out conceptually through Saturn rockets to the Moon and Mars. Instead of spending billions on desparate defense catch-up as anticipated, we spent billions – when billions were bigger – back then at up to 4% of GDP for the race to the Moon. JFK deserves great credit for having the vision to use this technical and financial dividend for Apollo as an inspiring scientific and technological quest. He saw the potential in manned space flight for inspiration; while Ike supported the technology development and the first artificial satellites, he was skeptical that pushing harder with manned missions could become a series of 'stunts'.

For decades since Apollo, NASA was lucky to get 1% of GDP. I’d love to see a national STEM program that brought NASA back up to ½ of the Apollo era funding – making a “2% for space STEM” commitment – but that’s just adding another political digression to this thread.

I remember my chagrin at learning from my dad that the cool MOL "manned orbital laboratory" – one of the more memorable grade-school plastic model kits I purchased with chore money – had never been launched. MOL was a Gemini-Titan space station plan, much as Skylab was an Apollo-Saturn program. There were also ideas for unmanned or manned 'space tugs' in the Skylab and STS/ISS eras, maybe with MOL too, that were never built as orbital transfer vehicles.

Now I can at least take a little consolation that all technical development is never entirely wasted – it builds a knowledge foundation for future use, as we now see in ISS and plans for Falcon 9 Heavy, SLS Heavy Lift, Orion, Antares, even the private lifting body ISS supply and crew vehicle effort (dream chaser? – it’s about the same as NASA/USAF test vehicle at start of old 6 Million Dollar Man show, or an updated Dyna-Soar from MOL), etc. Astronaut Garriot wrote a book about his solar observations from Skylab –and I think what his crew learned about working in space, including going on “strike” against micro-management from the ground, applies every day to ISS. Now we also have a fleet of solar observatories in orbit that are beyond Skylab dreams.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6242761 - 12/09/13 02:19 PM

Quote:

Quote:

considering skylab is now remnants scattered across the globe...

I'd say, pretty much everything!




No, because the launch capacity of the US remained about the same with the shuttle system than with a saturnV: about 100 tons, i.e., one skylab equivalent, if you consider the orbiter's weight plus its load. So, a modernized skylab could have been launched, serviced with Atlas/ArianeV/Hermes class vehicles.




No, it was not the same, because payload is what has to be considered here only. The Space Shuttle had a limited lifting capacity of about 25 metric tons to low-earth orbit. The volume of the payload bay was also limited to 18 meters long by 4.5 meters in width. The Saturn V could put up to 120 tons in low Earth orbit, with a much wider payload width (6.6 meters in the case of Skylab's main section). However, a lot of the volume of Skylab was basically wasted, as it was just empty space where the astronauts could just float around (Skylab was built from an unused 3rd stage of the original Saturn V (SIV-B)). Skylab weighed-in at around 77 metric tons, so it would be beyond the lifting capacity of the Atlas V (30 metric tons maximum) and the Ariane 5 (21 metric tons), or even the proposed Falcon Heavy (53 metric tons). In any case, if you want to do experiments in orbit for cheap, it would make more sense to just use SpaceX's "Dragonlab" rather than build an entire station just to let astronauts do the experiments (unless you still want to do some really long-duration medical experiments as a prelude to manned flights to Mars). So much of ISS is just political policy driven rather than science driven, although there is some useful science coming out of ISS. Clear skies to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6243073 - 12/09/13 04:31 PM

Quote:

Quote:

You can't consider the orbiter's weight plus it's load. You can only consider cargo capacity.



The modification was proposed to make the shuttle (plus cargo) as the entire payload.




Which would have required the development of a completely new spacecraft. The shuttle was not designed to be a space station, although it could conduct a few of the same functions using carry-on modules. But to build a craft for long-term space residency and work, you'd need a dedicated facility, which the Space Shuttle was not. So your development costs would still be very high -- I'm not sure what the claimed advantages were.

Quote:


Quote:

It could not only launch habitats bigger than Skylab, thanks to ISS we now have a better knowledge of how to assemble them and how to use cranes and robotics in space.



I wasn't clear enough: we don't need such big stations because the science done in there is the same science that can be done in a much smaller and cheaper Salyut station, and cost is part of the engineering design.




If that's true, why were the Russians willing to sacrifice Salyut for the ISS? More capability is going to require a larger facility, it's as simple as that. The Keck telescope can't use a backyard shed.

Quote:


Quote:

We also have Bigelow Aerospace designing inflatable modules that could be used as large-volume addons to a solid base module.



Most likely for recreative space for billionaires. or Mars.



Among other things. The point is that it can be used by many, for many different purposes. Combined with an economical launch system, it might become practical for research institutions or universities to conduct experiments there.

Quote:


Quote:

I don't think we should really look at it as a Skylab vs ISS kind of thing. Both are transitional steps toward allowing us to do practical work in space...



What 'practical work', specifically?





Two things that come to mind without much thinking are manufacturing and as a refueling stop for reusable vehicles. A space station could be part of a tank farm that holds extras such as RP-1, methane, hydrogen, and LOX. Maybe even spare nitrogen and helium to re-pressurize depleted propellant tanks. For manufacturing you could fit a decent-sized furnace that might allow forays into material science that hasn't been done yet. You could combine a centrifuge that provides high G forces with a microgravity station to do types of processing that have never been done.

And there's the classic "way station" model that supports vehicles travelling to the Moon, Mars, or the asteroids. Passengers and supplies can launch to the space station, a craft from one of the remote destinations can rendevouz (using aerobraking in the upper atmosphere for the primary deceleration), and then restock and head out again. This way you can develop true space ships that spend their entire careers off-planet.

None of these are new ideas, and none of these have been tried and proven impractical. We just haven't attempted them. Now, the ability to do so is getting closer.

Quote:


Quote:

If we can get various governments off their respective duffs


unlikelly,
Quote:

(and the citizens that are supposed to motivate and judge them)


unlikelly, 50 millions americans on food stamps and possibly more if we consider a major financial crisis is still very possible. .




Unfortunately, you're probably right that it's unlikely. But to use poverty as a reason for a lack of social and governmental will is completely wrong-headed. The lack of will itself is wrong-headed. Space exploration has never been a drain on society or the economy, it's been a benefit. General cuts in space presence have never resulted in greater prosperity or less poverty.

That's true for scientific research across the board. Cutting off your hands never allows you to reach for better things, and it doesn't reduce your calorie consumption very much either.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6243203 - 12/09/13 05:38 PM

Refueling spaceships, maybe. But the Reference design missions to Mars don't make any use of the ISS.
You have a good point about an interplanetary 'shuttle' though.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6243450 - 12/09/13 07:38 PM

I'm not really impressed with the "reference design missions" to Mars. Those aren't much more than flag and footprints missions, a glorified Apollo.

And you're right, the ISS is not the proper staging point for any deep space mission. It would have to be a space station designed with that function in mind, in the proper orbit for it. The ISS orbit is too high an inclination, a concession to Russian participation.

The ISS is a learning tool. If we get a station with better capabilities, at that point I wouldn't mind seeing the ISS retired.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6243526 - 12/09/13 08:15 PM

Quote:

The ISS orbit is too high an inclination, a concession to Russian participation.



why, because their tracking stations on the ground can't follow equatorial orbit?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6243881 - 12/09/13 11:39 PM

Quote:

Quote:

The ISS orbit is too high an inclination, a concession to Russian participation.



why, because their tracking stations on the ground can't follow equatorial orbit?




No, so their Soyuz vehicles can launch to it from Baikonur at a latitude of about 46 degrees N.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6244325 - 12/10/13 09:36 AM

OK.
Why is it bad to be in a high inclination?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6244737 - 12/10/13 01:03 PM

Quote:

OK.
Why is it bad to be in a high inclination?





If you're observing Earth, it's fine. If you're hosting craft going out and returning from other solar system bodies, it's a bit of a problem because you're off the plane of the ecliptic. Your energy gain and geometry are less than optimal.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
buddyjesus
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 07/07/10

Loc: Davison, Michigan
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6257381 - 12/17/13 12:23 AM

smaller has been done. they will experiment with bigger. I would love to see a space elevator in my lifetime too. *fingers crossed*

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: buddyjesus]
      #6257925 - 12/17/13 11:09 AM

The thing I fear the most about the space elevator is having to listen to space elevator music all the way up and down.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: buddyjesus]
      #6258280 - 12/17/13 02:44 PM

Quote:

smaller has been done. they will experiment with bigger. I would love to see a space elevator in my lifetime too. *fingers crossed*



Those half mile long skyscrapers in Asia almost qualify.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
groz
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 03/14/07

Loc: Campbell River, BC
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: buddyjesus]
      #6258752 - 12/17/13 06:45 PM

Quote:

smaller has been done. they will experiment with bigger. I would love to see a space elevator in my lifetime too. *fingers crossed*




to build your space elevator you need to

a) Reach into the closet, and pull out a thousand tons of unobtanium
b) Launch it all up into geostationary orbit
c) Build some sort of shield so that it's never hit by a micro-meteorite
d) Shield the bottom so it's not whipped around by atmospheric currents (wind) at any altitude.


Pretty much guaranteed it'll never happen in your lifetime, or any other lifetime for that matter. The basic premise is fundamentally flawed. It relies on sending energy from the ground to the climber, in such a manner, it doesn't impact the actual tether. If you can aim an energy beam that strong, that accurately, you dont need the tether anymore, just beam the energy into a traditional winged vehicle. If it doesn't have to carry enough energy (fuel) to accelerate to orbital velocity, most of the difficult issues of launch vehicle construction just vanish from the equation. With an essentially unlimited energy source available, air driven propulsion can get you 99% of the way, and just a tiny bit of reaction mass required to stabilize the final orbit. And if energy supply is unlimited, just carry a little bit of air up with you to be the final reaction mass.

As far as some of the other issues of the tether go, just consider this. Did you ever play 'crack the whip' on skates as a kid ? Now consider the tether as 16,000+ miles in length, and, it's being pushed around at the bottom by different winds, and different altitudes, for the small portion in the atmosphere. That'll translate into waves going up and down the tether itself. Have you ever watched the video of 'galloping gertie' ?

Space elevator is the stuff of science fiction, and works real good, as long as you work in the 'ignore reality' premise.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: groz]
      #6258975 - 12/17/13 09:08 PM

The fact that it's untenable is the least of its problems. Even if you could build one, it simply wouldn't be all that practical. An orbital space ship that can actually go up and down and side to side, avoid space debris, retrieve and release other satellites, among other things, seems to me far more useful. And the price of access to space has already started coming down. With mass production and reusability of engines and launch vehicles and commercial competition between space companies, that price will be coming down even more, fairly quickly. I would bet that a Dragon or CST-100 or Dream Chaser visit to a Bigelow space station will be quite a bit more pleasant than swaying on a giant shakey lightning rod thousands of miles up.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6259713 - 12/18/13 09:39 AM

I think that the next (I)ST will be smaller/simpler than the present one.
Recently, yahoo news reported 'another' cooling problem in the ISS...
Perhaps the only thing to add would be a shield, for the space debris. How thick should it be?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6259830 - 12/18/13 10:49 AM

Firstsight, no need to apologize here. We were attacked by a troll, no doubt, and I recognize I fed him a little bit.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6260163 - 12/18/13 01:57 PM

The cooling problem in the iss not resolved. Now imagine Murphy's law strikes and a meteorite punctures a compartment. I assume the modules have self-sealing capabilities, but there must a be size limit to the hole that can be self-sealed. So let's assume a module completely depressurizes, in addition to the cooling problem, could the ISS survive that?

Edited by dickbill (12/18/13 01:58 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cliff C
member


Reged: 02/11/09

Loc: Long Island, NY
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: Starlon]
      #6260208 - 12/18/13 02:24 PM

As a side note to the "What Ifs", not only was Skylab much larger than what the shuttle could bring to orbit but the second stage of the Saturn V which hauled Sklab to orbit stayed in orbit itself for 2 years or so. Now if the first stage had been a bit lighter with uprated F-1s or some solid rockets had been used in the first stage we could in one launch had a Skylab connected to a huge Saturn Second stage "wet workshop" that could have been converted to a station with tremendous volume. Even three or four launches over the course of one or two years could have generated a 2001 Space Odyssey sized station many years ago for much less money. Oh well.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: Cliff C]
      #6260319 - 12/18/13 03:18 PM

what are made of these second stage, a thin skin of aluminium over a steel frame?
Could that be rigid/strong enough for a station?
I heard something similar for the shuttle 'tank'. But given the environment of space debris, I'd feel safer with a very thick external wall.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6260380 - 12/18/13 03:49 PM

It could have worked, but the tanks would have required lots of refurbishing, including adding solar panels, wiring harnesses, plumbing, furnishings, storage lockers, hatches...

It would have been cheaper to just build another module on the ground, furnish it, and launch it separately. Although the experience of learning how to do actual construction in space would have been valuable itself.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
groz
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 03/14/07

Loc: Campbell River, BC
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: Cliff C]
      #6260405 - 12/18/13 04:00 PM

All the nostalgia about skylab, folks seem to forget some of the details. Skylab was an unbearbly hot place for astronauts initially, due to cooling system failures. The fixes made later, made it 'just hot', but not a comfortable workplace.

The first mission, was essentially a repair mission, where various items damaged in launch were fixed, or where fix wasn't possible, jury-rigged as best as possible.

I know it's pretty easy for folks to wax nostalgic about skylab and it's series of missions. But, reality is, today if designing a space station and it's missions, looking back to skylab is done, as an example of 'how not to do it', not as an example of 'how to do it'.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: groz]
      #6260449 - 12/18/13 04:23 PM

Good point, groz. And with that missing solar panel, it never could develop the power it was designed for.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6260505 - 12/18/13 04:53 PM

Nuclear reactor plus Peltier cooler?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
obin robinson
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 10/25/12

Loc: League City, TX
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: dickbill]
      #6285895 - 01/01/14 04:14 PM

Quote:

Isn't there any research, or actually ANYTHING, done on the ISS that could not have been done on the Skylab?
Perhaps even on a much cheaper Salyut station and Chinese derivatives?
Why justify then the exorbitant cost of the ISS?

Is there anything less rational than to say that the ISS was designed for the space shuttle, and the space shuttle was designed for the ISS?




Skylab could do something which the ISS can not do. For what it's worth the ISS can not do what the Almaz could do either. You either know what I'm talking about or you need to do a bit more research into just what really was going on in space during the Cold War. The ISS is a cooperative mission with the goal of science. Skylab, the Space Shuttle, the MMU, Buran, Polyus, Almaz, and Salyut wasn't necessarily about science. The size and payload requirements for the Space Shuttle have nothing to do with science at all. There was plenty of other stuff going on which I find to be much more interesting.

obin


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: obin robinson]
      #6285946 - 01/01/14 04:38 PM

There's an opening at the NSA with your name on it.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
obin robinson
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 10/25/12

Loc: League City, TX
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6286016 - 01/01/14 05:18 PM

LOL! The information is all out there and it's UNCLASS. A trip to the book store or local library is all that is necessary. People just need to take the time to read it.

obin


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: obin robinson]
      #6286325 - 01/01/14 07:50 PM

What book would they be looking for?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Skylab vs the ISS new [Re: obin robinson]
      #6286349 - 01/01/14 08:03 PM

The USAF did want a manned station for their own use (MOL) but the program was canceled due to increasing budget concerns and the fact that spy satellite technology had advanced enough to render manned observation unnecessary. As far as I have been able to determine, Skylab did not directly conduct military missions. In fact, in 1974, the astronauts of Skylab actually screwed up by inadvertently photographing Area 51, which NASA had been specifically told not to do years earlier (once back on the ground, those images were immediately classified). About the only thing that I can find that might be remotely linked to military applications was the experimental manned maneuvering unit prototype (ASMU) that was tested inside the Skylab workshop. However, that went on to be used by NASA in the final form of the MMU for civilian applications. Yes, the Space Shuttle had some purely military missions, as did several of the Soviet Almaz space outposts. However, I can find no evidence that Skylab itself was ever deliberately used that way. Clear skies to you.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
1 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 1253

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics