Saving Skylab with ASTP

[Panel]

Could the CSM from Apollo Soyuz test project have been used to boost Skylab's orbit? The inclinations were only off by about 1.7 degrees, and Apollo was meant to brake into lunar orbit. 

[Bill Phil]

They launched with less fuel onboard Apollo. By a huge margin. They did that to allow for the docking adapter.

Not only that, but inclination isn't the only factor... There's the longitude of the ascending node and the argument of Periapsis. Rendezvous could potentially take kilometers per second of deltav.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Bill Phil

[fredinno]

Also, they thought Skylab was going to last well into the early '80s anyways, and since the Shuttle was to first launch in '79, that left a margin in time by a few years.

They were wrong.

[Nibb31]

Saving Skylab was always a bit of a low-priority side project. It had supplies for another mission, but it really wasn't designed for long life. They expected that the interior would be invaded by bacteria and mould by the time the Shuttle went to visit, so it might not have remained habitable. They also needed to design a docking module for the Shuttle and an airlock because Apollo and Shuttle used different air pressures and compositions, as well as systems for resupplying water and fluids.

[KerbonautInTraining]

They would have done it on previous Skylab missions but they had no idea if the docking port could handle the thrust.

They designed it to push the relatively light lunar module when the command module was stuffed full of fuel, not a giant space station when the CSM was nearly empty. 

(I'm not saying this was the only reason, just adding on to what others have said)

Edited May 6, 2016 by KerbonautInTraining

[insert_name]

Skylab wasn't the best station, it's solar panel extended during the launch, I think NASA wanted to replace Skylab but Congress had other ideas

[Bill Phil]

4 hours ago, insert_name said:

Skylab wasn't the best station, it's solar panel extended during the launch, I think NASA wanted to replace Skylab but Congress had other ideas

Skylab was pretty good, but it wasn't capable of resupply without major modifications or a logistics module of some sort. The other issue is compatibility. The shuttle orbiter used different docking ports and had a different cabin pressure. Plus, some other issues would've needed solving as well.

[fredinno]

23 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Saving Skylab was always a bit of a low-priority side project. It had supplies for another mission, but it really wasn't designed for long life. They expected that the interior would be invaded by bacteria and mould by the time the Shuttle went to visit, so it might not have remained habitable. They also needed to design a docking module for the Shuttle and an airlock because Apollo and Shuttle used different air pressures and compositions, as well as systems for resupplying water and fluids.

They spent quite a bit of work on it for a low priority side project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#Shuttle_mission_plans

[Nibb31]

4 minutes ago, fredinno said:

They spent quite a bit of work on it for a low priority side project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#Shuttle_mission_plans

Not really. Those were just paper studies for a mission. NASA's main focus was on the Shuttle program, which didn't even have a docking port or an airlock at this stage.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Nibb31

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Not really. Those were just paper studies for a mission. NASA's main focus was on the Shuttle program, which didn't even have a docking port or an airlock at this stage.

Quote

 

Ground controllers re-established contact with Skylab in March 1978^[20] and recharged its batteries.^[23] Although NASA worked on plans to reboost Skylab with the Space Shuttle through 1978 and the TRS was almost complete, the agency gave up in December when it became clear that the shuttle would not be ready in time;^{[3]:363–367[17]} its first flight, STS-1, did not occur until April 1981. Also rejected were proposals to launch the TRS using one or two unmanned rockets^[16] or to attempt to destroy the station with missiles.^[22]