home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!torn!utzoo!henry
- From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
- Subject: Re: Saturn lift capabilities
- Message-ID: <C03t5o.J7n@zoo.toronto.edu>
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:17:46 GMT
- References: <72595@cup.portal.com> <1hsighINNich@mirror.digex.com> <C03BKr.Dt3@zoo.toronto.edu> <1992Dec31.010256.4062@ee.ubc.ca>
- Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <1992Dec31.010256.4062@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes:
- >Although items such as food and clothing could have been replenished
- >rather easily, I'm under the impression that oxygen and nitrogen could
- >not. Skylab was essentially designed as a "throw-away" workshop...
-
- Basically correct. Resupply undoubtedly could have been done, if you
- were willing to work hard enough, but Skylab wasn't really designed
- for it. Actually, even food and clothing were mostly pre-stocked aboard
- Skylab, because the Apollo CSM as flown for Skylab did not have a very
- large payload capacity. The biggest difference between Skylab and Mir
- is that Skylab lacked any equivalent of the Progress unmanned freighters.
-
- Skylab would also have needed substantial repairs for long-term use;
- things were failing, like its momentum wheels.
-
- It would have been fairly straightforward to fly one or two more crews,
- but keeping it habitable in the long term would have been harder. Even
- when NASA was planning to reboost Skylab on an early shuttle mission,
- there weren't any very specific plans to use it again.
- --
- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
- -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
-