Article View: sci.space
Article #6590Re: Saturn lift capabilities
From: Brian Stuart Thorn
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:11
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:11
24 lines
1498 bytes
1498 bytes
>A question: was a fully fueled CSM, flown in the ASTP launch inclination,
>capable of reboosting Skylab? Was it structurally feasible? If so, when
>was the decision made not to reboost after the AST-part of the mission was
>over?
>---
>Gerald Cecil
Structurally feasible, yes, at least on the SkyLab side of the dock.
The TRS was supposed to reboost Skylab using this port.
The decision not to send an Apollo to reboost SkyLab was made almost
entirely on the premise that Shuttle would be flying long before
Skylab deorbited. But Shuttle was late and atmospheric expansion in
that Solar Maximum was greater than expected. End result: chunks of
Skylab in the Australian outback.
-Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven."
-Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<72595@cup.portal.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!BrianTReferences:
<Bzuvrp.9z9@zoo.toronto.edu> <1992Dec29.175754.24170@samba.oit.unc.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!BrianT From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Saturn lift capabilities Message-ID: <72595@cup.portal.com> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 21:11:00 PST Organization: The Portal System (TM) Distribution: na References: <Bzuvrp.9z9@zoo.toronto.edu> <1992Dec29.175754.24170@samba.oit.unc.edu> Lines: 24