Skylab reboost

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 1:58:55 AM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-08-11 21:44, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Could it have taken the thrust from the CSM main engine (which had the most
fuel available) or only the quads?

Wikipedia tells me that for Skylab, the CSM was partially fueled because
it was launched on Saturn 1B, not 5, so less patload capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo...Service_Module
"
The Low Earth Orbit payload capability of the Saturn IB booster used to
launch the Low Earth Orbit missions (Apollo 1 (planned), Apollo 7,
Skylab 2, Skylab 3, Skylab 4, and Apollo-Soyuz) could not handle the
66,900-pound (30,300 kg) mass of the fully fueled CSM. This was not a
problem, because the delta-V requirement of these missions was much
smaller than that of the lunar mission; therefore they could be launched
with less than half of the full SPS propellant load, by filling only the
SPS sump tanks and leaving the storage tanks empty. The CSMs launched in
orbit on Saturn IB ranged from 32,558 pounds (14,768 kg) (Apollo-Soyuz),
to 46,000 pounds (21,000 kg) (Skylab 4).!




More importantly, I am thinking of structural issues.

With main CSM engine firing, Would Apollo be able to push Skylab without
crushing the docking adpator?


Something I just realised. In "Apollo 13", we don't see any discussion
on whether the LEM could structurally push Apollo and CSM withough
stressing the docking adaptor. Was there such discussion, or was that
ability always part of mission requirements ?


nasa ended the appollo lunar program with leftover full saturn 5 stacks..

if they had planned for it the final skylab flight could of launched o a saturn 5, with a full fuel load, and had boosted skylab to a much higher orbit

heck they could of done this with the 2 complete saturn 5 stacks

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 06:17:27 -0700 (PDT), bob haller wrote:

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 1:58:55 AM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-08-11 21:44, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Could it have taken the thrust from the CSM main engine (which had the most
fuel available) or only the quads?

Wikipedia tells me that for Skylab, the CSM was partially fueled because
it was launched on Saturn 1B, not 5, so less patload capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo...Service_Module
"
The Low Earth Orbit payload capability of the Saturn IB booster used to
launch the Low Earth Orbit missions (Apollo 1 (planned), Apollo 7,
Skylab 2, Skylab 3, Skylab 4, and Apollo-Soyuz) could not handle the
66,900-pound (30,300 kg) mass of the fully fueled CSM. This was not a
problem, because the delta-V requirement of these missions was much
smaller than that of the lunar mission; therefore they could be launched
with less than half of the full SPS propellant load, by filling only the
SPS sump tanks and leaving the storage tanks empty. The CSMs launched in
orbit on Saturn IB ranged from 32,558 pounds (14,768 kg) (Apollo-Soyuz),
to 46,000 pounds (21,000 kg) (Skylab 4).!




More importantly, I am thinking of structural issues.

With main CSM engine firing, Would Apollo be able to push Skylab without
crushing the docking adpator?


Something I just realised. In "Apollo 13", we don't see any discussion
on whether the LEM could structurally push Apollo and CSM withough
stressing the docking adaptor. Was there such discussion, or was that
ability always part of mission requirements ?


nasa ended the appollo lunar program with leftover full saturn 5 stacks..

if they had planned for it the final skylab flight could of launched o a saturn 5, with a full fuel load, and had boosted skylab to a much higher orbit

heck they could of done this with the 2 complete saturn 5 stacks

I know some showed up at museums?? But where did they keep all these complete
Saturn V's even during the Apollo program? I can imagine some HUGE warehouse.

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 4:03:29 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 06:17:27 -0700 (PDT), bob haller wrote:

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 1:58:55 AM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-08-11 21:44, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Could it have taken the thrust from the CSM main engine (which had the most
fuel available) or only the quads?

Wikipedia tells me that for Skylab, the CSM was partially fueled because
it was launched on Saturn 1B, not 5, so less patload capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo...Service_Module
"
The Low Earth Orbit payload capability of the Saturn IB booster used to
launch the Low Earth Orbit missions (Apollo 1 (planned), Apollo 7,
Skylab 2, Skylab 3, Skylab 4, and Apollo-Soyuz) could not handle the
66,900-pound (30,300 kg) mass of the fully fueled CSM. This was not a
problem, because the delta-V requirement of these missions was much
smaller than that of the lunar mission; therefore they could be launched
with less than half of the full SPS propellant load, by filling only the
SPS sump tanks and leaving the storage tanks empty. The CSMs launched in
orbit on Saturn IB ranged from 32,558 pounds (14,768 kg) (Apollo-Soyuz),
to 46,000 pounds (21,000 kg) (Skylab 4).!




More importantly, I am thinking of structural issues.

With main CSM engine firing, Would Apollo be able to push Skylab without
crushing the docking adpator?


Something I just realised. In "Apollo 13", we don't see any discussion
on whether the LEM could structurally push Apollo and CSM withough
stressing the docking adaptor. Was there such discussion, or was that
ability always part of mission requirements ?


nasa ended the appollo lunar program with leftover full saturn 5 stacks..

if they had planned for it the final skylab flight could of launched o a saturn 5, with a full fuel load, and had boosted skylab to a much higher orbit

heck they could of done this with the 2 complete saturn 5 stacks

I know some showed up at museums?? But where did they keep all these complete
Saturn V's even during the Apollo program? I can imagine some HUGE warehouse.

they were tored in a clean rom environment till they were no longer needed. there were 3 stacks, although only 2 were totally space ready.

a real waste.

just one more saturn 5 launch could of kept skylab safe...........

and the skylab at the NASM in DC was space ready till it was cut apart for display

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 06:17:27 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 1:58:55 AM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-08-11 21:44, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Could it have taken the thrust from the CSM main engine (which had the
most
fuel available) or only the quads?

Wikipedia tells me that for Skylab, the CSM was partially fueled because
it was launched on Saturn 1B, not 5, so less patload capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo...Service_Module
"
The Low Earth Orbit payload capability of the Saturn IB booster used to
launch the Low Earth Orbit missions (Apollo 1 (planned), Apollo 7,
Skylab 2, Skylab 3, Skylab 4, and Apollo-Soyuz) could not handle the
66,900-pound (30,300 kg) mass of the fully fueled CSM. This was not a
problem, because the delta-V requirement of these missions was much
smaller than that of the lunar mission; therefore they could be launched
with less than half of the full SPS propellant load, by filling only the
SPS sump tanks and leaving the storage tanks empty. The CSMs launched in
orbit on Saturn IB ranged from 32,558 pounds (14,768 kg) (Apollo-Soyuz),
to 46,000 pounds (21,000 kg) (Skylab 4).!




More importantly, I am thinking of structural issues.

With main CSM engine firing, Would Apollo be able to push Skylab without
crushing the docking adpator?


Something I just realised. In "Apollo 13", we don't see any discussion
on whether the LEM could structurally push Apollo and CSM withough
stressing the docking adaptor. Was there such discussion, or was that
ability always part of mission requirements ?


nasa ended the appollo lunar program with leftover full saturn 5 stacks..

if they had planned for it the final skylab flight could of launched o a
saturn 5, with a full fuel load, and had boosted skylab to a much higher
orbit

heck they could of done this with the 2 complete saturn 5 stacks

I know some showed up at museums?? But where did they keep all these
complete
Saturn V's even during the Apollo program? I can imagine some HUGE
warehouse.


Keep in mind it's not like NASA accepted delivery of all 15 at once. Saturn
Vs weren't quite built "just in time", but NASA never had a huge number on
site.
Apollo 4 - SA-501 S-1C arrived at KSC 9/12/1966 launched 11/9/1967
Apollo 6 - SA-502 S-1C arrived at KSC 3/13/1967 launched 4/4/1968
Apollo 8 - SA-503 S-1C arrived at KSC 12/27/1967 launched 12/21/1968
Apollo 9 - SA-504 S-1C arrived at KSC 9/30/1968 launched 3/3/1969
Apollo 10 - SA-505 S-1C arrived at KSC 11/27/1968 launched 5/18/1969
Apollo 11 - SA-506 S-1C arrived at KSC 2/20/1969 launched 7/16/1969
Apollo 12 - SA-507 S-1C arrived at KSC 5/3/1969 launched 11/14/1969
Apollo 13 - SA-508 S-1C arrived at KSC 6/6/1969 launched 4/7/1969
Apollo 14 - SA-509 S-1C arrived at KSC 1/12/1970 launched 1/31/1970
Apollo 15 - SA-510 S-1C arrived at KSC 7/6/1970 launched 7/26/1971
Apollo 16 - SA-511 S-1C arrived at KSC 9/17/1970 launched 4/16/1972
Apollo 17 - SA-512 S-1C arrived at KSC 5/11/1972 launched 12/16/1972
Skylab SA-513 S-1C arrived at KSC 7/26/1972 launched 5/14/1973
SA-514 S-1C Never at KSC
SA-515 S-1C arrived at KSC 5/3/1969 launched
11/14/1969

They were all built at Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana.
That place is huge. I should have included here the dates of storage and the
like, but got tired of typing.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/satstg5.html


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net