How Some Creative Hacking Kept Skylab From Becoming Space Junk (hackaday.com) 69
szczys writes: Skylab was close to becoming space junk. You may remember it crashing back to earth as space junk but that was after it was used for several research missions. What you probably don't know is that the original concept was to build it from a spent upper rocket stage that is normally just junked after launch. The module that was sent up in place of a 3rd rocket stage was damaged during launch, making it unusable until some very creative repairs paved the way for manned missions. The damage included problems with thermal shielding that turned it into an oven — nearly cooking all materials and supplies inside — and damage to solar panels which put a big hit on the station's power budget. Creative solutions and astronaut tenacity when docking and performing EVAs are all that saved Skylab from being scrapped without ever being used.
it became space junk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After it crashed, it was technically just junk. Or, according to the Shire of Esperance, litter.
Re: (Score:2)
Solving the power problem would prove to be a little more on the hackish side. Telemetry indicated that the surviving array was jammed with debris, and a plan was hatched to conduct a âoestand-up EVAâ through the CSM hatch to clear the blockage. But tools would be needed, and nothing in NASAâ(TM)s tool crib fit the bill. Looking for inspiration, engineers from Marshall Spaceflight Center raided a local hardware store and found a pole-mounted tree pruner. A flurry of calls to local manufacturers resulted in selecting a cable cutter and a prying tool from a company manufacturing tools for, ironically enough, the power industry. The tools were quickly modified, mounted to a collapsible 3 m pole, and shipped to the Cape.
The article is about things like this. Space is unforgiving . Things can and do happen. And at times it comes to "hacking the s**t out of space" .
Re: (Score:3)
Using a bit of creativity to fix something which can't be repaired or put together in a standard way, is exactly what "hacking" is. Both in the original hardware sense & in the software sense.
See: "To hack something together"
RIP Sally (Score:4)
Well she was walking all alone
Down the street in the alley
Her name was Sally
I never touched her, she never saw it
When she was hit by space junk
When she was smashed by space junk
When she was killed by space junk
"In New York, Miami beach
Heavy metal fell in Cuba
Angola, Saudi Arabia
On Christmas eve", said Norad
A soviet sputnik hit Africa
India, Venezuela, in Texas, Kansas
It's falling fast Peru too
It keeps coming, it keeps coming, it keeps coming
And now I'm mad about space junk
I'm all burned out about space junk
Walk and talk about space junk
It smashed my baby's head, space junk
And now my sally's dead, space junk
Re:MIR (Score:4, Insightful)
Mir was launched 13 years after Skylab. Big surprise it was more advanced.
Re:MIR (Score:4, Informative)
MIR was leaking oxygen and had several fires. Most of MIR was completely uninhabitable for most of its life.
Mir was occupied by humans for 12.5 years out of it's 15 year life.
It was designed for a 5 year lifespan, which was extended by 10 years. While in orbit, Mir suffered some mishaps, and it was an old and dilapidated beast in the end, but as successes go, it was one hell of a good one.
Re: (Score:2)
it's means it is
it's is a possessive. Mir possesed it's 15 year life.
Re:MIR (Score:5, Informative)
Mir was launched 13 years after Skylab. Big surprise it was more advanced.
Why let facts get in the way of America bashing?
The Soviet Union launched four space stations, starting in 1971, before Skylab went up in 1973 (not including prototypes and tests). Of course Skylab spent more time in orbit than the first five Salyut stations, Komos 557, and DOS-2 stations combined. And it wasn't until Salyut 7 (launched in 1982) before they kept a station in orbit for a longer period. Stupid piece of junk Skylab
Skylab had a puny 360 sq meters of pressurized volume. Until Mir, the largest pressurized volume in a Soviet space station was 100 sq. meters. But Mir dwarfed Skylab with it's 350 sq. meters of pressurized volume. Oh, wait. Crappy American space station.
I read about the reason, on the net, why America gave up on Skylab-B. Apparently they couldn't get the time machine working to get Pentium processors for the computers before Mir was launched. True story.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really just Nixon bashing for cutting the NASA budget, no need to be so thin skinned.
The incredibly stupid thing is there were enough bits of Saturn V to run missions to keep the thing up for quite a few more years but no budget to use them for anything other than extremely expensive museum exhibits.
Re: (Score:1)
Would you use a Saturn V just to get to/reposition Skylab? I don't know enough about space systems, but I would think if there were extra Saturn V parts lying around you would save them for something more substantial?
??
Handshake in space! (Score:2)
Nixon's Handshake in Space was also a huge waste of good hardware!
Use it or lose it (Score:2)
Why? They are completely useless as launch vehicles without the people and infrastructure required to launch them. After a couple of years that was beyond easy recovery, after a few more beyond anything short of a major rebuild, now they are just a monument to what we used to be able to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it would be obvious but maybe you are short of sleep or something so didn't fully comprehend what I had written.
Re:Debris killed girl in Austrailia (Score:4, Informative)
No it didn't. Nobody was hurt by Skylab debris. It landed in the middle of nowhere, specifically the Great Australian Desert. Yes the esperence council fined NASA for littering but it was done as a publicity stunt and it was NEVER paid by NASA. It was paid by funds raised by a radio show host in 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
The girl, her injuries, coma, and subsequent death, are all matters of the public
record.
Citation please
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. A quick search reveals debris landed near Esperance, Australia, but no mention of anyone being injured.
I doubt anyone was. Newsweek reported people went to the town of Balladonia, but no mention of anyone being injured by falling debris.
Bravo Sierra
Re: (Score:2)
Total BS. Pull the drapes together when you leave your mom's basement to take your yearly shower.
Which is a waste of time. She isn't going to be at the Starbucks you agreed on. More for you to spend on that Christmas gift card.
Re: (Score:1)
It was actually a toilet seat, they made a whole documentary TV show and movie about it. It had some pretty funny parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for mentioning dear George Lass. That was seriously the best TV show I've ever watched.
Re: (Score:2)
And it was Mir, not Skylab. The accusation strikes of Russian propaganda, trying to blame an American space station for the death that their own space station caused. Shame on them. :-D
RIP Sally (Score:2)
Well she was walking all alone
Down the street in the alley
Her name was Sally
I never touched her, she never saw it
When she was hit by space junk
When she was smashed by space junk
When she was killed by space junk
And now I'm mad about space junk
I'm all burned out about space junk
Walk and talk about space junk
It smashed my baby's head, space junk
And now my sally's dead, space junk
Re: (Score:3)
As others noted, nobody was hurt.
I worked on the Teleoperator Retrieval System (TRS) which was a small booster with an Apollo docking ring that an astronaut would remotely pilot from the Shuttle. The docking ring was supposed to clamp onto the Skylab docking port and then the booster would either push Skylab to a higher orbit or perform a controlled de-orbit. It was initially scheduled to fly on the 5th Shuttle. Then as the Shuttle main engines were being debugged at Stennis, it was scheduled for the 4th, t
I remember Skylab crashing down (Score:2)
At the time I was about 9 I suppose. I recorded the live news coverage of the event from TV on a cassette recorder. It was a pretty big deal. No 24 hour news channels at the time. All three of our channels were covering the crash down live preempting all of the normal daily shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Pete Conrad saved Skylab (Score:2)
Sure, he had a lot of help, but he was the person who physically heaved on one of the stuck solar panels until it deployed.
I once had the opportunity to speak with Conrad for a couple of hours during breakout time at a meeting we were both at. He's probably better known for the Apollo 12 mission, where he set down the LM a short walk from the Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon a couple of years prior. To me, especially at the time, that was a more significant achievement than Aldrin and Armstrong's -
I processed some Skylab data (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in my misspent youth, when I was cutting my hacking teeth, I processed some Skylab multispectral scanner data.
The scanner at first seemed an oddball: Instead of sweeping crossrange while the lab orbited, it swept in a cone-shaped fan somewhat forward of the flight path.
"Why?" you may ask. (I did, too.) Because that way the line-of-sight always passed through the same amount of atmosphere at the same angle from zenith (though at different angles to the sun - which you'd have gotten anyway, though differently). This equalized the absorption, and thus the spectral distortion, of the light from pixels at different distances from the flight track. Very cute.
It also made the scan artifacts on the geometry-corrected output into a series of arcs. Very odd looking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:2)
It's a fucking tech site; you'd think we could at least agree here that "hacking" is not the same thing as "repairing".
And for God's sake, attaching a tool at the end of 3m pole to clear some debris isn't hacking in ANY sense.
Letting it de-orbit (Score:3)
We spend gazillions of dollars to build stuff, and then via neglect, let it burn up, essentially setting cash on fire. After more than 100 Billion, in 2020, we're going to essentially do the same thing to the ISS.
We've followed the same pattern as Skylab -- we launch a space station, and then, because we don't have a working launch system, have no way to get to the thing, so we let it fall and burn up.
After putting up Skylab, we ended Apollo. Then there was a huge delay getting the Shuttle to work, so, we let Skylab fall. There was talk about launching something to shove into a higher orbit, but those plans were nixed.
Now we've got the ISS, and guess what, we ended the Shuttle and there's the same huge delay to get the next launch system working. So we're going to let the ISS fall and burn.
It seems wasteful. You would think at least the solar panels or other equipment could be joined together or repurposed. If we can't tie together bits and pieces of things that are already in space, we will never learn to build anything significant in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Due to micrometeor damage, there isn't much use to the items after the end of their life. I suppose we should boost the ISS to a higher orbit, if as nothing more than a museum, but it is just not worth keeping up there to continue using it.