NASA Study Summary- "Saturn V Single Launch Space Station and Observatory Facility"

[luke strawwalker]

Here's a study from 1967 by Boeing, detailing their proposals for single-launch Saturn V space stations, and various trades of station design elements and configurations, including both 21.6 foot (S-IVB sized) and 33 foot (S-II sized) space stations. There's some interesting graphics of the stations and their layouts, and the proposed LV's to launch them, along with the payload envelopes. Basically they were all designed for the INT-21, the two-stage Saturn V using an S-IC and an S-II upper stage. There's also mention on how to adapt their 33 foot space station designs for both 4 and 6 man Mars flyby missions with the appropriate additional propulsion, etc. These stations were to be serviced by enhanced Saturn IB's lofting a 6 man Apollo derived crew logistics vehicle, which is also briefly covered.

Interesting to see how this morphed into Skylab... Later! OL JR

[luke strawwalker]

Pic one is the baseline study config-- somewhat similar to Skylab in it's use of what's basically an S-IVB hull though the internal layout is completely different.


Pic two is the internal arrangement of the baseline station-- Boeing divided their station up into different 'decks'...


Pic three is an alternative design, where the Apollo logistics craft would dock to the sides of the station instead of either end. The ends would be occupied by instruments-- the "top end" (away from Earth) would have various solar and stellar telescopes and instruments, while the 'bottom end" would house and array of down-looking Earth resource and photography sensors. Boeing preferred the "bottom down" arrangement for their space stations over the 'on their side' (belly down) arrangement.


Pic four is the internal layout of the alternative design just shown


Pic five is another alternative design. This one would use integrate slot panels into the station design, to replace the S-II/S-IVB stage adapter atop the S-II propulsion stage lifting the space station, which would remain as part of the station and fold out to expose additional space for more instruments and equipment at the bottom end. The SLA slot panels at the front of the space station would also open to expose more instruments along the top of the station.


More to come! OL JR

[luke strawwalker]

Pic one is the internal arrangement of the last config shown in Pic five in the post above...


Pic two is a 33 foot diameter station design. The 33 foot design was preferred due to the larger deck space, requiring less 'switching' between decks.


Pic three is the internal layout of the 33 foot station...


Pic four is another 33 foot design for a station, with more instruments and larger solar arrays. Note the Saturn V with the 33 foot station and nose fairing at the bottom left corner of the pic...


Pic five is the internal layout of the more heavily instrumented station just shown...


More to come! OL JR

[luke strawwalker]

Pic one is a chart showing the various configs and comparing/contrasting some of their relative merits and drawbacks...


Pic two is a four-man Mars flyby mission using the Boeing station as a hab module...


Pic three is an internal view and breakdown of the 4-man Mars flyby unit...


Pic four is the 6 man Mars flyby spacecraft...


Pic five is the interior breakdown of the 6 man Mars flyby spacecraft...


More to come! OL JR

[luke strawwalker]

Pic one is the baseline uprated Apollo space station logistics vehicle-- a 6 man capsule and truncated service module, with a resupply module under the SLA panels beneath the vehicle during launch atop the uprates Saturn IB...


Pic two is the "preferred arrangement" according to the study conclusions.


Pic three is a chart showing the various proposals for station orientation and the trades that went into selecting which orientation the station might have and how it would affect not only the science return of the station, but in fact how the station was constructed, and the impacts of the design on instrument pointing, space availability, and other design criteria...


Pic four is showing the sensor location preferences/needs in relation to the station's chosen orientation. Basically, the orientation chosen determined the station design layout, or vice versa...


The final pic is a chart detailing the trades on diameter choices of the station. The S-IVB diameter (22 foot) of course wouldn't require any requalification of the vehicle, whereas the 33 foot S-II diameter station would have required some requalification, which is ultimately probably why it wasn't chosen...


Later! OL JR

[stefanj]

The "stumpy" command-module Apollo shown above looks like the one incuded in the MPC "Pilgrim Observer" model. (Which has been re-released, by the way!)

[luke strawwalker]

The "stumpy" command-module Apollo shown above looks like the one incuded in the MPC "Pilgrim Observer" model. (Which has been re-released, by the way!)

Sounds like a good basis for a model! OL JR :)