Replies

Had the station been revitalized, it could have been a vital asset in the '80's and the Reagan era, when Space exploration was given a higher priority. It would have been nice to see a whole new generation of crews in the station, a couple of times a year or more, over several years. Then too-- the technological advancements could have been implemented on Skylab(the electronics on it were late '60's vintage, I doubt it had more total computing power than a 1981 IBM pc-- never mind a modern computer). It could have been retrofitted with better solar panels, and maybe even a nuclear thremopile generator. With regular maintenance and attention--it is quite possible that it could still be up there today-- and actively manned on a regular occasion.

Yeah, it was a bummer that it was wasted. Originally, it was called, "Manned Orbiting Laboritory," and it was supposed to use Gemini capsules to ferry the crews up there. I have some articles on it in some old Popular Science mags from the late 1960's. I dunno how long you could have made Skylab last, maybe up to 1990 or so, but I think it should have been kept up in competition to the Soviet Salyut and MIR stations.

There was a simulation for the Apple ][+ or //e series where you are NASA and control the budget the government gives you. You design and launch the space station, schedule construction and research missions, choose astronauts, payloads, and so on. I have it on an Apple emulator I occasionally use. Very tough game to do. One time I sent up a scientific crew and ran out of money, basically, they just sat up on space for 2 years doing nothing. I was never as good atfinance as I am with the science end of things. I know if I was an astronaut, I'd want to take my Playstation and all Final Fantasy games with me, at least if that happened to me, I could pass the time. B-D