Xref: utzoo sci.space:22945 sci.space.shuttle:5994
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Intelsat salvage mission
Message-ID: <1990Aug14.155544.19243@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1990Aug9.051409.16353@zoo.toronto.edu> <13567@ulysses.att.com> <1990Aug11.033954.12002@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Aug11.195433.1913@athena.mit.edu> <1990Aug12.005525.5284@zoo.toronto.edu> <9867.26c695f2@pbs.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 15:55:44 GMT

In article <9867.26c695f2@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes:
>>   Skylab never attempted to be an operational station  and in
>>  particular was not capable of being resupplied in orbit.
>I believe the three Apollo spacecraft which docked with Skylab DID carry up
>supplies with them...

They carried up very small amounts of supplies, alas.  Most of what the
astronauts ate, drank, and wore was pre-packed aboard Skylab.  The Apollo-
Saturn IB combination simply didn't have a very large cargo capacity.
And certain key consumables, like oxygen and maneuvering fuel (nitrogen),
came from supply tanks that could not be refilled in orbit.

>... Apollo was afterall was much bigger than the Soyuz
>or Progress vehicles which resupply Mir.

It was much bigger than Soyuz, but Soyuz's cargo capacity is roughly one
toothbrush per passenger.  Progress is roughly the same size, but it is
a dedicated freighter -- no life support and no reentry capability --
which can carry quite a bit.
-- 
It is not possible to both understand  | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry