Xref: utzoo sci.space:22946 sci.space.shuttle:5996
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!gecrdvm1!gipp
From: GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Intelsat salvage mission
Message-ID: <90226.084552GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET>
Date: 14 Aug 90 12:45:52 GMT
References: <1990Aug9.051409.16353@zoo.toronto.edu> <13567@ulysses.att.com>
 <1990Aug11.033954.12002@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Aug11.1954
 <9867.26c695f2@pbs.org>
Organization: General Electric Corporate Research & Development
Lines: 27

In article <9867.26c695f2@pbs.org>, pstinson@pbs.org says:
>
>In article <1990Aug12.005525.5284@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu     y
>(Henr
>Spencer) 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, such as a new solar shade and equipment used on a
>spacewalk
>to fix external damage.  They also carried food and other supplies.  Is this
>not a resupply capability?  Apollo was afterall was much bigger than the Soyuz
>or Progress vehicles which resupply Mir.

If memory serves me correct, wasn't skylab launched with most of the
consumables onboard already?
Also, I believe the original thread of questioning was the resupply-
ability of the manuevering rockets of satelites/skylab.  To my
knowledge, skylab was not intended to be refueled.  Also,  didn't
they leave off large enough motors to effectively boost it into
higher orbits (to save it from reentry)?  something to do with a
reluctance to ship up fuel on the shuttle (which was to be the
"resupply" vehicle eventually).  I may be wrong, a good memory
doesn't go as far as it used to.

pete