A question about American space stations.

carmelo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
11 March 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
25
Why United States in 60s/70s not developed systems for a automatic rendez vous and docking between space modules in orbit?
Is maybe the most logical method for built Space Stations.
For exemple two Saturn IB launch (or three Titan IIB) could assemble a whole station.
 
oh that easy that's Apollo program fault

the moment they take the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous modus
and those mission were manned so NASA take the Best hardware at controls: the Astronauts
after success of computer and ground controlled assist piloted rendezvous during Gemini program.
was no need for automatic rendezvous and docking system

what reflect also in design for US space stations like MORL, MOL, Orbital Workshop, Skylab
even on Space Shuttle the finale approach and docking on stations were made manualy on controls
 
No requirement for it.

The technology itself is not that difficult. And NASA did work a bit on the Skylab re-boost system that would have done automatic docking. But as Michael Van noted, NASA had astronauts in its vehicles and did not need an automatic system.
 
Automatic system make built a space station.
No need for heavy lift rockets or multiple missions of the space shuttle;the same shuttle can be more small.
If had developed this technology two launches of Saturn IB could assemble a station large as Skylab,or without Saturn,Titan IIIC could play same job with one or two launches more.
I wonder how automatic system was not considered a priority.
 
Just a theory, but some people have stated that the NASA space program always kept the "human in the loop", because of all the ex-pilots in administrative positions. A lot of militaries are having similar issues today trying to convince ex-pilot leaders that UAVs are a good thing.
 
Back in the 60's-70's they actually tried to automate many of things. But a lot of times, they ended up crashing. Computers and computer programming were still pretty primitive at that time.
There's a story about the STS-1 that's relevant. At one point during reentry, the sideslip went wayyy too high, due to a miscalculation by the control algorithms. So John Young had to take control and give the joystick a nudge to keep get the sideslip under control.
If a human wasn't in the loop on STS-1, it might have been destroyed during reentry. So keeping humans in the loop wasn't just some nostalgic emotional response. A person in the loop actually increased the reliability of the vehicle.
 
STS-1 was 1981, there was lots of time to benefit from lessons learned in the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, the flight control system was developed during the 1970s, but UAVS were regularly flying automated approaches and landings by then.

Even the Russians flew their shuttle clone totally uncrewed, with first automated landing in 1986, and first orbital mission in 1988, based on a development program that began in 1980 or earlier. The X-37 has been flying uncrewed approaches since 2006. I think the American reliance on crew in the loop is/was as much a political decision as a technological one.
 
To some extent it's chicken and egg. But the U.S. had manned systems and saw no requirement for automated rendezvous. It's not any more complicated than that--they saw no need, and it's hard in retrospect to argue that they were wrong.
 
Though a history about the Buran shuttle titled Energiya-Buran by Bart Hendrickx (Springer-Verlag Gmbh 2007) claims that Mstislav Keldysh was convinced that the Space Shuttle was in fact a first-strike nuclear bomber that could be launched from Vandenburg Air Force Base. The book further claims that the Soviet's developed Buran to match this capability.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom