Talk:Skylab

Orphaned references in Skylab
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Skylab's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ntrs.nasa.gov": From Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100020234_2010020379.pdf From James Webb Space Telescope:  From Juno Radiation Vault:  From Rocketdyne F-1:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Skylab Orbital Inclination
I think the article should have something about the reason for a 50 degree orbit. The reason for the ISS 51.6 degrees orbital inclination is so that the Russians could launch to it. But for Skylab the original plan was a 28 degree orbit, an easier orbit for the US to get into. They increased to 50 degrees because at that time we didn't have much by way of Earth observation and the scientists pressed for a higher inclination so that it could photograph more of the Earth's surface. At least so it says here would be good to chase up cites and have a detailed discussion of this I think :).

""The Skylab orbit, originally planned for a 28° inclination, was increased to 50° after protests by many of the scientists involved. This higher inclination offered far more ground coverage than earlier orbits that were 32° or less. As Michael Collins has pointed out *, a 50° orbit covers 3/4ths of the Earth's surface and areas with 90% of its population. The high altitude ( 438 km; 270 miles), also increased coverage.""

Robert Walker (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede rewrite
User:BilCat added a "Lede rewrite" template with the edit summary "Lead is recommended talk be 3-4 }paragraphs - this one has 7". Since he did not add this commentary to the Talk page, as specified by the wording of the template, I am doing so. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Rewritten Lede
The lede has been cut by 25% and reduced to 4 paragraphs, so I also cut out the notice about rewriting the lede. A few details were deleted that belong(ed) in the main text (sorry Perth). The entire article needs its own rewrite to better balance the mission details etc., (over 700 words about the failed shower, while almost nothing about some other station living and experiments -- really?) but that is another day. GeeBee60 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite shower section (etc.)
In that the shower was complicated, inconvenient and wasteful, the Skylab shower was a fail largely abandoned by the crews. But in its way it worked, it needed to be tried, and it taught us quite a bit about the properties of water in zero-G, and about comfort and hygiene needs of the crews. Showers are not used in current space stations.

I reduced the section by over a third, mainly by eliminating extraneous and redundant passages. In the process, I may have scrambled a reference or two, as I didn't read every ref, just tried to carefully follow what was there. This section is still out of scale related to the scope of Skylab. It could become part of a broader section related to health and hygiene, including toilet, sleep, and exercise.

I hope we can extend other sections of the article for balance. This might include more "lessons learned" stuff, and better acknowledgement of the dozens of experiments.

GeeBee60 (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mutiny
It would be encyclopaedic to make note of the Skylab mutiny in the Skylab article. DouglasHeld (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * SkyLab Isometric 2.tiff

First versus only US space station
We've actually been over this before, but a talk page discussion is better than an edit war. We have someone who strongly objects to calling Skylab the "first" US space station rather than the "only" one. I don't believe "first" carries any implication of a second. For example, the New Horizons flyby of Pluto is almost universally called the "first" flyby of Pluto, despite the lack of any plans for a second one. In any case, a second US space station would make the use of "only" to describe Skylab both dated and inaccurate. The Wikipedia manual of style encourages text which will not become dated and which will not require future edits to remain correct. So I'm all for using "first" to describe Skylab. What do other people think? Fcrary (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Additionally, the US has substantially contributed to the ISS instead of the cancelled Freedom station – while that definitely doesn't make the whole ISS American, a large part of it is actually US-made. --Zac67 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Also, the 2nd sentence clarifies that Spacelab has been "only space station operated exclusively by the United States." -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think WP:Don't feed the trolls; report them. In addition to the reasons given, we have a WP:RS which calls it such. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is really getting annoying. I'd love to report a troll, but I'm not sure how that would work with an IP editor. Is anyone familiar with the ways to partially lock down an article to prevent this sort of thing? I think there's a way to block edits from IP editors. I'm not overjoyed about invoking that, but I think that's what the mechanism is for. Fcrary (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, enough is enough. I believe we have to ask for protection so that only confirmed, signed editors can edit the article. I'm totally unfamiliar with the mechanics of how to request this. I also don't think it can hurt to report the IP as a troll. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I just looked up the process and put in a request for semi-protection (no IP edits.) As far as reporting a troll, IP addresses can change every time someone logs in through a different server. That means I don't know how to point to the disruptive editor we're having trouble with. Fcrary (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Space Shuttle
Why is there any mention of the Space Shuttle ?

To my knowledge, the two --- Skylab and the Shuttle --- were never intended to be contemporary, compatible, nor reliant upon each other.

As such, I think the intro to the second paragraph in the lede that mentions the Shuttle needs to be removed.

Thoughts? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That just shows your ignorance of history. Read the entire article, including section 12.1. The delay in getting the Shuttle flying until 1981 was totally unplanned; it was hoped it would fly by 1979 or 1980, and also the solar flares which caused Skylab to reenter prematurely were unforseen. It was hoped that an early Shuttle flight could be used to raise the altitude of Skylab and extend its life. This doesn't make them "reliant upon each other". The article is just fine the way it is.
 * Also, please read MOS:SUMMARY to see how we begin well-written articles with summary-style introductions. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Reason for asymmetry
Should the article state more prominently why the solar panels are asymmetrical (the OWS was torn off during launch)? Cheers, cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 13:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)