@SteelBeWithYou although skylab looks impressively big because it is just an empty SIV-B stage, ISS has over triple the habitable volume, also you should look up NASA videos that show astronauts unpacking the European Space Agency`s ATV, that sucker is pretty big inside.
But you miss the point, Skylab was sent up in just one launch and was an ad-hock project using the remaining useable parts left over from apollo. The ISS was assembled over several years and a lot of launches. Estimated cost up to the year 1998 was $15,000,000,000 and it was not even complete.
If they had not scrapped the Saturns in favour of the ill conceived shuttle project an ISS sized platform could have been put up decades earlier at a tiny fraction of the cost.
i'd have to say that this is probably the worlds first REAL looking space station. It all hexagonal unlike the iss which is squareish. hopefully if they get the Ares V rocket working they can sends massive payloads into space like this once again.
I think I'd rather stay in SkyLab than ISS. ISS seems really cramped with all the small tunnel-like sections while SkyLab was just like a hollowed out fuel tank or something.
By learning from the first two crews, the third and final Skylab crew didn't loose very much in the way of strength. They exercised for 1.5 hours a day, mainly using a specially made exercise bike.
Skylab was brought down by a miscalculation of the atmospheric drag imposed on it. It fell into the Australian outback in 1979.
The reason the ISS isn't as 'spacious' is that the shuttle can't carry something that big. The Saturn V booster was used to loft Skylab, itself a modified Saturn stage fuel tank.
Most people don't remember Skylab at all, it was after the Apollo Moon landings, and public interest was at an all-time low due to Vietnam, Watergate and other political events.
America at her apex... times long gone never to be again
PhatFarm60 2 weeks ago
@DiscoveryNetworks Can you tell my the name of the song in the background?
Wanztnabel 3 months ago
This video shows how in real terms how much the richer the world was back then.
lozza1982 5 months ago
LEGO doesn't make space stations like this anymore.
jakfuki 9 months ago
@SteelBeWithYou although skylab looks impressively big because it is just an empty SIV-B stage, ISS has over triple the habitable volume, also you should look up NASA videos that show astronauts unpacking the European Space Agency`s ATV, that sucker is pretty big inside.
gforce527 11 months ago
@gforce527
But you miss the point, Skylab was sent up in just one launch and was an ad-hock project using the remaining useable parts left over from apollo. The ISS was assembled over several years and a lot of launches. Estimated cost up to the year 1998 was $15,000,000,000 and it was not even complete.
If they had not scrapped the Saturns in favour of the ill conceived shuttle project an ISS sized platform could have been put up decades earlier at a tiny fraction of the cost.
TheSpiritof1969 9 months ago 4
the skylab was SO large...it definitely looked like a sci-fi space station. the iss seems so claustrophobic if compared...
blitsed 1 year ago
The Bigelow Nautilus modules will be about the same size of Skylab and should look very similar inside.
Membrane556 1 year ago
Comment removed
Membrane556 1 year ago
i'd have to say that this is probably the worlds first REAL looking space station. It all hexagonal unlike the iss which is squareish. hopefully if they get the Ares V rocket working they can sends massive payloads into space like this once again.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
30 second ad for a two minute video...
Craigthepope 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Those airlocks are bigger than Michelle Obama's pussy
TheCottonTop 1 year ago
I taste Tang.
And not poontang, by the way.
TheCottonTop 1 year ago
stop crying on spiled milk.skylab reentered the ethmosphere and burned.
it was very nice space station but now it gone.
TALLL85 1 year ago
@TALLL85
you know i didnt know it burned up, i thought it was still up there until i saw something about it :(
RoPWU 1 year ago
@RoPWU lol
TALLL85 1 year ago
I think I'd rather stay in SkyLab than ISS. ISS seems really cramped with all the small tunnel-like sections while SkyLab was just like a hollowed out fuel tank or something.
cygnus122 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS THING IS HUGE!!!! It had so much potential. How could nasa let it burn up like that?
arsenal553 2 years ago
By learning from the first two crews, the third and final Skylab crew didn't loose very much in the way of strength. They exercised for 1.5 hours a day, mainly using a specially made exercise bike.
clipperride 2 years ago
i would have loved to stay on that for a while, but the loss of muscular use and bone marrow would have been a bad side effect
thegundamguy 2 years ago
Skylab was brought down by a miscalculation of the atmospheric drag imposed on it. It fell into the Australian outback in 1979.
The reason the ISS isn't as 'spacious' is that the shuttle can't carry something that big. The Saturn V booster was used to loft Skylab, itself a modified Saturn stage fuel tank.
spencnaz 2 years ago
it also did not have any means to boost itself into a higher earth orbit
Roncace 2 years ago
holy shit there was a lot of room in there. they should of made the ISS that spacious. it amazes me today that we were able to do that in the 70's
rogeliozim456 2 years ago
ya thats what i was saying.. man that thing is huge, lots of space, what ever happend to it? Seems better then the ISS to me
themandude20 2 years ago
it was radiating to much awesome in the sky. so they had to take it down.
rogeliozim456 2 years ago
Most people don't remember Skylab at all, it was after the Apollo Moon landings, and public interest was at an all-time low due to Vietnam, Watergate and other political events.
AcePilot101 3 years ago
why cant i see the video
looking for friends qP
Geordielass86 3 years ago
good thing they(skylab dudes) had better cameras this time around.
nakazatoGTR 3 years ago