What If The Skylab Space Station Never Fell?

The Actual History

Skylab, America's first space station, represented NASA's bold step toward establishing a semi-permanent human presence in space following the triumphant Apollo moon landings. Launched on May 14, 1973, atop the last flight-worthy Saturn V rocket, Skylab was essentially a repurposed S-IVB stage of the Saturn rocket that had been converted into an orbital workshop. With a mass of 77 tons and volume of 360 cubic meters, it provided ample living and working space for its three-person crews.

The program faced an immediate existential crisis at launch when micrometeoroid shielding tore away during ascent, taking one of two main solar arrays with it and jamming the other. This left the station critically low on power and subjected to dangerous overheating. In a remarkable demonstration of ingenuity, the first crew (Skylab 2), consisting of Charles Conrad, Paul Weitz, and Joseph Kerwin, deployed a makeshift parasol thermal shield and freed the remaining solar array during difficult spacewalks, saving the station.

Over the next nine months, three separate three-man crews conducted groundbreaking scientific research aboard Skylab. The Skylab 2 mission lasted 28 days, Skylab 3 extended to 59 days, and Skylab 4 pushed human endurance in space to a then-record 84 days. These missions yielded invaluable data on human adaptation to extended spaceflight, solar astronomy (via the Apollo Telescope Mount), Earth observation, and materials processing in microgravity.

The last crew departed Skylab on February 8, 1974, leaving the station in a storage orbit expected to be stable until at least 1979. NASA's intention was to eventually revisit and possibly refurbish Skylab using the Space Shuttle, which was then under development. Engineers boosted Skylab to a higher orbit and configured it for long-term storage.

However, by 1977-1978, several factors conspired against Skylab's survival. Increased solar activity expanded Earth's upper atmosphere, creating more drag on the station than anticipated. Simultaneously, development delays pushed the Space Shuttle's debut from 1978 to 1981—too late to save Skylab. Despite NASA's efforts to adjust Skylab's attitude to minimize drag, the 77-ton structure began an inevitable descent.

On July 11, 1979, Skylab made a partially controlled reentry. While NASA managed to aim it largely toward the Indian Ocean, debris scattered across Western Australia. Remarkably, no injuries or significant property damage occurred, though the Australian town of Esperance famously issued NASA a $400 littering fine (which remained unpaid until 2009, when a radio host and his listeners collected funds to pay it).

Skylab's demise created a significant gap in America's human spaceflight program. Between Skylab's fall in 1979 and the first Space Shuttle launch in 1981, the United States had no human access to space. Furthermore, America would not have another space station until the International Space Station began assembly in 1998—nearly two decades later. During this interim, the Soviet Union (later Russia) maintained continuous space station operations with their Salyut series and later Mir, gaining valuable long-duration spaceflight experience that ultimately proved beneficial to the ISS partnership.

The Point of Divergence

What if Skylab had never fallen from orbit? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where NASA successfully executed a plan to boost and save America's first space station, allowing for its continued use and evolution through the Space Shuttle era and potentially beyond.

Several plausible interventions could have prevented Skylab's demise:

The most straightforward divergence point would be an accelerated Space Shuttle development timeline. In our timeline, the Shuttle program faced numerous technical challenges and budget constraints that delayed its first flight from the originally planned 1978 to April 1981. If these issues had been resolved more efficiently—perhaps through increased funding priority from the Ford and Carter administrations or more realistic initial engineering timelines—the Shuttle could have flown its first missions in late 1979 or early 1980, in time to reach Skylab before reentry.

Alternatively, NASA could have deployed an uncrewed reboost mission. Engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center actually developed a teleoperator retrieval system (TRS) designed to dock with Skylab and boost it to a higher orbit. This system was nearly complete when funding was cut in December 1978 as Skylab's orbit degraded faster than expected. With slightly more foresight about the solar activity's impact on orbital decay, or with stronger advocacy from NASA leadership, this system might have been prioritized and deployed atop a conventional rocket.

A third possibility involves international cooperation that didn't materialize in our timeline. The Soviet Union had demonstrated orbital rendezvous and docking capabilities with their Soyuz spacecraft. A diplomatic breakthrough could have led to a joint Soviet-American mission to save Skylab as a gesture of détente, perhaps using a modified Soyuz or Progress spacecraft to boost the station.

In our alternate timeline, we'll explore the most plausible scenario: NASA, recognizing Skylab's imminent danger by mid-1978, accelerates development of the teleoperator retrieval system and launches it aboard a Titan IIIE rocket in March 1979. The uncrewed TRS successfully docks with Skylab and uses its propulsion system to boost the station to a stable 500-kilometer orbit, where it can safely await the Space Shuttle's arrival.

Immediate Aftermath

Revising the Early Shuttle Mission Profiles

The successful rescue of Skylab immediately altered NASA's plans for the maiden voyages of the Space Shuttle program. Rather than focusing primarily on system verification and satellite deployment missions, early Shuttle flight planning now incorporated Skylab revisit objectives.

STS-1 remained unchanged as Commander John Young and Pilot Robert Crippen conducted the Shuttle's crucial first test flight in April 1981. However, by STS-3 or STS-4 later that year, NASA modified the mission profile to include a Skylab rendezvous to assess the station's condition after years of dormancy. Astronauts performed a fly-around inspection, documenting micrometeoroid damage and taking detailed photographs of the station's external condition. While they didn't dock or enter during this preliminary mission, the data gathered proved essential for planning subsequent rehabilitation efforts.

The inspection revealed that Skylab, while showing signs of exterior degradation from years in orbit, remained structurally sound. Solar arrays had deteriorated more than expected, and certain external components showed radiation damage, but the pressure hull maintained integrity. Most significantly, internal systems had survived the dormant period remarkably well thanks to the careful shutdown procedures performed by the last departing crew in 1974.

Skylab Rehabilitation Mission

By early 1982, NASA launched a dedicated Skylab rehabilitation mission. The Space Shuttle docked with Skylab using a specially designed airlock adapter that compensated for the different docking mechanisms. A crew of four spent two weeks recommissioning key station systems:

The environmental control and life support systems required significant refurbishment, with replacement of air filters, water processing components, and thermal regulation hardware.
New solar arrays, based on more efficient technology developed for Shuttle-era satellites, were installed to replace the deteriorated original panels.
Modern communications equipment compatible with NASA's Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System replaced the aging Apollo-era systems.
The astronauts cleared the interior spaces and implemented safety modifications to accommodate Shuttle-era standards.

This mission generated enormous public interest, with live broadcasts from inside Skylab showing astronauts moving through the station that many had assumed lost forever. The symbolism of reviving a piece of Apollo-era technology resonated strongly with the American public and policymakers.

Budget Implications and Program Restructuring

The opportunity to utilize an existing space station significantly altered NASA's budget priorities between 1980-1985. Instead of focusing exclusively on expanding the Shuttle fleet and developing its capabilities, NASA diverted approximately $800 million toward Skylab rehabilitation and expansion programs.

This reallocation created tensions within NASA and among aerospace contractors who had been positioning for future space station development contracts. However, the Reagan administration's budget officials found the approach appealing, as upgrading an existing asset appeared more cost-effective than building an entirely new station.

NASA administrator James Beggs successfully argued that Skylab presented a unique opportunity to maintain continuous American presence in space while planning for a more advanced station in the future. The "Skylab Interim Space Platform" program was formally approved in the FY1982 budget, providing stable funding for operations through at least 1988.

International and Soviet Reactions

The Soviet Union viewed America's revival of Skylab with concern. Having established their Salyut 6 station in 1977, the Soviets had enjoyed a period of uncontested leadership in space station operations. Skylab's resurrection threatened this advantage and sparked an acceleration of their own space station plans.

Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev publicly congratulated the United States on the "technical achievement" while privately directing additional resources to the Soviet space station program. Design work on the more ambitious Mir station, originally scheduled for deployment in the mid-1980s, was expedited in response.

European Space Agency leaders, seeing the potential for international collaboration, approached NASA about possible European astronaut visits to the rehabilitated Skylab. These discussions laid groundwork for what would become the first non-American crew members aboard an American space station, predating similar arrangements on the International Space Station by over a decade.

Scientific Community Response

The scientific community reacted with cautious optimism to Skylab's rescue. While the station's original scientific equipment had become outdated, the platform itself offered a unique opportunity for expanded microgravity research.

Scientists working in materials science, fluid physics, and biological research quickly developed proposals for new experimental modules that could be transported to Skylab via the Space Shuttle. The large internal volume of Skylab, far exceeding what would be available on other platforms until the 1990s, made it particularly valuable for large-scale experiments.

The solar physics community was especially enthusiastic, as the Apollo Telescope Mount, while technologically dated, could be upgraded with new instruments to continue the solar observations that had been among Skylab's most significant scientific contributions.

Long-term Impact

Skylab's Evolution Through the 1980s

As the 1980s progressed, Skylab underwent a transformation from a rehabilitated relic to an expanding modular facility. Between 1983 and 1989, NASA conducted approximately three dedicated Skylab missions annually, with missions typically lasting 30-60 days.

Infrastructure Expansion

By 1984, the original Skylab configuration was supplemented with additional modules:

A Shuttle-delivered logistics module permanently expanded storage capacity
A research module containing updated scientific equipment replaced many of the original 1970s-era experiments
The solar array system was completely redesigned with a more efficient configuration yielding twice the power of the original system

These additions increased Skylab's habitable volume by approximately 40% and extended its operational capabilities significantly. By 1986, little of the original interior equipment remained as systems were progressively modernized.

Crew Rotations and Operations

The station's operations evolved from the initial rehabilitation visits to established crew rotations with dedicated scientific missions. By mid-decade, crews typically consisted of five astronauts spending 60-90 days aboard the station, with resupply and crew rotation handled via Shuttle visits approximately every two months.

This regular cadence established a continuous American presence in space beginning in 1985—a full 15 years before such continuity would be achieved in our timeline with the International Space Station. The predictable access to orbit accelerated research programs that required long-duration microgravity exposure.

The Challenger Impact

The Challenger disaster in January 1986 dramatically affected Skylab operations, just as it impacted all aspects of the American space program. At the time of the accident, Skylab housed a crew of four astronauts who suddenly faced an extended and unplanned stay as the Shuttle fleet was grounded.

This crew, originally scheduled for a 60-day mission, remained aboard for a record-breaking 238 days while NASA developed return procedures. Unlike in our timeline, where the Challenger disaster left the U.S. with no human access to space, Skylab provided continuity of presence and ongoing scientific research during the 32-month Shuttle grounding.

The extended mission yielded unprecedented data on long-duration spaceflight effects but necessitated emergency resupply missions using modified versions of Air Force satellites to deliver critical supplies to the stranded crew. The experience directly informed subsequent space station emergency planning.

Geopolitical Implications Through the Cold War's End

Skylab's continued operation fundamentally altered the character of U.S.-Soviet space competition during the Reagan administration and Gorbachev era.

U.S.-Soviet Space Relations

Rather than the space station gap that existed in our timeline, the 1980s became a period of parallel station operations, with Skylab and Salyut/Mir operating simultaneously. This created both competition and opportunities for cooperation.

By 1987, as part of broader diplomatic thawing, initial discussions began regarding potential docking compatibility between Soviet Soyuz craft and Skylab. These talks, which would have seemed unimaginable earlier in the decade, led to the historic 1989 visit of two Soviet cosmonauts to Skylab aboard a Soyuz TM spacecraft—the first international crew exchange of the space station era.

These cooperative missions established critical precedents and technical standards that would eventually facilitate the International Space Station partnership following the Soviet Union's dissolution.

Impact on Soviet Space Program

The Soviet space program, faced with ongoing American space station operations, maintained higher funding levels than in our timeline as the USSR entered its economic difficulties of the late 1980s. While Mir was still developed and launched in 1986, its design incorporated more direct competitive responses to Skylab capabilities.

Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev, despite economic pressures to reduce space expenditures, maintained the program as a visible symbol of Soviet technological prowess and, increasingly, as a platform for international cooperation during his reform efforts.

1990s: Space Station Transition

As Skylab entered its third decade, structural limitations and the availability of newer technologies prompted difficult decisions about its future.

Freedom/Alpha Planning

Planning for the more advanced Space Station Freedom (later evolved into Alpha and then the International Space Station) proceeded in parallel with continued Skylab operations through the early 1990s.

The existence of Skylab significantly altered the development timeline. Rather than the singular focus on new station development seen in our timeline, NASA balanced maintaining Skylab while designing its successor. This created a more evolutionary approach where systems and operational procedures could be tested on Skylab before implementation on the new station.

The Bush and Clinton administrations leveraged the ongoing success of Skylab to justify the substantial investment in a next-generation station, arguing that America's space station experience demonstrated both scientific value and international prestige benefits.

International Partnerships

The early U.S.-Soviet cooperation aboard Skylab established precedents that facilitated the incorporation of Russia into the International Space Station program following the Soviet collapse. Russian engineers had already developed compatible docking systems and operational procedures through the earlier exchange missions.

European, Japanese, and Canadian participation in Skylab operations during the early 1990s similarly laid groundwork for their ISS contributions. Their astronauts gained valuable experience, and their space agencies developed flight-tested hardware that would later be incorporated into ISS modules.

The Transition Period

By 1997-1998, as initial ISS assembly began, NASA implemented a carefully planned transition. Rather than maintaining two stations simultaneously, select components and experiments from the aging Skylab were transferred to the nascent ISS.

In a symbolic ceremony in November 1998, the final Skylab crew extracted a small American flag that had been placed aboard by the first rehabilitation mission and transported it to the newly launched Zarya module of the ISS, creating a tangible connection between America's first and newest space stations.

Following complete systems transfer and documentation of its historic 25-year extended mission, Skylab was deliberately deorbited in a controlled reentry over the Pacific Ocean in early 1999, bringing a dignified end to a program that had far exceeded its original design life.

Long-term Scientific Legacy

The scientific output from 25 years of continuous Skylab operations created a legacy dramatically different from our timeline:

Human Physiology Research

Extended operations provided an unprecedented longitudinal dataset on human adaptation to microgravity. Dozens of astronauts spent multiple long-duration missions aboard Skylab, allowing researchers to study readaptation effects and develop countermeasures to bone and muscle loss that proved crucial for later extended missions.

This research accelerated by nearly two decades compared to our timeline, where such comprehensive data only became available through the ISS in the 2000s.

Materials Science Applications

Continuous access to microgravity manufacturing facilities aboard Skylab led to commercial applications in semiconductor crystal growth, pharmaceutical development, and alloy formation by the early 1990s—applications that only emerged in the 2010s in our timeline.

Several pharmaceutical companies established regular research programs aboard Skylab, leading to patented manufacturing processes for certain specialized medications and creating the first truly profitable commercial space applications.

Earth Observation Continuity

The continuous Earth observation platform provided by Skylab generated an uninterrupted record of global environmental changes through critical decades. This dataset proved invaluable for early climate change research, as it captured atmospheric and oceanic changes during the critical period of the 1980s and 1990s when global warming signals were becoming more apparent.

Education and Public Engagement

Perhaps most significantly, the continuous American presence in space normalized the concept of humans living and working in orbit. Regular broadcasts, educational programs, and even early internet connections to Skylab in the 1990s maintained public engagement with space exploration during a period when interest might otherwise have waned between Apollo and the ISS.

A generation of scientists, engineers, and astronauts grew up with the inspirational presence of Skylab continuously operating overhead—a persistent reminder of space accessibility that influenced career choices and educational priorities.

Expert Opinions

Dr. James Oberg, former NASA mission control specialist and space historian, offers this perspective: "Skylab's rescue and continued operation would have represented one of the most significant pivot points in spaceflight history. The gap in American human spaceflight capabilities that existed between 1974 and 1981 in our timeline was a strategic blunder that ceded valuable experience to the Soviet Union. A continuously operational Skylab would have maintained institutional knowledge, provided ongoing scientific returns, and likely accelerated both commercial applications and international cooperation by decades. Most significantly, it would have established the concept of permanent human presence in space as an American priority much earlier, potentially leading to more ambitious deep space human exploration by the early 2000s than we've seen in our timeline."

Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, former NASA astronaut and the first American woman to walk in space, provides this analysis: "The operational challenges of maintaining and expanding an aging Skylab would have created a fundamentally different astronaut corps and mission control culture than what developed with the Shuttle program alone. Rather than focusing primarily on launch, short missions, and return operations, NASA would have developed deeper expertise in long-duration support, logistics planning, and in-space maintenance and construction—precisely the skills most valuable for future lunar and Mars exploration. Astronaut selection would likely have balanced the pilot-oriented requirements of Shuttle operations with more emphasis on scientific and technical specialists for station operations, potentially creating greater diversity in the astronaut corps earlier and facilitating more science-focused missions."

Dr. Asif Siddiqi, professor of space history at Fordham University, presents a contrasting view: "While extending Skylab's life would have provided certain advantages, we shouldn't romanticize the alternate scenario too extensively. The 1970s-era technology of Skylab would have imposed significant limitations and safety concerns as the station aged. The resources required to maintain an increasingly obsolete station might have actually delayed more advanced developments. Furthermore, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project and later ISS cooperation demonstrated that international collaboration could develop without a continuously operating American station. The Soviet experience with their long-duration Salyut and Mir programs was ultimately beneficial to the international community when that expertise was later incorporated into the ISS program. Different paths can lead to similar destinations in spaceflight development."