[klodolph]

The “astronauts on strike” story of Skylab 4, to me, seems like more of a rational response to harsh working conditions, which somehow got exaggerated in the media.

The previous mission, Skylab 3, accomplished much more than was expected—completing something like 50% additional work compared to what was scheduled.

Skylab 4’s schedule was then both lengthened and accelerated. The mission grew by about 50% in duration, and tasks were scheduled for astronauts at the beginning of the mission at a pace that didn’t allow for solid blocks of rest and didn’t account for acclimation (it assumed astronauts would be operating at full efficiency, and didn’t allow them time to acclimate to orbital conditions, didn’t allow them time to recover from errors or deal with equipment malfunctions).

There was no “strike”. That’s a myth. There was a conference between astronauts and the ground to alter the schedule—make sure astronauts have sufficient off-duty periods, allow astronauts time to transition from one task to the next, give astronauts time when they are waking up or falling asleep.

The flight director, Neil Hutchinson, later said that ground controllers erred when they made the plans for Skylab 4. Skylab 4 still accomplished more in space than was planned!