My question is did NASA learn from this and improved the scheduling for future missions? Seems they have with ISS unless I’m wrong?
Not that I side with this view, but I can empathize with it. You're spending billions of dollars on these experiments, so given the choice of either (a) doing less experiments or (b) finding three people who can work Gulag-hours, I'd expect the decision to go (b).
These are extraordinary jobs in extraordinary circumstances. You can't just apply ordinary rules.
On Earth, we make sure command structures are hierarchically self similar and afford some tactical autonomy to people in the field, even when we are asking them to put themselves in a lot of danger. Sounds like NASA was (is?) still working out what the level of autonomy and negotiation should be.
The article says "the all-rookie astronaut crew had problems adjusting to the same workload level as their predecessors". So apparently the previous Skylab crews had been able to work the schedule that this crew was expected to follow.
So it's fair to say that either NASA completely changed the way they measured "astronaut utilization" between these missions, or the Skylab 4 guys were flying a very different mission. We're comparing a 60 day mission to an 80 day mission, but still.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-typical-daily-schedule-in-th...
They have a mixed record. If you read Bryan Burrough's Dragonfly, which includes some first-hand accounts, you can see that the NASA astronauts who visited Mir had varied results in this regard but the overall pattern was that of a lax, highly understaffed effort towards scheduling and training on those missions.
> Seems they have with ISS unless I’m wrong?
That program has a better reputation for sure. I'd love book recommendations if anyone has anything.