What if HSF ended in 1975?

Here is a scary thought:
What if the Shuttle was canceled and the last HSF was Apollo-Soyuz?
With out HSF would NASA still be here today?
(If NASA still existed w/o HSF, I would imagine that its budget would
be 1/3 of what it is today)
Thru the '80s how much impact did American HSF program have on
Soviet/Russian HSF, (with out the shuttle to ship additional supplies,
how long would MIR have lasted) would they have continued on with
their program or would it have slowed down or stopped when the Soviet
Union fell or would it have ended before that?
Would the Chinese be actively developing a HSF capablity if America
and/or Soviet/Russia abandon it?

Comments?

Space Cadet

derwetzelsDASHmailATyahooDOTcom

Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter

http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/

The Moon Society is a non-profit educational and
scientific foundation formed to further scientific
study and development of the moon.

(Space Cadet) wrote in
:

Here is a scary thought:
What if the Shuttle was canceled and the last HSF was Apollo-Soyuz?
With out HSF would NASA still be here today?
(If NASA still existed w/o HSF, I would imagine that its budget would
be 1/3 of what it is today)

It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of NASA
would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't exist under the
name "NASA" any more. Aeronautics and technology could have been spun off
into a revived NACA, Earth science to NOAA, and space science to NSF. Space
science wouldn't have nearly the focus on Mars that it has now. There
wouldn't be a noticeable "dividend" from the cancellation of HSF;
aeronautics, technology, and Earth science would probably get roughly what
they're getting now, and space science would probably be cut back somewhat.

Without the HSF budget, JSC and KSC would be gone, likely MSFC also. JSC
would have been handed back to Rice University per the terms of the 1962
lease agreement. At KSC, LC39 would have been mothballed, with a couple of
historic structures (VAB, pad 39A, one LUT, one crawler) transferred to the
Smithsonian for preservation, and the rest scrapped. The KSC Industrial
Area could have been transferred to CCAFS. I'm not sure what would have
happened to MSFC.

Thru the '80s how much impact did American HSF program have on
Soviet/Russian HSF, (with out the shuttle to ship additional supplies,
how long would MIR have lasted) would they have continued on with
their program or would it have slowed down or stopped when the Soviet
Union fell or would it have ended before that?

Mir would not have been assembled past the 1990 configuration
(Base/Kvant/Kvant 2/Kristall), and likely would have been abandoned around
1996-97, when the Russian currency crisis hit.

Would the Chinese be actively developing a HSF capablity if America
and/or Soviet/Russia abandon it?

The Chinese tend to do their own thing regardless of what other countries
do.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of NASA
would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't exist under the
name "NASA" any more. Aeronautics and technology could have been spun off
into a revived NACA, Earth science to NOAA, and space science to NSF.

Arguably doing that today would be a Good Thing.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Derek Lyons wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:


It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of NASA
would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't exist under the
name "NASA" any more. Aeronautics and technology could have been spun off
into a revived NACA, Earth science to NOAA, and space science to NSF.


Arguably doing that today would be a Good Thing.

D.


Of course, the core underlying premise here is that this is
a question about US HSF. The USSR maintained a manned program through
the whole time in question.

Now, would the USSR have halted HSF?

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of
NASA would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't exist
under the name "NASA" any more. Aeronautics and technology could have
been spun off into a revived NACA, Earth science to NOAA, and space
science to NSF.

Arguably doing that today would be a Good Thing.

I could agree with aeronautics-NACA and Earth science-NOAA. But robotic
probes are justified by both science and exploration objectives, so as long
as NASA has an HSF function, space science would probably be better off
staying with NASA.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

Derek Lyons wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of
NASA would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't
exist under the name "NASA" any more. Aeronautics and technology
could have been spun off into a revived NACA, Earth science to NOAA,
and space science to NSF.


Arguably doing that today would be a Good Thing.


Of course, the core underlying premise here is that this is
a question about US HSF. The USSR maintained a manned program through
the whole time in question.

Now, would the USSR have halted HSF?

I think they would have continued until they ran out of money.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of
NASA would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't exist
under the name "NASA" any more. Aeronautics and technology could have
been spun off into a revived NACA, Earth science to NOAA, and space
science to NSF.

Arguably doing that today would be a Good Thing.

I could agree with aeronautics-NACA and Earth science-NOAA. But robotic
probes are justified by both science and exploration objectives, so as long
as NASA has an HSF function, space science would probably be better off
staying with NASA.

Why? NSF already does the combined science/exploration thing quite
nicely in the Antarctic and out on the ocean. What makes space
different?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of
NASA would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't
exist under the name "NASA" any more. Aeronautics and technology
could have been spun off into a revived NACA, Earth science to NOAA,
and space science to NSF.

Arguably doing that today would be a Good Thing.

I could agree with aeronautics-NACA and Earth science-NOAA. But
robotic probes are justified by both science and exploration
objectives, so as long as NASA has an HSF function, space science
would probably be better off staying with NASA.

Why? NSF already does the combined science/exploration thing quite
nicely in the Antarctic and out on the ocean. What makes space
different?

NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with the HSF
function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency as the human
missions that follow, it's easier to keep the goals in sync.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with the HSF
function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency as the human
missions that follow, it's easier to keep the goals in sync.

They aren't in sync *now*. Nor do I suspect that manned missions to
comets, or locations other than Luna/Mars are on the plate for
decades.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with
the HSF function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency
as the human missions that follow, it's easier to keep the goals in
sync.

They aren't in sync *now*.

They will be even less in sync if performed by separate agencies.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.