What if HSF ended in 1975?

"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.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

(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.

How can they be any less in sync that 'not at all', which is the
current situation.

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 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.

How can they be any less in sync that 'not at all', which is the
current situation.

Things can *always* get worse.


--
JRF

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

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:45:26 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) 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.

How can they be any less in sync that 'not at all', which is the
current situation.

That's not the current situation. They aren't in sync to a large
degree, but some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's unmanned
missions.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:45:26 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

That's not the current situation. They aren't in sync to a large
degree, but some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's unmanned
missions.

Guess what? Save only a couple of the orbiter, you could lose those
probes and a manned mission would be virtually unaffected. Jorge's
assertion is without merit.

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.

In article ,
Brian Thorn wrote:
...some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's unmanned
missions.

As statisticians take pains to point out: correlation is not causation.
The declining birth rate in some European countries tracks their declining
stork populations fairly well...

The emphasis on sending unmanned probes to Mars has the same cause as the
interest in sending manned expeditions: it's much the most attractive of
the other planets. It's absolutely no surprise that both sides of NASA's
house give it a high priority. There's no requirement to infer sinister
influences of one side over the other.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:45:26 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

That's not the current situation. They aren't in sync to a large
degree, but some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's unmanned
missions.

Guess what? Save only a couple of the orbiter, you could lose those
probes and a manned mission would be virtually unaffected. Jorge's
assertion is without merit.

It has more merit than you are willing to admit. The fact remains that
NASA's Space Science enterprise is devoting more resources to Mars than any
other target, resources out of proportion to Mars' pure scientific value.
That is not to say that these spacecraft aren't doing good science - they
are doing great science. But the allocation of resources is very much being
influenced by HST priorities. An external agency, absent any HSF
motivation, would likely decide that the scientific value of other targets
much less amenable to human visitation would take priority.


--
JRF

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