 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2004What 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. > 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.  SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >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. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. >>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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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? >>>It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of >>>NASA would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Now, would the USSR have halted HSF? I think they would have continued until they ran out of money. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > >>>It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of > >>>NASA would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I think they would have continued until they ran out of money. If nothing else, there would've been no Buran. Maybe some smaller, expendable-launched reusable craft that would've seen more service.... SignatureYou know what to remove, to reply.... >> >>>It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of >> >>>NASA would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > If nothing else, there would've been no Buran. Good point. Probably no Energia, either, since the two were approved together. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >>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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. >>>>It's possible that the science, aeronautics, and technology parts of >>>>NASA would still be around, but it's also possible they wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >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. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. >>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. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >>>NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with >>>the HSF function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >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. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. >>>>NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with >>>>the HSF function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How can they be any less in sync that 'not at all', which is the > current situation. Things can *always* get worse. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >>>>NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with >>>>the HSF function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >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 >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. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. >>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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >It has more merit than you are willing to admit. I've asked several times that you demonstrate the merit Jorge, and you have yet to do so. >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. Unsurprising since human interest in Mars is exceeded among extraterrestrial bodies only by Luna, and this predates NASA by quite a margin. >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 assertion which I'd like to see some support of. >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. And why shouldn't they? It's been all to often argued in these groups that "humans uber alles". Now you claim that they aren't. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. >>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I've asked several times that you demonstrate the merit Jorge, and you > have yet to do so. Likewise, you have utterly failed to convince me of your position that the two programs are "not at all" in sync, and that the current situation could not possibly get any worse, has any merit whatsoever. >>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. > > And why shouldn't they? Thus proving my point that there is considerable room for the situation to get worse, vis-a-vis the robotic and human spaceflight programs being in sync. > It's been all to often argued in these groups > that "humans uber alles". Now you claim that they aren't. No, I'm claiming that a pure-science organization like NSF likely wouldn't see it that way. Not that they're right. Look, there's plenty of gray area between the two extreme positions, and insufficient evidence to support either view. I suggest we agree to disagree at this point. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >Likewise, you have utterly failed to convince me of your position that the >two programs are "not at all" in sync, and that the current situation could >not possibly get any worse, has any merit whatsoever. Unmanned Mars missions current or planned that have any significant bearing on, or provide any support for, or a precursor to manned Mars missions. Zero. >>>An external agency, absent any HSF motivation, would likely decide >>>that the scientific value of other targets much less amenable to human [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >get worse, vis-a-vis the robotic and human spaceflight programs being in >sync. Given that there utterly no relationship at all between the programs now, there is no way the situation can get worse. If you have evidence or beliefs otherwise, feel free to air them here. >Look, there's plenty of gray area between the two extreme positions, and >insufficient evidence to support either view. I suggest we agree to >disagree at this point. Interesting. You consistently challenge my view, ask for my evidence, and utterly refuse to produce the same your view. Then you want to call the whole thing off without actually adressing any of the points I raise. Jorge I expected better than this kind of handwaving from you. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. >Guess what? Save only a couple of the orbiter, you could lose those >probes and a manned mission would be virtually unaffected. You just agreed that there is *some* linkage ("a couple of the orbiters"), which is all it takes to invalidate your argument. Brian >>Guess what? Save only a couple of the orbiter, you could lose those >>probes and a manned mission would be virtually unaffected. > >You just agreed that there is *some* linkage ("a couple of the >orbiters"), which is all it takes to invalidate your argument. To the simpleminded, yes. Those that understand that the same probes required to target manned missions are those required to support unmanned missions, it is quite obvious that the linkage is tenuous at best. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. >...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. SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net > >...some things are linked. It has been no secret for many > >years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > house give it a high priority. There's no requirement to infer sinister > influences of one side over the other. As evidenced by the fact that NASA has kept the goal of returning humans to the Moon just about as high as humans visiting Mars, yet these days robotic Lunar missions are rare. >>>>NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with >>>>the HSF function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How can they be any less in sync that 'not at all', which is the > current situation. Just to throw a ruble in, I'm not that I would say "not at all," at least literally. http://marie.jsc.nasa.gov/ Martian Radiation Environment Experiment - MARIE As NASA considers the possibility of sending manned spaceflight missions to Mars, radiation protection for crew members remains one of the key technological issues which must be resolved. Before this problem can be solved, it is important to understand and characterize the radiation environment not only near Mars and on its surface but also in the interplanetary space between the Earth and Mars. The Martian Radiation Environment Experiment (MARIE) was designed for that purpose. It is a payload on the 2001 Mars Odyssey Orbiter, which was launched on April 7, 2001 and was captured in Mars orbit on October 24, 2001. The instrument measures doses from two sources of space radiation which are harmful to humans — galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particles (SEP). MARIE provided data during the curise from the Earth to Mars, and it continues to provide data now that the spacecraft is in orbit at Mars. Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- R. Feynman, Appendix F. >Just to throw a ruble in, I'm not that I would say "not at all," at least >literally. I see no reason why such a payload could not be a hitchhiker on a probe launched for another purpose... In fact, just like it actually was. One experiment does not justification make. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. <previously written> >>>>NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with >>>>the HSF function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How can they be any less in sync that 'not at all', which is the current > situation. </previously written> >>Just to throw a ruble in, I'm not that I would say "not at all," at least >>literally. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > One experiment does not justification make. I didn't mention justification or even consider that. Just showing a case where the unmanned program was performing tasks specifically for the manned program, a pre-cursor. I don't know how the resources used for MARIE were assigned to MARIE and whether or not scientists in the unmanned community wanted to use those resources for either some other instrument or enhanced capability in those that did make it on-board. Perhaps Alex could comment on that. Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- R. Feynman, Appendix F. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.