Shuttle not developed?

[pmn1]

If after the plans for a fully reusable two stage STS were abandoned, the whole STS idea went with it (at least for the 70's and 80's) and the US had to continue to rely on ELV's for all its launches where would the US Space Programme be today? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Well, the first thought that comes to mind is "probably about right where we are right now, minus in all probability the space station".<br /><br />I doubt we would have gone back and picked up on the Saturn technology - too expensive in the context of the times.<br /><br />It is possible something new might have developed in the commercial channel - but again, I tend to doubt it.<br /><br />I can of course be completely wrong here - it wouldn't be the first time - in the last 10 minutes.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[pmn1]

Is the USAF likely to have developed a small spaceplane for launching on top of boosters - Dyna-saur - and if so what are the chances of a civilianised version following? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I would say that they would of gone with a Titan IIIB booster and a modified apollo capsule. Of course, if we were staying in LEO and using only capsules, I can't think of a real long term application for them outside of servicing a space station.

 

[pmn1]

<font color="yellow">"probably about right where we are right now, minus in all probability the space station". </font><br /><br />Might have gone down the Salyut/Mir road?<br /><br />Another poster elsewhere has suggested a STS may be the 80's big ticket that the ISS was for the Reagan administration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

NASA probably would have launched skylab2 on the last Saturn V instead of leaving it to rust in a field.

 

[drwayne]

"NASA probably would have launched skylab2"<br /><br />Now that is an interesting statement. Personally, I don't think it would have happened, but hey, I thought the Lisa computer would take off...<br /><br />Maybe this deserves a separate thread - knowing the experience of the first skylab, and assuming that you had the freedom to do some changes, how would you change Skylab 2 prior to launch?<br /><br />I'll start a new thread.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

If NASA hadn't gone with the STS (or anything similar), then presumably they would've retained their capacity to manufacture Saturn 5s and Saturn IVBs, together with Apollos.<br /><br />The Russians presumably would've carried on with Salyut and Mir. I can't see the US doing no manned spaceflights in those circumstances, so I suspect there'd have gone the space station route as well. Eventually, they'd be pressure to 'get out of LEO', which they would've had the capability of doing.<br /><br />The Apollo would've been modified, as the Service Module is overkill for LEO - either a smaller SM or a bigger capsule (or both).<br /><br />Unmanned missions would've been the same (except possible for the Hubble).

 

[mikejz]

The question I would ask it this: What year, if it was 1970 as opposed to say '75 the remaining hardware from Apollo would factor big in the answer. <br /><br />My guess would be that NASA would of taken over MOL.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Well, the first thought that comes to mind is "probably about right where we are right now, minus in all probability the space station".</font>/i><br /><br />There are a lot of "ifs", obviously. Here are a few scenarios:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Same NASA budget, science dominates:</font> In this scenario, NASA's budget remains about the same, but the distribution is shifted away from manned space (why keep going in a capsule to LEO?) towards science missions to the Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc. This would result in a huge boost to the science programs.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Same NASA budget, skylab rules:</font>In this scenario, no new launchers are developed, and the budget for manned space exploration focuses on missions to Skylab. Skylabs I and II are supported, maintained, and upgraded over time. Between the two Skylabs, America supports 6 full time astronauts in LEO. By 1985 NASA would gain as much science knowledge on the two Skylabs as will be gained on ISS by 2015.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">NASA's budget is slashed, no manned space program:</font> With Russia pulling out of a trip to the Moon, and the US government seeing little reason for humans to be going in endless loops around the Earth (as has been recently articulated by many), NASA exits manned space program and cuts the budget accordingly. The unmanned science missions continue on at the same pace.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Same NASA budget, CATS research dominates:</font>NASA abandons Apollo and Skylab, and redirects those dollars into Cheap Access To Space. Unfortunately, the science and engineering of the 1970s and 1980s were too limited to provide any clear advantage over existing ELVs. Not until the early 1990s, and after years of intense R&D, does a suitable replacement appear. It needed to wait for the right combination of strong and lightweight composites materials, new TPS</i>

 

[henryhallam]

Not to mention the LM, that needed a whole lot of active control.

 

[drwayne]

Yep, because of the axes that the thrusters fired though versus the Cg, I gather it was an interesting control problem given the computer capability of the day.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[pmn1]

<font color="yellow"> Same NASA budget, skylab rules: In this scenario, no new launchers are developed, and the budget for manned space exploration focuses on missions to Skylab. Skylabs I and II are supported, maintained, and upgraded over time. Between the two Skylabs, America supports 6 full time astronauts in LEO. By 1985 NASA would gain as much science knowledge on the two Skylabs as will be gained on ISS by 2015. </font><br /><br /><br />Following on from this, if in the early 1980's the Reagan administration was looking for a 'big ticket' project to compete with the Soviets and ISS wasn't it, what RLV designs were floating around? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rsp1202]

Reagan was gung-ho for developing "Orient Express," the National Space Plane (X-30). Again, check astronautix.com.