> <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>