In early 1970, a group of high-level NASA engineers and managers meet in Washington to review the latest information on their budget requests and post-Apollo plans. News is grim. While Spiro Agnew is a spirited defender of the program, having headed the committee which created the latest plan, Nixon is indifferent at best, while Congress is on the war path. The budget, in free-fall since 1968, is to be squeezed even more. The question now is whether to support the development of a new Space Shuttle, a craft which promises to greatly reduce costs and improving access to space, perhaps allowing a future NASA to argue successfully for a return to the Moon or even a mission to Mars, or continue AAP missions, extending the Apollo program into the indefinite future. This has the advantage of being much cheaper in the short run, making it an easier pill to swallow for the President, though it may mean future budgetary and planning problems. On the other hand, it is very well proven hardware, while any new craft will naturally be difficult and expensive to develop. Argument rages for hours around the conference table as the issue is debated. Finally, a consensus emerges: The Shuttle is dead. AAP will be recommended to the President.
The budget news that winter is appalling. Congress sees little reason to continue manned space flight, even with the lower-cost Apollo Applications Program instead of an expensive new shuttle. Deep cuts are made in an already strained program. Apollo 20 had already been cancelled at the beginning of the year due to the end of Saturn V production. Now, Apollo 15 is also cancelled, leaving the lunar flights to end at 18. 15, 16, 17, and 18 will be J-class missions, with extensive scientific payloads and (on Apollos 17 and 18) a geologist on board to further enhance scientific output. The two remaining Saturn Vs freed by these announcements will be used to support the planned Skylab orbital station. One will be modified to launch it, while the other will stand by as a reserve. Several unmanned programs are also cancelled, including new OSO spacecraft and the Voyager Mars mission, the last due as much to the lack of excess Saturn Vs for launch as funding. The TOPS/Planetary Grand Tour program is barely saved by JPL and APS lobbying efforts. It is hard for many to see how much worse it could have gotten.
------
Thoughts? How plausible is the POD is used? What do you think the actual outcome of that would be? (Note that most of the mission cancellations are from OTL, actually)
The budget news that winter is appalling. Congress sees little reason to continue manned space flight, even with the lower-cost Apollo Applications Program instead of an expensive new shuttle. Deep cuts are made in an already strained program. Apollo 20 had already been cancelled at the beginning of the year due to the end of Saturn V production. Now, Apollo 15 is also cancelled, leaving the lunar flights to end at 18. 15, 16, 17, and 18 will be J-class missions, with extensive scientific payloads and (on Apollos 17 and 18) a geologist on board to further enhance scientific output. The two remaining Saturn Vs freed by these announcements will be used to support the planned Skylab orbital station. One will be modified to launch it, while the other will stand by as a reserve. Several unmanned programs are also cancelled, including new OSO spacecraft and the Voyager Mars mission, the last due as much to the lack of excess Saturn Vs for launch as funding. The TOPS/Planetary Grand Tour program is barely saved by JPL and APS lobbying efforts. It is hard for many to see how much worse it could have gotten.
------
Thoughts? How plausible is the POD is used? What do you think the actual outcome of that would be? (Note that most of the mission cancellations are from OTL, actually)
Last edited: