WI NASA Had More Tasks

In OTL, NASA is a quasi-military quasi-civilian organization with a hefty part of the USA GDP. AFAIK NASA covers most of the nation's space exploration, while the Air Force has control over anything military-related in space.

What if that was never so--that is, since its inception, NASA had control of all space-related activities by the USA, including but not limited to exploration, nuclear weaponry, surveillance, and whatnot.

This would obviously entail a large kick in NASA's budget, but what else? Would this compromise NASA's mission as a relatively peace-related space organization?
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Uh, it might lead to the MAD as the Russians hurry to sabotage them/strike with nuclear missiles before the 'Berlin Space Wall' goes up (the missile shield).

Anyways, we'd see a bigger Astronaut program and we'd have bases on the Moon or spinning stations.

Plus, there might have been a bit of Soviet Power going more into space than into tanks?
 
In OTL, NASA is a quasi-military quasi-civilian organization with a hefty part of the USA GDP. AFAIK NASA covers most of the nation's space exploration, while the Air Force has control over anything military-related in space.

What if that was never so--that is, since its inception, NASA had control of all space-related activities by the USA, including but not limited to exploration, nuclear weaponry, surveillance, and whatnot.

This would obviously entail a large kick in NASA's budget, but what else? Would this compromise NASA's mission as a relatively peace-related space organization?

If NASA was also going to take care of ICBM's etc we would see the first American ICBM somewhere around 2050. There'd also be more accidents with nukes etc. AFAIK SAC had a lot better accidentrate than NASA ever did. NASA still is a halfway civilian organisation, right?

This also forces a militarization of space, as you also hinted in your post.

If you want NASA to accomplish more, I'd sooner give the military full control over NASA instead of the other way around.
 

Hnau

Banned
I would second the Flying Dutchman. Giving NASA more control over different technological pursuits and duties could only reduce efficiency and delay progress.
 
In OTL, NASA is a quasi-military quasi-civilian organization with a hefty part of the USA GDP. AFAIK NASA covers most of the nation's space exploration, while the Air Force has control over anything military-related in space.

What if that was never so--that is, since its inception, NASA had control of all space-related activities by the USA, including but not limited to exploration, nuclear weaponry, surveillance, and whatnot.

This would obviously entail a large kick in NASA's budget, but what else? Would this compromise NASA's mission as a relatively peace-related space organization?


1 – NASA is a civilian organization that receives federal income in exchange for work (for example: 16 million for a satellite to be placed in orbit).
2 – As of right now, NASA receives less then .001% of the US’s GNP.

To answer your question: If NASA had full control, with the budget the Air Force gets, we would either (A) have bases on the moon, and be mining Helieum-3 for use as a fuel or (B) We would have blown ourselves to kingdom come.
 
If NASA was also going to take care of ICBM's etc we would see the first American ICBM somewhere around 2050. There'd also be more accidents with nukes etc. AFAIK SAC had a lot better accidentrate than NASA ever did. NASA still is a halfway civilian organisation, right?

This also forces a militarization of space, as you also hinted in your post.

If you want NASA to accomplish more, I'd sooner give the military full control over NASA instead of the other way around.

First ICBM was before NASA wasn't it?

Yes it was, an Atlas launched on 17 December 1957, four months after the Soviets launched an ICBM

NASA, July 29 1958.

If NASA had more tasks? It would be an even bigger bureaucracy. ComSat service probably wouldn't be as good. NASA would probably do just as well as the air force at looking after nukes though.
 
First ICBM was before NASA wasn't it?

Yes it was, an Atlas launched on 17 December 1957, four months after the Soviets launched an ICBM

NASA, July 29 1958.

If NASA had more tasks? It would be an even bigger bureaucracy. ComSat service probably wouldn't be as good. NASA would probably do just as well as the air force at looking after nukes though.

The remark about the first American ICBM in 2050 was a joke.

Although I can understand many people having shudders at the idea of Curtis LeMay in charge of space... :D
 
Originally Posted by Hannibal.Caesar
In OTL, NASA is a quasi-military quasi-civilian organization with a hefty part of the USA GDP. AFAIK NASA covers most of the nation's space exploration, while the Air Force has control over anything military-related in space.

no quite
NASA is 100% civilian organization for Space and Aeronautics research (so already two task)
however it used in begin USAF ICBMs for lanuch payload in space during test launch. (with little help by USAF :D)
now they buy rocket they need and pay USAF for Launch

NOTE Cape Canaveral Space Port:
west NASA civilian Kennedy Space Center with Launch pads 39 A & B on Merritt Island
East USAF military Cape Canaveral Air-Force-Station with launch pads for Delta II-IV, Atlas III-V and SSBM test


wat for another task can NASA do next to Space and Aeronautics research ?

how about NOAA ? National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA
founded by Nixon in 1970 NOAA had probem it need NASA Satellites to Work,
until 1979 President Carter order to move Landsat program from NASA to NOAA

but wat if Nixon give 1970 NASA this Task, because they had already the Hardware for that ?

or they take the U.S. National Geodetic Survey over because NASA can do this better with Landsat Satellites ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Coast_and_Geodetic_Survey

Sound strange NASA and Oceanic exploration (with little help by US Navy :D)
1985: Braking News! a NASA expedition led by dr Robert Ballard found the wreck of RMS Titanic
 
If NASA covered the military aspects of space as well as civilian ones, it would inevitably be a more military-style organization. It would probably also have a more military-sounding name, such as "United States Space Forces" or something similar.

US Space exploration would either be much more dominated by military and national security concerns, or there would be a division within "NASA" between military and civilian-scientific sectors.
 
If NASA had been given military tasks, it wouldn't have been NASA. It was created quite specifically as a CIVILIAN organization. If that intent hadn't been there, the Air Force or the military in general would probably have run the space program, leaving basically sounding rockets and MetSat stuff for the civilians.
 

Michael Busch

Would a strictly military program have lead to nuclear spacecraft?

I agree with the idea that making NASA the only US space program is a little backwards - it makes much more sense if it is considered the other way, with space activity in the US remaining strictly military.

In this case, there are some possibilities associated with Project Orion (spacecraft propelled by atomic bombs). Ulam first proposed it in 1947, and the project was started by Ted Taylor and Freeman Dyson at General Atomics in 1958. Now, OTL, Orion's funding was at first from the Air Force, which was interested in military applications. A few years afterwards, it was transferred to NASA and civilian ownership and terminated with the end of open-air bomb tests (I'd have to check the details in George Dyson's book on the history).

If space remained strictly military, and the US is competing in a space-weapons race with the USSR, then Orion spacecraft might have been launched in the early 1960's - putting more mass in orbit at once than everything before at least 1975 OTL. This would imply some re-writing of the Test Ban Treaty in 1963 and a somewhat higher rate of radioactive fallout. We may assume a bunch of interest in high-efficiency nukes, followed by lower fallout designs as the environmental effects become clear. A side effect of designing Orion pulse bombs is directional atomic field artillery.

If an Orion fleet or fleets (OTL, only the US was studying the idea, but things do leak) were to be built in ~1963, then a few missions to the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids around ~1970 are plausible. To give context: in 1958, General Atomic had drawn up plans for a crew of 20 to visit Enceladus (moon of Saturn), with a launch in the late 1960's and a return three years later. I like the image of a space-suited Dyson taking giant leaps across the geysers at Enceladus' south pole... Not sure I like the probable effects of six hundred missiles poised in rotating orbits over the USSR's population centers on mounts that use atomic detonations to run away from attackers.

Sorry if I've butterflied this analysis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with the idea that making NASA the only US space program is a little backwards - it makes much more sense if it is considered the other way, with space activity in the US remaining strictly military.

In this case, there are some possibilities associated with Project Orion (spacecraft propelled by atomic bombs). Ulam first proposed it in 1947, and the project was started by Ted Taylor and Freeman Dyson at General Atomics in 1958. Now, OTL, Orion's funding was at first from the Air Force, which was interested in military applications. A few years afterwards, it was transferred to NASA and civilian ownership (I'd have to check the details in George Dyson's book on the history).

If space remained strictly military, and the US is competing in a space-weapons race with the USSR, then Orion spacecraft might have been launched in the early 1960's - putting more mass in orbit at once than everything before at least 1975 OTL. This would imply some re-writing of the Test Ban Treaty in 1963 and a somewhat higher rate of radioactive fallout. We may assume a bunch of interest in high-efficiency nukes, followed by lower fallout designs as the environmental effects become clear. A side effect of designing Orion pulse bombs is directional atomic field artillery.

If an Orion fleet or fleets (OTL, only the US was studying the idea, but things do leak) were to be built in ~1963, then a few missions to the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids around ~1970 are plausible. To give context: in 1958, General Atomic had drawn up plans for a crew of 20 to visit Enceladus (moon of Saturn), with a launch in the late 1960's and a return three years later. I like the image of a space-suited Dyson taking giant leaps across the geysers at Enceladus' south pole... Not sure I like the probable effects of six hundred missiles poised in rotating orbits over the USSR's population centers on mounts that use atomic detonations to run away from attackers.

Sorry if I've butterflied this analysis.

I was thinking the same thing;
all space activity military will result in further advances, but I doubt I'd like the world in that timeline more than I like the current, present one!
 
Top