What if NASA was merged with the USAF?

[fredinno]

This is just a hypothetical "What if?", but there was one guy in the other tread who proposed this.

I think a military merger would kill SLS, and make a new RLV and space station (or tug).

I'm not advocating this in any way.

[Mazon Del]

I'm not a whole lot sure to be honest. But if the merger was made with the legal stipulation that the AF was liable for NASA's current contracts and the budget allocations remained the same, then SLS might very well continue. I don't see a whole lot of reason for why they might make a new space station, unless you are thinking about NASA's proposal to re-purpose ISS modules for a lunar space station, in which case that is probably just about as liable to happen as it is now. If anything, maybe a little less, because the AF probably isn't THAT terribly interested in devoting a lot of effort towards exploration purposes.

[Kryten]

It simply doesn't make sense, there's no overlap between USAF and NASA missions. The military hasn't been interested in crewed space since the 60s.

[_Augustus_]

It simply doesn't make sense, there's no overlap between USAF and NASA missions. The military hasn't been interested in crewed space since the 60s.

Not true. MOL was in the '70s, the VentureStar was basically a USAF project, and the X-37C is in development.

[Luckless]

Yes, beyond generic payload, and some computer/electrical/and very limited optical tech, what overlap in goals would you expect between NASA and USAF?

[Nibb31]

Not true. MOL was in the '70s, the VentureStar was basically a USAF project, and the X-37C is in development.

MOL was from 1963 to 1969. VentureStar was a paper study by Lockheed Martin for NASA and X-33 was clearly NASA.

X-37 was NASA, transferred to the USAF to become X-37B. If an X-37C is a Boeing paper study with no funding.

[smjjames]

Didn't NASA get it's start as a branchoff of the USAF in it's earliest days before it was even called NASA?

Edit: Actually no, it wasn't a direct branchoff of the USAF, but they did work in aeronautics and I assume they also worked closely with the USAF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Advisory_Committee_for_Aeronautics (this is the direct ancestor of NASA)

Edited October 20, 2015 by smjjames

[Darnok]

NASA is not receiving less and less funds because this already happen?

NASA was sharing results with other, but right now we have different situation in politics and sharing anything with other countries is not best idea, because you may share things with people you will try to kill next day.

I am suspecting this merge happened few years ago and USAF is running space missions where results are only stored in US military organizations, where security and confidentiality are on a daily basis.

[smjjames]

NASA is not receiving less and less funds because this already happen?

NASA was sharing results with other, but right now we have different situation in politics and sharing anything with other countries is not best idea, because you may share things with people you will try to kill next day.

I am suspecting this merge happened few years ago and USAF is running space missions where results are only stored in US military organizations, where security and confidentiality are on a daily basis.

Not really since NASA has been helping with spysats and other stuff since it's infancy. It's more like we're in a lull between the decomissioning of the shuttles and whatever manned program is next.

[MajorLeaugeRocketScience]

It would never happen. Both think the other just wastes space money on whatever they do. USAF is against most manned NASA stuff and NASA is deffinatly against spysats and militarization of space

[NuclearNut]

Well then they might just be able to get some decent funding for their programs then, eh? All they need to do is state that their SLS could be used for some sort of weapon to remove the monster of the week and boom, instant funding.

[magnemoe]

Didn't NASA get it's start as a branchoff of the USAF in it's earliest days before it was even called NASA?

Edit: Actually no, it wasn't a direct branchoff of the USAF, but they did work in aeronautics and I assume they also worked closely with the USAF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Advisory_Committee_for_Aeronautics (this is the direct ancestor of NASA)

Yes, one fun thing is that the US did not want USAF to launch the first satellite, USAF had an spy satellite program however they was concerned with legal issues, was it legal to orbit above other countries. It was best to launch an pure civilian research satellite first.

Then Soviet came first and it was no issue.

[KerikBalm]

Because ts totally in the USAF's mission to send probes to Pluto, or Europa, or Mercury, or Mars...

They can cooperate to develop launch vehicles... but even that is dubious... that got us the space shuttle :/

[Budgie]

Because ts totally in the USAF's mission to send probes to Pluto, or Europa, or Mercury, or Mars...

They can cooperate to develop launch vehicles... but even that is dubious... that got us the space shuttle :/

KerikBalm is right. It's not that each organisation thinks the other is a waste of money, as stated earlier. Each organisation just deals with completely different things. the USAF, as a military organisation, might pay for exploration stuff, but only if a real tactical advantage could be produced from the results. Until we're fighting a war with Mars, the AF will not spend a penny to research it.

Best to keep them separate, though I do understand the appeal of having air force funding behind NASA's goals.

[cantab]

War. Because the only way I can see this happening is if America faces such a threat that the USAF feels the need for NASA's knowledge and technology to be subsumed for military purposes.

[fredinno]

Well then they might just be able to get some decent funding for their programs then, eh? All they need to do is state that their SLS could be used for some sort of weapon to remove the monster of the week and boom, instant funding.

Like Kinetic Bombardment Space Weaponry?

- - - Updated - - -

Because ts totally in the USAF's mission to send probes to Pluto, or Europa, or Mercury, or Mars...

They can cooperate to develop launch vehicles... but even that is dubious... that got us the space shuttle :/

The Shuttle wouldn't have even been built otherwise. The Shuttle was more fundementally flawed- if NASA was building a new LV today, it would be either a normal expendable vehicle or fully reusable, not the "reusing parts not really needed anyways" the Shuttle gave.

Edited October 21, 2015 by fredinno

[KerikBalm]

Yea, the shuttle wouldn't have been built, we'd have multiple Saturn V launches per year for the same budget, and could have put a person on Mars by now.

The original pre-airfroce shuttle would have been more efficient, with smaller wings and various other things changed. The airforce's cross range requirement to allow the shuttle to go into a polar orbit and then after one orbit to return to the place of launch significantly impacted the shuttle's economic viability.

It may still have been a waste, but it ended up being an even bigger waste once the air force got involved.

The shuttle did reuse "needed" parts. Everything except the external tank was re-used.

It just took soo much maintenence and inspection, that it was cheaper to build a new disposable.

[Kryten]

The whole point of the Shuttle was to replace all current expendable launch vehicles, and to do that it needed to do the air force and other DoD missions. A Shuttle without AF participation is a shuttle with even less viability through less missions and a lower flight rate.

[Jouni]

It would ruing NASA's scientific mission. Working with foreign researchers as a branch of military would be hard, while hiring foreigners would become next to impossible. Even collaborating with US universities would be difficult, because many of their researchers are foreign nationals.

[fredinno]

Yea, the shuttle wouldn't have been built, we'd have multiple Saturn V launches per year for the same budget, and could have put a person on Mars by now.

The original pre-airfroce shuttle would have been more efficient, with smaller wings and various other things changed. The airforce's cross range requirement to allow the shuttle to go into a polar orbit and then after one orbit to return to the place of launch significantly impacted the shuttle's economic viability.

It may still have been a waste, but it ended up being an even bigger waste once the air force got involved.

The shuttle did reuse "needed" parts. Everything except the external tank was re-used.

It just took soo much maintenence and inspection, that it was cheaper to build a new disposable.

no, Saturn production lines ended in 1968. The best we would have gotten would be a man-rated titan or a new expendable rocket design.

[Findthepin1]

We'd have an army base on Luna. Fly all the stuff needed for it 400000 km for the sole purpose of firing a missile ANOTHER 400000 km where it then has reentry and hits a very specific spot on the ground, still completely functional. It'd cost billions of dollars, but that's NASA for you.

[fredinno]

We'd have an army base on Luna. Fly all the stuff needed for it 400000 km for the sole purpose of firing a missile ANOTHER 400000 km where it then has reentry and hits a very specific spot on the ground, still completely functional. It'd cost billions of dollars, but that's NASA for you.

This ain't the 60's.

[J.Random]

USAF as in "US Air Force"? There would be no NASA. Also, there probably would be no SpaceX.

[Kryten]

We'd have an army base on Luna.

You realise there's nothing stopping the army or air force from doing this, right? NASA is just responsible for civilian space exploration, it doesn't have some sort of federal monopoly on crewed spaced or BEO space. They don't do it because they've no reason to.

[fredinno]

You realise there's nothing stopping the army or air force from doing this, right? NASA is just responsible for civilian space exploration, it doesn't have some sort of federal monopoly on crewed spaced or BEO space. They don't do it because they've no reason to.

Well, Congress wants SLS to have a BLEO monopoly to justify its existence...

- - - Updated - - -

USAF as in "US Air Force"? There would be no NASA. Also, there probably would be no SpaceX.

I don't really think so, USAF outsources to others to launch too, like the EELV program.