Note: Only forum leaders may delete posts.
*HTML is ON *UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend
Smilies Legend
[i]The task of defending NASA's budget fell to George Low, the acting administrator. In October [1970] Edward David, the president's science adviser, asked Low to evaluate the relative priorities of Apollo and Skylab in the light of further possible cutbacks. Low defended both programs, saying that "to reduce or constrain the scientific returns from Apollo by dropping one or more missions would involve very great losses." But canceling Skylab was even less palatable: "On balance, the weight of evidence seems to favor Skylab over Apollo if a choice must be made." The scientific returns from the single Skylab mission would probably exceed those from an additional lunar landing. America had already benefited from its Apollo investment, whereas canceling Skylab would provide no return. Finally, Skylab could lead to more new options with less risk than Apollo. David was asking Low to consider reductions in an already austere budget. In a period of 6% inflation, NASA had sought a modest increase to $3.7 billion. The Office of Management and Budget had countered with a $3.3-billion offer, which forced large reductions in the Space Shuttle and nuclear engine programs. Neither Apollo nor Skylab suffered serious cuts; their combined loss of $50 million amounted to less than 5% of the requested amount. Nevertheless, the loss could be absorbed only by slowing the pace of operations. The Office of Manned Space Flight set new launch dates of December 1972 and March 1973 for Apollo 17 and Skylab respectively. When Kennedy Space Center indicated that such closely spaced launches would require overtime, Skylab was moved back another month. The budget decision in late 1970 marked the last major change in Skylab's schedule.[/i]
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 1999-2024 collectSPACE. All rights reserved.