Hi,
Well, using this perspective you are certainly right. But for me the question is not so much about the total number of skills but the number of skills required by a player or the party to reach a certain degree of autonomy, i.e. so that they do not rely on NPCs all the time.
I haven't made this analysis in details, but at first glance:
For a fighter HARP or HARP SF does not make much difference.
An adept does most likely face a similiar situation as a mage in HARP.
A thief has more skills in HARP SF, as nothing useful for him disappeared but he now has to cope with the modern world.
A sage/scientist has the 11 scientific skills added, and he might not be valuable in a HARP campaign, in a HARP SF exploration campaign he is.
Healers have also now more skills to develop as before.
And then there are two areas where there is no real equivalent in HARP:
Engineer and Pilot.
The pilot has only 5 or 6 skills, so he can take on also another role, i.e. this is not much added complexity.
But the engineer has 13 engineering skills (which count only as 1 in your list) to develop, of which only 2 (Civil and Chemical) are not so important in my eyes.
So the bottomline for me still is: the party has in HARP SF much more skills to consider as in HARP, simply because the importance of the dropped is much lower than the importance of the added skills.
BR
Juergen