21.03.2013 Views

Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 135<br />

Plumbrook cut because this is where all <strong>the</strong> nuclear work was going on. However, we have<br />

indicated that until we can get things sorted out, we would not accept a cut at Marshall or<br />

elsewhere at this time. We stated, instead, that a number roughly approximating <strong>the</strong> 1880<br />

would be coming out of NASA’s budget, but exactly where <strong>the</strong>se cuts would be made we<br />

will determine later. In <strong>the</strong> meantime, I want to make a major effort to see whe<strong>the</strong>r we can<br />

“sell” <strong>the</strong> excess NASA capabilities to agencies such as EPA [Environmental Protection<br />

Agency] (for Lewis) and <strong>the</strong> DOT [Department of Transportation] (for Marshall). This is<br />

different from what we attempted last year when indicated that we would make NASA<br />

capability available as a service to <strong>the</strong>se o<strong>the</strong>r agencies. After trying for a year to make that<br />

work, it just is clear that it won’t. Instead, our intention now is to “spin off” some of <strong>the</strong><br />

capabilities directly to o<strong>the</strong>r agencies so that <strong>the</strong>y can develop an in-house capability.<br />

As I mentioned before, I spent Monday, December 18, writing our reclama letter to<br />

Weinberger, and, in addition, writing a letter to Kissinger soliciting his support on Viking.<br />

Copies of <strong>the</strong> drafts of <strong>the</strong>se letters are attached. In <strong>the</strong> [6] meantime, Fletcher had been<br />

working with Whitehead, Anders, and Jon Rose to get <strong>the</strong>ir G-2 on what was really going<br />

on in <strong>the</strong> White House, and, at <strong>the</strong> same time, he also received <strong>the</strong>ir free advice. Jon, who<br />

is used to dealing within <strong>the</strong> White House, felt that <strong>the</strong> letters that I had written might<br />

make <strong>the</strong>ir mark with OMB but he really felt that <strong>the</strong>y were needed with Erlichman and<br />

Flanigan and were not suitable for that purpose. Accordingly, he rewrote both letters just<br />

before Fletcher had a meeting with Weinberger and Morrill on December 19 (I was back<br />

in Houston at that time). A copy of <strong>the</strong>ir rewrite is also attached. There were no changes<br />

in substance with one exception: <strong>the</strong> engine refan program was back in <strong>the</strong> words but not<br />

back in <strong>the</strong> budget. This is a program where a great deal of pressure has been applied to<br />

<strong>the</strong> Vice President’s office and Bill Anders would, <strong>the</strong>refore, like to see it back in <strong>the</strong> budget.<br />

We indicated to OMB that we would certainly undertake <strong>the</strong> project if additional<br />

money were added over and above <strong>the</strong> mark for this purpose. At <strong>the</strong> time of this writing,<br />

it is quite probable that this money will be added. I forgot to mention that Bill Anders met<br />

with us on <strong>the</strong> 18th, and that we engaged in a very significant philosophical argument with<br />

him. It is Bill’s opinion (shared apparently by all White House staffers) that NASA’s main<br />

objectives should be to explore and to provide launch services. Subjects such as applications<br />

and science we should only do as a service for o<strong>the</strong>rs, and, <strong>the</strong>refore, should seek<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir funding, e.g., user agencies or NSF [National Science Foundation], for this purpose.<br />

Both Fletcher and I engaged in a fairly vehement argument with Anders on this point.<br />

Although I don’t think we persuaded Anders, at least he knows where we stand.<br />

Our budget submission as revised, was only approximately $50 million over <strong>the</strong> OMB<br />

mark for both FY 1973 and FY 1974. Weinberger was apparently quite pleased with our<br />

proposals, and it is quite probable that <strong>the</strong>y will be accepted. However, at <strong>the</strong> time of<br />

Christmas weekend we have not yet heard positively that our proposals have been accepted<br />

or that <strong>the</strong> NASA budget is locked up. As a final afterthought, Fletcher went back to<br />

Weinberger and asked him whe<strong>the</strong>r it wouldn’t be possible to reinstate OSO. The reasoning<br />

is that this might be a minor concession to make to <strong>the</strong> scientific community. [7]<br />

This reinstatement, of course, we could only make with additional funding. This, too, is<br />

an open item at <strong>the</strong> time of this writing.<br />

Document I-28<br />

Document title: Committee on Satellite Communications, Space Applications Board,<br />

Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, “Federal Research and<br />

Development for Satellite Communications,” 1977.<br />

Source: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!