Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

252
OBSERVING THE EARTH FROM SPACE
science and technology for political and economic gain. At home, other governmental
agencies, the Space and Marine Councils, the National Academy of Sciences and other
bodies already are embarked on what adds up to a national ERS program. And segments
of industry are becoming increasingly interested in the prospects of such activity and are
beginning to invest their own resources in this field of endeavor. Clearly, there is no question
of turning or holding back the technology, at least as far as aircraft-borne sensing is
concerned. Moreover, the unclassified technology, including the release of Gemini pictures,
has made plain that the state-of-the-art is ready for such a development.
Constraints: The controlling issues which must be resolved fall into the categories of
(1) security and foreign policy implications, (2) multi-agency management and funding,
(3) the need for a sound technical feasibility program to determine precisely what aerospace
system[s] can and cannot accomplish, and (4) the several alternate organizational
options which NASA could pursue in the event a go-ahead is decided.
[3] The conflict with DOD and other national agencies extends beyond the security
issue—itself a knotty one—into the eventual roles and missions of the military and civilian
space agencies. Moreover, the State Department has been chary to date in its endorsement
of an international ERS, even on bilateral lines. At issue is whether the objections of
those powerful agencies can be overcome and whether a mutually agreed-upon program,
delineating respective responsibilities and soliciting mutual cooperation can be evolved.
It must be made clear, in addition, that many of the constraints are policy constraints
reflecting a dated policy environment that needs to be examined in the light of the environment
of today and tomorrow.
With respect to other governmental agencies such as the Agriculture and Interior, the
essential problem is definition of NASA’s role: whether to behave as the lead agency, at
least through the R&D phase, utilizing an inter-agency Program Review Board chaired by
NASA as a coordination instrument, or to consider multi-agency funding and management
with all its attendant problems as the program proceeds. An example of a longerrange
consideration is what NASA’s continuing role should be: Should we phase out as
soon as an operational system is developed? Should we participate in operations beyond
providing launch services?
In the technical arena, while much research in selected areas has been accomplished,
the practicability of remote sensing of aerospace systems remains to be demonstrated. We
must also examine the political, economic and social [4] consequences of ERS, as well as
the technological aspects, in much greater depth, lest we prematurely build up public
expectations. The fact is, however, that NASA and others have already proclaimed the program’s
promise.
Finally, ERS looms as a major undertaking for NASA if the above issues can be met.
This warrants top-level review of Headquarters control and Center participation within
NASA and a firm inter-agency arrangement to meet the myriad of problems and objections
which occur.
We come then to the primary points at issue: At what pace should this nation pursue
an Earth Resources Program utilizing aerospace systems and what should NASA’s role be?
What opportunities exist to extend our demonstrated capabilities in communications,
weather and navigation satellites to the ERS area in order to be more responsive to problems
of crucial concern to the Executive and Legislative Departments? Should NASA continue
to be the major source of non-defense funds and resources? And in the same vein,
should NASA fulfill a central role in a national civilian program? Should there not be a
clear national policy which allocates responsibilities for an integrated approach?