Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

254
the memorandum be explicitly broadened by choice of other terms in title and text. It is
not obvious, for instance, that a scheme for malaria control is within purview of the paper,
and there are enough people who use the terms “resources” and “natural resources” interchangeably
that confusion is likely over the extent of the subject matter involved. A title
such as “Earth Applications Survey,” for instance, would have wider implications although
I am sure this can be improved.
The use of the terms “aerospace systems” and “aerospace technology” may also be misleading
since I believe you are principally concerned here with those aspects of such programs
which utilize space-borne technology.
[2] Presumably, aircraft work performed by NASA as a phase in the development of space
technology does not pose policy problems of the same genre at all. NASA developmental
work directed at air-borne systems as such does not appear to run the same gamut of policy
considerations as the space-borne work, nor is it apparent too that, in areas of overlap,
the Agency will necessarily wish to approach resolution of the issues in the same way. I suggest
that issues relevant to air-borne systems be separated from those relevant to spaceborne
systems. The following commentary has been developed in the context of problems
pertaining to space-borne systems.
Present Status
The assertion on page 2 that the U.S. virtually has a national ERS program requires
comment. While it is true that a number of agencies, departments, councils, etc., are more
or less actively engaged, the collection of efforts lacks the cohesiveness and leadership
characteristic of a program. Moreover, of particular relevance in this context, the ongoing
efforts are not heavily dependent on space technology. In addition, most of those projects
oriented toward the application of space technology are being stimulated by NASA, usually
with NASA funds. Thus, NASA is in a unique and strong position in the application of
space-borne technology to earth oriented requirements.
NASA Position vis a vis Other Agencies
OBSERVING THE EARTH FROM SPACE
In terms of assumed role, as well as in terms of expertise, NASA is in the de facto position
of lead agency for the space application of aerospace-borne sensors. It is logical and
natural, as well as administratively superior, for NASA to continue in this role—at least
through the R&D phases. With continued cooperation from the Departments of
Agriculture, Interior, and others, this arrangement would greatly facilitate a strong NASA
lead in demonstrating the benefits of exploiting the advantages of this new medium. It
would also be the most efficient way to rapidly bring the new technology along on behalf
of potential users who are without strong R&D orientations.
Since it is very unlikely on the face of it that a separate satellite system will become a
reality for every user, the multi-purpose space platform is certain to play a major part in a
future operational time period. Furthermore, the fact that the cost per application ought
to go down markedly as the total number of activities on board the platform increases
weighs heavily in favor of such an approach. The establishment of a lead agency, at least
through the R&D phase, is essential to carrying this kind of enterprise forward and it
would be a mistake for NASA to turn aside from the lead position already established.
[3] Although NASA might accept R&D funding from potential users, it is desirable to continue
the practice of NASA funding. This is particularly true in cases where potential users
lack R&D funding or management experience. They cannot be expected to crank up programs
where the beneficial outcome to them is not reasonably assured, whereas it is well
within NASA’s charter to expend money for endeavors where a good measure of faith in