SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS IN THE 1970'S 329 



Symington also needled NASA witnesses on why so many budg- 

 etary reductions were made in NASA's applications program. This 

 prompted the following exchange with Charles W. Mathews, head of 

 the Office of Applications : 



Mr. Symington. Was that decision occasioned by an overall budget review, as 

 distinct from a purely Agency decision? 



Mr. Mathews. That sort of thing, Mr. Chairman, generally would occur as a 

 somewhat iterative process. 



Mr. Symington. Repeat that word? 



Mr. Mathews. Iterative. That means a back and forth process. 



When a subsequent discussion revealed that the process ended up 

 with NASA always recommending less money in the Applications 

 area, Symington was prompted to observe: "Who put the 'it' in that 

 iterative process?" 



Appalled by the failure of NASA to budget for a navigation satellite 

 also desired for use by the Maritime Administration, Symington had 

 this sprightly colloquy with Mathews: 



Mr. Symington. So they want it very badly, and you would like to give it to 

 them, but it's not in either budget? 



Mr. Mathews. That is correct. 



Mr. Symington. That is confusing to me. 



Mr. Bergland. Mr. Chairman, I submit it doesn't make any sense. 



Mr. Symington. The gentleman has expanded my thought. * * * Was there a 

 third silent partner in the decision by these two great agencies not to place this item 

 in their respective budgets? 



Mr. Mathews. Usually that happens when there are two agencies involved. 



Mr. Symington. Divide and conquer, or unite and conquer in this case. 



There were a great many aspects of NASA's programed budget 

 which Symington in 1973 labeled as "incredible." First, Dr. Fletcher 

 announced that the establishment of a separate Office of Applications 

 meant that Applications would be given greater emphasis in the future; 

 yet the budget request in 1973 was only $153 million as contrasted 

 with $195 million in 1972. Then there was the little item of phasing 

 out NASA research on communications satellites, when the Com- 

 munications Satellite Corporation through private industry indicated 

 no desire to pick up that big tab. When NASA decided to delay the 

 launch of another Earth resources technology satellite for budgetary 

 reasons, Symington's subcommittee stepped in and added $8 million 

 to NASA's authorization to speed up this valuable program. His efforts 

 were unanimously supported by both his subcommittee and the full 

 committee, with strong assistance in the debate by Downing, Esch, 

 Gold water and Camp. 



It had been the practice of most subcommittees to accomplish their 

 major assessments of agency programs through the annual authoriza- 

 tion hearings, plus oversight through field visits and careful analysis 



