256 



HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



Rocket Vehicle Applications) and Snap (Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary 

 Power), most particularly Nerva. 



Nerva followed a course of development much akin to the Elec- 

 tronics Research Center: Funding was strongly supported at the start 

 by NASA, bitterly opposed by a minority in the Congress and a strong 

 minority in the Science Committee, and finally the rug was pulled 

 out by NASA under the pressure of budgetary restrictions. 



In the early sixties, there wasn't too much opposition to the fund- 

 ing of Nerva or nuclear on-board power. The committee generally 

 supported what NASA recommended in these areas. The programs 

 were conducted jointly by NASA and the Atomic Energy Commission, 

 and the coordination was made smoother by a Joint NASA-AEC office 

 called the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office. When Senator Anderson 

 became chairman of the Senate Space Committee in 1963, he regarded 

 all nuclear programs as his "babies" and took good care to protect 

 them and feed them adequately. The location of Los Alamos in New 

 Mexico helped persuade Senator Anderson to support nuclear pro- 

 grams even more strongly. 



The first rumbling of discontent and disagreement between NASA 

 and the committee came in 1965, when the Bureau of the Budget 

 decided to discontinue further funding of the Snap-8 on-board nuclear 

 power development. The House committee, supported by the House, 

 disagreed and put in $6 million to continue the development. At the 

 same time, the "nuclear hawks" — Fulton and Bell — issued a separate 

 report urging greater effort in the whole area of nuclear propulsion 

 research in order "to insure our preeminence and security in the 

 space field." 



A bipartisan team of Wydler and Ryan led the fight within the 

 subcommittee against any further funding of the Nerva nuclear rocket. 

 Their opposition suddenly erupted in 1967, primarily because it became 

 apparent that Nerva was being planned by NASA for any manned 

 expedition beyond the Moon to Mars. The opponents argued that the 

 $47 million specifically requested for Nerva in 1967 — much of which 

 had been sent to Capitol Hill in a late supplement to the President's 

 January budget — would cost $1.5 billion over a 10-year period, plus 

 more later if and when a mission were chosen. Schedule delays, cost 

 overruns and technical problems also fueled the arguments of Nerva's 

 opponents. The proponents of Nerva pointed out that lack of a nuclear 

 rocket in the future would foreclose the picking of missions to the 

 planets or lifting large payloads in Earth orbit. 



Chairman Miller, Bell, Hechler, Davis, Fulton, and Pettis spoke 

 for Nerva. The vote was a close one, with Nerva surviving a 121-91 

 teller vote. But then Fulton offered his surprise motion to recommit. 



