192 



HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



As an example of the type of interchange between the Manned 

 Space Flight Subcommittee — plus other interested committee members — 

 and George Mueller's staff at the NASA Manned Space Flight Office, 

 the following memorandum excerpts were prepared at NASA: 



Subject: Teague review, January 20, 1966. 



Attendees: Congressmen Teague, Daddario, Casey, Rumsfeld, Schisler, and Adams. 



Congressman Teague asked, Would we break the Apollo schedule (that is, 

 slip the basic program beyond 1970) to have Apollo applications in order to absorb 

 the cuts we are expecting. Answer, No, we owe it to the world and we have to keep 

 these people working. Asked next question, How the program was cut by the Bureau 

 of the Budget and the President. The answer was, A very selective cut rather than 

 general but the Bureau of the Budget made general cuts and the agency had the 

 opportunity to reconstruct its budget to conform to the cuts. He wanted to know 

 what the impact of a severe cut would be, and asked for an analysis of cuts of 2 

 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent of the budget [Loenig asked to do this]. [Teague 

 said] Administrative Operations and Construction of Facilities will be covered in 

 the full committee. The subcommittee will hear the research and development. Teague 

 asked about the Russians attempting soft landing on the Moon. Vis-a-vis ours. The 

 main thrust was, Did the Russian failures have any effect on our planning or thinking. 

 Reply, No, it is a difficult problem and we are going as fast as we can and our pace 

 is not influenced by the Russians. Mueller said we will keep the option open 1 more 

 year if we lose Apollo Applications. Teague asked, Did the removal of the suits have 

 any effect. The answer was it improved the general situation in the spacecraft. The 

 astronauts were comfortable. Was the configuration of the suit different, the answer, 

 Yes. Adams asked about the effect of the 5-7 PSI (pounds per square inch) atmosphere, 

 The answer was no effect. Also, the effect of tumble — answer, if it's below 1 revolu- 

 tion per minute, no problem. In order to improve the situation, they covered the 

 window with paper or something else. Daddario, Why did the Agena show up bad 

 late. The reason is we had 185 good ones with plenty ground tests and checkouts. 

 This was really an unexpected failure. Teague, How has your construction at the 

 launch sites been delayed, was this caused by labor. The answer, On 37B we lost 37 

 days. The spacecraft was the pacing item on 201. Delays also caused by weather or 

 other changes. There was no loss on pad 39 due to labor. Daddario asked if the cut 

 caused a stretchout, will it cost more? The answer, It was no cut to basic Apollo, 

 only the follow-on program. Daddario, Is the MOL (Manned Orbiting Laboratory) 

 another Apollo. Answer, No, MOL is designed for DOD missions only. Crawler 

 question was raised by Daddario, by asking has it moved anything, and the answer 

 was, Yes, the LUT (Launch Umbilical Tower). Did we pay for the changes? Daddario 

 asked, and then Teague became quite upset over the fact that we allegedly bail the 

 big companies out and let the little companies go bankrupt. 



The meetings with George Mueller and his staff were helpful, 

 off-the-record opportunities for both groups to let their hair down, 

 get to know each other better, and to get frank answers to questions 

 and issues concerning the subcommittee. 



As 1966 wore on, Teague began to worry about the pressures 

 which Vietnam and the poverty program placed on the funds neces- 

 sary to achieve the lunar landing goal. He remarked during the NASA 

 authorization debate on the House floor on May 3, 1966: 



