314 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



We have to get going on the planning and the long lead items or we are going 

 to get caught again, just like we were in 1958. And I am simply not going to let the 

 USSR get ahead of us once we beat them out. 



Interestingly enough, Congressman Karth, who led the close and 

 bitter light against the Space Shuttle in 1970, said to Chairman Teague 

 concerning proposed Moon flight increases by his subcommittee: 



Now, let me sav, Mr Chairman, that I agree with the principle involved in 

 what your Committee did insofar as it relates to the actions you took on Apollo and 

 Saturn V production. * * * And I say that because here we are talking about a pro- 

 gram that, Mr. Chairman, we have spent $25 billion on. And now we want to dis- 

 continue it. That doesn't make much sense to me. 



Although the House supported the big increases the committee 

 wanted in 1970 to extend the Apollo program, the Senate balked at the 

 increased amounts for manned space flight. A lively conference be- 

 tween the House and Senate resulted in a substantial increase in the 

 Apollo authorization in 1970, but in later years the committee resigned 

 itself to sticking pretty close to the budget. 



Chairman Miller's campaign to stir up aerospace workers, scien- 

 tists, and other space enthusiasts to lobby harder for the manned space 

 program did produce a great deal of activity on Capitol Hill. The 

 scientific community was split; some strongly favored greater emphasis 

 on unmanned missions, while other scientists deplored the cancellation 

 of Apollo 18 and 19. The President felt the additional flights were 

 impossible because of budgetary limitations. In early September 1970, 

 Chairman Miller received a flood of letters from all over the country, 

 urging continuation of the Apollo program. Although sympathetic 

 toward the manned space concept, Chairman Miller sagely observed: 



However, the gain from these additional two missions must be balanced with the 

 current NASA fiscal restraints. 



He went on to defend the course of action which NASA was taking, in 

 the context of the President's budget decisions, and delivered this 

 parting shot at many of his correspondents: 



Had your views on the Apollo program been as forcefully expressed to NASA 

 and the Congress a year or more ago, this situation might have been prevented. 



By hindsight, it seems unlikely that even the strongest and most 

 adept mobilization of the supporters of more manned flights to the 

 Moon could have successfully overcome the adverse feeling in the 

 country in the early 1970's. Congress and the Nation could be per- 

 suaded to support Skylab, the Space Shuttle, and a modest level of 

 activity by NASA in many other areas. But as the NASA budget was 

 squeezed down to the plateau between $3 billion and $4 billion an- 

 nually, it became obvious that manned flight would be restricted to 

 Earth orbital activities. Von Braun's dream of a manned flight to 

 Mars was not in the cards for the 20th century, at least. 



