682 HISTORY OF TH1 COMMITTEE ON S( II \'< I AND TECHNOLOGY 



that other agencies were already using NASA's expertise on a reim- 

 bursable basis (EPA, HUD, NSF, Departments of Interior and Agri- 

 culture were cited as examples) and "we believe there are major ad- 

 vantages in having other agencies draw on NASA for assistance rather 

 than to broaden NASA's mission." Teague took his pen and covered 

 Ash's answer with a giant question mark. It seemed to Teague that 

 if other agencies were already calling on NASA for assistance, that 

 was proof positive that NASA could pitch in and do other things also 

 if given the authority. Ash wrote Teague this exasperating conclusion: 



It appears preferable, in our view, that the level and direction of research and 

 development be determined by mission agencies that are close to the problems to be 

 dealt with and to the potential applications of R&D results. Furthermore, a broader 

 mission for NASA might detract from its space and aeronautical capabilities. 



NSF OR NASA! WHICH SHOULD BE LEAD AGENCY IN SOLAR? 



In the same letter in which Teague blasted Ash for OMB's oppo- 

 sition to the solar heating and cooling bill, he suggested that since 

 OMB wanted all solar energy research in one place he would see to it 

 that all solar energy research was transferred from NSF to NASA. On 

 the same day, February 8, 1974, Teague sent NASA Administrator 

 Fletcher and NSF Director Stever copies of his letter to Ash and asked 

 Fletcher and Stever for detailed plans, including required personnel 

 shifts, for making the transfer of solar research to NASA. About the 

 same time, Staff Director Swigert, a strong booster of satellite solar 

 power, found considerable interest in the subject among committee 

 members. A consortium of A. D. Little-Grumman-Raytheon-Textron 

 had submitted a proposal to Dixy Lee Ray during her energy study 

 for the President, and the committee took a direct interest in seeing 

 NASA start some work toward ironing out the bugs in the proposal. 



All this activity suddenly awakened OMB to understand that the 

 committee meant business. On February 25, Ash responded at greater 

 length and with considerable more directness to Teague's blistering 

 letter. By now, Ash had seen the thundering majority accorded to the 

 solar heating and cooling bill by the House of Representatives. He 

 reversed his position and said that nobody had to wait for the creation 

 of ERDA to move forward with the demonstration program. But he 

 stood firm on favoring NSF as the "lead agency" for solar research, 

 and said that a full transfer of these activities to NASA "could delay 

 the already established solar energy program." 



A TALK WITH OMB 



Teague decided it was time for a heart-to-heart talk with Ash, 

 preferably with senior committee members present. To set the stage 



