240 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE OX SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



Members of the karth subcommittee took a consistently strong 

 position of support for the Earth resources program, which was 

 originally named the "Earth resources survey" program. 



In 1968, Karth urged NASA to be more aggressive in order to 

 produce an early operational Earth resources satellite: 



Mr. Karth. I don't think we have to start way back at point zero with these 

 application satellite programs as we did with Syncom, for example, because with 

 Synconi wc started without having done any previous research in an area that was 

 applicable. I think that is not true today by virtue of the fact that we have done a 

 great deal of research in those areas where there is direct applicability. I would 

 think that today the time period could be shortened quite considerably if we really 

 h.ul an aggressive Earth resources program evolving from the agency. Would you 

 agree? 



Dr. Naugle. I think we should be working to shorten the time period between 

 research and the development of the operational system, certainly. * * * 



Mr. Mosher. Then you should press forward toward it just as the chairman says. 



Dr. Naugle. Yes. 



At first, NASA witnesses balked a little when Karth suggested 

 that the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agri- 

 culture would be pleased to receive future Earth resources data in 

 their programs: "Haven't they brought to your attention programs 

 that they feel would be extremely useful and save billions of dollars 

 annually for the American people?" Dr. Naugle wondered whether 

 the economic value of such data had been analyzed, to which Karth 

 replied that in programs like physics and astronomy, NASA had 

 never applied such a yardstick before proceeding with a program. 

 With some exasperation, Karth observed: 



I can't for the life of me understand how NASA, with all the brains they have, 

 and indeed I have great respect for the intellectual capability of the people who work 

 for NASA, is having such a hard time finding out if there is any cost effectiveness 

 related to the Earth resources satellite program. Cost effectiveness has never been 

 applied to any one of the other programs that I know of, and I think the most glaring 

 example is the Apollo program itself * * *. I am just not sure I understand what is 

 going on, but I can tell you one thing: as far as I am concerned the subcommittee 

 is going to find out, and if there is a make-work program for the manned space flight 

 people, chickens are going to come home to roost, if I have anything to say about it. 

 I couldn't be any less interested in make-work or more interested in economic benefits. 



Appearing before the Karth subcommittee on behalf of speedier 

 progress by NASA in the Earth resources satellite area, Representative 

 Fulton observed: "I believe rumor hath it that you are also dissatisfied 

 with the progress of the program," to which Karth responded: 



I think the subcommittee is more interested in the rapid development of an 

 Earth resources satellite program than in any other program in the Office of Space 

 Science and Applications. We feel that here is an area of immediate and widespread 

 economic benefit which, in the long run, can do more to sell an overall space program 

 to the public than any other program. 



