(5) NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

THE NRO STAFF

18 November 1975

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

,'. •

.•••

SUBJECT: Summary of Space Policy Committee Meeting

Secretary Sisco opened the meeting by viewing the Committee's

activities as potentially very interesting and challenging. He

asked for comments around the table as to the goals which were

perceived by the members.

Mr. Plummer indicated that the reconnaissance satellites

constituted a vital system and that we could lose our ability

to conduct reconnaissance from space very quickly. We all need

to understand this aspect in connection with the relationships

with the civil space program. He also indicated that we believed

strongly that a reverification of national policy was in order

and that we had been instrumental in the establishment of the

Space Policy Committee.

•

Mr. Sisco gave his interpretation of the United Nations

activities by saying that the discussions have been very realistic on the whole and not interfering to U.S. activities. He

believes that the education process at the United Nations is

going very well.

Dr. Fletcher suggested that the DOD and NASA were working

well together and believes that the policy group could determine what the needs of the civil versus the military are a

said that imagery is not important. Scientific data cause

problems. He suggested that we review the bidding first

not get on with the issues until the principals understan

present policy. He also stated that in his opinion Nma.

DOD are not too far apart.

Dr. Wade stated that the issues appear to be the s

they always have been but the balance of power . vis-a-vis

Soviet Union has changed thus making the fragility of the

reconnaissance satellites even more significant.

Mr. Duckett said that there was a critical point deal

with foreign policy value of the intelligence product and

111114.9airiP2 -: .3 '

Vi UPC C

Thlifilinia" PAGE OF

4

MI1111111

MOM

liax=1 Dug: -TOVIELIETMeV WC OCCIASOPT ON WI OCT.
This.0.04.04.

11114111... • wro I/V*0M 1*

1n 10*Al** 081110 WA/ WW1**. ‘ale

11101“ SSP 11111CLASIMI • 0.n MP Si •

CON? 75

COPY

—

COPIES

PAGE r OF PAGES

the intelligence product is a measurable one. He believes

that the committee must examine this aspect. Mr. Plummer

followed up on this statement by saying that we should be

cautious in giving data to others especially those militarily

useful data collected by civilian satellites.

Dr. White felt that the current policies are good and that

the Congress is in favor of the current policies. He wants the

committee to get on with the issues and be specific so that we

can solve the points at issue.

Dr. Fletcher asked why should we withhold data from the

civil program. He said that although we have problems with

data such as gravity anomalies, the LANDSAT program has been

extremely popular and no one seems to be objecting to it.

Mr. Duckett indicated that the Chinese have been purchasing

a great deal of LANDSAT photography. Mr. Sisco asked what

the return was for America and where is the grey area between

the quality of the military and civilian programs. Dr. Fletcher

responded by saying that some would like imagery less than five

meters. NASA believes that ten meters quality is the optimum

and there is no known foreign interest in obtaining better

quality.

Mr. Katz suggested that all is not well in the United

Nations and that resolution is not a problem but national

privacy is. He noted that there were many vested interest

groups at the table and that we must trade off viability of

• continuing programs versus distribution of the information.

He stated that secret satellites are vulnerable and that tacit

acceptance as we know it today is a continuing problem. He

indicated also a concern about the irreplaceability of reconnaissance satellites and cautioned the committee to be careful

in addressing the secret uses of openly acquired economic data.

He also cited the point that if the reconnaissance satellites

blatantly collected information then different perceptions

would be evident as opposed to the favorable environment the

reconnaissance satellites currently enjoy.

Mr. Sisco pointed out that aerial reconnaissance of the

Sinai, which is permissible today, would not have been several

years ago. Dr. Fletcher added to this by saying that he would •

like to optimize civil overflight of foreign nations in order

to solidify the overflight principle by satellites.

Mr. Ogilvie stated that OMB had an unusual perspective

and mixed feelings because of their interests in. both the
-TOP-SECRETcivil and the military programs from a resource viewpoint.

He expressed a need to get clear issues defined and begin to

work on these issues. Mr. Sisco amplified this by saying that

we did need a feel for the issues and that Mr. Sloss' status

report would be a good basis. •

Dr. Weiss expressed the White House's interest in trading

off fragility versus economic use. He indicated a problefti with

the hypothetical civilian pay-off versus a tangible fragility

of the reconnaissance systems.

Mr. Drew indicated that we should view a productive use

of the military systems and reassess the boundaries in order

to get more product into the civil sector.

Dr. Elliott explained the President's desire which is to

focus on space policy in order to avoid ad hoc decisions. He

pointed out the dilemma created .by the present "fact of" policy

with respect to the charter of the civil users panel. He mentioned several other problems including the GEOS 3-SEASAT problem, whether NASA should do classified work and whether or not

we should carry two space budgets or merge into a single space

system. When Mr. Sisco asked what Dr. Elliott's opinion was

of the latter,* he responded by saying that he felt that the

space systems were so different that no efficiency would be

gained. Dr. Elliott closed by saying that he disagreed with

the fragility issue in connection with international opposition.

He said that the U.S. has no alternative but to proceed with

the operation of the reconnaissance program under any circumstances. Mr. Sisco asked if there was a doiestic fragility.

Dr. Pletcher and Mr. Duckett commented on Congressional attitudes

which pointed out that there were differences of opinion on the

Hill as to the direction civil earth observation should take.

Mr. Plummer reiterated his point on fragility and cited

the technical problems associated with countering the electronic

satellites in particular. He added that the near-real-time

system would add a new dimension and perhaps open up the antisatellite question again in connection with tactical support.

Mr. Sisco asked if we had not taken a defensive approach

over the years in protecting the reconnaissance satellite environment. Dr. Fletcher said that we could, through the committee, easily create a problem if we are not careful and urged

that we should not rock the boat. Mr. Sisco said that we should

be very cautious in that he does not see any overriding foreign

policy decision and wants no decisive change. The conservative

approach has blunted the need for foreign policy decisions.

•

&MOOS liler*lbw

WWI.. O

SIMWelqft

WI

ftwM

CONY R' 21-75

COPY 0 COPIES

PAGE 3 OF PAGES

•n•••n••••••••••••••• .•••••nn• ••• • • •• ••••. owee••••n••••••••••••••• ••••••n• wry.. • . • •
TOP-SECRET

•

Dr. Fletcher suggested that we review the policy environment first rather than attack issues. Mr. Sisco suggested

that we could do both at the same time. He has expressed a

fear of delaying the process. Dr. Fletcher said that he felt

the committee would bog down if issues were addressed.

Mr. Ogilvie supported Mr. Sisco's suggestion and General .Kearney

suggested that selected issues be addressed. Dr. Elliott felt

that the existent policy is well understood by most of the

people working this problem and that we should not attack the

issues one at a time. Dr. Fletcher criticized the existing

list of issues by saying these are not policy issues but

management issues. Dr. Wade expressed the idea that the policy

issues should be framed by the committee and not the working

group. Mr, Plummer and Dr. Fletcher both indicated that we

ought to go back to the 1966 framework and use that as a baseline and home in more on the issues that were suggested in the

Terms of Reference attached to the Clements' memo. Mr. Sisco

still desired an integrated approach in one piece of paper.

Mr. Sloss suggested that the backgrounder which has been started

by the working group should be completed and in addition we

ought to formulate an outline stating various issues for the

working group to submit to the principal group. Mr. Sisco

closed the discussion by suggesting that the members ought to

take a liberal approach in identifying issues.

In summary, the meeting served to clarify various positions

and importantly a notion of caution was introduced in treating

change to policy as it affects the reconnaissance program.

. COYLE, .

Lt Colonel, USAF

Deputy Director for

Plans and Policy

1 Attachment

List of Attendees

•

MY Olin 111

Olin sea

cown -75

COPY 'ES

PAGE AGES

•••n • • •••• • • • • .4..11••••••r- .111I• • •
--HIP-SECIET--

LIST OF ATTENDEES 

Mr. Sisco State

Mr. Plummer NRO

Dr. Fletcher NASA

Mr. Ogilvie OMB

Mr. Duckett CIA

Mt. Katz ACDA

Dr. Elliott NSC

Dr. Wade OSD

Mr. Drew OST

Dr. Weiss CIEP

Mr. Radlinski Int

Gen Kearney JCS

Dr. White NOAA

4 CONY

„127

5

COPYIIIIIIIIPCOPI ES

PAGE...1_0F PAGES