Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–3, Documents on Global Issues, 1973–1976

117. Action Memorandum From the Chairman of the Working Group of the Standing Committee on Space Policy (Sloss) to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Space Policy (Sisco)¹ ²

Washington, October 20, 1975

Space Policy Committee - Status Report

Purpose - This memorandum will (a) report on the status of the study being prepared by the working group, (b) suggest the major issues that are emerging in the study, and (c) recommend an early meeting of your Committee in order to give further impetus to the study, and resolve certain procedural issues.

Status - You will recall that an outline for the initial study was prepared and agreed upon by the Working Group (Tab 1). The initial outline did not include policy options because some members of the WG, notably DOD and NASA, believed this was premature. However, you indicated in response to Jim Goodby’s earlier memo (Tab 2) that the study should eventually include options. Staff of OMB and NSC agree, and I have begun to formulate such options for later insertions in the study, but I have not yet discussed them with the WG. This is an important procedural issue which probably will need to be taken up in your Committee at an early date.

We have now received and distributed to all participants first drafts of the study prepared by several agencies in response to the study outline. These drafts are incomplete and in some respects inconsistent, but they represent a start. I intend to meet with representatives of each of the agencies individually during the coming week to go over their inputs and suggest changes and additions. I shall ask for revised papers from which we will then prepare a consolidated draft for circulation and comment. I believe it also will be necessary for us to prepare an Executive Summary or Issues Paper in State which will be the main vehicle for presenting the major policy issues and options to your Committee. It will probably be mid-November before we can get agreement on such a paper, and even then there will be major issues on which the various agencies will disagree.

Issues - The study is focusing initially on the interface between earth-sensing satellite systems developed for intelligence and civil uses. While at the present time we are dealing primarily with satellites that utilize photography or similar processes to survey the land area of the earth, in due course we also will need to deal with other types of sensors [text not declassified] and with satellites designed for over ocean use such as SEASAT.

As the potential for civil uses of satellite acquired data become more widely appreciated pressures are building among U.S. users of this data both to make broader use of classified data and to improve the technical capabilities of unclassified programs. One of the major issues we will have to address in the study is whether, and the extent to which these trends pose a threat to the continued unfettered operation of intelligence satellites.

At the same time, we are experiencing resistance from some foreign governments to the sensing from space of their territory, and even more to the open dissemination of the data acquired.

I believe we can already see the following five issues emerging in this initial study. The characterization of agency views is, of course, preliminary, but gives same idea of where the differences lie.

(a) To what extent should NASA be permitted to upgrade the technical capabilities of its earth-sensing satellites? NASA and some user agencies favor technical improvements strongly. DOD and CIA are opposed to certain of these on the grounds they will compromise classified programs. Views within State differ.

This will affect NASA’s future LANDSAT programs and is likely to be a major issue in the planned SEASAT program due to operate in 1978. The problem should be aired at an early date by this Committee, if DOD, CIA and NASA are not to decide the issues among themselves.

(b) Should broader access be permitted to data acquired from classified programs either through reducing the special classifications, declassification or clearing additional users to permit broader use for civil purposes? DOD and CIA believe this will compromise our intelligence programs. NASA prefers upgrading the capabilities of their programs. The user agencies are the strongest advocates of such a move. AID would like to be able to use such data to support development programs in foreign countries, and believes it must be downgraded in classification to permit such use.

(c) Should the “fact of” classified reconnaissance programs be publicly acknowledged? CIA and the user agencies (Interior, Commerce, Agriculture and EPA) favor declassification for different reasons. Bill Colby is concerned about problems on the Hill with the current policy while the user agencies seek broader use of classified data. DOD and NASA oppose declassification also for different reasons. DOD believes the present policy protects classified systems. NASA believes it helps to protect their separate unclassified programs. Within State there are differences of view.

(d) Should the U.S. alter its present position on unrestricted dissemination of data from unclassified programs in light of pressures from the Soviet Union and other nations to restrict sensing? State and NASA are the strongest supporters of open dissemination. CIA and DOD are concerned this may eventually cause political attacks on classified programs.

(e) Can the classified and unclassified programs be combined under a single management (not a single system however)? This is a major interest of OMB. The President has a so expressed an interest in the possibilities of combining the two programs. CIA, DOD, and NASA are opposed.

All of these issues will need to be elaborated further in the study and the appropriate options developed. However, I would like to see early agreement to focus the study on these five issues, and I intend to press in this direction with the Working Group.

A Space Policy Committee Meeting - I believe that it would be useful for you to call a meeting of your Committee in the next two weeks. We will not then have a paper for the Committee to consider, but I still believe such a meeting would be helpful for two reasons. First, it would demonstrate that the new committee is taking charge in this area. This could forestall possible efforts by DOD and NASA to set policy bilaterally outside the framework of the Committee. For example, they now have working groups examining issues related to SEASAT which are directly relevant to the Space Policy Committee. While DOD and NASA have agreed that they will refer policy issues to your Committee, you can appreciate that their definition of what “policy” is could well differ from our own.

Second, such a meeting could help me in getting support at the working level for the general approach outlined above. Specifically, I would like to see the senior-level committee agree that the study will develop policy options around the framework of the five issues noted above.

Recommendation: That you authorize me to arrange a meeting of the Space Policy Committee at the earliest date convenient for you and the other members.

Approve [JS initialed]
Disapprove ____________

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, P860117–2078. Secret; Noforn. Drafted on October 16 by Sloss; and cleared by Gathright. Sent through Vest. Sisco approved a meeting at 11 a.m. on November 18. Tabs 1 and 2 have not been found.
2. Sloss outlined the principal issues facing the Standing Committee on Space Policy and recommended convening a meeting of the Committee.