NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

z 

2 1 JAN 1966 

MEMORANDUM FOR G IN EVANS 

SUBJECT: MOL Experiments Program 

Organization of a MOL experiments program was discussed at 

SSD with General Berg and Colonel Eochte on 5 January (reference 

a). Having explored the differing points of view on this subject, 

we should now consider various options, choose one and recommend 

it for adoption. As we view the requirement for a Defense Manned 

Experiments Program•(DMEP)„ there are two prime functions to be -

performed: (a) Set goals for military manned space flight and 

stimulate laboratories to develop experiments and advanced technology 

to meet these goals, and CO valuate proposed. experiments, establish 

priorities and assign them to vehicles. There appears to e no disagreement as to the requirement for (4) above, and the establishment 

Of an Executive Board to do this.. Disagreements arise about the 

_importance of the experiments prograa, the level and type of support 

to be provided to an Executive Board :rid the method of oofleoting, 

analyzing and choosing emperiments for the program. 

Our discussions, and the briefing prepared on "Experiments - 

Program for MOL" (reference b) have developed a'rationale which 

shows the importance of the program and the need for an Executive 

Board, reporting to both Commandee AFSC, and Director,VOL,'And 

supported by a technically competent, full time working Secretariat, 

to accomplish both (a) and (b) above. Therefore, the options which, - 

are to be considered concern the method of collecting and screening'. 

proposed experiments, and, in particular,- the role of SESP in this 

,function. These options ars disemed below. 

a. Option 1 - gsmittetlyktesratto'selectionof unmanned • 

...ir inmanecIsmeenteLUthe 8SP uoern. A division between_ 

manned and unmanned spaceelereoritjents is somewhat artificial.. If 

• the SESP is properly organised ancteperated.for unmanned experiments, 

`it should be an appropriate meehanive doing the spadework on manned.:: 

• 'experiments for the DMEP Executive LOard.' Use of SESP channels for 

all apace experiments has the advantage-ofsieF14city from the Air 

'Force laboratories' point of view,' in that they would have to be 

'familiar with only one procedure. 'Use of one channel also provides s! 

-the best interface between *ginned and unmanned space experiment 

activities. It would be a•duplication of effort if a Secretariat 

for- tho Executive Board re-evaluates manned experiments already:: 

evaluated and ranked by thde SESP. ,,Thus, the SESP should provide; 

this support for the Board. it is evident that there aro many,,i • 

advantages to integrating the selection of all apace yenta 
NRO PRROVEDFOR 

REL SE4jULY2015 

I 

• 

in the SEM* However, there is one major disadvantage. The SF.SP, 

as presently constituted, - is at too low a level in the chain of 

command and gives SSD/Aerospace an cipportunity to excessively influence its decisions. The Space Payloads Panel of the SSP is 

chaired by the SSD Deputy for Technology and Secretariat support 

is provided by one of his subordinate organizations, SSTRX, together 

with their Aerospace counterparts. -- Since most AF experiments would 

be generated by RTD and OAR laboratories, some members of those 

organizations view the present setup with suspicion. This attitude 

could be detrimental to the MEP Board's efforts to stimulate experiment inputs. 

b. Option 2 - Establish Separate channels for submission 

of manned and unmanned experiments. The DM? Executive Board can 

have experiments submitted directly to its Secretariat for evaluation, 

completely bypassing the SESP. The Secretariat, in this option, should` 

perform an initial evaluation of proposed experiments tor the Board, • 

since the top people named to the Board are not likely to devote suf.. 

fioient time to do this type of preliminary work. The primary advantage of this mode of operation is, that it places additional emphasis 

on manned experiments and puts the- entire DHEP operation at a suffi. 

oiently high level to give it the neceseary stature. This option 

provides for clear and recognizable ROL Program association as-well 

as allows for easier control by MOL, It eliminates any constraints 

and disadvantages inherent in the SFS? operation. The biggest argument against this option is that it reaultS in two separate, dupli., 

cativo operations involving activitiac whieh are somewhat artificially' 

divided. The Secretariat will have to,maintain very close coordination,,, 

with SESP activities to provide a good interface with unzanned,experi.., 

merit activities, This coordization is more difficult to aohieve than', 

in Option 1. If the Secretariat is to-perform an initial, evaluation 

for the Board, a larger number of personnel, with more varied saientifio 

background!,will be required than in Option 

c. Option 3 « Use SESP to perform the manned experiment 

colleoti.n function and the MEP Executive Board th its Secretaria 

perform the remaining funotiont. This; option makes use of the existing 

capability for the mechanical function of collecting experiments and ‘ 

gives laboratories a singleehannel for sUbmitting experiments. It 

places the total evaluation'funotion being performed, as in Option 2, 

at a sufficiently high organizations' level to relieve' any fears that.. 

one organization can unduly influent's deciaions. This option some. 

what strengthens the interface between manned and unmanned experiment. 

activities since the Executive Board Seciretariat and SESP wig. have . 

to work closely together here, There is, an added, advantage the. 

ti 

F IT 
NRO-APPROVED FOR - 

RELVASETJULY2015 

if at a later date it appear eesirable; to integrate manned and 

unmanned activities, and establish a Single aeoutive Board, the ,.., 

inteeration would be relatively sirap3 2. A larger Secretariat, 

covering a wider range of scieetific backgrounds, would be required although all the skills needed by Option 2 are not needed. 

d. Option 4 - ComeIetel. to-e-ate 'seleeiti of teemed 

and twined experiments in a motii.142L3EsP As discussed 

in Option 1, there are some shortcomings in the organizational 

placement of the SESP as it is preeently constituted. Army and 

Navy representatives, as well as have questioned the Speed 

Payload Panel being chaired by SSD. In view of this, there has 

been some discussion that the Chairman of the Panel should be 

Headquarters APSO representative, with meetings held in the 

Washington area, Suoh modified SESP would be supported by a 

Secretariat assigned to Headquarters APSC. If the . SESP were 

modified in this fashion, coinoident with the establishment of 

the D1 Board, the Secretariat'could support both the Space 

Payload Panel and the MET Board« In this option, the Space 

Payload Panel could evaluate all specs experiments, and submit 

their recommendations on manned experiments for review by the 

DNEP Board. This option eliminates most of the disadvantages of 

the previous options while presorting the sdventages. The single 

potential disadvantage concerns the matter of timing. The existing: 

SESP operation has evolved over s period of a year and a half and `e 

has boon approved by Headquarters APSC. SSD has a vested interest 

in retaining their position of authority in the existing operation. 

I recommend Option 4. Although this option seems best suited 

to provide the ultimate solutions the urgent, need to establish a 

DM' may require initially adopting an.option having a more limited 

objective, such as Option 3. Thus, the Board can be established 

quickly and proceed with its tirst,task of setting goal* arid 

stimulating manned experiments. ' At the same planning,oan 

• proceed to phase into .Option 4 as-soon as .poesible• - Upon your-- 

approval, we elaall 'modify the attached briefing to correepond; 

with the latest cenclusion.ivadlprepere t the, appropriateittgsl emen 

eioaumentation.- 

, 

laciattlai 

Teohnioda..Direatozo 

.,)tp4 Program _Office { 

Copy tot 

SAFSL (2) 

SAFSLeChron 

eAFSLeRead. 

4.-Iiman „ teeSee-aeaaeee, eeeee 

ie.te.te,strate ARE WT 1:ieewe (OR NOT ATTACHED) 

se lb DXOF: CORRESPONDENCE WILL `Lt Col Sanders/SAFge3/50,94 . „ - " ACCORDANCE; WI TI:1-,,--rARA. 266,-,AFR 205 1. 

TiTi