Bill: 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

-IVI Ul.,VIU .• e 

September 30, 1969 

The paper is fine as a detailed background paper to insure McLucas understands. 

He will still need a much briefer paper for circulation 

to ExCom. This paper should briefly state the present 

arrangement. 

- The proposed new arrangement (Why can't we get 

that accepted by NASA & DOD now?) 

Address the need for additional 156 review. 

- Address the acceptability within current guidelines of - building things at 20 meters 

- planning things at 3-5 meters 

- doing all the astronomy they wish. 

Emphasize that the structures of the guidelines have been 

clearly understood as necessary to insure that reconnaissancelike activities by NASA are called to the attention of DOD and 

not because of a "forever" restriction on NASA, i.e. , the 

present procedures are guidelines and working arrangements 

only and NASA has always had the optional mechanism of proposing 

anything they want for consideration for MSFPC or 156 if they 

were dissatisfied--they have not because they are not!! 

Lew Allen, Jr. 

Colonel, USAF 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

IUl' ~LvhLi iAHDll VIA 

CONTIUl SYSTEM 

1mm111111111111IIIJ!llf~\lfillllltilllllllUlllll 

GUIDELINES FOR NASA ACTIVITY IN EARTH SENSING 

Background 

The initial NRO concern over NASA activities related to earth 

reconnaissance was addressed to the Secretary of Defense in April 

l1965. In a memorandum to Mr. McNamara, Dr. :VIcMillan outlined 

a number of related facts indicating the extent of activities by NASA 

bearing on earth reconnaissance which he considered to run counter 

. to national policy as expressed by the NSC and which he felt could 

jeopardize security and discipline within the NRP. Dr. McMillan 

recommended that a general agreement be struck with the NASA 

setting up a procedure which would identify NASA requirements for 

reconnaissance sensors or reconnaissance-like activities and provide 

in each case for spe.cific agreements at the level of the Associate 

Administrator and the DNRO. 

In early May 1965, Mr. McNamara proposed to NASA that the 

Air Force serve as its agent in procuring, developing and testing in 

earth orbit, sensor equipment for NASA reconnaissance-related 

activities. Within DOD, Mr. McNamara designated the DDR&E dS 

e channel for NASA to use in obtaining official DOD non-reconnaissance 

.. · quiremen:s and setting up such programs. He suggested furtner that 

IUDU: VIA 

COIT181SYMI TOP SEGRE[ 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
BANDLE VIA 

Approved ~ for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 ':'~"'',; ,,. ,; t,,·.-c1 1.Jj 

NASA carry out actual performance of any such cooperative programs 

with the Air Force and indicated that NASA should work through the 

National Reconnaissance Office on all programs which had sensitive 

implications of a reconnaissance nature. Mr. McNamara suggested 

an agreement between DOD and NASA which would incorporate these 

procedures. 

A NASA response of June 23, 1965 rejected Mr. McNamara 1 s 

proposal, and suggested in lieu of any agreement at the Secretary 

of Defense/ Administrator of NASA level, that, in any future case in 

which NASA desired to proceed beyond the exploratory study phase, 

the Associate Administrator of NASA and the Director, NRO, be 

delegated the responsibility for executing a memorandum of understanding which would prescribe the detailed arrangements, including 

the assignments of responsibility. 

In his response of July 31, 1965 to the NASA letter, Mr. McNamara 

indicated that his understanding of the NASA requirements, as expressed 

by Mr. Webb, was that these requirements overlapped the performance 

range of classified NRO programs and should be governed by the same 

considerations of "'.ational security which were the bases f:ff an earlier 

DOD/NASA agreement on NASA reconnaissance prcgrams (August 28, 1963). 

CONTROL SYSUM 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
BAMDU: VIA 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 1ur .:sconc1 HANDLE YIA 8 

CONTROL SYSTUi 

In view of the grave possibility of endangering the national security, 

Mr. McNamara enjoined NASA to terminate its study contracts in this 

special area, with the industrial and academic community, and to 

disband these study groups until determinations by the agreed to 

management procedures could be brought to bear. MT. McNamara 

suggested that, in the interim, properly cleared individuals could 

carry on in-house study. 

The DNRO (Dr. McMillan) and the Associate Administrator of 

NASA (Dr. Seamans) met on July 27, 1965 to discuss a general 

procedure for making such determinations. 

On August 5, 1965 Dr. McMillan summarized his understanding 

of this general procedure: 

1. NASA would establish a small committee (of perhaps three 

members) appropriately located within the NASA organization. These 

individuals would be given BYEMAN clearances. 

2. These individuals would keep themselves informed about 

reconnaissance-related activities within NASA that fell within the 

scope of a definition to be agreed upon by McMillan and Seamans. 

3. Initially, these activities were to be reported to Dr. Seamans 

for discussion with Dr. Mcl\'1.i.~lan as to disposition according to the 

DOD /NASA agreement already in force. 

CONTROL SYSTEM TOP. SECRET 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
IAHlll VIA 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

1 or .:)C.vnL a BANDLE VIA 8 u~,Jl 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

4. As the policies developed, it was understood that these 

matters could be settled by discussion between the NASA committee 

and the Director, NRO Staff without requiring the direct attention 

of Drs. McMillan and Seamans. 

Dr. McMillan suggested, at this time, a definition of the scope 

of reconnaissance-related activities that would automatically be 

subject to review. In general, activities were to be identified prior 

to the issuance of an RFQ, or prior to the transfer of funds to another 

agency. The suggested definition; 

An activity is defined as the expenditure of NASA research 

and development money with a university or industry, or 

the transfer of NASA money to another government agency 

for spending in this way. I 

There were other possible activities which Dr. McMillan con-

~ c::1ered of technical interest to the NRP. He suggested that these 

;uld also be brought to his attention. These included the developLs,ent or test of pointing, tra~ <_-'.rg, and stabilizing techniques, or 

systems to be used with satelli~es bearing high resolution sensors, 

fflTQOt. SYSTEM 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
IANDll VIA B 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

TOP SEGRIT 

in which the pointing accuracy was better than 20 microradians or 

the unstabilized rate was less than 20 microradians per second. The 

development or test of new recording media for use with reconnaissancelike sensors were also considered to be activities of interest. 

On August 24, 1965 Dr. Seamans accepted for NASA the arrangements and criteria set forth by Dr. McMillan in his letter of August 5. 

Dr. Seamans designated Messrs Garbarini (NASA/OSSA), ~--~ 

(NASA/OMSF) and (NASA/ OART) to serve as the committee 

to keep him informed of reconnaissance-related activities within 

NASA which fell within the scope of the agreed definition. 

On August 30, 1965 Mr. Vance nominated Colonel David L. Carter 

(NRO Staff) and ~--------~ (DDR&E) to represent OSD or,. a 

"Remote Sensor Coordination Panel. 11 NASA activities, in this area, 

proceeded then along the established guidelines. 

On April 4, 1966 Mr. Schultze (Director, Bureau of the Budget) 

,~,cd Dr. Hornig (Director, Office of Science and Technology), in a 

-r to ~r. Rusk, outlined a growing interest in the possible uses 

.;atelL·cr::: re· :mnaissance-type systems for peaceful purposes as 

reflected in s. :dies being conducted by NASA to investigate the 

potential for 2arth sensing from satellites and suggested a study, by 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

I U1 ' " t 1 ~ J V I'( t I HANDLE VIA 

CONTROL SYSTU1 

the NSAM 156 Committee, of the relationships between the programs 

of NASA and the NRO. The NSAM 156 Committee was asked to 

review the current security restrictions on reconnaissance activities 

and established national policy toward developing a plan of action 

based on such a review. A suggested list of issues was included. 

The NSAM 156 Committee reported its conclusions to the 

President on July 11, 1966. The key relevant recommendations: 

1. The classified national reconnaissance program should be 

protected by continuing to consider carefully the political and security 

effects of proposed unclassified earth-sensing activities prior to their 

authorization. Similarly, consideration should continue to be given to 

the political and security effects of public discussion of such activities. 

Any party at interest can request the NSAM 156 Ad Hoc Committee to 

review possible political or security issues which might arise from 

particular NASA or other non-military plans, programs, or other 

related activities concerned with spaceborne earth-sensing. 

2. There is potential great political capital in a US program 

of natural resource surveys and other scientific and economic exploitation of satellite earth observation and sensing, provided the basis has 

been properly laid, and the announcement of such a program is able to 

draw upon and project viable economic promise. Further consideration 

should therefore be given to a major political initiative advancing the 

concept of econor:o ic betterment through space activities. If such an 

initiative is decided u.pon, it should come at a time when sufficient work 

has been done ~u o.err:..::· __ ,strate the potentialities and offer reasonable 

promise of some early μayoff. 

3. At present, and for the next several years, from the standpoint of political and security considerations there is no objection to 

NASA proceeding with its tentatively planned e.tperimental program, 

complying with the limitation previously establi:::;t:.ed between NASA and NRO. * 

*The Committee accepts as a satisfactory present definition of the 

limitation on the study, design, developti1ent, fabrication, or test of 

earth sensors by NASA (as proposed in Dr. McMillan's letter to Dr . 

. IANDll VIA !\ ~,fJ 

ctlNTROL SYSTH1 

/"I-,,-,,.. -.. r •,-,--11 

C:}~~ .. ·~~,~ ,\ \ :1""°' ii 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

f Ur' :Sl:liHt I IAMBI! YIA 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

4. In discussion of the use of observation satellites for natural 

resources purposes, NASA should, for the next five years -- subject 

to future review and possible revision of guidelines -- restrict its 

discussion of future systems to those involving ground resolution of 

10-15 feet. The same restriction should apply to all other interested 

Government agencies. In order to facilitate proper classified control 

to apply the above general guidelines, and additional detailed implementing guidelines developed by NASA with the concurrence of NRO, a 

NSAM should be issued directing all other civilian agencies with an 

interest in satellite earth-sensing for these purposes to make known 

their interests in that field to, and coordinate fully with, NASA. Apart 

from other advantages to be expected from such an articulation of responsibilities, it should enable NASA to apply the agreed classified 

guidelines limitations to other civilian agencies. 

5. NASA and other appropriate agencies should consider carefully 

the relative merits and costs of aerial and other possible alternatives 

to various space-borne earth-sensing programs in terms of practical 

political interests as well as cost effectiveness. Similarly, the 

respective merits of manned and unmanned satellites will of course 

require consideration. To assist ~n deciding these questions, NASA 

and other appropriate Government personnel should be permitted to use 

selected U-2 and KH-4 photography, most of which is now codeword 

classified, to advance its studies of non-military earth-sensing applications. 

Recognizing the necessity for conducting its Earth Resources 

Survey Program in such a manner as to continue to avoid placing the 

U.S. space reconnaissance program in jeopardy, NASA proposed that 

the program go forward under a special NASA-DOD coordinating and 

monitoring mechanism governed by a set ~·-'- guidelines and ground rules 

Seamans of August 5, 1965, and accepted by Dr. Seamans in his reply 

to Dr. McMillan of A: ~i,-ust 24, 1965) as those sensors not exceeding a 

capability of 11 e1.n angu~ar resolut.m of O. 1 milliradian or finer, or an 

optical ~----------------~with a physical apern.cre 

greater than ?O cm. and an optical figure controlled to better th: .. : 1 / 4 

wave length. '

1 This limiting optical resolution is roughly equivc:.lent t0 

20 meters from low earth orbit. 

IAIOU VfA B 

hNTR8l srsmt TOP SECRET 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
llBU:Vll 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

i VI vLVl\1,.,.1, BANDLE VIA B 

J:DNTROL SYSTEM 

acceptable to the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, DCI, 

President's Science Advisor and the Administrator of NASA. On 

September 26, 1966, a coordinating and monitoring committee 

designated the Survey Applications Coordinating Committee was 

established. The specific guidelines, criteria, and ground rules 

for the conduct of the NASA Earth Resources Survey Program were 

based upon the McMillan-Seamans agreement of August 5, 1965. 

In January 1968, a memorandum of understanding between the 

DOD and NASA updated and expanded the functions of the Manned 

Space Flight Policy Committee (MSFPC) to include: 

a. Resolve those matters concerning the mutual participation 

in and support of the manned space flight programs of the two Agencies. 

b. Arrive at agreements involving top policy determination. 

c. Facilitate the exchange, at top management level, of viewpoints and information of importance in the coordinated planning of 

the manned space flight program of the NASA and the DOD. 

In February 1968, the MSFPC charter was annexed to include 

a subcommittee, designated the Survey Applications Coordinating 

Committee (SACC) to report directly to the MSFPC and to provide 

for a detailed and continuing review, coordinaticn, monitoring, and 

control of NASA ::'c"':ivities that relate to the NRP. 

CONTRnt SYSTEM TOP SECRET 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

----rur vLvnu.. M ·1M1DtE VIA 8 

CONTIOl SYSTEM 

The definitions contained in the SACC charter were those 

initially agreed to in August 1965 and endorsed by the NSAM 156 

Committee in July 1966: 

1. A reconnaissance like-sensor is currently defined to be 

an image forming sensor having an angular resolution of . 1 

milliradian or finer, or an optical! ~------------~ 

system with a phyqical aperture greater than 30 cm and an optical 

figure controlled to better than 1 / 4 wave length. Until revised, 

these criteria will define the sensitive sensor performance threshold. 

2. An activity of interest to the NRO is defined as the 

expenditure of NASA research and devel:::lpment money with a 

university or industry, or the transfer of money to another organization to be used in this way, that involves the study, design, development, fabrication, or test of reconnaissance-like sensors, or significant components thereof, for use in orbital systems, and studies 

of the use of such sensors in orbital systems. 

3. Pointing, tracking, and stabilizing techniques or systems 

of interest to the NRO are defined as those in which the pointing 

accuracy is better than 20 microradians or the unstabilized rate is 

less than 20 microradians per second. 

4. Recording media of interest to the NRO are defined as those 

for use with reconnaissance-like sensors. 

The agreed-to NASA program guidelines were these: 

1. NASA programs which essentially duplicate equipment 

capabilities or opera-cic~:,s of the NRO are not to be initiated unless 

overriding considerations in the national interest warrant such 

duplication. 

2. Development, procurement, or acquisition, of reconn.,_:ssance 

like sensors for NASA programs agreed upon by the MSFPC is undertaken only after a detailed agreement bet._ eu1 the NRO and NASA has 

been executed within the sense .of the DOD/NASA Agreement on 

NASA Reconnaissance Programs of August 28, 1963, as amended. 

BANDLE VIA B~, ~.~ 

CONTROL SYST~r~ TOP SECRET. 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
.. IIA 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

I UP :5t:ta~tJ IMDU VIA B 

CIINTROl SYSTEM 

3. Security limitations or technical thresholds imposed by 

NRO upon proposed or approved NASA activities are reviewed by 

the MSFPC as requested by NASA. 

Present Situation 

In May 1969, the DOD element of the SACC proposed officially -------~"---•• • •-•-•~•-~,--• -••• ...-~~,,..~,*-~~-~,.-~, • ~- •-•-•••••""--••""'~-s•••••¥ .,.,, • -• • ,, " .,., •~• • 

for SACC review a revision to the guidelines which would 

a. permit talking about higher ground resolutions as 

requirements, 

b. define limitation in terms of ground resolution rather 

than angular resolution, 

c. propose to consider astronomy experiments outside the 

scope of the SACC security guidelines. 

The suggested changes included: 

a. clarifying the astronomy experiment exemption as nonearth looking, 

b. clarifying the ground resolution as 20 meters (from any 

altitude) for current programs, 

c. confirming a 5 meter ground resolution (from any altitude) 

criterion i',:)r sensitive imagery for NASA planning of future earthsensing systems, , 

d. a,i,iing a requirement to review NRO related hardware and 

techniques for contribution to NASA needs, 

MTIDt SYSTEM TOP SECRET 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

TOP SECRH fiAlflll[ f!A 

e. removing from the definition of reconnaissance-like sensors 

those optical systems with a physical ~------------~ 

aperture greater than 30 centimeters or those sensors with an 

optical figure controlled to better than 1 / 4 wave length. 

This revision to the security guidelines is currently under 

consideration by SACC and will, when agreed to, be transmitted to 

the MSFPC for its approval. 

Discussion 

NASA activity in the earth-sensing area has been reviewed 

continuously by the DOD /NASA SACC and has proceeded, virtually 

uninhibited, within these guide lines. 

The somewhat unrealistic restrictions imposed previously on 

astronomical experiments have, for practical review purposes, been 

removed. Astronomical experiments have been recognized as intrinsically non-provocative to other nations and have been reviewed 

for some time in this context. The proposed revision to the SACC 

procedures would officially place such experiments outside the scope 

of the security guidelines of the SACC charter. 

As a matter of practicality, the SACC ha:, '":::>r some time ,:sed 

a ground .'.'?Solutior. c>t 20 meters (from any altitude) rather than the 

previously definec, ,,;:1gular resolution, as a criterion for defining 

reconnaissance -like sensor performance. 

CUNTROL SYSU1Vi 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436 

~]? ';', r ·~, ~ l IANOU: VIA 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

Pursuant to the NSAM 156 Committee recommendations of July 

1966, the SACC has, in reviewing plans based on NASA documented 

needs for future earth sensing systems, used a 5 meter ground 

resolution (from any altitude) as the criterion for sensitive imagery. 

NASA does not consider the proposed revised guidelines to be 

prohibitive either in its current or planned earth resources program 

activity, in its planned astronomical experiments or to its examination of the potential or future use of the A TS hardware and technology 

in an earth-sensing role. 

The NRO considers an early SACC involvement in the continuing 

review within the context of these guidelines of NASA Earth Resources 

Program planning to be essential in protecting the security of the NRP, 

in avoiding a duplicative effort in the development of hardware, and in 

accommodating the sharing of existing technology. 

A formal approval by the MSFPC and continued use by SACC of 

the revised guidelines would appear to satisfy both DOD and NASA 

concerns. 

JIAKDU VIA B 

CONTROL SYSTEM TOP SECRET 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112436