TOP SECRET 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIRFORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

NRO APPROVED•FO 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

lima via IMO 

Contr tem 

OFFICE-OF THE SECRETARY APR 2 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. McLUCAS 

• Page_l__of -7--pases 

Copy—of ----o 

SAF-SI, Contro 

gi &ILL 2 35-b 

SUBJECT: SAF-Level MOL Management 

In our March 21 discussion on the above subject, you 

requested my views on possible alternative SAF-level MOL 

management arrangements and the pros and cons of each. That 

is the purpose of this memorandum. As a background for such 

considerations, however, let me first briefly relate the 

early AF management objectives for special handling of MOL 

and the management arrangements which evolved by mid-1967 and 

continued through mid-March 1969. 

OBJECTIVES OF SPECIAL MOL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 

In a January 14, 1965 letter to DepSecDef which described 

the USAF plan for early management of the MOL Program, 

Dr. McMillan (then SAFUS/DNRO) stated that the Air Force 

objective had been to define a management concept which 

provided for the following: 

1. Streamlined management for both black and white 

portions of the program. 

2. Centralized program direction for both black 

and white portions of the program. 

3. Firm management control and continuous review 

of the program at the Secretary of the Air Force level. 

4. Effective coordination with NASA and other 

Government agencies at the Secretary of the Air Force level. 

MOL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS. 1967-1969: 

However, all of those objectives were not fully realized 

until September 1967. The major features of MOL management 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 
Utile via BYEMAN 

Control System 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

arrangements from then until mid-March 1969 included: 

1. A MOL Systems Office in Los Angeles who administered and managed all MOL contracts and activities and was 

responsible for implementing the approved total program, 

reporting directly and only to . . . 

2. The Director/Vice Director MOL in the Pentagon, 

who was responsible for daily supervision and direction of 

MOL Systems. Office activities and for all Washington area 

AFSC/Air Staff/SAF-like MOL activities, reporting directly 

to . . . 

3. The former SAFRD/DNRO who was the single AF 

"executive agent" for MOL, exercising overall technical/ 

financial program supervision via a MOL Program Review Council 

on a generally monthly basis, and who theoretically reported 

to . . • 

4. A MOL Policy Committee "Board of Directors" 

chaired by the SAF (who met infrequently because the former 

SAF apparently preferred less cumbersome and time-consuming 

means). Additionally, 

5. OSD designated a single MOL focal point (formerly 

Mr. Kirk and now Mr. Palley, DDR&E) who worked informally and 

directly with the MOL Program Office and participated as an 

Ex-Officio member of the MOL Program Review Council. 

EVOLUTION OF MOL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS: 

Attachment 1 and its tabs present a brief chronology and 

graphical depictions of the evolution of MOL management 

arrangements from January 14, 1965 through March 17, 1969. 

MARCH 17. 1969 CHANGE IN MOL MANAGEMENT AT THE SAF LEVEL 

Dr. Seamans' March 17 memo to appropriate AF officials 

stated that you, in your capacity as DNRO, are also responsible 

for the "MOL Reconnaissance Payloads" (Atch 1, Tab J). 

Meanwhile, SAF Order 100.1, dated September 1, 1966 (Atch 1, 

Tab E) is also still in effect which holds SAFRD responsible 

101/4,11- 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control Svittem 

Pas...at-of-I-pages 

I «SL Coatrs 
ig C*. 

7•49-a-of-7--Pag" 

h744 Contra 

e2g3g6 -4 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 TOP SECRET BIEMAN, 

Control Systole 

for "directing and supervising all space programs and space 

activities of the Air Force . . ." Since all NRP space 

programs and activities technically belong to OSD -- not AF --

they are automatically excluded. Also excluded, both past 

and present, from the provisions of this directive are the 

reconnaissance aspects of MOL. 

As a result of these two documents, the Director, MOL 

became responsible directly to the DNRO (SAFUS) for the MOL 

reconnaissance payload and operation, and to SAFRD for all 

non-BYEMAN elements and aspects of the MOL Program. . . 

All other management responsibilities and arrangements 

apparently continued unchanged from those that were in effect 

on March 16, 1969. 

ASSUMPTION RE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS: 

For the purpose of this memorandum, it is assumed that 

no changes are contemplated at this time in MOL Program Office 

and Systems Office responsibilities, functions, or general 

program implementation management/administrative procedures 

now in effect. In that vein, the following considers only 

possible allocations of MOL Program supervision responsibility 

and direction authority between the DNRO and SAFRD. 

BASIC ALTERNATIVE SAF-LEVEL MOL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 

There are three immediately-apparent, reasonable SAF-level 

general management arrangements which should be considered: 

1. DNRO Manages Entire Program: this arrangement 

is envisaged as similar to the situation which existed until 

March 16, 1969, with the MOL Director/Vice Director/Deputy 

Director reporting directly to the DNRO for all aspects of 

the Program. The current SAF woald presumably inject himself ...- 

as did his predecessor -- into program management matters as 

desired and/or required (via discussions with the DNRO and 

Director MOL, monthly reports, MOL Policy Committee meetings, 

etc.). 

This arrangement would insure that the MOL 

Program continued closely allied with the NRP, was managed by_ 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Randle via MENAI 

Control System 

the same individual responsible for those programs, had an 

authoritative SAF "voice" to direct and/or commit the program, 

and minimize SAF-level management review/approval interfaces 

for the MOL Program and Systems Offices, etc. 

The apparent disadvantages are that this arrangement would place another significant workload on SAFUS (in 

addition to the DNRO responsibility), would not take full 

advantage of SAFRD experience and knowledge in space technology, 

nor insure that SAFRD was kept well informed (so that he could 

guide related AF R&D activity and/or explain or justify MOL 

as necessary in the Congress and elsewhere). 

2. DNRO/SAFRD Manage Clearly Identified Elements 

of the MOL Program: There are numerous possible variations of 

this management arrangement -- with the SAFRD responsible for 

distinct MOL subsystems ranging, perhaps, from the T-IIIM 

booster to all non-reconnaissance elements of the MOL system, 

and the DNRO responsible for all else. SAF participation is 

assumed as described in Sub-section 1 above. 

The apparent advantages of such an arrangement 

are that the SAFUS/DNRO workload presumably would be reduced a 

proportionate amount; appropriate advantage would be taken 

of SAFRD experience and knowledge in space matters; SAFRD 

would be kept better informed on MOL status, etc. 

The advantages, however, might be more apparent 

than real. Major MOL management problems have consistently 

been and probably will continue to be associated either 

directly or indirectly with the payload, or with overall 

program schedule and cost considerations. Thus, the SAFUS/DNRO 

probably would continue to be deeply involved in most MOL 

management matters regardless of the black/white division of 

responsibility between he and SAFRD. Further, those elements 

assigned to SAFRD probably would constitute an added personal 

workload for the SAFRD since MOL is managed, funded, and 

supported completely apart from normal AF R&D channels and, 

except for the Titan IIIM, is related more to the NRO and 

NASA than any on-going AF activities. 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Noodle via BYEMAN 

hot* vstem 

itA, A el 

less....t.st_Lpsgss cspy____Or____0 s 

-TOP-SEORET- Coutro 
Akitx t 

f =..0.2-pages 

49py...ot----e 

'Mb Ontro 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 EP SECRET Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

3. SAFRD Manages Entire Program: In this arrangement, it is envisaged that in addition to the still-current 

provisions of the September 1966 SAF Order 100.1, the DNRO 

would delegate day-to-day responsibility for payload 

development supervision to the SAFRD. SAF participation is 

assumed as described in Sub-section 1 above. 

The apparent advantages of such an arrangement 

are that it would reduce the DNRO/SAFUS daily workload, take 

full advantage of SAFRD experience and knowledge in space 

matters, keep SAFRD fully informed on MOL, etc. 

Here again, the advantages might be more apparent 

than real. Since the DNRO presumably would retain DoD 

management responsibility for such NRO/MOL matters as SOC 

targetting activities, interfaces with elements of the 

Intelligence Community, SCF operation, EK resources utilization, 

BYEMAN security and MOL public information policies, etc., 

he could not divest himself from fairly frequent involvement 

in the MOL Program even at this date. SAFRD, on the other hand, 

would have no basis, except via discussions with the DNRO and the 

MOL Program and Systems Offices, to insure that MOL NRO/ 

Intelligence Community interfaces were progressing in a 

satisfactory manner, that GAMBIT-3 experience was reflected 

in MOL and vice versa, etc. 

MODIFIED BASIC MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE 

A modification of the preceding basic management arrangements which might be considered is one which retains 

centralized SAF-level management of MOL with full SAFRD participation in program planning, approval, and implementation. This 

arrangement envisages the DNRO retaining SAF-level executive 

responsibility for the entire MOL Program, with SAFRD participation in across-the-board program management as a member of 

the MOL Program Review Council. 

Although SAFRD presently Ise member of the SAF-chaired 

MOL Policy Committee, that group is neither chartered nor 

expected to concern themselves with day-to-day program details. 

The MOL Program Review Council, on the other hand, has 

generally met monthly and reviewed and approved in necessary 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 40p_KGRET_ 

onntrol System 
14)- 

Page_k_of-.7-pages 

copy____of----0 

sa-all Contra 

B-to-s2- te 83-50 —(0 g 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 TE? SECRET Idle via BIM 

Control System 

detail all technical, financial and operational matters. 

West Coast meetings of the PRC usually have been accomplished 

in conjunction with DNRO reviews of SAFSP matters. 

Attachment 2 includes the charters of both the MOL Policy 

Committee and the MOL Program Review Council. 

This arrangement should not increase DNRO workload any 

significant amount over split-responsibility alternatives 

since the majority of the management problems concern either 

the payload directly or indirectly or overall program funding/ 

scheduling matters. It would take advantage of SAFRD 

experience and knowledge in space matters and his advice and 

counsel on the entire program rather than one or more subsystems, and would keep SAFRD fully informed on MOL as background for his direction of any related AF R&D activities 

and official dealings with NASA and the Congress. 

RECOMMENDATION/IMPLEMENTING ACTION 

I recommend the above arrangement be adopted for at 

least a six months trial period. The administrative actions 

to do so are relatively simple and will not call attention to 

any special SAFUS (DNRO) responsibility for MOL. 

In my opinion, relatively few people inside and outside 

the Air Force really understand some of the subtleties of 

MOL management arrangements. Most regard it simply as a 

take-off on the old ICBM management procedures, with a MOL 

Project Office in Los Angeles who reports directly to the 

Director, MOL in the Pentagon who, in turn, reports directly 

to SAF as specified in published, unclassified AF orders. 

Even many of the DORIAN-cleared people did not fully understand 

the former DNRO/SAFRD's involvement since MOL clearly was not 

yet a part of the NRP. The implications' of SAF Order 100.1 

(re SAFRD space responsibilities) probably were meaningless to 

most people other than the Director, MOL since SAFRD has these 

same responsibilities for all AF R&D programs. . . the real 

details of MOL management are set forth only in limited 

distribution BYEMAN-classified documents. 

Therefore, all that is necessary to implement my 

recommendation is to: 1. delete the last para of SAFRD 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 

ilontrol System 
S T. STEWART 

ajor General, USAF 

Vice Director, MOL Program 

Imas.4--404-..pages 

pi s 

'AMA Castro 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

s Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

responsibilities as now stated in SAF Order 100.1 (re space) 

and issue a new version; 2. have SAF issue a BYEMAN-classified 

supplement to his March 17 memo, re delegation of authority 

to the DNRO, stating that the latter's responsibility includes 

the entire MOL Program (same addressees plus Director, MOL, 

with info copies to DepSecDef and DDR&E); and 3. make the 

necessary minor modifications to the MOL Program Review Council 

charter. The MOL Program should not be specifically identified 

in any unclassified SAF/SAFUS/SAFRD functional statement. 

Atch 

a/s 

cc: Mr. Hansen 

Mr. Davis 

Dr. Yarymovych/Gen Berg 

Gen Ferguson 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN' 

Control System 
A.T111., 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 40p__sEgRE Hada via IIIIMAN 

lontrol *toot 

MOL MANAGEMENT EVOLUTION 

January 14, 1965: 

On January 14, 1965, the initial MOL special management 

arrangements were officially established: 

1. A MOL Program Policy Committee, chaired by SAF 

and including appropriate Air Force officials, was created to 

exercise overall program supervision and policy direction. 

2. The SAFUS (who also was the DNRO) was designated 

Air Force "executive agent" for MOL. A Special Assistant for 

MOL (who also was a Deputy Commander, AFSC, for MOL) was named 

to help SAFUS coordinate and direct MOL activities and consolidate the black and white activities. 

3. Responsibility for MOL camera system development 

was assigned to SAFSP, who reported directly to the DNRO. 

4. Spacecraft/booster studies and development 

responsibility were assigned to a MOL Project Office in SSD 

who reported to SAFUS more or less through normal Air Force 

channels. 

These management arrangements (See Tab A) worked reasonably 

well for the studies, analyses,. camera system technology efforts, 

and contractor source selection which led to Presidential approval 

of the MOL Program on August 25, 1965. 

August 25, 1965: 

Reflecting full program approval, MOL management arrangements were strengthened on August 25, 1965 (See Tab B): 

1. The MOL Program Policy Committee continued 

inbeing. 

DORIAN/GAMBIT - Page 1 of 5 pages . 

Copy of copies 

„.SAFSL Control Iabookal 

Handle via INMAN 6?3-5,04- 

Control System 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

2. SAFUS (DNRO) continued to be the single Air 

Force "executive agent" for MOL. 

3. SAFSP, reporting directly to the DNRO, continued 

to be responsible for camera system development. The SAFSP 

camera payload activities were to be responsive to the 

Deputy Director, MOL for overall program direction, schedules, 

system integration and interface specifications. 

4. A MOL Program Office was established in the 

Pentagon, reporting directly to SAF/SAFUS, responsible for all 

elements of the MOL System except design development and ground 

test of the camera system. The Commander, AFSC, was designated 

the Director, MOL, to be assisted by a full-time General Officer 

as Vice Director, MOL. 

5. A MOL Systems Office, headed by a General Officer 

as Deputy Director, MOL, reporting directly to the MOL Program 

Office, was established at the SSD complex in Los Angeles to be 

responsible for the MOL spacecraft, system integration, mission 

operations and overall program implementation. The Titan III 

was a responsibility of the SSD Titan III SPO. 

6. Day-to-day MOL matters in the Pentagon were handled 

informally between SAFSS (the NRO Staff) and the mol. Program 

Office (SAFSL). 

7. Day-to-day MOL project management was informally 

exercised jointly by SAFSP and the MOL Systems Office in 

Los Angeles. 

October 1. 1965: 

The above management arrangement was changed at top level 

when Dr. Flax (SAFRD) was designated DNRO on October 1, 1965, 

with the departure of Dr. McMillan. DNRO authority and 

responsibility for MOL was described in Dr. Brown's November 9, 

1965 delegation of authority to Dr. Flax which stated that he 

was also responsible for the "MOL reconnaissance payload." 

(See Tab C) Since none of the other August 25, 1965 MOL 

-TOP-SEGRETPage 2 of 5 pages 

Copy of copies 

.SAFSL CONTROL ENIMARL 

g - 6 

otof 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 -TOME-Rif Handle via BYEMAH 

Control System 

management arrangements were altered, the appointment of 

SAFRD as DNRO resulted in SAF becoming the actual Air Force 

MOL "executive agent" since the Director, MOL reported to 

him for the MOL spacecraft and system integration, but the 

camera system development was a responsibility of SAFSP and 

the DNRO (See Tab D). 

Because of the divided responsibility at the SAF level, 

frequent meetings of the MOL Policy Committee were required 

to resolve interface problems and establish overall program 

direction and policy. Apparently, because of the demands on 

his time for this frequent participation in internal MOL 

Program technical and financial details, Dr. Brown expanded 

SAFRD (DNRO) authority to include the entire MOL Program on 

September 1, 1966. 

September 1. 1966: 

SAF Order 100.1, issued on September 1, 1966 assigned 

responsibility to SAFRD for "directing and supervising all 

space programs and activities of the Air Force" (extract 

included as Tab E). Thus, the SAFRD/DNRO became the single 

Air Force "executive agent" for MOL and MOL management was 

done as follows (See Tab F): 

1. The general responsibilities of SAFSP, SAFSS, 

the MOL Program and MOL Systems Offices continued unchanged 

from the August 25, 1965 arrangement. 

2. Overall MOL Program implementation was managed 

by an informal Program Review Council (DNRO; Director, MOL; 

Vice Director, MOL; Director, NRO Staff; Director, SAFSP; 

NRO Comptroller). 

3. The SAF-chaired MOL Policy Committee met less 

frequently (the last meeting occurred in June 1967) -- SAF 

preferring verbal reports from the DNRO, monthly summary 

resports from the MOL Program Office, and personal involvement 

only in major program decisions. 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

-TOPIECRETPage 3 of 5 pages 

Copy of copies 

SAFSL Control IMSTEItil 

(gc6.3,g0-4c`r 

A" 
DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control Sister° 40P-SECREV 

Page 4 of 5 pages 

Copy of copies 

SAFSL ControLatlientai 

a<t 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

-10P-SECW •lade via BRIAN 

Wind System 

In the Spring of 1967, it was obvious that a realignment 

of MOL project responsibilities was necessary because of the 

complex interfaces, problems arising from separate SAFSP and 

MOL Systems Office contracts with the same contractor, the 

often arbitrary division between contractor black and white 

responsibilities, etc. The Director, Vice Director, and Deputy 

Director, MOL, and the Director, SAFSP and. the Director, NRO 

Staff, all recommended total MOL responsibility consolidation 

under either SAFSP or the MOL Systems Office reporting to the 

DNRO. 

July 1, 1967: 

On July 1, 1967, the DNRO reassigned responsibility for 

camera system development and all MOL reconnaissance aspects 

from the Director, SAFSP to the Director, MOL. Additionally: 

1. Covert contracting authority was granted the 

Assistant Director MOL for Procurement (as an additional duty 

for the AFSC DCS/Procurement). 

2. The MOL Program Review Committee, chaired by 

SAFRD, was formally established to supervise program implementation and generally met on a monthly basis. 

3. A MOL Executive Council was established under 

the Director, MOL and including the Chief Executives of the 

major Associate Contractors. 

4. The MOL Policy Committee continued inbeing but 

has not met formally since June 1967. 

5. The Director, SAFSP was made responsible for 

plant cognizance of EKC due to that company's limited, resources 

and deep involvement in both GAMBIT and MOL Programs. 

6. The Deputy Director, MOL, was designated a 

Deputy Commander, SAMSO, for MOL in order to exercise direction 

over the launch facility and SCF as necessary (a parallel to 

the Director, SAFSP arrangement). 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE .1 JULY 2015 _Top_sREF Bandit via BY= 

Control System 

7. The Titan HIM development continued to be a 

responsibility of the SAMSO Titan III SPO. 

Tabs G and H depict the above management arrangements and 

memberships of the various management review groups. 

September 5, 1967: 

On September 5, 1967, per agreement reached between the 

Commander, SAMSO, and the Deputy Director, MOL, the Titan IIIM 

project office personnel and contracts were transferred to the 

MOL Systems Office. This was done to lessen interface problems 

both in the vehicle (man-rating; Gemini booster guidance; etc.) 

and at the launch complex (See Tab I). 

At this point, the MOL Systems Office became responsible 

for implementing the total MOL Program. The MOL Systems Office 

reported directly to and only to the Director/Vice Director 

with Director/Vice Director reporting directly to and only to 

the SAFRD/DNRO. These arrangements continued until March 16, 

1969. 

March 17, 1969: 

On March 17, 1969, Dr. McLucas was appointed DNRO and was 

also assigned responsibility for the "MOL Reconnaissance Payload." 

(See Tab J). Meanwhile, SAF Order 100.1 was still in effect 

which continued SAFRD responsibility for ". . . directing and 

supervising all space programs and space activities of the Air 

Force." (e.g., all non-payload, non-reconnaissance aspects of 

MOL). As a result: 

1. The Director, MOL became responsible to the DNRO 

for the MOL payload and reconnaissance aspects and to the SAFRD 

for all other MOL elements. 

2. Other existing MOL Program and MOL Systems Office 

responsibilities and working arrangements continued unchanged. 

• 

DORIAN/GAMBIT ' Page 5, of 5 pages 

Copy of, copies 

.son Control=ftworkett 

Handle via BYEMAN (0_63,g6 -4ct 

Control System 
U. 

in 4C vl 

LL 

-et 0 

vy 0 

z 

szt if\ 

2g: 1/40 

--o 

0 

oo 

LL 

tr, 

0 

0 

.4C 

v, 

S. in 4, 

- 0 0 

›- 

S. 

0 

Ca 

U 

at 

.... 

...%. .... 

.... 

•%, . 

... 

▪ 

 Ak. 

• ■ •.. . 

■ ■ %,,,, .... ..., 

■ • ■ 

\ 

,% a', •. %.. 

■ % ... 

%v. eito, 

■ ■ ••■.. 

•■•• 

..--.. 

.,. 

-.bi--. 

■•■)h• ■•••■ 

U0 

VI 

..01•■•■■ •••■■ 

U • aM 

U- 

'BC 0 ad, c3 cz 

U- LL AE U., -o 

0C 401 <4 E U 

401 Uqn 0 

NRO APPROVEDOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

C4 

o 

0 

z <4 

Ca 

LA,ft 

g_sL(0&.3r5,6 
RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

N 0 I- tel 

U LL 

UJ 

4/1 

0 MIN 

SAF

US/DNRO 

-J 

0, 

ILI 

o ce 

a • 

 uu2 w o 

tt. al 0 a. 

w 

/1 

5%5 

-J 

0 

ce 

u w ILL! 4" 

,>,-., 

_, 

a0 W 

a 
RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

L 

• TOP S:CRET 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 

smimptionnue 

orricz Of THIS SECRETARY 

November 9, 1965 

MEMORANDUM FOR Chief of Staff, USAF 

Under Secretary of the Air Force 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

(Installations & Logistics) 

Assistant L-;ecretary of the Air Force 

(Financial Management) 

Commander, AFSC 

Comptfoller of the Air Force 

Director, Office of Information 

Director, Office of Legislative Liaison 

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Director, National 

Reconnaissance Office 

On 1 October, the Deputy Secretary of Defense appointed 

Dr, Alexander H. Flax as Director, National Reconnaissance Office 

(DNRO), in addition to his duties as Assistant Secretary of the Air 

Force (R&D). 

Since the Office of Space Systems (SAFSS) and the Office of 

Special Projects (SAFSP) are concerned only with National Reconnaissance Program matters, I hereby delegate full directive authority over 

all of their activities to Dr. Flax. 

Dr. Flax also is delegated-the authority to act for me on all 

Air Force matters -- including personnel, materiel, and fiscal 

resources -- associated with the National Reconnaissance Office 

and/or within the purview of the National Reconnaissance Program, 

including the MOL reconnaissance payloads. 

• WORKING PAPERS 

cc: Dep Sec/Def Harold Brown 

(25F.11.3 via - BYEMA'N lut:64- c-t 

2"fantro1 Systor Co _-_J Copies 

- 

MCCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC RIIGRADI771 

DOD DTP. 8206.in nnmn unT Arra P YE-36998-65 i Control No 
---NRCTAPPRCTVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2d15 

• 

SAFRD/DN

RO 

IL. 
NIRO APPROVED FOR 

.-17Frierl52 ' -1JUL f 2013 

NO: 100.1 

DATE: 1.SEP 1966 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE. ORDER 

SUBJECT: Functions of the Under 'Secretary, the Assistant 

Secretaries, and the Deputy Under Secretaries of. 

• the Air Force 

1. The Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 

8012, is responsible for and has the authority necessary to 

conduct all affairs of the Department of the Air Force. Subject to his direction and control, the Under Secretary, • 

Assistant Secretaries, and, except as to non-delegable 

statutory functions, the Deputy Under Secretaries are authorixed to act for and with the authority of the Secretary of the 

kir Force on any matters within the areas assigned herein. 

This authority extends not only to actions within the Departs, 

ment of the Air Force, but also to relationships and trans-. 

actions with the Congress and other governmental and non-. 

governmental organizations and individuals. 

2. Officers and officials of 'the Air Force will report 

to the Under Secretary, the Assistant Secretaries, and the 

Deputy Under Secretaries regarding matters within their 

respective cognizance as herein assigned. 

3. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 8017, the Under Secretary, in 

the absence of the Secretary, will perform the duties of the 

Secretary; in the absence of the Secretary and Under Secretary, 

the Assistant Secretaries in prder of their length of service 

as such will perform. the duties of the Secretary. 

4. The Under Secretary of the Air Force, as.principal 

assistant to the Secretary, acercah full authority of the 

• 

11 I 

410 FOAM 0;11111. 11 JUN 11$ 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE- 1 JULY 2015 

NO: 100.1 

DATE: SU i9SS 

Secretary on all affairs of the Department. He supervises 

the activities of the reserve components of the Air Force 

pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 264(b), and is a member of the Reserve 

Forces. Policy Board. 

of the Air Force SFinancial 

-tion, guidance, and super7 

lie form.' reyi, 

• 

5. The Assistanr 

Management) is respr 

visir .er all u' 

'qn r 

‘esp. ..e As,. 

„,merit), he li- concurrent t.. -..tity to tht. 

Staff. 

6. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Research 

and Development) is responsible for direction, guidance, and 

• supervision over all matters pertaining to the formulation, 

review, and execution of plans,.policies, and programs.relP*- 

tive to: 

a. Scientific and technical matters; 

b. Basic and applied research, exploratory develop-• 

ment and advanced technology; 

c. Integration of.technology with, and determination' 

0 of, qualitative Air Force requirements; • • 

1 

Research, development, of 

weapons, w;polsyt;m and defense 

e 

. and 

e. Technical management of systems engineering and, • 

integration. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Research and 

Development) is responsible for directing and supervising 

all space programs and space activities of the Air Force. • 

7. 

tions pAnd 

The Assistant Secretarx_of 

- oistics) is responp'. 

,ver all mat- 

-nut4 

the Air Force (Installafor direction, gulo --e, 

4ning to the ' 

'4cies. 

di 

• .. 
O 

I— vs a

z 

g 

. 

o6 oft 

•a 

0 

0 

11.■■■•■• 

FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

vt Ac 

.J 

re 

O 

tn 

U LL tu 

CX 

0 

U 

hd 

CD 

MOM 

0 

W. 

0 U 

11/ tow 

vainalMwm 

IL 

O 

0 

0 

Et 

U. 

N 

1■41■•■•■• 41141■101110.1•111r 

W 

CZ Ck :. 

LU 

0U Z 

0 

Z 

12 

0 

Q .4C vt 

-4 vs 

u u 

o o 

JW 

O 

011- 

uj 

U Cea- W 0J 

IX WO 

5: 

Rdsk to<6.3c0 --(0 of 
'La 

ell 

ce 0 0 

0 

N

as

i 

0 

0 

Z 0 

44 4A 

4C 

0 in 

0 -J 

0 

0.1:t 

UJ 0 

0 IL 

6.•■■•■• 

0 

C7 

a -1( 

di 

sillaSTAVL4PJIWOUL 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

LL 

0 

tes 

= 0 Z g 

(3- CZ .4 

cc 

O

u

1— a. 

v's 

uce 

O 

o. 

a. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 . 

MOL PROGRAM REVIEWCOUNCIL 

cn 

CI. 0, 

O 

C

,' 

CD 

r-4 (ye 

z 

w 

ti 

CD 

 i "

i r: 

.4C . 1

▪ 

1.L.1 

CD to 

:EE 

0 

° 

f 

IJJ 

0 U 

U >- 

O a_ 

O 

U 

0 U U 

UJ 

UJ 

0 

ZE 

,th) U. 

0 

wN..

` U. De 0C 

--.. 

WL un U. U. U. Alt 0 r/ N

.4 c 

.c.c .c ?I zE 

:2 un um un V C3 

dk 
BYEMAN/DORIAN 

U. 

1 .0.0 • 

.40 

06 

ce 0 

0 

amormon44 

CO 

o 

I— 

CO. 

LU 

-

- 

r 

LU 

z. 

0 

00 

' 

0 

IL 

•0 

C/4 

lU 

c 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

-1 

Oa 

0 WE 

oUj

Ou_ 

CO-0 

I- =0 

UJ O 

o. 0 

a. 

iUU 

0 1101 

ex 

0 p 

- t" to, ce 

a. 

a. 

aa 

aU

0 

1U 

1,4 

z 

0 ca 

40. 0 

j 

U 

LU 

4- 

0 0. 0. 

0 

1! d 

g 

an 

in 

43 

• 

2 

a 0 *0 0* 

U. CZ U110 0 U. LU 0 

Z 0 -4 tit A a 

0 vi 

• 

I 

LU 

:),4N • 

&g35:cr..1-Qci