ROVO FOR 

JULY 2015 

REPLY TO 6 OCT 1964 

ATTN OF: 5aIC 

VAUECT:' Request for Determinations and Findings - Manned Orbiting 

laboratory System 

B . AMC (SCK-3) 

Andrews AFB 

Wash DC 20331 

Hq USAF (AFSPPCA) 

wash DC 20330 .. 

IN TURN 

1. A Secretarial Determinations and Findings is requested authorizing 

negotiation of contracts pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(a)(11). 

2. This procurement will provide for design studies, associated 

research, including initial fabrication of selected long lead time 

items leading to the deielopment of a Manned Orbiting Laboratory 

System. • 

3. The supporting information in the attached AFSC Fbra 111 has been 

reviewed and determined to be for research and development which is 

not suitable for advertised procurement. Accordingly, it is recommended 

the attached Secretarial Determinations and Findings be accomplidhed. 

The procurement aspects. noted in the Pbrm 111 are concurred in. 

FOR TEE OMAN= 

ROBERT E. BEST 

Acting Chief 

Office of Procurement 

& Production • 

If inclosures are withdrawn (or not 

attached) the classification of this 

correspondence will be 8A/et 05 

1 

GUN I-I IN 0 

HEADQUARTERS 

SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION 

• AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE STATION 

Air Force Unit Post Office, Los Angeles, California 90045 
r. 

NRO.APPROVED FOR 

RE El JULY 2015 

"FORGING MILITARY SPACEPOIVER" 

..... -7.. ■. 

i DATE PREPARE AFSC MANAGEMENT REPORY 

PREPARED 

(Stamp Security Classification Outside Border of FornJ I -, . i : • 

REPORTS CONTROL SYMBOL. 

1. TYPE OF REPORT

.— Z. MGT REPORT SEQUENCE NO • 

P-65-1-6399 

ACTION REPORT 

STATUS F.:.: PORT 

J

OD 

0 REVISION 

PROGRESS 

0 3IC NIFICANT EVENT 

0' TERMINATION 

of Request for D&F, 

6. PROJECT NUMBER 

3. PROGRAM ELEMENT 

63409404 

6. PROGRAM STRUCTURE 

6399 

1 . TITLE 

1 •Program Management 

Manned Orbiting Laboratory 

Information in Support 

Program. 

8. R ESPONS 18 I,E MGT OR-G -n7FTMITErWrIn 

SSB (SSD) 

632A 

7. HQ A FSC RESP OFFICE 

MSF-1 SSM (SSD) 

117.5nrrgigrAWFM 

SSHKM (SSD) 

11. COORDINATION SECURED 

. 

12, APPLICABLE AREAS 

A. 0 TECHNICAL . S. 0 TEST C. 

F. El MANPOWER G. 0 PERSONNEL H. 

K. 0 COMMUNICATIONS. L. CD OTHER (Specify) 

E. 0 FACILITIES IN FUNDS D. 0 MATERIEL0 TRAINING I. cm CONTRACTS J. NM AIRCRAFT 

• 

A RRATIVE (If more apace is required, continue on a plain mai) 

s management report is submitted to obtain 

1 d initial development of the Manned Orbiting 

I(A) This effort will provide for deSign 

define the system, associated research, development 

related effort, including development testing 

long lead time items for the flight program 

Orbiting Laboratory System. The Manned Orbiting 

primary objective the determination of man's 

mil'tary missions in space. 

(i) This effort is part of the program 

directions of OSD and consistent with the 

forwarded by the Under Secretary Of'the Air 

Pre-definition studies are continuing to 

technology and hardware in the baseline definition 

(ii) The effort will result in trade-off 

total system baseline configuration, design 

control, schedules, cost and operational 

development of selected components for the 

(iii) The results generated under this 

Fiscal Year programmed milestone objectives 

(iv) The current level of technology 

ort. 

Air Force approval of the definition 

Laboratory Program. 

Ltudies to realistically and objectively 

of firm specifications and other . 

and initial 'fabrication of selected 

leading to the development of a Manned 

Laboratory Program has as its . 

utility and effectiveness to perform 

initiated in accordance with the . 

program recommendations ap:_oved and ' 

Force on 18 September 1964 to OSD. 

insure the optimum application of available 

for the development of this system. 

analysis and determination of optimum 

specifications, interface definition and 

effectiveness,'and initial design and 

MOL flight program. 

coverage will be applied to subsequent 

in the Program Acquisition Phase. 

supports the feasibility of this'further 

. 

. 

........,w- 

. DOWNGRADED AT 3 YEAR INTERVALS; 

1 DECLAS.ZIFIED AFTER 12 YEARS. 

DOD - D1R 5200.10 

J1.F SC 13 Er M63 

PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE. 

CONFIDEI\MAL 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

rl JULY 2015 

(v) The proposed effort will be c,)ordinated with all affected Defense agencies 

the NASA as determined appropriate. 

o 0 

(0) The proposed procurements are summarized, but not limited to the following: 

SOLE SOURCE • NUMBER 

.OR OF 

ITEM COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS SOURCE 

2 

(B) Service testing is not applicable in this program. 

(C) Current estimated dollar amounts of procurement(s) to be placed under this 

authority will approximate $71.5 million for FY 1965. In accordance with the 

approval and recommendations of the Under Secretary of the Air Force, an approximate 

$6 million will be required for immediate obligation. These funds are required to 

support tho necessary actions to protect program options that will be reviewed for 

final selection in the January 1965 time period. Release and expenditure of the 

remainder of the funds is predicated on further program review and approval planned. 

for January 1965. 

(D) Individual Purchase Requests are not available nor is a breakout of proposed 

funds allocated to the various contracts listed in paragraph (G) below. 

.(E) It is planned that all contracts will be placed by 1 April 65. Fixed Price, 

Fixed Price Incentive and/or Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee type contracts will be used. The 

necessary authorization for type of contract will be obtained. 

(F) These proposed procurements are for rcsearcn and development effort for which it . 

is impossible to prepare specifications suitable for formal advertising. The exact 

od of doing the work cannot be established in advance and must be subject to 

ovisation and change as the work pr,- 2;resses. The procurements will be awarded 

!--.1 a competitive basis wherever possible. 

MOL System Integration and Competitive One or. more To be determined 

Laboratory Vehicle 

Gemini "B" 

Titan III-C 

Experiments 

Mission Facilities 

Mission Control:Center 

Sole Source One , ,McDonnell Aircraft Corp. 

Sole Source 

Competitive Eight or To be determined 

more 

Competitive One or more To be determined 

Competitive One To be determined 

Martin Company 

(H) Sole SoUrce procurements will be necessary on some of the planned efforts due 

eculiar capability and knowledge possessed by certain contractors and/or large 

nt of Government investment in equipments constituting major elements in the MOL 

em. 

Management Report No. P-65-16399 

Program Element -. 63409404 

:1 
WILLIAM D. BRADY 

Colonel, USAF 

System Program Director for MOL 

NRO APPROVED FOR C) 

%."'■::: . 

(:) 

E 1 JULY 2015 

No initial sole source procurements other than those dictated by the MOL system 

.----e planned. No unsolicited proposals have been received relative to the contemplated 

.fort. 

(J) This program is planning to utilize existing products from programs such as 

Titan III and Gemini to the extent possible. 

(K) The Air Force intends to obtain rights to all data in the performance of the, 

contracts to be awarded under the authority of this Determinations and Findings. 

(L) Previously executed Determinations and Findings (D&F) related to the MOL Program 

effort is: D&F 64-11c-84, dated 13 April 64. 

FOR THE COMMANDER 

Management Report No. P-65-1-6399 

3 Program Element - 63409404 

• 

• u 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

• R ASE JULY 2015 

Approved: Hq AFSC 

Approved: Hq USAF 

Approved: SAFRD 

Management Report No. P-65-1-6399 

Program Element - 63409404 

CONFIDEN 
Management Report No, P-65-1-6399 

Program Element - 63409404 

MRe PROVED FOR 

1 JULY 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

• DETERMIT:ONS FINDINGS 

AUTHORITY TO ::\TEGO'.1ATE CONTRACTS 

This procurement will corFist of one or more contracts for definition 

studies, associated research c-,nc c.evelopment, development testing, and 

fabrication of selected long lead time items for a flight program leading. 

to the development of a Manned Orbiting Laboratory System which will be • 

used to establish man's capability to perform various functions in orbit 

and to support experimental space projects sponsored by the various, 

military services and Governmental agencies. 

I hereby find that the proposed contracts are for the procurement 

of design studies to realistically and objectively define the system, 

associated research and development of firm specifications and other 

related effort, including development test and'the initial fabrication 

of selected long lead time items, leading to and including the initial 

development of a Manned Orbiting Laboratory System. 

I hereby determine that the proposed contracts are for definition 

studies, research, development, and test work, and for the making or 

furnishing of property or material for the development, experiment, and 

,testing, required in the interest of national defense. 

I further determine that the use of formal advertising would be 

impractical because it is not possible to draft technical specifications 

which would be detailed and specific to the. extent necessary to permit 

the use of the advertising method. It is understood, however, that this. 

determinations and findings will not be used to avoid procurement by 

formal advertising for items which can be procured by that method without 

impairing the program. 

Upon the basis of the determinations and findings above, I hereby 

authorize the negotiation of contracts for this procurement pursuant to 

10 U. S. C. 2304(a).(11). This class 'determination shall remain in effect 

until 30 June 1965. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

0 1 4 6 0 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 10 November 1964 

SUBJECT: MOL FY 66 Budget 

1. On 4 November 1964 DDR&E forwarded a memo to SAF subject: Proposed 

R&D Program for FY 66" which transmitted a Top Secret Memo for the President 

subject: "Fy 1966 Budget Research and Development". Dr. Brown's memo 

requested comments on the proposed memo to the President. The proposed 

memo to the President presented the recommended FY 66 DOD program for 

Research and Developmenti 

2. The following points pertaining to the MOL Program were made in the proposed 

memo to the President: 

a. The MOL program is a major element in the DOD space effort. The 

defense communication satellite program is another significant activity. Also, 

NASA/DOD discussions to establish the roles of the TIIIC and Saturn IB will 

have an impact. 

b. The DOD Space RDT&E budget for FY 66 will be 1.46 billion dollars. This 

represents an increase of 100 million dollars over FY 65 due to increases 

in the spacial activities area. Fifty percent of this budget is for exploratory 

and advanced development and will build the technology and experience needed 

to develop and exploit space systems. It was pointed out that lead time for 

Manned Military space operations may be as much as 10 years. 

c. The purpose of the MOL program was outlined. The requirement to 

conduct experiments to assess the utility of man the need for feasibility and 

effectiveness testing of developmented subsystems and scientific experiments 

were specified. Within the experiments land and ocean surveillance were 

indicated as primary. Others mentioned included 

autonomous navigation, docking and resupply. 

d. NASA has been invited to participate in the MOL program and will 

fund their own experiments. 

e. MOL Proposed Project Definition Phase is under review. Air Force 

will be in a position to make the "RFP" for Project Definition Phase in 

January 1965. 

f. The first major MOL funding increment of 150 million dollars in 

FY 66 will lead to design, development, and construction of flight hardware 

and test range facilities. The funding by FY was presented as follows: 

FY 64 7 10 million dollars 

FY 65 38 million dollars 

" FY 66 - 150 million dollars 

Thru FY 70 - 990 million dollars ' 

COPY 
NRO•APPROVED FOR SEL7 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

0 g. Start will have 35 million dollars in FY 66. 

h. First MOL Manned Flight will take place by the end of Calendar Year 

1968. 

LOWELL B. SMITH 

Colonel, USAF 

Ofc of Assistant for Manned 

Orbiting Laboratory 

DCS/Research and Development 
NT70 APPF1OVED FOR 

RELEASE 015 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING 

WASHINGTON 25, D.C. 20 October 1964 

MEMORANDUM FOR COL. 1:ENTNETH W. SCHULTZ, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIO.1.4AL SPACE STATION PLANNING SUB.-PANEL, 

MSPi.E. AC f; 

SUBJECT: Comments on NASA .FY 1965 Space. Station Studies 

As we found last fall in _our review of the FY 1964 packet of studies, 

it is very hard to accept a blanket sign*off on any of these abbreviated 

task descriptions. It is somewhat helpful to have the testimony of 

NASA as to the general intent of their previous year's efforts as a.- 

basis for their stated need fo:: FY 1965 studies. Unfortunately, I 

have as many concerns about their stated claims of previous studies 

as I do about their FY 1965 proposed work. Following, then, are 

some comments which apply to previous work and affect many of 

their proposed studies. I will then comment on individual studies. 

I would note in advance that we desire to make the response to this 

coordination quite detailed and specific in its critique of objectives 

and technique. 

General 

1. NASA may be making claims for considering a national space 

station program, but there is aching in their prior work or proposed 

work which shows a desire tr= co,..sider using hardware other than that 

already in the NASA inventory, or that which ik.their.:own loetconpept. 

For example, they frequently refer to the virties-of using the Apollo 

hardware and the SATURN chas vehicles, whereas they no where even 

hint at use of TITAN III class of boosters.- 

2. Somewhere in their development of a base line program, they 

have hypothesized that polar orbits and synchronous orbits may be a 

good thing to have some.day. Without any indication of where to find 

the criteria for wanting to go to polar orbit or synchronous orbit, they 

allow these new parameters to leap into several of their new studies. 

From a standpoint of space station design, launch facility requirements, 

and range support and retrieval., I would expect. some rather important 

changes would have to take place in our whole thinking of how to go 

about a national space station. I see no evidence of the desirability. 

of such orbits, and feel NASA is making a dangerous presumption 

about a capability without any support of the need or impacts which 

that hypothesis creates.' 
NRO A-PFIROVED FOR o 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

3. NASA's FY 1965 program is being introduced by a development 

of how they have arrived at a base line program; and DOD is, in effect, 

being asked to give credence to NASA's base line program when they • 

concur in NASA's FY 1965 studies. I believe we have many reasons 

for not accepting the base line program, and should in fact use our 

NSSPS to consider the concept of a base line study program to which 

both DOD and NASA could give support. For example, their base line 

program has as a key ingredient the presumption that the national space, 

station would quickly evolve into a five to nine man crew and 8,000 

cubic feet. I just do not feel that we can give such a large-sized station 

that much credence at this early date, and we should be forceful in urg• 

ing NASA to put some significant attention on more modest space station 

concepts. 

4. In connection with a previous concerti, I expect that NASA has 

allowed themselves to continue' thinking of very large stations, because 

there is hidden in their reasoning this concept of large "beneficial 

applications", wherein some segments of our government and community 

are going to find great pleasure in having large permanent stations in 

earth orbit. As we are finding in ,many of our other elements of the 

_space program, both maimed asidunmanned, the attractions' of space. 

are not quite as glamorous as earlier promoters would have thought. 

The use of weather satellites has been heavily constrained by the user 

agency not caring to pay for the expensive NIMBUS configuration. The' 

practicalities of agency funding have limited severely our geodesy pro• 

gram. A recent attempt by NASA to promote a grandiose navigation 

and traffic control System is running into very hard counter arguments, 

both due to economics and to competing earth based systems which can 

achieve similar missions ju ;t as well. I think it is very presumptive 

for NASA to claim that there are "beaeficial applications" in the areas 

of manned meteorology, surface geology, agricultural analyses and 

the like. I feel they should be requested to put more attention on 

tradeoff studies which would clearly identify whether any such, appli. 

cations are truly beneficial; or, in effect, whether they cannot better 

be done by either unmanned satellites or earth-based systems. ,The 

argument of the chicken and egg approach which NASA presents is not 

an excuse to avoid developing critical trade-off studies.. There is 

every evidence that NASA has been tripped by having now two years of 

vehicle capability work under their belts, and are being supported by 

an industry which is obviously biased to now proVe that, that hardware-- 

capability should be implemented. it seems that NASA should be asked 

to step aside from the hardware capability for awhile and question"' 

what the real uses of a space station would be.' 
5. I think there is general agreement at top management levels 

that a permanent space station'program would not be started for at 

least two to three years. This is not Only because of fiscal con- • 

straints, but because the needs have not been reasonably defined and 

the preferred approach has not been established. I think there is also 

a growing acceptance that the MOL, the GEMINI and the. APOLLO 

flights are going to provide very important data from which to later 

decide what kind of space station is needed. It therefore concerns 

me that none of the FY 1965 studies which NASA shows are focusing 

attention on the near-term, crucial experiments which thiy are planning to include in these three segments of the short-duration laboratory 

programs. Until we get further direction from the AA.GB and the Manned 

Spaceflight Panel. I feel our sub-panel should challenge NASA as to why 

such studies are, not included within our coordination responsibilities. 

There seems, to be evidence that NASA is coordinating only on those 

studies coming out of the advanced planning office of the Manned Space. 

Flight Panel, whereas equal and significant experiments and studies are 

being done under Bisplinghoff and some under Newell. While a later 

decision may put these near-term experiments in a different management 

relationship, I feel we should request at this time that this sub-panel 

have the full benefit of NASA's plans for near-term experiments in the 

same manner in which we have r4cently sent them statements of the: 

objectives of our prime MOL experiments. Specific pressure should 

be applied to see how they are addressing the question of the relative 

benefits of putting their experiments aboard MOL versus'APOLLO X. 

'6. It appears that most of NASA's planning studies are focused 

on justifying the merits of large space stations, and we hear repeated. 

statements that their past hardware study Contracts have confirmed 

that all of the technologies, are available to build the large space station. 

This may be true for basic structure and life support sub-systems for 

the labs; but it would appear that much can still be gained by concen.- 

trating, on the experiments and other activities which the crew will 

be expected to perform, in order to identify iMportant research and 

technology investigations which should proceed before a commitment '- 

is made to go ahead with a large station.. These would include' eirnu. 

lations of various experiments beyond the human factors work which 

they propose, breadboa-riling of experimental: packages to confirm 

their operation and maintenance, concept, and identification of key 

experiments which could be done in ground simulators, aircraft, or 

MOL and/or APOLLO X, in order to define design criteria for the 

station or to establish whether the experiment or functions needs to 

be done in Support thereof. 

KIRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

Specific Comments 

Task 981-10-10-13: Orbital Research Laboratory Experiment, 

Program Definition 

This abstract is so general as to leave considerable doubt as to 

its value. It claims a go-ahead in Ja.nuary 1965, whereas several of 

the major FY 1964 studies which would provide key inputs to this 

effort are not to be completed until May "- July 1965; This concern 

involves a number of the other studies as well. The chicken and egg 

argument which NASA promotes seems here to be synonymous with 

a philosophy of racing pell mell toward lowest objectives and goals 

with little order `to the phasing of the various efforts. 

For example, thii abstract states that one of its key activities 

will be to examine the compatibility of the over-all experiment 

program with the space station base line program. This again 

reflects to me the presumption by NASA that a base line program is 

no longer a variable in the problexr4 they are merely trying to find 

whatever collection of experiments can be invented to fill it up. 

While they also include in their abstract statements that they will 

examine desirable changes to the base line program and-the impact 

of the experirnenta on the space station design, there is no evidence 

here or in other studies that they have any intention of keeping the I 

space station hardware concepts as a truly open parameter. 

I recommend that we non-concur in this abstract, that itS 

initiation date be shifted to June 1965, and that we insist on a 

detailed work statement before concurrence.', 

Task 981-10-10-17: Space Orbital Research Laboratory 

Experiment System. Definition 

Comments on the previous task apply here' equally.well..: The 

time phasing is even.mor,i,:questionable since they have just started 

a series of contracts in FY '1964, utidsr this same task number, 

which will not be completed'Until DeCember,1965. -These FY 1964.. 

studies are Valuable 'attempts to identify.: of specific expert. 

ments in spectral photography, and radar responses, 

and 'space-derived earth atlas".',. :'- It would appear that the abstract, 

given to us now is so broad as to be'no afferent than what ures shown 

for FY 1964. 
NRO`APF"Rd\-/ED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

I recommend that we nee-concur, and ask for initiation date 

not earlier than mid-1965, and requ2st detailed work statements. 

Tesk 981-10-10-18: Sieneation of Manned Earth Orbital Research 

Laboratory Mission 

This has the same task leareber as the FX 1964 study on mission 

simulation which will ,not not be completed until April 1965. It is 

not clear from the statement of objectives how this task is significantly, 

different from the existing conteact, except that it looks to a longer 

duration crew simulation: This may be sufficient cause to proceed 

while the existing contract is ullder way, but there is a definite cony 

cern as to the complete ernphaf.51;.3 or, pure human factors and physic 

ology stated in the objectiv€ a. f urge we ask for testimony as to 

what credible experiments, realetemanCe functions, and crew occupa 

tion are planned to make the 3.011-day simulation meaningful. We 

should also ask why the effert cannot also include several sub- -. 

categories where Shorter term simulations are 'run for, two to four 

weeks, and if that would influence possible use of MOL or APOLLO X. 

Task 981-10.10.10: Sie Ic .x.ile Space Station O' onfiguration

(MORL Phase 11 B) - 

This study, as described by its objectives, seems quite premature 

and it is also questioned as to why it ehould be continued as a sole 

source effort. With two yeare and $2 million of study effort already,. 

completed on MORL, it would seem timely to open up to the industry 

the opportunity for introducing new and unique ideas of how to utilize 

such a space station concept. It is not clear that this particular 

study needs to be done at all. Instead, the results of MORL Phase II A 

might be handed over to,a number of the other contractors looking at 

detailed experiment implementation and ask them to uee the MORL as 

a candidate model for realistic design, criteria for grouping of experie 

ments, maintenance of experiments, and crew functions relative to 

these experinaente, 

On the basis of the rather broad statement of objectives given, 

I recommend that we noneconcur, and request NASA to identify whythe study should be done and to be more specific in relating what is 

to be learned here, compared with that work being done in other 

studies. 
NRO`A-F3PROED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Task 931-10-10-11: Multi-Module Space Station Configuration 

Study 

Again this extension of previous work presumes the base line 

model as a frozen progression of space station hardware. The objectives given are very conflicting. On one hand it says that the study 

is to assure that the LORL satisfies the base line program objectives 

and fully exploits the MORL hardware as an element of the LORL. It 

further states that the effort will concentrate on the interconnecting 

elements and the structural interface with SATURN V. It is simply 

felt that this is a premature hardware exercise and that we can predict 

the results in advance; that is, Lockheed or any other contractor can surely 

ind ways of achieving a hardware solution to this problem. If NASA really 

intends to include some work on "compatibility with the::Statitiii 

tions identified and explored by related studies," then we should ask 

tliem to put major attention on this task and not worry too much about 

the detailed hardware aspects. 

I recommend non-concurrence, without detailed work statement. 

Time has run out in s-ubmitiing these comments. The comments on 

the remaining five studies Till be provided later.