, . VJ led 

DEPARTMENT' OF THE !P&r~'(f~Jr Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

MEMORANDUM 

March 21, 1968 

This talking paper was written primarily 

iiI,$ ill. backgrouncl~ r tor Dr. Fotilt~n;,·. Thij,t iffl 

why it leans so heavily toward the early history 

of NASA-NRO relationships. You know this 

history; Dr. Foster does not, and might easily 

be trapped into a statement that "everything 

has always been fine. " 

Dave Carter and I met with Dr. Foster for 

1 1/2 hours yesterday (March 20) and reviewed 

this paper, a budget summary, and the standard 

NRO briefing. Dr. Foster plans to have Dave 

give the briefing as the first agenda item. This 

briefing will take the place of the classical 

prepared statement. He is looking to you to 

speak to the OXCART situation. 

~ , ~IA"~/ /7 

, (p QCUJ-Q Yv, 

1V-"'~ Colonel, USAF 

~ rJ ~5(>. 

OXCART 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 
Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 ,; . [-

. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE ~ ~ 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

MEMORANDUM 

):0,a(J 

~·Fh~~LI 

~ tLS l~t fv ~~­

N~~. 

J ~l.-rL. r::L;; ;luI {L'\ '1 n\cc) 3 aL . 

. tb il-51t- j.y;i to PV-jJtLAL· 0-- ,~ . 

~r- ~ ~lJv.-,'~ ~' 

('~~ 10 cM/L-~I-(}XL4 .. 

.. r ~'1 ~4.. 10 ~J4-

Ctrt w~~·~~u--,.h ~(tf'~ b&.~ . 

. I-M-/J- ~h~ -J-c ~ . 

> 8 ~(~LM---C . ~ t~ 

. ~~- 7iJ JUkit ~ S P e~~ 

L~;( . /f-({>t~k~' ~1-. 4--- ~l-t~ 

. .. l~~R.f)jvC~ 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 
" JEPARTMENT OF THE ~f~r~~~~oE Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

MEMORANDUM 

... G.Lu- ()~~ uJivJ ~ -t ~ o:1TdJ 

. ~f .+," .·~/)J7' 

)!l~C~U ~M 

rultd GXA'- ~1J}-d: /" ~JU~ S~ 

" ~ b-J~ ;/-J-c;ilAJ( ~" ~ 

t1w" ~ J~'J 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 
""~"" ,"-' ,....,. "'''',.... ',:- ''';' ~L- '. - ' . ~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 14 000098510 ... r ',,- -r r 1'.:;;,,""--"'7 ,<7,)'-;- S 

/2 A/-~, -~"I 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 

TALKING PAPER ON THE "AEROSPACE DAILY" ARTICLE 

2:.' 

BACKGROUND: 

In 1963 and 1964, NASA planners were producing and sponsoring 

studies on a Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory (MORL). The 

scope of missions envisioned for MORL caused concern in the OSD. 

For example, a 1963 NASA-sponsored Boeing study called for optical 

reconnaissance systems and military applications of earth reconnaissance. In 1964, NASA sent a study work statement to Douglas calling 

for examination of (1) satellite surveillance and reconnaissance, (2) 

anti-ballistic missile technology, and (3) anti-satellite activities. 

In March 1964, Dr. McMillan (DNRO) and Dr. Mueller (NASA 

Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight) discussed, but 

could not resolve, the problems created by these and similar NASA 

studies. In April 1965, NASA briefed Drs. McMillan and Hall on a 

proposed program of five earth-orbital APOLLO flights; the primary 

experiments on the flights were to be earth sensors; radar, optical 

and IR. On May 6, 1965 Mr. McNamara expressed his concern over 

the impingement of NASA r s activities on the security of the NHP and 

proposed that the Air Force act for NASA "in procuring, developing 

and testing, in earth orbit, sensor equipment for NASA reconnaissancerelated activities. II He repeated his concern on July 31, 1965. 

In the meanwhile, Drs, Seamans and McMillan met to work out 

interim procedures for identifying and reviewing NASA's earth"sensing 

projects. On August 5, 1965 they agreed to review NASA activities in 

terms of a definition which made a 0.1 milliradian resolution the boundary limit for reconnaissance-like sensors. In September 1965, an 

NRO-NASA Committee was set up to carry out this review. 

In October 1965, Admiral Raborn (the DCI, ex;Y;'cssed his concern 

over the increasing use of photographic equipmem ill NASA programs, 

especially that approaching intelligence quality. In December 1965, 

Dr. Flax expressed his serious concern about the rapidly acce lerating 

NASA program planning activity directed toward reconnaissance from 

satellites. He noted that in spite of the Seamans-McMillan arrangement~, there had been little noticeable effect in constraining NASA 

activities. 

/ HANDLE VIA' 

S YEr/]I\r,!-T/\LE1'~T -;<EY'f-fOLE~ 

,,::ONTROL SYSTEMS ')Oii'\lTL.Y, •. ;t- ~-",,~, 

~..w; C"~ 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 

r:~ 

r ····-·-
Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 

T~_,~ ,'j} ~::.'; L~) ~\ L, ~ f 

On January 14, 1966 Messrs. McNamara and Webb organized 

a DOD-NASA Manned Space Flight Policy Committee which would 

overtly review mutual problems in manned space flight and privately 

review the reconnaissance-like activities of NASA. On April 18, 

1966, Mr. Schultze and Dr. Hornig sent a memorandum to Mr. Rusk 

pointing out the international policy problems and conflicts inherent 

in an open NASA-conducted earth-sensing program, and a covert 

NRO-conducted satellite reconnaissance program. Mr. Rusk was 

requested to convene the NSAM 156 Ad Hoc Committee to review 

this problem. The Ad Hoc Committee sent its findings to the White 

House on July 11, 1966. Key points were: 

1. Continue to protect the NRP by all means. 

2. There is potential political value in doing peaceful earthsensing, but the NASA program must be planned with great care. 

3. NASA I S eXperimental program should comply with the 

McMillan-Seamans agreement of August 5, 1965. 

4. The possibility of using aircraft instead of satellites 

should be studied. 

On September 26, 1966 NASA and the DOD signed an agreement 

on "DOD-NASA Coordination of the Earth Resources Survey Program. II 

It confirmed the MSFPC as the coordinating agent for NASA's earthsensing activities and set up a working group, the Survey Applications 

Coordinating Committee, under the MSFPC to carry out a first-level 

review. 

On December 7, 1966, Mr. Vance and Dr. Hornig agreed to an 

experimental project in which federal civil agencies would review 

NRO photography to determine applicability to each of their particular areas of interest. 

!-{ /\~,;::-\LE: VIA 

[3 >IT .. }(E~,{l-j (}LE 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 

; 

L 

i 

-

... 

-
Approved focr Rele~se: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 

pnESENT STATUS: 

There have been six meetings of the MSFPC. There have been 

eleven meetings of the SACCo The SACC has reviewed, in detail, 

.1:ne following NASA activities: 

14 Apollo Application Program Flight Projects 

101 NASA Research and Technology Resumes 

3 NASA Proposed Work Statements 

1 NASA Contractor Proposal 

3 NASA Propose d Publications 

1 NASA International Agreement 

11 Results of NASA Symposia 

3 Speeches 

SPECIFIC CO}\'TTvIENTS ON TI-:E "1\Eli,C,SP1;CE rJ.p .. ILIY" j\l~,TICJ~:~J: 

.1. Heated Debate. The relations betv/~en NASA and the DOD in the earth-sensing area are conducted on a professional, intellectuallevel. They have not been characterized by liheated debate. I I 

2. Killed NASA Projects. The DOD (the article refers erroneously to the Air Force, throughout) has not killed NASA pl~ojects. Only 

NASA can terminate a project. 

3. Refusal to Declass~fy Technology. The N::--{O :)ul'posely keeps 

the bulk of its technology "w-hite , " to make it available to norrnal DOD 

(and NASA) space organizations. 

4. The Mysterious Air Force Officer. We don't believe he exists. 

The case "he ll makes for secuTity, in this article, is not the one DOD 

would make. 

5. The MuHiSD2c~ca~ Tracking Telescope. At the 7tn meeting of 

SACC, lVIr . Jaffe '-'called attention to a definitioa stuciy with the University of Arizona w:lich had been in progress since early 1966. This 

study involves a multispectral telescope. The current contract is being 

-'/---'" ! 

" ' - . . -~-\.. "'-~) 

"". ,:- - .. 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 

-

-
Approved for Relea~e : 2019/05/02 C051 07402 

lcn:linatcd. II This telescope was to have yielded ;;ro1Jnc1 rcsohltion 

of one 111¢tcn', AtuH" cii";~U8.siol1 in Sf\CC', N.!\.SA l:'l.J.Uc; ~s d . .::::.:L5i,'J;J 

on i~s own initiative, 

1, Thy DOD [\I, d NASA orO '2V~0Wil'lg' NASA I S 

activities in an orde ~ly manner. 

. . eal'''~i1- s(.. :~S: (l J' 

2. The DOD has purposely kept the bulk of its NRO technology 

Ilwhite" to ma~e it available to NASA. 

3 . 111 1963, w11en Ni~~S l\ as1:ed for help \vitll. a lU11Cl.r survey 

car~:lera , the DOD rr.ade its (then) finest reconnaissanCe car.l el'a 

available to NASA and ran the develop.",,'ler.t program l' OJ: NASA. 

4'. The DOD helped NASA select its Lunar Orbiter camera. 

5. The DOD has assited in establishing a TKH vault containing 

reconnaissance photographi c materials in the Department of Interior 

for review by cleared persons in the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, and Interior as well as by NASA . 

6. The DOD has participated in ARGO -- an experiment for 

testing the value of NRO photography to the civil community. 

Approved for Release: 20!~/05/02 C051 07402 

~ 

L 

, ! 

I 

' M 

-
,. .. 

'U u; \. ::-, 1. "1\ \"l'4 J-l.\.TL r{i~~~~'~ rlic:nt~tA ::It $lnothpJ' Ipvel-whether'satellites can really' 

Approved for Release;/Zl?{9~!'92 ",gp,51 0I19&rce surveys better than cheaper; 

B I R n 

.. at· 1't \ e • ages q airplanes. 

, .' ~ : ,'. li~ : Nevertheless, the debate is import,ant for se~eral M reasons. NASA badly needs a space project for WhICh 

. I ilii! can claim economic benefits, If the Pentagon blocks -

0

:; 1.\ TOr U· se 0 .. f·. !,:i or impos~s so many r~strictions survey sate~l~tes can.'t 

'f 't.I Ei meet theIr full potentIal- NASA's new ambItIons, WIlL 

·'Sky Spies' 

By BOB LINDSEY 

Staff Aerospace Writer 

, , 

M ~( falter. . . 

~;:~ 

~i "I ," , Although Air Force officials say they are cooper"" 

, I~; aUng ill NASA's efforts to turn satellite "swords into 

,:, plowshares," some NASA officials and aerospace : 

m' industry sources disagree. j 

• 

'.' Some claim the Air Force is blocking NASA's entryl 

.: into the field because of selfish motives, claiming space! 

A heated, so far unpublicized, battle is raging at: observation is "Air Force jurisdiction." These oppo.1 

high levels of the U,S. government over tM USe of "sky, nents argue the Pentagon has "killed" specific NASAl 

spy" satellites for peaceful t~sks. , t proje~ts for selfish reaso,~s under, th~ ~uise of ~ational f 

Th A, F ' f' t 11 t' k' d f' secuflty and refused to de-classIfy InformatIOn and I e Ir orce IS re USIng 0 a ow cer am In so', 'd ' d' , 'b d d f '. eqUIpment SIX an seven years 01 which IS obsolete I 

cameras and satellIte su -systems, evelope or a ed 'th r t h' h g 'f' t" '11; , , . , . . b d" comp r WI p esen 19 -rna nI Ica IOn survel ance I 

mlh tary reconnaIssance of for~lgn natIons, to e use In gear, yet which could be used b the NASA ro' ects. 

new "earth resources" satellItes to photograph crops, . y p J ! 

grazing land, forests, mineral fields, coasts and other " Pentagon arguments go like this : (1) America' 

subjects of economic interest. shouldn't tell the rest of the world how good its 

Also, informed sources in Santa Clara Valley's . ;~~-~~~:sfr:r~' s~~c;f i:~e~~~~~!Ys::~~ts,w~h~~e n~~!~; : 

aerospace industry said last week, the Air Force has may react to oppose all surveillance and perhaps make b 

quietly quashed several "earth pointing sensor" devel- illegal today's valuable military reconnaissance from I 

opmcnt projects by the National Aeronautics and Space ! space. ; Administration in a bitter dispute under way in the ; 

highest councils of the U.S. government. , One possible compromise in the argument is to limit I , ., . the "resolution"-the size of features on the ground! The battle ,has not been m~de public yet, prInCipally . which cameras can see _ to no less than 100 feet for I 

because the Air F.orc~ cl,oaks Its Sunnyvale - headquar- resource satellites. Technically, objects smaller than" 

tered satellIte spymg In tIght secrecy. three feet can be seen, and Air Force satellites are 

.' , Satellites using conventional and infra-red cameras have photographed Soviet missle • Jauncher, 

,,' construction and provide a continuously updated 

believed to have such fine resolution, .. Some experts in rerbote sensing claim, however, a 

reSOl.j:rce satellite with 100-foot resolution would have j 

only' limited use. Because of the national security i 

restrictions and the tense political in-fighting, few I 

persons are willing to be quoted about the dispute. One i 

who will, however, is University of California professor I, 

Robert Colwell, an expert in satellite remote sensing, , 

who commented last week. . 

, 1}lctllre of emerging military strength in Russia and 

other nn (ions. , , 

" 

,: 

I, (So intense is security imposed 'at the Sunnyvale Air 

~ 

~'Force Satellite Test Center, which operates and 

:~recovers information from the "spy" satellites, when 

;Vice President Hubert Humphrey visited the nearby 

:' Lockheed plant recently, he was at first banned from 

: admission to the sat-ellite center. 

"It's common k'nowledge among people who work; 

in the field that this (debate) is going on. I don't think t 

there is anything vicious in' the Air Force's position. I ; 

.• An Air Force" security officer said, in effect, HI think it's accepted by most people that there is some: 

: don't care who he if!. fhil docs,n't have the right ,'Clear- point beyond which earth observation should not bo • 

;. ance.' ,,' taken. The Air Force feels it is not appropriate to go 

(P 'd t' l'd . kI ll d S 't ' f th beyond HlO feet," Colwell said, "I would think you could 

.: res I en la al es qUIC y ca e ecre ary 0 e t lb' f " 0::: 

• A' F IT Id B A b d 't ge some very va ua Ie 111 ormatIOn With 100-foot :i Ir < orce aro rown. n em arras~e secun Y' resolution." , . :o{flcer got the message, Humphrey got In, although 

• :, even then he was not told everythIng about the spying 

:,'operations. ) 

Coincidentally, Humphrey, as chairman of the 

: National Aeronautics and Space Council, has the key . ___ , __ :.,,,11'1 Hi,,,,,, III J1t-hllhiIiH!1 111~ rll"l'hh' fWI!!- 1tI11I1~r;; ,jlll"'nl~ 

"And I think the attitude may even change over, 

time as it becomes known that the Russians, with their 

satellites, can get 50 or 20-foot resolution, and then the 

Air Force might end its reluctance to discuss anythingi 

below 100 feet." 

________________ .:.-A~p:t'prov~d for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 
--- . 

) ",:", , \, 

1001 n;:r,IOr:T AI'[" :<.\'1" \nSliINGTOn, D,C. ;~OOG5 202· GS9·32~iO 

\{Villinn1 [:=>. H;111, r=ciitt)C Wnyne W. Pn"rri',h,\l 1~'r'J,e:":""nt ;'~'ichDrd 'rullic. M.\r').ll~lf'l/'~ {~:(Iit-or Wijlii..,rl1. V. Hc",.-r<·y(' r~I\;(."",\ II Dir('ctot' 

. 1:-)LJhli~--;hC(~ (.L'I.i,I)'". (:~C(:,Pt (:'iC:d:I_IC(L"~~~, __ ~·~.'1I1(j<_ly" "Intl 1-10:i(Jily~.~ \)y An1_C'rjc(1nAvl(\_~A:'~'" pu~·J ... ?lti()ns. Inc.,. 

In Vy""'~:::'lllnf,'>tr)ll. !::iUU~:JCf{lf..l fl<-'Jf"J f-.!Al t:.: ~1'1l) ;1)1' thrc'e 111onLh:;, ~,l':J() for SIX n1ont.h~;! -R1>;·~')~j ,I }.:.)r, P()~.tp,i,(,1 (~Ui.H!tlty • __ llld ck~'((~ncd !I,':-li!lrlr: rl.dc~:~ on rl;qul.':~t. L.-.);,~ 

RCPi',OLJUCTION OF THIS PUULlCATiON STPICTLY PllOHIBIT[=O WITHOUT CO'(JSLNT OF CDITO,',':,' 

~~~_~~~~_~ __________ ~ej~~~~~~~~~l~~l~~ _________________ i~!Jj 

NASA, DOD LOCKED IN HEATED DEBATE ON EARTH SURVEILLANCE 

An important high level debate is raging in Washington over the level of advanced earthpointing-sensor technology NASA will be allowed to use in its emerging earth resource satellite 

systems, according to industry sourceS. 

Some sources interpret Pentagon resistence to allowing NASA use of high resolution surveillance systems as a step to monopolize jurisdiction of photographic-infrared earth observation 

systemsandat least one source said outcome of the debate will be a key facet in determining the 

nature of the Apollo Applications Program. 

The Air Force has reportedly offered to fly some remote sensing experiments aboard the 

Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) which would perform the same iob as those planned for the 

earth resources segment of the AAP. The industry sources told AEROSPACE DAILY the Air Force 

has quietly killed several NASA proiects to develop earth-pointing sensors and has refused to 

de-classify technology which is now some six years old and has been made obsolete by advanced 

systems employed inmilitary reconnaissance, yet which could be used in an earth resources satellite system. 

Vice President Hubert Humphrey, as chairman of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Council, is the key figure in arbitrating the issue. The debate has not been made public yet, 

essentially because of secrecy shrouding the Air Force's reconnaissance satellite programs. According to the industry sources, the Air Force is persistently blocking use in ER sate Ilites of c(;llain 

cameras, infra-red sensors, satellite stabilization and other sub-systems developed for militalY 

surveillance spacecraft. 

Motives of Pentagon Questioned 

An unanswered question in the power struggle is motives for the Pentagon resistence. One 

Air Force officer assigned to the satellite reconnaissance Special Projects Office of SecretalY 

Hamid Brown, said; "It's pretty obvious. Number one, we don'twantto let the other side know 

how good our technology is, and number two, if we start publicizing that we are sending up earth 

resources satellites with a resolution, say of 25 feet, who knows what various countries around 

the world are going to say?" Now, he said, in effect, DOD can fly the surveillance systems, 

which have produced valuable intelligence date, without, general public knowledge. When ER 

satellites are flying, somecountriesmay awaken and decide they don't want any satellites flying .. 

above them. 

On the other hand, opponents of .this philosophy in industry claim much of the resistence 

amounts to empire bui Iding and efforts to keep another agency out of an Air Force province, and C 

they also claim much of the older Air Force technology could be used iii ER systems now. 

One NASA source told AEROSPACE DAILY" I personally know of at least four programs 

which DOD has ki lied in the past two years. Congress has to Id us they want more done in the earth 

resources satellite area, but DOD, or least some members of DOD,havekepttheirthumbs on us." 

. (Continued on Following Page) 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 
" . Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 /~L~~~JJ_~_...:::8 ___ - __ " ANa EXECUTIVE R[Ponr , _ POI}C 56 

,,,/S"URVEILLANCE (Cont.) 

One example cited by this NASA official was the "multispectral tracking telescope." A 

proiect of Dr. Philip Slater of the University of Arizona at Tuscan, the telescope was to have ground 

resolution of less than one foot. The project went trough a design competition and procurement proceedings were begun. Sudden ly, DOD, apparently in a joint DOD-NASA committee msigned to 

handle the sensitive earth surveillance issue, launched heavy opposition, and the program was killed 

last May. 

A source at one contractor which has contributed to Air Force photographic surveillance 

satellites, and had hoped to get in on the ER market, said, "NASA in a way is to blame. They stick 

by a policy of not using any data that is Isecret,l and use only 'confidential l material. They could 

get more on their own .11 

A Key issue in the dispute is how much resolution should be allowed in civilian surveillance 

satel l ites, and this matter is one which occupies Humphrey and the NASC. The most commonly heard 

"safe" number is 100 feet, although even this figure is opposed by some elements in the Air Force and 

the U.S. State Department, according to the indJstry sourCes. 

How much can a satellite see with a resolution of 100 feet? One remote-sensing specia list 

in industry said most studies in this field indicate it can contribute to gross surveys in certain kinds 

of agricultural problems, coastal and ice-pock studies, but a lot of the potential value of an ER 

satell ite is lost. 

For the most pa rt, principals in the current high-level dispute won't talk for attribution. 

One who would, however, Dr. Robert Cowell of the University of California, a pioneer specialist 

in remote sensing for agricultural surveys, told AEROSPACE DAILY: "Itls common knowledge among 

the people who WOI\ in this area that the (deba te) is going on. I don't think there's anything vicious 

in the Air Force's attitude. If we get extremely sharp photographs, it is obvious they are useful not 

only for gross inventory of resources, but can be used to spy on foreign countries. 1I 

Most scientific personnel in the ER satellite sensing field, he said, accept the fact there is 

"0 point where you should not go beyond to provide detail. The exact resolution that wou ld be permissible is in the process of being defined. The Air Force fee ls it is not appropriate to use satellites 

with vert high resolution." 

For many purposes in agricultural surveys, Cowell said, III think there is very valuable information you could get with I OO-foot resol ution in broad reconnaissance surveys. For vegetation surveys, 

that actually may be the optimum. If you have more detail, it may be harder to use. All of the Gemini photographs had a resolution no better than 100 feet, and you could see a lot in them. 1I 

Related to the current debate is an even more basic question--how cost effect ive is remote 

sensi ng from satell ites, compared with conventiona I aerial photography? Many spec ial ists in aerial 

reconna issance and photo interpretation privately scoff at the economi~s of satellite ER surveillance. 

A hard-hitting document is current ly circulating among the remote-sensing community which 

rips into the question and could undermine the whole cQilcept which NASA and other agencies are 

working on. Written by Amron Katz of the RAND Corp., widely regarded as one of the nationls 

leading authorities on earth observation satellites, the paper systematically tears apart the ER satellite 

concept and says it will al,ways be cheaper to perform the same missions with aircraft. 

W 'if * 

DOT TO CONTRACT FOR 300-MPH AIR CUSHION VEHICLE DESIGN STUDY 

Th= Depmtment of Transportation is beginning a study of a 300-mph tracked air cush ion vehicle, through the Federal Railroad Administrat ion's Office of High Speed Ground Transportation. DOT 

is asking for bids on a six-month preliminary design study of the research vehicle, which would operate on a guideway. 

The department plans to contract later for engineering, design and construction of the vehicle 

and the guideway, with testing expected to stmt in 1970. Officials me now studying a number of 

~ites around the country for installation of the gu ideway, which will run for several miles initially and , ' 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07402 

.. 

•