s-if? AOVED FOR PPR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 0 -• 

.•„•.; :2; 

1 March 1968 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD . 

SUBJECT: MOL Briefings for House Armed Services Committee 

Members 

On February 28, Colonel Floyd (SAFSL) and I visited 

Congressman Price (Chairman, House Armed Services R&D SubCommittee), Congressman Hall and Staff Counsel Earle Morgan 

•to brief them on MOL per an earlier request from Chairman 

Rivers. Attached is a list of the briefing charts used. 

The session lasted approximately one hour (30 minutes briefing, 

30 minutes discussion). The following were the major discussion items: 

1. Schedule: In response to questions, I made 

quite clear that the camera was the pacing item, that EK. was 

being funded to the maximum amount they could efficientlY 

handle, and that the schedule probably could be advanced only 

a few months even if a. great deal more money was placed on 

the program. 

2. FY 69 Budzet Request: I pointed out that the 

MOL Program had originally requested $640 million for FY 69, 

and that in the budget process we had been "squeezed" to 

$600 million; however, we considered this adequate even if 

very tight and felt we could "manage" so as not to .have the 

reduction impact on'our schedule. 

3. Dependence on Orbital WorkshOp: I indicated 

we would test the MDL self-donning space suit, work restraints, 

and sleep station in the AAP Workshop, if possible, but that 

there was nothing in any NASA project to-day that was a 

critical fly-or-m-fly milestone for MOL. 

4. Why EK a Covert Contractor: I touched on the 

security policy followed with regard to reconnaissance 

ft-Vtgc4 of —__ pages 

copy op e 

SAFSL ContrOi 

• 't • 

;4 t-...:;-• ■4 - ' 

4 
......ba04015-ROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

0_1 • tentn Via BYEZii-vii 

r,t 

satellites and pointed out that the identification of EK as 

a major MOL contractor would be tantamount to official 

confirmation of the MOL mission, that a covert status for EK 

had worked well for eight years, etc. 

5. Other MOL Missions: I indicated that sea surveillance might be a possible future experimental task for 

MOL (using radar, smaller cameras, visual optics, real-time 

data relay, etc.); however, we had our hands full with the 

present mission and anything else was a future consideration. 

6. MOL Priority in AF: I pointed out that MOL was 

more of a centrally-directed DoD effort than most AF programs, 

but that it enjoyed very high priority with both the SecAF 

and the C/S -- witness their efforts to insure it was funded 

properly despite its large dollar demands in a tight dollar 

situation. 

7. MOL Discussions inAAS Full Committee Sessions: 

I indicated there were no DoD objections to discussing MOL 

in full committee sessions pricAlideci the questions did not 

probe into the reconnaissance mission or any aspects of the 

camera development, and in this regard we needed their help, 

etc. 

The entire session was conducted in a very friendly 

session. I believe the three of them will support the MOL 

FY 69 budget request (no doubt whatsoever about Mr. Hall's 

strong support). 

JAMES T. STEWART 

Major General USAF 

Vice Director, MOL Program 

rov mzln 

SATSL C.ntrl -zes-4r`," 

I1 f