_BEGET-- —..-11A11511 VIII BRAN swat ONLY 

t\liR0 APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF THE MR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 

onnemorTsassraunwav 

MAR 2 3 1966. 

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. FLAX 

SUBJECT: MOL Priority 

Reference is made to General Schriever's memo to you of 

February 3, 1966, subject: MOL Priority, and your oral request 

for specific examples of where our efforts were being held up 

by the lack of a DX priority. As you know, the numbers of 

long-lead items which we currently have under acquisition are 

so very few that our ability to cite specific examples whereby 

MOL work is being held up due to lack of priority are rather 

difficult to come by. However, the general situation relative 

to increasing lead times is quite well known; I will outline 

below additional factors which cause me to be very concerned 

with our ability to live within the current schedules and 

dollars which are anticipated for FY 1967 for the MOL Program. 

As you know, General Schriever in his February 3 memo 

addressed the general question of MOL/Apollo/GAMBIT relationships. The existing priority imbalance among these programs, 

which share relatively limited and specialized national 

resources, creates a set of circumstances which could result 

in serious impact on MOL schedules and costs. The present 

situation is one in which MOL requirements are automatically 

and mechanically deferred to Apollo and GAMBIT requirements. 

I do not believe this isoonsistent with the scope and urgency 

of the MOL/DORIAN effort.. Since the Apollo and GAMBIT 

programs have already received a DX priority, the elevation 

of MOL to that priority level would merely permit the MOL 

Program to compete to some degree for the scarce materials and 

resources required to do our job. 

More serious, however, are other emerging activities which 

also have, or are very shortly scheduled to have, DX priority. 

These activities' are the Supersonic Transport, much of the work 

involved in supporting the SE Asia operation, and the Apollo 

Applications Program. One example of a problem which has 

recently arisen regards the disposition to be made by NASA of 

• Page 1 pf 4 pages 

N.42/tit Copy 4 copies 

SAF-SL BYE 21079-66 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

JMNAITIMim7.r3m71,410, gem 

DCLUDED FRO? AUTOMATIC REGRADING; 

DOD DIR 5200.10 DOES NOT APPIX 
DORIAN/GAMBIT 

! ,10;4.t - Ifitf■ it I •W•f-H2- 

Page 2,pf 4 pages 

Copy.32%-f 4 copies 

SAF-SL BYE 21079-66 

• V 0.1 '•••••• ■••••• 4."..••••••••••.*••••••■•-•., 

°VNRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NAME VIA BYEMAN SYSTEM ONLY 

Gemini equipment which is or soon will be excess to the requirements of the Gemini program. The cost of the Gemini B effort at 

McDonnell will be partially determined by the extent to which 

NASA Gemini equipment, fixtures, and spares can be released to 

the MOL effort. Should NASA elect to distribute these resources 

within NASA rather than releasing them to MOL, there may be a 

considerable cost and schedule impact on the MOL Program. NASA 

presently has two uses for Gemini equipment. The first, and minor 

in nature, is for direct release to the Apollo program. A 

considerably greater use proposed by NASA for Gemini equipment 

is in support of or use in the Apollo Applications program. NASA 

obviously is reluctant to release equipment to MOL when its 

priority, in their view, is probably not even equivalent to 

Apollo Applications. They are currently processing a DX priority 

for Apollo Applications as a part of the Apollo program. Failure 

of the DOD to at least attempt to get a DX rating for the MOL can 

only reflect adversely in the costs and schedules for the MOL 

Program. 

A second broad area of concern has recently arisen because 

of the impact of SE Asia requirements on lead times for certain 

materials and vendor items. Of particular interest in this 

regard are forgings, extrusions, electronic components, bearings, 

gears, copper wire and cable, and alloys of molybdenum, vanadium, 

tungsten and chromium. I am advised by the Joint Aeronautical. 

Materials Activity that the lead time quoted by suppliers of 

these items have approximately doubled since mid-1965. There is 

some evidence that this situation is still deteriorating. 

As I pointed out earlier, the MOL Program has not yet 

progressed to the point where a quantitative assessment of the 

impact of increased materials lead times on MOL can be accomplished in definitive form. I am able to provide, however, 

certain specific lead time problems which have been derived from 

vendor quotes supplied to Douglas Aircraft Company. Listed in 

the three columns is the example of material lead times formerly 

.used by Douglas, and the latest lead time quotes from vendors. 

It should be noted that the latest lead time quotes from Douglas 

were predicated on a DX rating. Any lesser priority will 

increase the lead times. 

MATERIAL FORMER LEAD TIME PRESENT LEAD TIME 

Aft Rack 

7015-T6 Extrusions. 10 weeks 22 weeks, 

Aluminum Bracket 

'2014-T6 Forging 22 weeks' 
MATERIAL 

Cabin Shell 

Aluminum Plate 

2014-T6 Aluminum 

FORMER LEAD TIME PRESENT LEAD TIME 

10 weeks 28 weeks 

.Meteriod Shield 

6061-T42 Extrusions 10 weeks 22 weeks 

. 

- 

SEED" atim VIA BYELAN SYSTEM ONLY 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Digital Data Acquisition 19 weeks (all components) 

System 

Printed Circuit Boards Vary from 16 to 25 weeks 

Transformers 30 weeks 

S0450-3N Switches 28 weeks 

These are but a few samples from current planning documents from one 

contractor. In addition, it is their judgment that if we do not 

have a DX rating in which to compete with all other users at component and vendor level, our chances of making planned schedules are 

minimal. It is certainly clear that in order to make our schedules 

we must now make material orders and engineering releases considerably 

sooner than we had formerly planned, even with a DX rating. To do 

this, earlier release and more FY 1967 funds are required. If we 

have a lesser priority, the funding problem will be aggravated; and, 

in addition, it also means that manpower for procurement follow-up 

and expediting at detailed item level must be increased. All of 

this adds to a very inefficient way to conduct and manage aslarge 

program. 

In addition to the foregoing, a number of instances, perhaps 

individually trivial in themselves, have arisen in recent weeks; 

incidents which might have been avoided had the importance and 

urgency of the MOL effort been currently and formally established by 

appropriate master urgency list designator. I do not wish to imply 

that the following items are fully matured problems for which every 

avenue of solution has been exhausted. They are not. They do, 

however, point out that the atmosphere which is created by the lack 

of formal recognition for MOL priority tends to develop situations 

such as the following: 

a. Informal arrangements have been undertaken with the 

Office of the Surgeon General to make available to MOL, by name, 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

• • 7 •-- -

'

% de 

• 

e":%rr::r PiGit 

Page 3 pf 4 pages 

Copy 1.7if 4 copies 

_ SAF-SL BYE 21079-66 

""" 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

&WI IIAOLE VIA BYEMAti syso fNIY 

certain peculiarly-qUalified bioastronautics personnel. These . 

arrangements will be consummated when and if the Surgeon General 

is presented with indications that such a move is warranted by 

the importance of the MOL effort. In the existing circumstances, 

the program is in some danger of losing these individuals to other,; 

higher-priority requirements. 

b. Difficulty has been experienced recently in concluding satisfactory arrangements with Military Airlift Command for 

transportation of HSQ flight hardware to ETR. .As of today, no MAC 

commitment has been obtained for these shipments. While this is a 

problem which we will eventually resolve satisfactorily, I expect 

that the question will arise with each MOL transportation requirement until BRICKBAT .01 status can be cited to MAC.' 

In summary, I believe that the circumstances warrant immediate 

assignment of BRICKBAT .01/DX priorities to MOL. I will continue 

to gather specific supporting information as it is required. I 

request that the draft letter forwarded by General Schriever's memo 

of February 3 be forwarded. If you feel it is not suitable and 

needs redrafting, request that it be returned, with your comments, , 

for rewrite. 

Brigadier General, USAF 

Vice Director, MOL Program 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Page 4 4 pages 

Copy l' of 4 copies 

SAF-SL BYE 21079-66