NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE-1 JULY 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

A 0 6 JUN 1963 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

SUBJECT: MOL Decision 

The attached papers were prepared jointly by our staffs 

in response to your request yesterday morning. We 

some" believe these papers represent the situation fairly and 

111 7K present prudent steps to implement the decision. 

Cr2 L._ C 

ere2.,w 

(.0 

• 1 • e 

.-•"' "" iVr'.01iP 1. 11 VIA Bilitti N ••i[lvillkl:1 . 

.. 

. vr‘f ilrog • nit—ho.,2 • 

F.x,...4:40:i frt.:', zu1;11-113tic 

CONTROL SYS TM 

_ E 

/ : 

. 

c -

)Gi3ssiticatioR 

gig 4g3 1.5.!• - 9-• 

Pane of page's 

Copy . of 
Handle via EYEiati 

Control SYFt.Pri NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 1 J 2015 

DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

SUBJECT: Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) 

Problem 

The DoD faces severe pressures to reduce both FY 1970 and outyear costs. If we can severely curtail or abandon one or more large 

costly R&D programs, we can avoid paralyzing a great number of 

smaller ones. Consequently we have considered alternatives to the 

current MOL program. 

Alternatives 

Our opportunities boil down to: 

1. Continue the present program which provides a manned 

system only (before we reduced the FY 70 for MOL last January 

from $576M to the current $525M, we were developing a system 

that could be used manned or unmanned). 

2. Utilize the MOL camera system and optics as part of a new 

system tha)t is optimized to be unmanned. This system would use the 

HEXAGON booster and launch pad (TITAN III D) rather than the larger 

and more costly TITAN III M booster and launcher being specially 

developed for MOL. This would constitute a public termination of MOL. 

3. Terminate all MOL activities immediately and do not develop 

at this time a photographic reconnaissance satellite system that provides 

a best resolution of 

* You will recall that HEXAGON is a new general search system with 

a best resolution of 2-3 feet. 

Handle via [L„:111 

Control System (063 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 T

._ ."','. rrIr. 7,••=;7.1 ladle via BYEMAN 

Central System 2. 

Factors 

Four factors need to be considered: 

1. The value of the intelligence derived from photography with 

very-high- resolution. 

2. The relative performance of the manned and unmanned systems. 

3. Program schedules and risks. 

4. Costs incluckg FY 70 costs, one-time R&D costs remaining, 

and future recurring operating costs. 

Intelligence Value 

During the past ten years, the resolution of satellite photography has 

progressively improved. The earliest useful photgraphy provided 

30-50 foot resolution. By 1967 the GAMBIT system was producing 

3 foot and today it produces about Every significant 

technical improvement f has provided a 

corresponding improvement in intelligence value. Since we may be 

reaching a plateau i and since 

higher resolution becomes relatively more exoensive. DoD extensively 

studied this past year the value of MOL-like resolution. 

We conclude that this resolution would provide many critical fine details 

which would allow us to determine a number of performance characteristics 

of emerging Sino-Soviet weapons systems well in advance of any operational 

tests, field deployment, or public display in parades or shows. If we 

achieve an agreement on arms limitation, the resolution would greatly 

increase our confidence that the agreements were being observed or it 

would probably indicate suspicious activity. 

Dick Helms, Lee DuBridge and Edwin Land, Chairman of the PSAC 

Reconnaissance Panel, concur that MOL-like resolution will be very 

valuable. 

Performance 

When performing at their very best, the manned and unmanned systems 

will provide comparable resolution. The advantages of the manned are: 

■1 Otti.[4t 

!lad? via BYEMAN 

Cconi System 

IrA -57 V- 6 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

c. C 

. ',.... 77•7 47-' 71,.., 76- 

Handle, via ELii:1-Vi3 

Control System 

3. 

1. He would increase our confidence that flights early in the 

program will be productive and reliable. 

2. Throughout the program, he would improve by 10-20% 

the average resolving power and increase by several-fold the number 

of photographs of time-sensitive targets, i.e., potentially critical 

targets. 

2. He would make it possible 

to take color photographs selectively, and to be adaptive in other ways. 

4. He would provide information on man-in-space for military 

purposes. 

A potentially significant advantage of an unmanned system might obtain 

if we were negotiating or monitoring a treaty that limited strategic arms. 

In this atmosphere of relative detente, a manned military overflight 

of the Soviet Union for reconnaissance pruposes might be considered 

sufficiently provocative to jeopardize the agreement or to cause us to 

forego very high resolution reconnaissance. 

Schedules and Risks 

The earliest operational dates for these options are as follows: 

Manned MOL July 1972 

Unmanned optimized March 1973 

The manned system could have been operational earlier (January 1972) 

but about $70 million more would have been needed in FY 70. Similarly, 

the optimized unmanned system could be accelerated by deciding to 

proceed immediately using the HEXAGON spacecraft to carry the MOLdeveloped camera system and optics. However,, in order to reduce 

development and recurring costs and optimize performance, we would 

propose to compete the HEXAGON spacecraft against a new one using 

MOL spacecraft components. 

There appears to be no significant difference in the risks of meeting 

any of these schedules although the unmanned version would be a 

significant program change. The schedule risks are not expected to 

nffowl Lvulutlian1:.; via 

Control System 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

51'17117 

Hanoi° via 

Control System 

4. 

be higher because: (I) we have been developing completely "hands-off" 

systems for MOL, (2) at least some components from HEXAGON will 

be available and (3) we would not propose a crash development of the 

unmanned system. 

Costs 

Up to now, about $1. 3B has been spent on MOL. The following table 

compares the remaining cost of the three options: 

Total 

Remaining 

One-time Recurring 

Option FY 70 FY 71 development per launch 

1. Current manned MOL $525M $600M $1295M $130-140M 

2. Unmanned optimized $250M $230-300M $845-1045M $ 67 '73M 

3. Terminat all June 15 $ 97M $ 97M 

The significant cost advantages of option 2 are: 

1. FY 70 is $275M less than current program and FY 71 $300M 

or more less. 

2. The recurring cost per launch will be about $70M less. 

This would be very significant over a period of four to five years at 

2-3 launches per year. 

Evaluation 

Current budget pressures make it extremely difficult to continue the 

current MOL program. Significant FY 70 and out-year savings are 

possible by cancelling MOL. However, because of the critical importance 

of very-high- resolution, we should continue an unmanned system. This 

system will be less capable than a manned system but we judge it can 

do the essential job. 

00111,171 

Handle via 3YEZIN 

Control System 
Handle via BMW 

Control System 

5. 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 TO SECRET 

Termination Scenario 

Four steps should be completed before public announcement of 

termination: 

1. Informally advise affected Government officials. 

2. Advise former President Johnson, Bob McNamara, 

Harold Brown, and Gene Zuckert of our plans. 

3. Notify in writing the Chairmen of key Congressional Committees 

and individual Congressmen whose states are most seriously affected 

(classified and unclassified draft letters attached). 

4. Direct MOL contractors to terminate all efforts except covert 

camera activities applicable to an unmanned system. 

After direction to proceed and general approval of the drafts, steps 

1-4 could be accomplished by the close of business, June 10. 

Then, almost immediately thereafter, issue a press release (a draft 

version is attached). If a press conference is desired, it should be held 

either simultaneously with the press release or within 1-2 days thereafter. 

(Sample questions attached) 

Plan for Unmanned System 

There are four stages in proceeding with implementation: 

a. Stage I (Now to July 1969) 

1. Reorient camera contractor efforts; begin terminating all 

manned contracts. 

2. Prepare a plan for acquiring an optimized unmanned 

system as part of the NRP and present it to ExCom by the end of July. 

3. Independently, initiate an increase to theAir Force Special 

Activities R&D account to provide for the "black" FY 70 funds required. 

Leave the MOL termination costs in the "white" MOL budget. 

DONN 

Handle via DAMAN 

Control System 

r 

hfi--683-n —6 9 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Handle via MIN 

Control Srtnni 

IL 6. 

b. Stage II (Aug - Nov 1969) 

1. Conduct a competition between the MOL and HEXAGON 

contractors, to select best configuration/performance/cost, etc. 

c. Stage III (Dec 1969 - Feb 1970) 

Evaluate contractor proposals and select best system 

configuration and winner. 

d. Stage IV (Mar 1970 on) 

Begin spacecraft/total system development. 

John S. Foster, Jr. 

Attachments (5) 

Tab A - Proposed Press Release 

Tab B - Sample Questions and Answers 

Tab C - Propose Classified Letter to 

Chairmen of Congressional Committees 

Tab D - Proposed Unclassified Letter to 

Chairmen fo Congressional Committees 

Tab E - Proposed Letter to affected Congressmen 

DOR „ 

handle via 

Control Systc: g -1 9 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

th‘IIPAN 

toad shrew 

5 Junie 1969 

DRAFT 

PROPOSED CLASSIFIED LETTER TO CHAIRMEN 

OF HOUSE AND SENATE ARMED FORCES 

AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I regret to advise you that we have reluctantly decided 

to terminate the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) Program. 

The primary reason for this action is to reduce Federal defense 

spending now and in the future. Further, we are confident that 

the MOL reconnaissance covert system can be operated in an 

unmanned mode. 

The primary purpose of MOL, as you know, has always been 

the collection of technical intelligence through very high 

resolution photography of Sino-Soviet weapons and equipment. 

You will recall that wren MOL was approved by President Johnson 

in 1965, only manual operation of the camera by the MOL flight 

crew appeared feasible. Later, as fully automatic operation 

of the camera began appear more practical, there still were 

advantage:, to continuing development of the ma: ..:d space vehicle. 

Additionally, it was also apparent that the MOL manned reconaaissance system would always posses certain unique capabili,:. 

and operational flexibility. 

DORIAN 

Handle via BYEMAii 

Controf system 

3315-42 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Unfortunately, the MOL Program development phase has 

stretched out and the total cost increased for various 

reasons. At the same time, the technology required to 

operate the camera in an unmanned satellite has moved ever 

nearer. Even at this stage in the MOL Program, it will be 

considerably less costly both in Fiscal 1970 and future years 

to terminate MOL, per se, and develop only the camera for 

possible future use in an unmanned system. 

Since the camera payload in the MOL spacecraft has 

always been a very closely held matter (and is being developed 

under a covert contract), the public announcement will indicate 

that the entire program has been cancelled. The continuation 

of camera development and its probably future incorporation 

into an unmanned spacecraft will be handled covertly, as are 

the unmanned reconnaissance satellites in the National Reconnaissance Program. 

So as not to jeopardize possible future covert use of 

the MOL camera, as well as both on-going and future activities 

of the National Reconnaissance Program, I solicit your assistance 

in not probing too deeply into the so-called "MOL experiments" 

during any full Committee discussions of the termination. 

T.1,143 —(e 9 
NRO APPROVED FOR f 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Y.) 

Attached is an unclassified notice to you of MOL termination 

for use as you deem appropriate. 

Sincerely, 

MELVIN R. LAIRD 

1A,y_laig 3 75 411 

3 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DRAFT 

PROPOSED PRESS RELEASE ON MOL 

Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard announced today the 

cancellation of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) Program. 

This program was initiated in 1965 to acquire experience on what 

military man could do in space and involved several classified 

DoD experiments. 

In making the announcement, the Deputy Secretary cited both the 

continuing urgency of reducing Federal defense spending and also 

advances in automated techniques for unmanned satellite systems 

as primary factors in the decision to cancel the MOL project. 

Mr. Packard pointed out that in order to reduce the Defense 

budget significantly, it was either a case of drastically cutting back 

numerous small development programs or terminating one of the 

larger, more costly R&D undertakings. In the course of recent 

reviews, it had been concluded that the potential worth of possible 

future applications of the experimental equipment being developed 

for MOL, plus the information expected from the flights on man's 

utility in space for military purposes, while worthwhile, did not 

equate in immediate value to the sum of other DoD programs. 

Since it was possible to meet the most essential DoD space needs 

with less costly unmanned systems, the MOL was selected for 

cancellation. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

2. 

The concept of the Air Force's MOL -- a 30,000 pound, 72 foot 

long spacecraft which would include a modified Gemini vehicle, a 

pressurized Laboratory capable of sustaining the two-man crew in a 

"shirt-sleeve" environment for 30 days, and a large unpressurized 

compartment to house experimental hardware; and would employ a 

Titan-III type booster -- was first announced in December 1963. 

Former President Johnson gave formal approval to the program in 

August 1965. Following a year of detailed program definition, subcontractor competitions, and contract negotiations, full-scale system 

development began in September 1966. The first manned flight was 

then planned for December 1969. 

Mr. Packard noted that for several years the program was 

deliberately underfunded, even though this increased total program 

cost, in order to reduce annual DoD expenditures. Schedules were 

also slipped in part to reduce the technical risk in this very advanced 

development. These factors and technical problems slipped the first 

manned launch from its original goal to mid-1972. He added that these 

delays were largely responsible for the increase in estimated total 

cost from approximately two to three billion dollars, of which about 

$1. 3 billion has been spent to date. The Deputy Secretary emphasized 

that the project had been well-managed by the Air Force and was 

making good technical progress. 

Mr. Packard stated that an orderly phasedown of MOL activities 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

3. 

will begin immediately. Some of the technology and hardware developed 

thus far will be used in other DoD unmanned space programs; the military 

construction portion of the launch complex at Vandenberg AFB will be 

completed this Summer, as planned, and then placed in a standby status; 

other hardware will be stored or disposed of as appropriate. 

Principal effects of the MOL cancellation will be felt in California 

and St. Louis where the McDonnell-Douglas Company has large facilities 

devoted to MOL. Lesser effects will be felt at a number of facilities 

around the country including Valley Forge where General Electric has 

some MOL activity, in Sacremento where United Technology Corporation 

is developing the solid rocket motors for the booster, and in Denver at 

the Martin Company Titan-III facility. 

Secretary Packard cautioned that not all of the $525 million now 

included in the Fiscal Year 1970 Budget being considered by the Congress 

would be saved, noting that sizable termination costs were involved, 

some of the more promising MOL technology would be pursued in other 

Air Force programs, and other programs at the affected facilities 

probably would have higher costs because of the MOL cancellation. 

* * * * * * 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

QUESTION: Exactly how much has been invested in MOL: 

ANSWER: The DOD will have expended about $1.4 billion on MOL 

since its inception. 

QUESTION: What fraction of the investment to date will be wasted? 

Of approximately $1.4 billion expended, at least $400 

million of the investment can be diverted to other 

applications. 

What have been the specific major accomplishments 

that now allow you to proceed with unmanned systems? 

In the interval between Program approval in August 

1965 and the present, there have been many advances 

in space science and technology. Aside from the 

experimental equipments and a few other exceptions, 

the MOL technology would have been over ten years 

old when it finally flew. This reason, coupled 

with ever-increasing advances in unmanned space 

technology, gives us confidence that we can accomplish 

the major foreseeable military missions in space with 

unmanned systems. 

What kind of unmanned systems are you talking about? 

ANSWER: 

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

QUESTION: 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

ANSWER: The kind we presently have, communications, navigation, 

surveillance, etc. 

QUESTION: Wasn't MOL really a reconnaissance satellite? 

ANSWER: 

The MOL had a classified military mission to perform. 

What experimental hardware will be continued? 

We have not determined the answer to that. 

Aren't there some roles for military-man-in-space 

that can only be determined with actual experience? 

Yes, and the NASA experience tends to confirm this 

conclusion. As a result of these experiences we 

have not found major new military roles for man in 

space. Some of the best minds in the country have 

worked that question for years and I don't feel 

there are any surprises. 

As a result of this cancellation, what contractors 

and areas will suffer? 

There are 10,000 to 12,000 individual jobs directly 

identified with the MOL program. The majority of 

these are in California. The principal contractors 

are McDonnell Douglas, General Electric, Martin Marietta, 

United Technology, Aerojet General and AC Electronics. 

ANSWER: 

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

QUESTION: 

2 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

In addition there are hundreds of subcontractors. 

These contractors and subcontractors will, of course, 

have to determine the detailed impact of the MOL 

termination of their work forces. 

QUESTION: When the program was started, the cost was estimated 

to be $1.5B and initial launch was projected for 

late 1968. If we didn't cancel, total costs are now 

estimated to have doubled and the initial launch is 

311 years later. How can you claim that the Air Force 

has managed the program well? 

ANSWER: The increase in cost and extensions in the MOL schedule 

were caused by three basic things: First, as the Air 

Force got into the program, it was decided to fly 

more advanced experimental equipments. As the work 

progressed, it became clear that the experimental 

equipments were harder to build than we first thought. 

Secondly, there was the effect of growing inflation 

throughout our economy. Thirdly, the program has 

been deliberately stretched out by DOD several times. 

While these stretchouts reduced MOL funding in any 

given year, they added materially to the total cost 

of the program and schedule length. The Air Force 

3 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

and its contractors did a good job under very difficult 

management circumstances. 

QUESTION: Is the MOL cancellation part of a larger overall 

Administration plan to depress the economy and reduce 

inflation; if so, do you plan to cancel other programs 

and what are these? 

ANSWER: Our only plan is to reduce the size of the DOD budget. 

To do this we must eliminate items from that budget. 

We must make choices and we elected to eliminate one 

large program rather than discontinue a number of 

smaller programs. 

QUESTION: Over the past several years the Air Force in particular 

and the DOD in general have put millions and some 

times billions of dollars into various programs and 

then, at some point in the middle of the program, 

the program is cancelled. What do you propose to 

do to avoid the great waste in the future? 

ANSWER: In the worthwhile research and development there 

is always uncertainty as to the best approach and 

future funding conditions. In hindsight it is always 

possible to claim that funds are "wasted." In fact 

we cannot keep pace as a nation without running some 

4 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

risks and exposing to hindsight some "waste." We 

are instituting new management procedures in DOD 

which are designed to further minimize "waste." 

The system we are putting into practice will provide 

for very detailed reviews at major program milestones 

to insure that the work is proceeding against established 

goals within target costs. 

5 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

5 June 1969 

DRAFT 

PROPOSED SECDEF LETTER TO THE CHAIRMEN: 

OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE ARMED SERVICES 

AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I regret to inform you that the Department of Defense 

has terminated the Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) 

Program. This action has been reluctantly taken as the result 

of the necessity to reduce Federal defense spending. 

In arriving at this decision, a number of factors were 

considered. First, it is clear that most essential DoD space 

missions can be accomplished with lower cost unmanned spacecraft. Second, the potential worth of possible future applications of the experimental equipment being developed for MOL, 

plus the information expected from the flights on man's utility 

in space for military purposes, while worthwhile, did not equate 

in immediate value to other DoD programs. 

In order to reduce the defense budget significantly, it 

was necessary either to drastically cut back numerous small 

development programs or one of the larger, more costly R&D 

undertakings. In view of the above, the MOL was selected for 

cancellation. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

I know this action will be of particular concern to 

you, as it is to me, because it will result in the 

termination of major defense contracts with the McDonnellDouglas Company, General Electric, Martin, and numerous 

subcontractors and vendors in many States. It should be 

clearly understood that termination is not in any sense an 

unfavorable reflection on any of the MOL contractors. They 

have all worked very hard and have achieved excellent results. 

Likewise, MOL termination should not be construed as a 

reflection on the Air Force. The MOL goals were practical 

and achievable; maximum benefit was being taken of hardware 

and experience from NASA and other DoD space projects; and 

the program was well-managed and good progress was being 

made. Under other circumstances, its continuation would 

have been fully justified. 

Sincerely, 

MELVIN R. LAIRD 

2 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

5 June 1969 

DRAFT 

PROPOSED L&L LETTER TO CONGRESSMEN 

Dear (Senator or Representative) 

I regret to inform you that the Department of Defense 

has terminated the Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) 

Program. This action has been reluctantly taken as the result 

of the necessity to reduce Federal defense spending. 

In arriving at this decision, a number of factors were 

considered. First, it is clear that most essential DoD space 

missions can be accomplished with lower cost unmanned spacecraft. Second, the potential worth of possible future applications of the experimental equipment being developed for MOL, 

plus the information expected from the flights on man's utility 

in space for military purposes, while worthwhile, did not equate 

in immediate value to other DoD programs. 

In order to reduce the defense budget significantly, it 

was necessary either to drastically cut back numerous small 

development programs or one of the larger, more costly R&D 

undertakings. In view of the above, the MOL was selected for 

cancellation. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

I know this action will be of particular concern to 

you as it will result in the termination of the MOL (sub) 

contract with for in 

your (state) (district). It should be clearly understood 

that termination is not in any sense an unfavorable reflection 

on any of the MOL contractors. They have all worked very hard 

and have achieved excellent results. 

Likewise, MOL termination should not be construed as a 

reflection on the Air Force. The MOL goals were practical 

and achievable; maximum benefit was being taken of hardware 

and experience from NASA and other DoD space projects; and 

the program was well-managed and good progress was being made. 

Under other circumstances, its continuation would have been 

fully justified. 

Sincerely, 

SecDef or L&L Signature: 

2