NROAPpROVFD FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 SPECIAL HANDLING 

SPECI L HAN 

MEMO FOR THE RECORD 

1 2 Nov 1965 

SUBJECT: PSAC Meeting, 8 November 1965 

1. A meeting of the Reconnaissance Panel of the PSAC was held in 

Washington, D.C. on 8 November 1965 for the purpose of conducting 

a round table discussion on the general subject of manned and unmanned 

operational modes of the MOL/Dorian Program. Panel members 

present for this discussion included Land, Purcell, Shea, Garwin, 

Hornig, Thomas, Puckett, Baker, Goldberger, Golovin and Steinninger. 

Fink and Koslov of DDR&E joined the meeting shortly after it got underway-. In addition to Dr. Flax, the program was represented by Generals 

Martin and Berg, Dr. Leonard, Colonel Allen, and Lt Colonel Knolle. 

EKC personnel present were H. Waggershauser, A. Simmons, F. Oder, 

J. Sewell, and J. Collinge. 

2. The meeting started at 1420 with opening remarks by Dr. Land. 

These remarks included the comment that although the committee was 

not responsible for the detailed technical aspects of the program they 

were responsible to see that it was carried out on sound technical 

grounds and that no technical "bluppers" were made. He also stated 

the desire that we have equally superb manned and unmanned system. 

That is, accepting the fact that there is going to be a manned vehicle. 

The question now is, how do we get a superb unmanned mode of operation. 

Following these opening remarks Dr. Flax and General Martin presented 

some general comments. General Berg presented the MOL schedule and 

general program planning information. Colonel Allen followed with a 

discussion of our present ad hoc committee effort for the investigation 

of the unmanned modes of operation. During this discussion questions 

were asked by Dr. Baker concerning the optical design and trade-offs 

between the size of the flat and primary mirrors for the present 70" X 

70" design. He also discussed some of his work on a three mirror 

system and agreed to send EK a copy of his paper on this subject. In 

response to questions the inline and dump truck approaches were discussed in general terms. 

3. Following these discussions General Martin asked the committee if 

they could give us their thoughts and desires concerning the actual 

manned/unmanned requirement. To answer this question and to present 

the intent of the committee a response was started around the table. 

First to respond was Joe Shea. 2 MAR 1968 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 ,JULY 2015 

SPECIAL HANDLIW 

4. Following is a summary of Joe Shea's remarks: The ability to 

obtainaground resolution represents a significant capability. There 

exists a number of reasons over which we have no control which might 

deny us the use of the man, such as the political or biomedical problems. 

The committee is convinced that by the judicial use of inventions that 

the system can fly unmanned and obtainalresolution. They also feel 

that our discussions and investigations tend to support this opinion. 

Therefore, the basic question in the minds of the PSAC is that, even 

in view of gross differences in the manned and unmanned systems, can 

a system be designed which, with relatively minor changes, be used 

either way. The choice of mode should be able to respond to generally 

normal pad cycle times of 2 to 3 months. In the manned case, the man 

would be used as a vernier on the automatic system. One would 

obviously remove the Gemini B and replace it with recovery buckets. 

The question is, how does one change the manual system to an automatic 

unmanned system. To do this one should look at what has been done 

with the LEM on the Apollo program. The LEM has been successfully 

designed for an unmanned demonstration before its manned flights. In 

the manned version error signals go to indicator lights and switches. 

For an unmanned mode these manned signals are also brought to break 

out boxes for routing to a computer and/or programmer. For the success 

of this concept it is necessary to make such provisions for an unmanned 

mode of operation in the initial design. 

5. Following are Purcell's comments: The inventions necessary for 

the unmanned mode will make the manned mode that much better. The 

combination of across the format IMC and the improved navigation for 

the unmanned mode will also aid the man in obtaining better pictures and 

will tend to make his job easier, freeing him to concentrate on other 

things. The committee had not considered that the switch from a manned 

to unmanned mode would be a last minute decision in the launch cycle. 

Rather the concept of the committee has been that one could have both 

capabilities essentially available in the same basic system, that is, 

a common system capable of either manned or unmanned' operation 

without a serious compromise to either mode resulting from this dual 

approach. 

2 

SPEC :1 HANDLING 

SECRET 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

SPE fv„. HANDLING 

Ati 

6. Following are Dr. Hornig's remarks: The committee does not know 

if this dual approach will work, but they feel that it will. They want us 

to look at this concept and report our recommendations. We should be 

able to have the dual approach without deoptimizing either system. In 

response to General Martin's question of a modified lab versus a new 

OCV for the unmanned mode, Dr. Hornig indicated that we should 

consider the cost, schedule, and technical trade-offs for both approaches. 

The question is, what are the judicious trade-offs that should be made to 

realize this concept. 

7. General Martin asked for the PSAC thoughts as to the desire for 

unmanned flights after the first such flight, that is, should we plan on 

a continued requirement for both types of flights. Land responded that 

it would be inconceivable that we would not want to continue with unmanned 

flights. Garvin commented that since the cost of the manned system is 

approximately twice that of the unmanned, one would want to fly most of 

the flights unmanned. 

8. Purcell brought up the question of vulnerability with the indication 

that we should be giving some consideration to this subject. Colonel 

Allen said we had study underway in this area. 

9. The question of the meaning of the requirement for an unmanned flight 

9 months after the first manned flight was raised. The panel indicated 

that this was just an arbitrary number based on the assumption that some 

extra time would be required for the unmanned inventions and that this 

delay would be of the order of 6 to 9 months rather than 2 to 3 years. 

The manned system should not wait on the unmanned and the latter 

should follow as soon as possible. After the first unmanned demonstration flight the desire is to have the ability to go either manned or unmanned 

with normal recycle time. The committee was not in a position to establish 

the requirement for numbers of flights. 

10. The panel wanted to know when they could have another look at this 

subject. Dr. Flax stated that 15 December was the present target date 

for the initial outputs of the present studies. The meeting adjourned at 

approximately 1700. 

3 

SPECIAL HANDLING 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

11. I would summarize the meeting into the following points: 

a. Satellite reconnaissance producingliground resolution is a 

significant capability. 

b. We should have the ability to obtain this quality by either 

manned or unmanned operation. The desire is to have both modes of 

operation available with basically the same system. 

c. Conceptually, it appears feasible to obtain this dual mode of 

operation with relatively minor changes to the system and without 

deoptimizing either mode of operation. The studies and investigations 

should be performed to determine the trade-offs required to realize 

this concept. Based on these studies we must recommend a course 

of action. 

d. After the decision to use either mode, launch delay should be 

based generally on normal pad cycle times (2 - 3 months). 

e. The unmanned capability should follow as closely as possible 

the first manned flight. The time scale• for this is months, not years. 

' f. Following the realization of an unmanned capability both modes 

of operation should continue to be available. 

g. As many of the unmanned automatic features as feasible should 

be included in the manned operation to assist the man. 

B. F. KNOLLE 

Lt Colonel, USAF 

4 \ 3 DUNG 

4 
NRO APPROV 

RELEASE 1 JU 

UGH SECF SPECIAL HANDLING 

c 112, zict 

PSAC MEETING - 8 NOVEMBER 1965 

Land - Technical Board of Directors. Interested it understanding the 

reasons for technical choices. System to be superb both M and U. 

Flax - We can now only express our opinion on what should be looked at. 

NicM said couldn't do both in same time. 

Land - Not a competition - but a search for a superb unmanned vehicle - 

offer government U vs. M choice. 

Shea - Lets see schedules - whet is output of CD?. 

Russ Berg - 

1st launch February 1968 

7 segment June 1968 

1st N launch October - December 1968 

In February - April 1966 viii have firm schedules. 

Land to Martin - Lets plunge into the discussion. Allen begins to lead a 

discussion. 

Allen - Ground Rules: 

1) Concurrent studies 

2) Same optics 

3) Same subsystems 

4) resolution 

5) Flight demonstration ASAP after M 

6) Review alternate optical designs 

(Good notes not taken because Allen's briefing was on viewgraphs. 

Steineger goes out for Viewgraph for Allen.) 

Allen - One reason for Ross - ease of alignment. 

Can currently point to get 95% of targets within 10 field automatically. 

Unmanned system needs better IMC and better pointing in order to 

eliminate residual smears. 

Baker - Talks about spherical primary and super correcting Ross. 

Talks about 3 mirror system and application to Hale - adding ellipsoid 

and sphere - useful for f/2 300 line system. 

Will send EK copy of paper. 
„,,,,,,EApSpERggyGH DRAFT --HeRE-T-- SPECIAL HANDLING 

-2- 

Allen - Looking at map matching - will survey field. Goodyear is using an 

ITT tube commetatiem device, V/11 sensor said to be .04%. 

Precise navigation system needed - state-of-art permits - star 

trackers good to , rate gyros good to 

location to 500 feet, need altitude sensor - laser. 

This is Approach II, i.e., "perfect pointing”. DC not required. 

Approach I means INC. 

In track smug can be removed by rmc, cross track 0.55 - 4.7 @ 

10

o 

 `stereo 20 obliquity edge of format) cannot be removed. 

Joe Shea - 

resolution is significant to country. 

We may be politically denied man in NOL. 

Improved Nav + INC and current optics is compatible with either 

M or U. 

Then, are two systems required? 

Can we, from start, design a system which can go either way? 

If man is viewer override, the main change might be replacement of 

Gemini capsule with bucketed nose. 

How does manned system get designed to be operated - by machines -

if you think of it from start can use computer instead - LEM an 

example - enthusiastic contractor solved problem - CSM got started 

manned only - now tough to turn around. 

Frame of mind of people. 

Purcell - If U problems are solved, the M system is better - INC and navigation 

as an example - also unburden man for other jobs. 

Flax Gemini $24M/copy. 

Hornig - Man to be an override, an improvement on a very good system. 

ROUGH DRAFT -S-EeRE-T- ..PECIAL HANDLING 
Allen 

. NRbAppROUC-1 DRA' T Steht I SPECIAL HANDLING 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

-3- 

Martin - If w examine to what extent LAB can be operated unmanned with 

recovery bucket capsule. 

Hornig - Two objections to independent developments--(1) $, (2) csmeggelit, 

will improve both. 

/ 

A,44.1.4-ge 

Martin - (revived comment) 

Land - Want to build on MO Gambit tradition plus things you do for 

U w/11 make M better. 

Martin - Understand you want U at M plus 9 months - after that point what 

concept of program do you have? 

Land - DOD (Mac) has to answer - but he guesses U to M ratio will be 5:1. 

Hornig. - Can't answer question at this time. 

Garvin - U $35M 

M $70M 

Need a good reason - commented on collaboration of U and M. 

Joe Shea- Would want to replace Gemini with buckets - standard configuration 

to which you add either M or buckets. 

Purcell - Vulnerability reassurances needed. 

Land - Need a schedule for both. 

Martin - (44erfsed) 

Land Instructions to get first manned flight. 

Committee is convinced U just as good can be made. 

"Joe said it - build it in from the beginning." 

Can't go U just to go if no better than G3. 

ROUGH DRAFT -S-E-C-RET R SPECIAL HANDLING 
HUUdi-1 5t46464- tiAiNuLiNu 

NROAPPROVED,FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 -4- 

Flax - Pleads for program flexibility. 

Simmons - Sees U as an extension of G3. 

Garvin - Disagrees. 

Flax - Program not frozen until February. 

41 

ROUGH DRAFT -sEeRET--- SPECIAL HANDLING