BYE-37618/65 111■11•1••••••••• 

111101■111•1•01010•10 

111■•■•1111•0111•WIN, 

U 

N 

■■■11011110.10■110 

1111111■11111111/11/11MII• 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

annownO 49eum 

21 NOV 1965 

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. BROW% 

SUBJECT: Disposition of General Electric MSD as an MOL Contractor 

Please refer to the attachments, which consist of two commnnications I have recently received from Brigadier General John A. 

Martin, Director, SAP Special Projects. Both address the subject 

'Unsatisfactory Performance by General Electric Missile and Space 

Division." 

have reviewed the attachments and note that General Martin 

has assessed GE (MSD) performance in Programs 201 and 206, and the 

GE (MSD) management structure for MOL, and has concluded that serious 

consideration should be given to discontinue the presently planned 

use of GE (MD) in the MOL Program beyond present MOL Phase 

activities. 

I recognize that General Martin has proposed that Douglas and 

Eastman Kodak be assigned the technical work planned for GE (NOD) 

for Phase II. However, from my point of view, GE (MSD) activities 

extend beyond optical sensor areas and any consideration for 

restructuring the MOL contractor arrangements in Phase II must 

allow for this. The consequences of such a move on the MOL Program 

as a whole are sufficiently serious that I intend to conduct, 

immediately, a comprehensive investigation of the situation at 

GE (140) so that I may foriulate my recommendations as to the most 

appropriate course of action. 

Pending my investigation, I feel that any action to discontinue 

GE (iMSD) should be deferred. I have no particulAr objection to 

General Martin's recommendation that contractual action at the 

level of $175,000 be undertaken at Eastman Kodak to prepare 

specifications for Phase II should GE (ED) be dropped. It appears, 

EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING; 

DOD DIR. 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

DORIAN 

Page 1 of 2 pages 

Copya. of 5 copies 

SAM BYE 37618-65 

RANDLE V!A BYRIAN 

CNTROL SYSTEM 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

however that this work would be essentially a duplication of 

GB CWEN's present Phase I work, which General Martin points 

out could be used for Phase II work dime elsewhere. Hence, 

initiation of the work proposed at Eastman Kodak would seem 

unnecessary. 

SIGNED 

B. A. SCBMIXVER 

General, MAY 

Director, *)L Program 

2 Atchs 

a/s 

Copy to:. 

Dr. Flax .. 

DORI 

HANDLE VIA BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

Page 2 of 2 pages 

CoPyA.of 5 copies 

8A7814 BYE 37618-65 
-46 3aq— 

-#-4 Z., 

mi l' 

DEPARTMENT OF .THE AIR FORCE 

DIRECTORATE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS (OSAF) 

AF UNIT POST OFFICE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90045 

JOHN L. MARTIN, JR 

Brigadier General, USAF 

Director 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

REPLY TO 

ATTN OF: SP-1 16 December 1965 

SUBJECT: Correction of Erroneous Statement Concerning GE(MSD) 

Performance on a Previous Project 

TO: Director, NRO (Dr. Flax) 

Director, MOL (General Schriever) 

Reference: My 15 November 1965 letter "Unsatisfactory Performance 

by General Electric Missile and Space Division" 

1. I have discovered that one statement in the second paragraph of the 

referenced letter is incorrect in respect to GE (MSD) performance on the 

terminated Program 201, and submit the correct information below. 

2. The error is contained in the parenthetical statement in the second 

sentence of paragraph 2, which reads "This summary rated GE(MSD) 

performance unsatisfactory on Program 201, which was terminated 

after five unsuccessful fights (where all controlling failures were caused 

by defects in GE(MSD) components)." The actual failure history of these 

five flights is: 

a. The first and third flights failed due to defects in the LMSC 

de-orbit system. 

b. The second flight had to be called down early because of excessive 

gas usage, due to defects in the LMSC stabilization system, but also 

encountered a catastrophic disabling of the reentry vehicle separation 

circuitry due to unsatisfactory hatch cut operation (a GE responsibility). 

c. The fourth and fifth flights failed because of defects in the GE 

reentry subsystem. 

3. The corrected parenthetical statement should therefore read 

"(where three out of five of the controlling failures were caused by 

defects in GE components). " 

4. I regret the error. However, the corrected data do not alter my 

conclusions outlined in the referenced letter. 

Copies to: Gen Berg 

Mr. Paige (GE) 

EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC 

REGRADING; COD CAR 5200.10 

DOES RIOT APPLY SECRET 

Handle via BOAR 

Control System