NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

AGENDA 

AIR FORCE MOL POI4CY COMMITTEE 

MEETING 65-3 

Thursday 

Sub:toot 

Approval of 

previous meeting 

minutes, review 

of old business. 

MOL Program 

Status Report 

MOL Astronaut 

Selection/Information 

Plan 

MOL Management 

Struoture 

MOL Experiments 

Advisory Committee 

Executive Session 

Presenter Tina 

Brig. Gen. brans 5 minutes 

Col. Lewis S. Norman 30 minutes 

Lt. Col. Richard C. Randall 

De IA E 'buck/VG/1- 

Major Benjamin Loret 20 minutes 

Lt. Col. Richard S. Raman t4fellr ° 

t 5c4L,;_sLz. 3O 

is 

Col. Lewin S. Norman tiA minutes 

Chairman 30 minutes 

„, 4 AS 

-■an t.}3:" 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

AIR FORCE MOL POLICY COMMITTEL 

Highlight Summary 

of 

Agenda Items for Meeting 65-3, October 14, 1965 

1. Old Business: The previous meeting was devoted to a presentation on 

the recommended MOL program and MOL Laboratory Vehicle contractor 

source selection board results. These actions finally led to approval 

of the program by the President on August 25th, 1965 and to the 

announcement of selection of Douglas and General Electric as the 

Lab Vehicle and Payload Integrating contractors, respectiVely. 

2. MOL Program Status Report: A summary status report will be presented to bring committee members up to date on key aspects of the 

program. Current MOL payload objectives will be reviewed and the 

status of the high resolution optical reconnaissance sensor will be 

discussed, with emphasis on the problems associated with utilization 

of the optical sensor in the unmanned mode. The current approach 

to SIGINT and Ocean Surveillance mission applications will be reviewed. Of greatest current concern is the possibility of slippage 

of the first manned launch with reconnaissance payload from late 

1968, as announced by the President, to about March 1969. The possibility has arisen because of the long lead time for development 

of the reconnaissance payload and the delay from June to nearly 

Septeiliber of this year before program approval was announced. 

pro)osed solutions to the schedule problem will be presented for 

consideration. 

Coauittee Action Requested: Approval of a recommended course of 

action to alleviate the potential schedule slippage problem. 

3. MOL Astronaut Selection/Information Plan: The initial increment 

of eight crew members, out of a total program requirement of twenty, 

have been selected by USAF. The criteria used in the selection and 

brief background data on each of the six Air Force and two Navy 

selectees will be presented. The plan of action leading to their 

assignment will be discussed. Alternative plans for the amount of 

publicity to be accorded their assignment will be presented as a 

discussion item,[4s will the selection of a-switiahle-A44.1e 44wMOL crewmemhere3 

Committee Action Requested: Approval of a recommended plan for 

implementing the assignmentb and sole4tion-of-aa-aff*eprii*48-411.4amPO Pi A /U 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

4. MOL Management Structure: A thorough review of the approved man— 

agement structure will be presented, including definition of the 

role and responsibility of each office/organization concerned as 

well as interface relationships, particularly those between the 

MOL System and Special Projects offices. The organizational arr—

angement for MOL within Aerospace Corporation and its meshing 

with the MOL System Office will be outlined. 

Committee Action Requested: Approval of proposed membership and 

planned course of action. 

6. Executive Session: To be devoted to discussion of key items which 

arise during the open session, and such other matters which may be 

raised by the Chairman or other committee members. 

C 

Committee (4) Action Requested: None. 

5. MOL Experiments Advisory Committee: A brief review will be made 

of those actions which led to the establishment of subject committee. 

Its present status, proposed membership, and projected future 

activity will be covered. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

-TOP-SEWTHE MOL LAUNCH SCHEDULE 

A. Background 

1. The MOL launch schedule as presented by the MOL SPO in 

terms of months from acquisition phase go-ahead is presently as 

follows: 

MOL 1 Titan III Development Flight 26 months 

MOL 2 MOL Development Flight 30 months 

(Unmanned) 

MOL 3 First Manned MOL Flight 34 months 

MOL 4-7 All subsequent flights 4 months apart 

2. Based on the original assumption of CDP start in July 1965 

and an acquisition phase go-ahead in January 1966, the flight schedule 

is as follows: 

MOL 1 Titan III Development Flight March 1968 

MOL 2 MOL Development Flight July 1968 

(Unmanned) 

MOL 3 First Manned MOL Flight November 1968 

3. The MOL Program Plan, as submitted to DOD, spoke of a 

first manned launch date late in 1968. In spite of the fact that there was 

an eight-week delay in program announcement, the President's statement of 25 August still quoted the late 1968 manned launch date. 

4. With problems associated with the two contractor structure and 

scope of work disputes the Phase IB work did not really get underway 

HANDLE VIA BYLMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

until 1 October 1965 with DAC and is still not in progress at GE. It 

is hoped now that, if everything goes right, Phase II will start 

1 May 1965. If there is no compression of schedules, the first manned 

launch cannot be expected until March 1969 which presents at least an 

awkward situation vis-a-vis the Presidential statement. 

5. During the program planning activities Dr. McMillan insisted 

that the first manned MOL flight carry a prototype optical reconnaissance 

system which could be operated and employed to perform a useful 

reconnaissance function. His guidance was based on the conviction 

that there must be a very solid justification for any manned launches to 

take precedence over the first HRO flight. Such justification must be 

based on overall program risk, such as necessary crew safety measures, 

and not merely on the competing aspects of non-primary mission 

objectives. 

B. Flight Mission Assignments 

1. Based on system qualification requirements and program needs 

the configurations for the seven MOL flights are as follows: 

MOL 1 - Titan IIIC (7 Segment SRM)/Simulated Lab/Simulated or 

Used Gemini (Unmanned) 

MOL 2 - Titan LUC/Lab Structure/Gemini B (Unmanned) 

MOL 3 - Titan UIC/All-up Lab, Short Time/Manned Gemini B 

MOL 4-7 - Titan LLIC/Full Duration Manned Lab/Manned Gemini B 

HANDLE VIA BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

2. The flight mission objectives have been tentatively identified 

without any detailed specification of flight parameters and specific 

mission assignments: 

MOL 1: Qualify the uprated TIII system. 

Qualify TLII/W TR compatibility. 

MOL 2: Demonstrate Gemini B subsystem and polar re-entry. 

Demonstrate polar test operations support system. 

Demonstrate polar orbit recovery and retrieval. 

Determine structural adequacy of lab vehicle. 

Demonstrate lab/Titan III/WTR compatibility. 

MOL 3: Demonstrate complete Gemini B and laboratory vehicle 

system. 

Verify crew transfer. 

Demonstrate polar manned mission control. 

Conduct biomedical and human performance tests. 

Test and operate prototype HRO equipment. 

Back up to MOL 2. 

MOL 4: Demonstrate 30-day adequacy of MOL system. 

Evaluate crew performance for extended periods. 

Evaluate low altitude orbit capability. 

Operate HRO mission equipment. 

HANDLE VIA ByEmAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

%ohm 

MOL 5, 6, 7: Operate HRO mission equipment. 

No other specific objectives assigned. 

• 

3. At the present time none of the other MOL objectives like 

SIGINT, Ocean Surveillance, technological or scientific experiments, 

have been assigned to any of the MOL flights. The Presidential 

announcement, as well as other public statements, like that issued by 

the State Department, speak of an extensive experiment program. 

It may be necessary to make their statements true, not only because it 

may be technically and economically desirable to use the MOL as a 

bona fide laboratory, but it may be necessary to use the experimental 

program as a cover for the reconnaissance aspects of MOL. 

C. Potential Schedule Problems 

1. The HRO primary payload has so far been determined as the 

pacing item in the MOL program. An operable prototype model of the 

payload cannot be made available sooner than in about 32-33 months 

from Phase II go-ahead, i.e., not sooner than February or March 

1969. 

2. Another potential schedule problem lies in the development of 

the uprated Till booster. The March 1968 date for MOL 1 is paced by 

the 15:1 nozzle and improved injector development. Without early long 

lead item funding the MOL 1 date may be May or June 1968. 

liANDLE VIA BYROM 

CONTROL SYSTEM 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

3. Qualification testing of long life (30 days) subsystems to man 

rating standards is a very lengthy process. Although this is presently 

not recognized as a potential schedule hazard, it may very well become 

one. 

D. The MOL Experiment Program 

1. Although the MOL is publicly being treated as an experimental 

program, presently no work is going on in establishing firm experimental 

objectives in the technological and scientific areai and only a limited 

amount of emphasis is being laid upon experimental objectives in the 

primary and secondary areas. 

2. Regardless of the need for manned high resolution reconnaissance there still exists a need to perform experimentation in space. 

The MOL could serve as a useful laboratory or one could consider 

NASA's Extended Apollo to perform some of the military oriented 

experimentation. The experiments of interest can be classed in three 

categories: 

a. Experiments which lead to the advancement and growth of 

primary mission capability (e.g., flexible mirrors, new alignment 

techniques). 

b. Experiments which demonstrate and test concepts and 

components necessary for the promotion of new mission objectives to 

the primary category (e. g., SIGINT, Ocean Surveillance). 

HANDLE VIA BYLAIAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Vika 

c. Experiments which explore future potentials leading to the 

formulation of new military space objectives (e. g., communications, 

lasers, long life subsystems). 

3. In general, engineering planning and development work can 

proceed most effectively only if specific flight dates and mission 

assignments are established. Therefore, it appears highly desirable 

to select one or several of the five proposed manned MOL flights as 

potential experimental flights. The first manned flight (MOL 3) should 

have an alternate flight mission assignment in addition to its present 

primary payload prototype assignment. 

4. To provide flexibility in achieving the alternate mission 

capability, an additional standard mission module could be procured and 

outfitted with experiments. If there are schedule difficulties with the 

primary payload, the alternate mission module equipped with experiments 

could be substituted at the launch site, and the flight could go on schedule. 

To achieve this backup capability, however, the experimental payload 

will have to be planned for the first manned flight. 

E. Recommendations 

1. There are no schedule problems as severe as that posed by 

the payload. There are two solutions for this, either one of which will 

require high-level policy guidance: 

a. Recognize now a MOL schedule slip and target for the first 

manned launch (MOL 3) for March 1969; or, 

1 MAN Li: WA 

CONTROL SYSTEM 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

b. Define an alternate payload for the first manned MOL flight, 

and attempt to compress the MOL development schedule to about 30 

months before first manned launch. 

2. Alternative (a) retains all presently formulated MOL flight 

objectives, but compromises the Presidential announcement of the 

flight date. Alternative (b) provides for flexibility to plan for a 

definite manned launch regardless of payload schedule conatraints. In 

case the HRO payload would come through on time, it would fly; but if 

it experienced a slip, an alternate experimental payload would be 

available. As a cover, this would also have the advantage of not 

revealing any reasons for program slippage. 

3. It is also recommended that the following actions be taken to 

establish a firmer schedule control and develop the alternate mission 

capability: 

a. Establish launch schedule and require change approval by 

Director, MOL. 

b. Establish flight mission assignments and require change 

approval by Director, MOL. 

c. Define total experiments program that encompasses primary, 

secondary, and tertiary program objectives. 

d. Designate an alternate mission module flight objective. 

NAM VIA gyEmAN 

k. CONTROL SYSTEM 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 TOP ELT 

e. Make plans to procure an additional mission module, preferably 

of the same design as the standard module. 

MANE VIA BYEMAN 

COOK SYSTEM TOP SECRET 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

AGENDA ITEM 3 

MOL Astronaut Selection/Information Plan 

MOL POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING 

14 October 1965 

Tentative Outline of Presentation 

1. Introduction: First eight of twenty crew members have been 

selected. We are currently recruiting for second selection. This 

presentation to cover some brief information on the selection 

criteria and background of the eight selectees; action being taken 

AND preparatory to assignment-/1.,\ discussion of alternatives as to extent 

of publicity to accompany assignments aud-roolaatIQa-a-au-applepaitete 

t3-i-7 _SQ-14-4ite--seleet.ee.s. The committee will be requested to decide 

the extent of publicity to be accorded the assignmentsinel-te-calaraL_ 

a-444443 

2. Criteria for Selection: All of the selection criteria will be 

briefly covered. 

3. Background on Each Selectee: Pictures of each selectee, brief 

comment on age, education, experience, etc. 

4. Preparations for Assignment: Quiet meeting of selectees to be 

held at SSD on Saturday, 16 October. Conducted by General Berg with 

assistance from this end. Purpose is to cover events leading to 

assignment. Subjects covered will be plans for reassignment, PIO, 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

introduction of their Flight Surgeon, legal matters, etc. In addition 

photographs and film clips will be made; biographical data will be 

obtained. This latter activity will insure that all necessary information will be available should it be decided that a press conference 

will be held to announce their assignment. We will be prepared for 

any eventuality with the earliest date for possible announcement 

tentatively established for Wednesday, 20 October. 

5. Public Information Implications: Several alternatives are possible: 

a. The item has been submitted to OSD/White House because it is a 

potentially national news item. If either OSD or the White House elect 

to make an announcement the matter is taken out of USAF hands. We will 

be prepared to provide the material to support such a press conference 

or news release. Because of the USAF policy to low-key the MOL Program, 

this eventuality is considered undesirable but USAF is essentially powerless to prevent it. If OSD/White House elect not to make an announcement, 

USAF has essentially two alternatives. 

b. A minimum release can be made at SSD on 20 October 1965, or 

after. This approach takes recognition that in one way or another, the 

assignment is news and will eventually leak out anyway. Hopefully, the 

release would be temporary news, dropping out of the public eye in a 

short time. Under this option USAF could follow-up by releasing no 

further information but responding to questions. Alternately the followup would be to release no further information and not respond to questions. 

2. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

c. Quiet assignment of the selectees to the program with no 

release. This option would be most in keeping with the intent to 

low-key the program. It would probably be unrealistic, however, to 

assume that news would not leak out eventually, resulting in a flood 

of questions from news media. Follow-up to this option would be 

either to respond to questions or to refuse to respond to them. 

d. Summarizing the three options: 

Option I - Release by OSD/White House. This takes 

the matter out of USAF hands. We have 

no choice but to cooperate. 

Option II, a - Simple release at SSD, followed up by 

responding to questions. 

Option II, b - Simple release at SSD, no response to 

any questions generated. 

Option III, a No release, but respond to questions 

which are bound to arise. 

Option III, b - No release, no response to questions. 

6. Discussion of Options: Assuming the choice is left to USAF, i.e., 

OSD/White House do not exercise options, the option selected must be 

made in the light of overall MOL information policy. At present, the 

de facto policy is low-key, i.e., no releases but answer questions. 

This policy is objectionable in that it results in "exclusives" by any 

3. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

writer who takes the trouble to ask questions. Granting of exclusives 

is against USAF information policy. Thus, in general, it appears that 

the overall policy must be one in which no releases are made, and no 

questions are answered or one in which a limited amount of information 

is voluntarily released, followed either by responding or not responding 

to questions generated. 

From a program viewpoint, the policy should undoubtedly be no-release, 

no-response, assuring maximum security. The same policy would apply in 

this case, i.e., USAF should elect Option III, b, above. It must be 

realized that the crew members will be highly knowledgeable of the most 

sensitive program information. If they are well known, easily recognizable 

to the press and public, their travel to and training at various contractor 

plants will certainly jeopardize program security. If not known, such 

activity can be conducted relatively more freely, with less jeopardy to 

program security. 

Although election of Option III, b is obviously best from a program 

security viewpoint, can it realistically be expected that its intent will 

be accomplished? Not fully. Their identity will no doubt leak out and 

questions will be generated. Non-response by USAF will probably result 

in a hostile press, irresponsible members of which, free to conjecture, 

will generate adverse publicity, perhaps painting USAF in a ludicrous 

light. Further, those publications and writers specializing in space 

4. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

program articles can be expected to continue to dig out information 

concerning MOL crew members' activities. These contemplated results 

would appear to make it desirable to make a simple release, Option II, a 

or II, b, or to exercise Option III, a, no release but respond to 

questions. 

Option III, a can be dismissed as a possibility, although it adheres 

to the present de facto policy, because it is equivalent to Option II, a 

the only difference being that the press must first dig out the crew 

members' identity, or simply ask who they are. Thus, the result would 

be exclusivity, with no compensating benefits to the Air Force. 

Option II, a, simple release, response to selective questions, 

derives some benefit to USAF in terms of publicity and is to some extent 

consistent with the de facto policy for the program. It avoids 

exclusivity. It makes realistic recognition that the news will get 

out anyway but entails some penalty in giving notoriety to the selectees. 

Hopefully, the notoriety will taper off, particularly if subsequent 

questions are selectively and carefully made. 

Option II, b, simple release, no response, has the benefit of meeting 

a minimum requirement to release information in response to intense 

national interest, and avoids exclusivity, while cutting off subsequent 

flow of information. However, this option is not compatible with the 

present de facto policy. 

5. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

7. Recommended Policy: The decision cannot be made without considering 

the information policy to be followed for the entire program. Without 

question, program security would best be served by a no-release, noresponse policy. However, it is questionable whether such a policy can 

realistically be pursued, primarily because the policy cannot be unilaterally 

achieved by the Air Force. In addition to the option OSD/White House will 

always have to make announcements pertaining to the program due to public/ 

political pressure, the public news media cannot be expected to cooperate 

but will continue to dig for program information. The result of the latter 

will be adverse publicity at best, possible compromise or jeopardy to 

program security anyway, at worst. 

Thus, unless the President himself directs that a no-release, noresponse policy be adhered to, and this eventuality is highly unlikely, 

the objective of that policy will never be completely achievable. 

Nevertheless, program security being the paramount consideration, 

and despite the obvious difficulties and disadvantages involved, the 

overall policy which must be recommended by the MOL office is one of norelease, no-response. In keeping with this overall policy, OptionIII, b 

must be recommended for adoption. An obvious corollary to this decision 

is to terminate the present practice of responding to press inquiry. 

8 Selection of a Title for MOL Crew Members: There are several conJAierations which„have been voiced in connection with selection of a 

title: 

6. 
NIRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

a. Desire to follow NASA prec i versus desire not to follow 

that precedent, i.e., glamorized tittle ersus non-glamorous title. 

b. Desire to include a military connotation, i.e., Military 

Astronaut, versus 'esire knot_ to emphasize militarism. 

c.N Desire to seect a title with growth, which could be used for 

crew other than pilots, and applicable to crew members of future 

manne s ce programs other than MOL. 

Desire to conform with present AF Regulations which pertain to 

astronaut status and astronaut wing's etc. 

e. Et Cetera: A list of proposed titles will be provided in assisting 

the Committee to select an appropriate one. 

7. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

r

ELEASE 1 JULY 251- 

MOL PROGRAM OFFICE 

DIRECTIVE //'-1.) '

PROGRAM REQUIREMENT DOCUMENT 

THIS DOCUMENT IS AN OFFICIAL RELEASE OF THE. 

MOL PROGRAM OFFICE AND ITS REQUIREMENTS ARE 

DIRECTIVE ON ALL COGNIZANT ELEMENTS OF THE MOL PROGRAM 

APPROVED 

B. A. SCHRIEVER 

General, USAF 

Director, MOL 
CO# j 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 20T5 

MANAGEMENT OF MOL CREW MEMBER ACTIVITIES 

I. TPOSE 

Of all the personnel resources to be assigned to the MOL program 

none are more critical to program success than the individuals assigned 

as crew members. The purpose of this directive is to prescribe policy 

for regulation of crew member activity so as to insure that the crew 

members will be able to make maximum contribution to success of the 

MOL program. The intent is to normalize rather than to glamorize crew 

member status and activity. 

II. SCOPE 

This directive is applicable to the management of the activities 

of all personnel assigned to the program as crew members. 

III. SUPERVISION OF CREW MEMBERS 

All crew members will be assigned to the MOL Systems Office. All 

of their activities will be under the direct control of the Deputy 

Director for MOL, or as delegated by him. 

The crew members will be treated as are all other officer personnel 

assigned to the program. They will not be accorded any special treatment merely by virtue of the key positions they hold in the program as 

crew members. However, special arrangements for the crew members may 

be made when they can be justified on the basis that such arrangements make 

a direct contribution to program success. For example, the flight surgeon 

assigned to monitor the crew members' health may be allowed to monitor 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Co/kJ Fi DUJ Ar7/4 

and provide for the health of their immediate families on the basis that 

the crew members' busy schedule, requiring frequent absences, will not 

enable them to devote as much time to their families as can other 

personnel assigned to the program, and so that they may be relieved of 

worry about their families which would adversely affect their performance. 

of duty. 

IV. PUBLIC INFORMATION POLICY 

The crew members will be subject to the same constraints applicable 

to all personnel as prescribed in the MOL Information Plan. 

In addition, because of the unique positions they hold, and in order 

to insure protection of classified information related to the program, 

the following restrictions will apply. 

A. The crew members and members of their immediate family 

will not be permitted to publish articles or make public appearances or 

speeches while assigned to the MOL program. Requests for exceptions to 

this restriction are discoUraged, and can be approved only by the 

Director, MOL. 

B. The crew members and members of their immediate family 

will not respond to questions from representatives of news media or from 

the public, but will refer such inquiries to the Information Office at 

Headquarters USAF or at SSD. To facilitate implementation of this 

restriction, the crew members will be adequately briefed before assignment 

to the program on how they and their immediate families are to handle 

2/ 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 205 

requests, invasions of their privacy, etc., and of their civil rights 

to privacy. 

C. No information concerning crew members' schedules, 

training program, itineraries, or whereabouts will be provided to 

individuals outside the program. 

3/ 

ilkai7Uq 
TALKING PAPER 

on 

MOL PILOT SELECTION ANNOUNCEMENT 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The current public interest in the human aspects of space flight 

and the public affairs precedent set by NASA require that careful 

consideration be given the alternatives of MOL pilot selection 

announcements. These are: 

(1) Announcement by higher authority (White House or DOD). This 

could require exposure of the selectees to newsmen at the time of 

announcement. We have no control over this choice due to current 

policy on handling news of national interest. 

(2) No official public announcement. News of the assignments 

would "leak" out, and we would be asked for confirmation and additional 

information. 

(3) Official Air Force releases briefly describing selection process 

and naming individuals. Short biographies and pictures of selectees 

would be available on request. We would also be prepared to answer press 

queries for additional information. 

Since we must be prepared for the first possibility, we plan to 

gather the group at SSD, 140ct, to produce information materials and 

brief the individuals. 

FOR 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

If the choice is ours, selection of the second possibility (no 

release) offers several advantages: 

(1) Makes it easier to eventually close the entire program if 

desired; 

(2) May limit the amount of public exposure the pilots received, 

thereby helping maintain a semblence of normality for them; 

(3) Reduces risk of program security compromise; 

(4) Helps establish policy of no public affairs activities for 

the pilots - if this is desired. 

This choice has these disadvantages: 

(1) Forces newsmen to "dig" for information - could result in 

badgering of families. 

(2) Could be used by communist propagandists as proof that our 

program is offensive since we are hiding it; 

(4) Prolongs coverage by stringing it out in our answer-to-query 

routine; 

(5) Could be accused of trying to dodge fact that a certain colored 

pilot was not chosen; 

(6) Could be accused of creating a group of "second class" 

astronauts - this could cause morale problem; 

If we choose to make a release, these are the potential advantages: 

(1) Provides potential material for use in USIA efforts, by directing 

attention to normal human aspects of the program; 

2 

r 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

(2) Helps shorten coverage by getting most in one blast; 

(3) Helps promote positive public attitude about program and the 

Air Force; 

(4) Could enhance morale of pilots and their families. 

Release has these potential disadvantages: 

(1) Creates renewed press interest in the program making it 

more difficult to close; 

(2) Helps make "celebrities" of the pilots which could produce 

undesirable pyschological effects; 

(3) Encourages requests for public affairs participation by the 

pilots; 

(4) Could be construed as beginning of information program that 

will continue reporting pilot activities. 

If any degree of public information activity is chosen we must 

decide: 

(1) Official title of pilots; 

(2) Policy on press interviews with pilots; 

(3) Policy on public appearances of pilots. 

Request decision on "release" or "no release" plan. 

Request decision on official title policy on press interviews and 

public appearances, if "release" or "open" general policy is chosen. 

C 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

----•■■•■•■•••4141 

\P; TALKING PAPER 

for 

GENERAL SCHRIEVER 

SUBJECT: MOL Experiments Advisory Committee 

BACKGROUND: 

The original MOL Program directed by OSD placed major 

emphasis on the experimental nature of the program and its 

mission objectives. Although subsequent redirection by OSD now 

places the major emphasis on exploiting .operational mission 

capabilities, emphasis continues on research and engineering 

experiments both military and civilian. During July 1964, in 

anticipation of the need for assistance and support from the scientific 

and engineering community, General Schriever met with key individuals of the community to explore the feasibility of establishing a 

MOL Scientific Advisory Committee. All discussions reached 

general agreement that an organization generally patterned on the 

model of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board would be desirable 

to.support the MOL Program. 

DORIAN Page 1 of 3 pages 

Copy ,sof 2 copies 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

EA5E. UULY 2015 

The current environment reaffirms the requirement for such 

a committee. In fact, the interest demonstrated by the PSAC and 

DDR&E, and the increasing activity of the Space Council and NASA, 

makes the advisory support of recognized leaders in the scientific 

community very desirable. 

The assistance of Dr. Seitz and the National Academy of 

Sciences was requested to set up this committee. On 2 June 1965, 

Mr. John Coleman of NAS requested the following individuals 

attend the first meeting of the committee, pro tem, scheduled for 

28 June. Those indicated by an asterisk did attend the meeting; 

*Dr. James G. Baker 

*Dr. William 0. Baker 

*Dr. Herbert Friedman 

*Dr. Harry H. Hess 

Dr. Edwin H. Land 

*Dr. Gerald M. McDonnell 

Professor Edward M. Purcell 

*Professor .Edward Teller 

*Dr. Brian O'Brien 

*Dr. Frederick Seitz 

*Honorable Brockway McMillan 

*Honorable Alexander H. Flax 

*General Bernard Schriever 

*Brigadier General H. L. Evans Page 2 of 3 pages 

Copy Lof 2 copies 

4)ORTAN 

--r“e4s.trtri*Dirr neMritrlerir"-rr'-' ",gr PPer:'41Wil.71417,Merfor'lwArrts!...(11,,,i 
The meeting which was held on the 28th of June contained no 

DORIAN information. In the afternoon, following the meeting, 

Dr. Brian O'Brien, the nominee for chairman of the committee, 

was briefed DORIAN and given an hour's presentation on the work 

accomplished up to that time by EK. 

PRESENT STATUS 

Mr. Coleman of NAS has indicated to the MOL Program Office 

that Dr. Seitz had queried Dr. Brown, in his new capacity as 

Secretary of the Air Force, if he wished to continue the MOL 

Experiments Advisory Committee. 

Dr. Flax has discussed this subject with Dr. Brown, and a 

letter is being prepared by Dr. Flax for Dr. Brown's signature. 

Dr. Brown indicated to Dr. Flax that he wanted to see Dr. Land, 

Professor Purcell or someone of equivalent stature as a member 

of the Committee. On 8 October, Mr. Coleman was advised that 

such a letter was being prepared. 

It has been proposed that the name of the committee be changed 

from MOL Experiments Advisory Committee to the MOL Advisory 

Committee. Subsequent to the full committee being briefed DORIAN, 

consideration could then be given to broadei issues relating to the 

• program such as the manned vs unmanned issue. 

The enabling document which contains the committee's charter 

requires the signature of the Secretary of the Air Force. 

DORIAN Page 3 of 3 pages 

Copy t,of 2 copies 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015