• 

RO APPROVED FOR •i , 

ELEASE 1 JULY 2015 iga 

0 RT DATA ENTERED 

DATE 

Ell■ MICROFICHE 

DATE .0 

flieln via BYEMAN 

CIT.feel 

April 22, 1968 

MEMORANDUM FOR COLONEL FORD 

SUBJECT: Schedule Implications of Deferring Unmanned Vehicle Development 

Costs Until FY 1970 and Beyond 

PROBLEM: 

Approximately $23 million (FY-69) is related to SM development and 

achievement of 60-day on orbit capability for flights #6 and #7. (Atch 1) 

The purpose of this memorandum is to consider the schedule implications 

of deferring this outlay until FY 70 and subsequent. 

BACKGROUND: 

Phase I B (Contractor Definition) for FliOlts #6 and #7 is now in 

progress. G.E. go-ahead was 15 March; Douglas received authority to 

proceed on 1 April. The results of these Definition studies are required 

if Flights #6 and #7 are to be incorporated into UPGRADE/EMILY, and if 

the target date of December, 1968, for definitive contractual coverage 

of the entire baseline program is to be met. It does not, therefore, 

seem feasible to defer work on Phase I B until FY 70. The FY 69 dollar 

value of the Definition effort ha: not been precisely determined, but 

the preliminary milestone schedule (Atch 2) suggests that FY 69 outlays 

for this work will be minimal. 

Any savings to be realized in FY 69 will therefore result from 

deferral of initiation of Phase II. Past exercises to conserve FY 68 

resources have already resulted in postponing development of the unmanned 

version beyond the optimum start date. As a result, the current tentative 

development schedule is fairly tight. Consequently, a first order 

approximation of the schedule impact of deferring initiation of Phase II 

for 7 months (from 1 December 61 to 1 July 69) would indicate a slip 

of 7 months in the flight date for vehicle #6, to April 73. It may be 

possible to recover some of this time by expending additional funds in 

FY 70 to accelerate the Phase II effort; this possibility is not specifically considered in the discussion which follows. 

DISCUSSION: 

There are several possible ways to move unmanned systemAeve 

expenditures out of FY 69. Among the more obvious are: 

Option I - Substitute manned flights for #6 sad 

on the current schedule; defer unmanned operations to. A 

program. 
PPROVED FOR 

SE 1 JULY. 2015 MAN 

Option II - Fly the current manned/unmanned mix, with 

Flights 41 through #5 on the current schedule, and Flights #6 and #7 

delayed 7 months. 

Option III - Rubber band the present flight schedule to 

accommodate a seven month delay in Flight #6. Fly the current manned/ 

unmanned mix with approximately equal spacing, i.e., 5 and 6 month 

centers, vice 4 and 5 month centers. 

Other options would-include (1) increased Phase II development 

outlays in FY 70 to shorten lead times on the unmanned system and (2) 

combinations and permutations of the options cited above, such as a 

4/1 manned/unmanned mix, etc. The following discussion is a partial 

review of the ramifications of the three principal options: 

Option I - Manned-Only Baseline Program. 

1. Would require relatively minor rework of existing 

detailed schedules and funding projections. 

2. Would simplify and expedite baseline definition 

(UPGRADE/EMILY) and contract negotiations. 

3. Plan is inconsistent with Sec Def and PSAC guidance 

on MOL development. 

4. Potential FY 69 savings to be realized by deletion 

of SM development and extended duration capability might well evaporate 

due to increased requirements for flight hardware for the manned vehicles. 

Subcontrac;;ovs and. vendors would be required to furnish two additional 

sets of manned flight subsystems, with attendant cost impact. Schedule 

phasing is such that it probably is not feasible to defer all of these 

costs into FY 70 or beyond 7,7ithout closing down and subsequently reopening subcontractor/vendor production lines. 

Option 2 - Flights #1 - #5 on Current Schedule; Flights 

#6 and #7 Slip Seven Months. 

1. Would cause minimum disruption of existing Flight:: 

#1 - #5 schedules; allows for a clean breakout of apprnximately $20 

million in FY 69. 

2. Delay of #6 and #7 would disrupt manuCacturing 000.ftleej 

particularly at Douglas, where flight structures are currently scheduled( 

to be fabricated in an essentially continuous stream. 
Page A. of 4, 

00PY oi " 

Feu.Nat'r6 

RO:APPROVED FOR. 

ELEASE 1 JULY 2015 rrrmo via BYENUM 

C.!:.MT11 

3. Delk-ed detail design of #6 and #7 would almost 

surely surface some engineering problems that could have been avoided 

had design of #6 and #7 proceeded more or less concurrently with 

#1 - #5. reAc has stipulated that design should be concurrent, not 

seqUential. 

4. Plan would result in a delay of approximately 11 

months between Flights #5 and #6, with attendant poor utilization of 

contractor field personnel, launch crews, and launch facilities. 

5. Increased total program time span would be reflected 

in increased total cost. 

Option III - Ruber Band Flight Schedule to Accommodate Seven 

Month Slip for Flight #6. 

1. Would permit a clean breakout of approximately $20 

million in FY 69. 

2. Rubber banding would be comparatively simple, and 

would relieve some minor schedule incompatibilities which now exist. 

Out-year funding would have to be appropriately adjusted. 

3. Pure rubber-band stretch would delay the first manned 

flight to about November 1971. 

4. Extended program time span would increase total costs. 

CONCLUSION: 

The total amount of money that can be recovered in FY 69 by deferral 

of unmanned system development is relatively small - approximately $20 

million at maximum. The available ways of salvaging this comparatively 

minor sum are not attractive, with the possible exception of Option I, 

which might be pursued for r'asons other than dollar saving. All other 

things being equal, it would seem preferable to proceed for the time 

being with the present vehicle mix, on existing schedules. 

DAVID C. MAY, JR. 

Lt Colonel, USAF 

Program & Policies Division 

2 Atch 

a/s 

Donn 

Ithidla via BYEtIAN 
.'` 

Hank via BYEMAi 

Coro! System 

FY-69 UNMANNED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT COSTS 

The FY 69 saving that can be realized from deferral and/or deletion 

of the unmanned configuration is approximately $23 million, compromised 

of the following: 

Deferral of Service Module Development $i8.0 million 

Deferral of Sixty-day Lifetime Development $ 4.0 million 

Reduced Interface Requirements $ 1.0 million 

$23.0 million Total Savings 

These savings were computed from information provided at the 

February FRC, at which time the SM development and the inclusion of 

a 60 day lifetime were approved in the amount of $64 million. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

i RELEASE 1 'JULY 2015 

(DS -Seeltel` SPE C IA L HANDLING 

PRELIMINARY MILESTONES FOR FLIGHTS 6/7 ACTIVITY 

1968 

1968 

PH IA 

. L - 

A CONTR GO-AHEAD 

•■■•• FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS PH IA (CONFIG., MLR, SCI,--IDUL.E). 

PH IB 

CONTR . 

GO-A HEAD 

1 

1969 

PH IC 

PROJECT UPGRADE 

INCORPORATION 

PHASE II 

(D) -4ieeff€4•SPECIAL HANDLING 

F Y 

C Y 1967 
:14fatuvevi 

re.44e0e.:6.s_A_ 

77,/wWe; 2 ,4 is 

, re Ae 

••• 

r 

NRO A ROVED FOR ...S.FrrentRar SPECIAL HANDLING - Wk-15-4455- 

RELE E 1 JULY,2015 • . • 

4° A /4/4 A&7 -a 7 C".94./G--,e'.5/0,4/ I 

6.--671',A9e,6* 

• 7.7.A.1,4%.5kay.,7&/./AedgrA, 

• 

• 40,:c..ve 

• .0 -1..ssatt:5 

•

• 

 047-1-3 

• 

.ZediA/A4tri? • . • 

./.(47w fr/rAie 

- .z2c1f exear# 

.9e/.0•40 OR?' 

461,2 21 4'L4111----/ 4e,7044 7*/ 

etestroli 71, 

ereitzar- SPECIAL HANDLING , 

Og 
NRO APPROVE0 FOR .4•••••40111 

r

RELEASE JULY 2015 SPECIAL HANDLING to/-IS -/SS 

FLIGHT 6 tc T ASSEMBLY PROCEDURES AIM 

0 STRUCTURE OMISSIONS PRIOR TO "BIRD CAGE" ASSEMBLY 

0 TRANSFER TUNNEL 

O DRV TUBE 

O ACQUIS.ITION SCOPES AND FATBINGS 

0 OMISSIONS IN "BIRD CAGE" ASSEMBLY 

• 0 ALL VISUAL OPTICS 

O DISPLAYS AND CONTROLS 

O VOICE SYSTEM 

O LIFE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT AND CREW RESTRAINTS 

O ADDITIONS TO LAB MODULE 

O SUPPORT STRUCTURE FOR FILM CI-MIMS 

O FILM CHUTE SEALS 

O SUPPORT MODULE WIRING HARNESSES 

O MATE SUPPORT MODULE 

—6.19efter SPECIAL HANDLING 
NIRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 

• • 

UU33T SPECIAL HANDLING 141 /-is —1 5,.5" 

EVENT • MONTHS TILL LAUNCH 

FLIGHT 6 BASELINE SCHEDULE 

START DATE SPAN/ MONTHS 

APRIL 2 69 6 le 

-1t 

O FAB STARTS 

STRUCTURE AND IZIIDCAGE 

O ASSEMBLY 

LOADING OF EIRDCAGE AND 

UNPREsstratzED SECTION 

0 JOINING 

BIRDCAGE AND STRUCTURE 

. UNPRESS. TO PREESURIZED 

OCT. '69 • 5 

MARCH '70 

MAY '70 

7 

1 5 

JUNE '70, 4 

JULY '70 

AUG. '70 

AUG. '70 

OCT. '70 

2-.112 

0 

—&Brofte'r SPECIAL HANDLING 

O C/O 

O MATE 

LM/MM 

SM/LV 

O C/O 

0 PREP. AND SHIP 

0 VAFB 

O LAUNCH 
NRO APPRO IFOR 

RELEASE JULY 2015 GONS- /.5.5 

V0204 

• 

LACOPAT01.:Y Co'k'TVEr::0i1 TUE 4 • 

360 

320 

280 

ACTUAL TIME TO LAUNCH 

240 

200 

160 

120 

80 

\I 

40 

0 

360 320 .2 

/41 ig. 

- 

I 

PRI

OR TO IN

SERTION ,10

,' 

/1 

IN PRESS

URE SHELL IN 

/ • ,• •• . 

„ . . 

• 

FI

NAL ASSY COMPLETE„ 

¢ 

• . 

• 

_43 

1.,.., )-- 

FLIGHT NO. 6 

• 

OPERAT I ONAI • 

JI 

FLIGHT 

OPERATIONA 

EMERGENCY 

. 

./........ 

. 

= . 

o )-- 

>- al 

. 

• ,,,,,. _..........2; 

* 0 (...) 

0 

. (...) 

PLANNED TIME TO LAUNCH 

240 200 160 120 80 0 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE JULY 2015 &.)1,-1.5-1 5,5 

37,CRET SYJECIAL I-IAZIDLT2TG 

MINIMUM RESPONSE TIME 

4 • 

t035-2 • 

100 woai4ING DAYS 

DilVS 

• 

DECISION POINT 

LM ASSY ez 

(MANNED VERSION) 

MM REC INSP 

MM WT .tt CC 2 t:11 A1111.7.1.1137.7771111.2GRE-7. 3"L31.1.17C.M.1 - ,..1111 

,LM CONVERSION 

SM ASSY 

53 

SM/LM/MM MATE cu, 

SM/LM • OV/MPSS C/O 

OV WT CG 

R & I ORDNANCE 

INSTALL ORDNANCE 

PREP FOR et SHIP 

VI\ 

'117 CALENDAR DAYS, ASSUMING 6 WORKING DAYS PER WEEK AT 1-41-3 

osm, LM, & MM ARE MATED BEFORE C/O 

to et\L aN R 1\N S (TOT P:12:) vol.; v.._vp • 

—SE,GROT SPECIAL HANDLING 

r

I 
GUNS- /5S 1 JULY 2015 

CECRCT SPECIAL HANDLING 

< - 

CONVERSION FLIGHTS 6 AND 7 TO M/A 

O MANNED PECULIAR EQUIPMENT NOT PR 'F.I‘ITLY 0:1DF.RED 

0 FOR FLIGHTS 6 AND 7. 

0 MOST MANNED EQUIPMENT AVAILADLT. ON &IL FOR FLIGHT T. 

O FLIGHT 6 INITIALLY SCHEDULED AM/FAILURE TO CO:APLETE 

30-DAY MANNED MISSION 

o DECISION TO CONVERT MADE DURING FLIGHT 5, 

O CS ON SHIPPING DOCK 

o FLIGHT 6 DELAYED 7 TO 10 MONTHS - BASELINE OF 

MANNED EQUIPMENT. 

O CONVELISiON OPTION - DEGRADED RELIALILITY 

O SUMMARY OF COST INCREASE 

FLIGHT #6 63A4 

FLIGHT f7 0 44 M 

010M 
511:G414:4-SPECIAL HANDLING 

Fiaraur 6 CONVERSIONOPTION 

O FLIGHT 6 PLANNED AS MAki 

O OPTION TO CONVERT 1 Am 

O LAUNCH DELAY FUNCTION Or CONVERSION DECEION DATE 

O HARDWARE AVAILABLE FOR CONVERSION 

O SUPPORT MODULE 

O AUTOMAT FILM HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

O STRUCTURE MODS 

0 ADDITIONAL HARDWARE REQUIRED OVER CURRENT BASELINE 

O G KMINI 

O MANNED PECUI4AR LM EQUIPMENT 

0 DRV 1.,,UNCHER TUBE 

O ACQ UM ION SCOPLZ AND FAIRINGS 

O VISUAL OPTICVDISpLAYS AND CONTROLS 

O VOICE SYSTEM/LIVE SUPPORT alUIPMENTiCREW RESTRAINTS 

0 ADDITIONAL PLANNING, ENGINEERING, FACTORY TIME REQUIRED TO 

ACCOMODATE DUAL. 01,110N.- 

NRO APP OVED FOR 

RELEAi6E 1 JULY 2015 
• 

0PRoVE15FO1' 

RELEASE LY 2015 

• 

4 

COST OF A: t OPTION - FUGH1' 114, 

o ruchnT C6 PRCGaAVVIstED .r-S A 1:M.1.1. FLIGHT 

o DZOSION TO FLY AM MADE 4 t."•3KTI3 PRIOR TO LAUNCH 

10 t_nNTIS PRIOR TO LAUNCH 

o ruotrr I? UNCHAME0 

o MANNED pzoutata camp:. t rt t :3T PRESENT LY OtDEflXD FOR FUGIIT 

o CUMMARY 07 COW INCREASE 

4 riorrriu tiJimci4a. 

10 L.*erm.3 cr:Forx Le-iuticte 

< . 

HAS OW AMC SPARE* 

TOT AL prtocu krtt,trer COWER:SION AM 

99. 014 11.094 I I . 014 77.1194 

44. 094 94 094 10.044 941.1114 

• A ;NOM= C6 r3 A It/Au ructa • P sorrow-lc SLIPPAGE 

e* !mixt= H #4 A ttiAM FLIGHT • 7 t.torrrits SUP or LAUNCH DAT! 

• 

• - 

. 4 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

ELEASE 1 J 

• -..intf4 .

TCC A.L. V Al 

k . rtoto Au —0. t I i Au 

r LICHT 16 

tip 0-.)7 ii...1Z MOCCI n.7.-.# t ".• ?r, 

03 try zosso re 

r Lii4ta 0 it 

co WI :::t1410100 

W. — ---- 

, -.• ii., . 0 2 I . 0 

1 T1 17;1 72.21 -_, 

7! S. 0 6 I. • 

ti A ft Wu A.1 t . ts "..-.4.:. I - U rt 

a.* 1. • 

_IS. 

4.0 

111.11 

1. 4 

1 rt.. 

...........SA 

$.0 10.0 U.S 

1. Venn tti du t --e A..! 1 f LT .4 

Via fb 4:0 t 1 /AU 

kcit-cti2A*1-. iii' 44;v:-;:c.,.:44 

4 11--4,1 0 it f004 1.4ti 0404 

4:0 *et 1r0.0 0 114 TO 404 

HI s iSt FORIE 1.0-0 otal 

CO 141MOSIO :4 to As4 

......- 

.10.41.41r 

...... 

1.0 441,0 za. 4.0 

3.I. • 

illy 0 

I. ii 

4 0 ............L 

se.. 

410 , 

................ 

0 

0%. EI 

....... .......—tt., $ 1, 4$ 

It. 9 

1 1. 0 0 U.. 

S. • I. 9 $5 

S. 1 P MIL AM . 4 6401149 

MAO, AIX P900111.10,1=1 

SIP Aalg Mt • II Main 

SIAILD11 AIX P6tOCUMUZIET 

6g. 

 14 W0 e3.5 irs.1 

.............12 

/IL 0 

0, 9 

. .0 

1 9 

, , , 

91. 5 

........ng 

H. 9 

..4 

SC 9 

— ...... 

WO 

.... 
RELEAS JUIN 2015 wits. .ss 

COST OT A, I crin*n rucitt 

MUM 

coa 

11,3=.11a 

AM O tt 

TAW Ho 

0,4113.1ta. A 

TOft WA!! 

co ri. • U. 

MS 4. • MS *- 

SC* L. sr as. • 

1. T 1.$ 4.8 

11. • 

..1$ 81.1 

131. 888 • 1111. 08 • 1111.1114 

WW1 

• 

ILOOtT1011AL HAUDOAftS 

m DMA 

D4C0 (=MATS. COUTt01.4. 

CTIIUCTORE. rneural 

PAT LOAD (D:tt'PLITS. COUTCOLS. 

ATS. IIII*4 

OTsii* 

TITAN 111 

11=4:4418 

I 

(=MOO =PO= LAMM 0011,1=1001 OCX:er3 • tvo•111$ se *Awns 

coNlrer=r1fhlotrt, (11n3 b =MMUS 4 0 S. • 

COWirtrianss TOOL OZ 6 COOSOWINT S. • a.• 

commas LAC011 se.* a.• 

=MAT illaaaloti 6 anelsooT C • a.111 

OPZAATIONS. aOTTwANI. LAMM 

SZCOTIEaT ak. • ....tst. 

SUSTOTAL CONvisaliess $10.61/ $15 

Sa.• ...Wm. 

TOTAL 003T SECIStallf *Wei MAK 

•