I 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

DIRECTORATE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS (OSAF) 

AF UNIT POST OFFICE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 •i 

r . 

12 November 1965 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

REPLY TO 

ATTN OF, SP-1 

SUBJECT Procedures for MOL Program Management 

TO Director, NRO (Dr. Flax) 

Director, MOL (General Schriever) 

1. On being asked for my comments on a paper entitled "Procedural 

Considerations for MOL Program Management," (SAF-SL BYE37596-65), and recalling that both the Director, MOL and the Director, 

NRO have invited my suggestions concerning Washington procedures 

for this program, I have prepared my recommendations and submit 

them in paragraph 3, below. I do not agree with S.A.."-SL BYE-37596-65, 

and have attached my specific comments on that proposal. 

2. Since all of the principals have copies of the basic documents 

pertaining to this subject, the inclusion of background or explanation 

in a statement of management procedures is not necessary, and 

detracts from its clarity. Therefore, I recommend a simple statement 

of essential procedures, stated as briefly as possible, without explanation in the statement. However, I think that these procedures must be 

realistic and practical, and consistent with certain facts concerning 

the NRO responsibilities in the MOL Program, namely: 

a. The Director, NRO, is responsible to the Secretary of Defense 

for the National Reconnaissance Program, which includes the reconnaissance aspects of the MOL. 

b. The Secretary of the Air Force has delegated full authority to 

the Director, NRO, to act for him on all Air Force matters pertaining 

to the National Reconnaissance Program, including the MOL-reconnaissance payloads. 

c. The Director, NRO, holds the Director, SAFSP, fully responsible 

to him for the development, acquisition, and test of the. MOL reconnaissance 

payloads in the same sense as for all other NRO payloads for which the 

Director, SAFSP, is responsible; the MOL program management is 

responsible for the overall system engineering, and integration necessary 

to integrate these payloads into the overall MOL system, . The co-location 

EXCLUDES F TIOM AUTOMAT 

REGkADI Dr..; L.; • D r 5200.10 - 

DOES NOT APPLY. 

Handle via NEU 

Control System • 

14 
NIRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 ki 

F.i BYE-40315-65 

of the SAFSP MOL payload office within the integrated SPO is for the 

purpose of assuring current and full information exchange to permit 

these separate responsibilities to be carried out in a well coordinated 

manner; it does not alter the complete responsibility of the Director, 

SAFSP, to the Director, NRO, for the development, acquisition and 

test of these payloads. 

d. The Director, NRO, is involved on a daily basis in continuing 

discussions with higher levels concerning the entire range of NRO 

projects and responsibilities, in addition to his weekly meetings with 

the NRO Executive Committee, all of which may, and frequently will, 

result in some guidance and direction concerning the MOL responsibilities assigned to the Director, SAFSP. 

e. The MOL responsibilities assigned to the Director, SAFSP, 

have a direct bearing on and are influenced by other NRO responsibilities assigned to the Director, .SAFSP:.iri-house, within the Aerospace Corporation, and at certain contractors. . 

f. The Director, NRO, and the Director, SAFSP, are necessarily 

involved in frequent discussions and KY-9 telephone conversation concerning various aspects of the entire range of NRO responsibilities 

assigned to the Director, SAFSP. 

g. Because of co-location, the inclusion of the SAFSP MOL payload 

office in the integrated SPO, and the frequent opportunities and occasions 

for discussions between the Director, SAFSP, and the Deputy Director, 

MOL, there is no problem whatever in keeping the Deputy Director, MOL, 

currently informed on all guidance received by the Director, SAFSP. 

However, it is extremely impractical for the Director, SAFSP, to keep 

anyone in the Washington management structure equally informed. 

h. The only practical way to tie together the Washington ends of 

the two management channels involved is for the Director, MOL, and 

the Director, NRO, to use a single staff element for all reconnaissance 

aspects of the MOL, and for this element to be assigned to the NRO Staff 

to assure that its support of both Directors is carried out in full coordination and context with all related NRO considerations; assignment of this 

staff element to the staff of the Director, MOL, would undesirably isolate 

the staff support of the NRO responsibilities for MOL from the staff 

support of the rest of the NRO responsibilities, unnecessarily add 

extra coordination procedures which could not completely compensate 

• ro°70,;"1 

Contel Syr 
NRCLAPPROVED FOR ' 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

BYE-40315.65 

; 

for this isolation, arid unavoidably reduce'the effectiveness of this support 

to both Directors in all areas where the reconnaissance aspects of the 

MOL bear upon, or are influenced by, other NRO matters with which the 

NRO staff deals continuously. 

3. I' recommend adoption of the following statement of procedures, which 

is consistent with the above comments, the present assignment of responsibilities, and the guidance I have previously received on this subject: 

Procedures for Guidance and Direction 

of NRO Responsibilities for MOL 

1. All guidance and direction concerning the MOL reconnaissance 

payloads and all other NRO responsibilities for the MOL Program 

will be issued by, Or upon prior specific personal approval of, the 

Director, NRO. 

2. All guidance and direction to the Director, SAFSP, and all 

BYEMAN communications to the Deputy Director, MOL, or other 

personnel at the SSD complex,Will be transmitted through existing 

SAFSS-SAFSP communications channels and procedures, and SAFSP 

will provide all BYEMAN Control Officer services for document 

control and storage, to include provision for such service within the 

integrated MOL SPO. 

3. Normally, guidance and direction which has, or is likely to 

have,, a major• impact on the overall MOL Program will be transmitted from the Director, NRO, to the Director, SAFSP, through, 

or with the prior coordination of, the Director, MOL. 

4. In all instances where written guidance or direction is given to 

the Director, SAFSP, directly by the Director, NRO, an information 

copy will be given concurrently to the Director, MOL. 

5. Other general guidance, direction and clarification will be given 

by the Director, NRO, to the Director, SAFSP, from time to time, 

in direct discussions and KY-9 telephone conversations. 

6. The Director, SAFSP, will keep the Deputy Director, MOL, 

currently informed on all guidance and direction which he receives 

from the Director, NRO, by whatever means. • 

7. Response to all direction will be made in.the manner prescribed 

in each individual directive. 

3 . 
r, • 

NRQ APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 BYE-40315-65 

8. The Director, SAFSP, will furnish an information copy to the 

Director, MOL, of all wire messages and letters from the Director, 

SAFSP, to the Director, NRO, concerning NRO responsibilities 

for MOL. 

9. Nothing in these procedures shall be construed to alter or 

constrain the direct access of the Director, SAFSP, to the 

Director, NRO, at any time for questions, discussion, or response 

concerning the MOL responsibilities assigned to the Director, SAFSP, 

and any direction received by him concerning these responsibilities. 

10. The Director, MOL, and the Director, NRO, will use a single 

Washington staff element for all reconnaissance aspects of the 

MOL, as follows: All staff personnel supporting either director 

in the reconnaissance aspects of the MOL Prdgram will be assigned 

to the NRO Staff (SAFSS) and, in addition to their support of the 

Director, NRO, will also provide all such staff support to the 

Director, MOL, including all files, information, charts, briefings, 

presentations and discussions. 

JOHN L. MARTIN, JR Atch 

Brigadier General, USAF Comments on "Procedural ConDirector siderations for MOL Prog Mgt," 

(SAF-SL BYE-37596-65) 

r- 

- 

4 
i■IRO„APPROV,ED FOR 

(RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 BYE-4O3 5-65 

eration foil MOL 

Program Management," (SAF-SL BYE-37596-6 :: 

Comments on the paper entitled "Procedural Consik 

• 

(The titles of the following paragraphs refer to corresponding paragraphs 

of the referenced paper) 

1. "General" 

a. Several specific points included in this part of the proposed 

paper reflect erroneous or incomplete understanding, which may be 

(and seem, in fact, to have been) repeated in other MOL documentation: 

(1) The MOL Program does not depart from the condition 

"where the reconnaissance sensor itself has been the major element 

around which overall system integration is postured," as stated. 

Quite the contrary: the MOL reconnaissance sensor dominates the 

entire configuration of this project; its influence is far greater than 

the presence of man, even in the !'manned-only" configuration. The 

requirement of manned/unmanned capability further extends the 

influence of the reconnaissance sensor on the configuration of the 

project. 

(2) The MOL Program does not depart from the condition of 

the other satellite reconnaissance programs of the NRO due to 

"currently expressed national policy of overt and unclassified admission 

of the MOL, " as stated. Neither does it depart in regard to covert 

aspects, as stated. There are no covert satellite reconnaissance 

projects in the NRO. All such projects have unclassified names 

(numbers, rather than words), but none of these projects has any 

public "cover" whatsoever; the mission is simply classified. The 

MOL has a name, in addition to a number, but it has no difference from 

the other reconnaissance projects in restraint concerning operation 

as a covert project. Reconnaissance cannot be acknowledged as the 

mission of any of them; there is no way that any of them can be operated 

covertly, nor their reconnaissance aspects "covered" by any plausible 

public explanation of their ostensible purpose. All conceivable cover 

for such unmanned activities has been used previously and thoroughly 

exhausted. The same applies to the manned aspect of the MOL: everythin can possibly be_said in this regard has already been said by 

NASA, including the use of military astronauts, and the exploration of 

activities of possible future application to national defense. 

5 

XCL. %Au fO ,vi t-IG 

E DOD DIR 5200.10 

DOES NcYr. 

L._ 

riELI V:0 [302iii 

CHU! SyStp 
NRO APPROVED FOR t-'71 7773 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BYE-403I5-65 

(3) The draft ignores the Secretary of the Air Force 

delegation to the Director, NRO, of "the authority to act for me on 

all Air Force matters -- including personnel, materiel, and fiscal 

resources -- associated with the National Reconnaissance Office and/ 

or within the purview of the National Reconnaissance Program, including the MOL reconnaissance payloads," (BYE-36998-65). In view 

of this delegation alone, it is not clear that the Director, MOL, has the 

full range of responsibilities outlined in the draft. 

b. On balance, this part of the draft seems completely unnecessary, 

even if corrected to reflect the above comments, since the basic documents 

reflecting decisions by the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary 

of Defense are avilable in original form to all who would have any reason 

to see the proposed document. I believe that this part could add to 

confusion on some aspects; it certainly does not clarify anything. 

2. "Principles of the Management Structure. " This section is in error 

in three respects; 

a. Concerning the channels of program direction intended by the 

• basic MOL documents in the original exchange between the Secretary 

of the Air Force and the Secretary of Defense, it is certainly not 

"clear that no other (than through the Director, MOL) is intended," 

in view of related documents and verbal discussion of this point. 

b. The SAFSP sensor payload office co-located with the MOL 

Systems Office is not responsible for MOL sensor development. 

The Director, SAFSP, is responsible for this, and will use this sensor 

payload office as his principal support for this task. 

c. I do not agree that the channel through which direction flows 

makes no difference, as is stated. I don't see how anyone can claim 

that there is no difference between getting direction from one source 

and accounting to another for carrying it out, or getting it from two 

sources and accounting to either or both for carrying it out, or getting 

it from one source and accounting to it exclusively. 

3. "Procedures for Program Guidance and Direction. " I do not see 

any purpose in including the five categories of guidance and direction, 

as listed, nor in any similar attempt to categorize guidance and 

direction. In actuality, governing procedures by this approach simply 

cannot work, as it is just not possible for the giver of guidance and 

direction to know, a priori, the full eventual impact it will, or may, have. 

This is a tedious, impractical way to define management channels; it is 

not realistic and will most certainly encumber, rather than streamline, 

the conduct of the program. I also do not agree that "all guidance and 

6 

.•;:i‘7,A1 

ai. 

CBT6tiC1 
NROAPPROUED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 BYE-40315-65 

direction will be issued . . . . to both the. Deputy Director, MOL 

and the Director, SAFSP." While it may be appropriate to issue 

some guidance to both, most should be issued specifically to one 

with an information copy to the other (and all directives and guidance 

to SAFSP should be transmitted through the existing SAFSS-SAFSP 

communications channels and procedure). I do not agree with 

issuance of an action directive "to whom it may concern" or to 

"whom it would be appropriate for compliance, based upon his 

(otherwise) assigned responsibilities," as the present draft would 

have it. 

4. "Procedural Principles" 

a. My present MOL responsibilities are assigned to me by 

the Director, NRO, who has informed me that he holds me responsible 

to him for carrying them out. I, _therefore, cannot agree with the 

"procedural principles" as written in the draft. I submit that it is 

axiomatic that my direction should come to me from the person to 

whom I am responsible for carrying it out, with no intervening modification or interpretation, and with no constraint on my direct access 

to such person for questions, clarification, response or discussion of 

such responsibilities and direction. I do not mean to imply that the 

sending of information copies to others is a constraint, nor the requirement to keep other appropriately informed, as long as this is realistically 

interpreted. 

b. I cannot see any reason that the Washington organization for 

the MOL Program management should not follow the same pattern 

established by the West Coast in coping with the two separate 

managerial aspects which are involved in the program. The Deputy 

Director, MOL, does not have any personnel whatsoever in the area 

of MOL responsibilities which are assigned to the Director, SAFSP; 

he relies completely upon the latter's personnel for all information 

and support on this subject. By the same reasoning, I cannot see why 

the Washington office of the Director, MOL, should have any personnel 

whatever in the area of NRO responsibilities for the MOL Program; it 

seems to me that all such personnel should be assigned to the NRO 

Staff (SAFSS), and should, in addition to their work for the Director, NRO, 

provide all Washington area information and support to the Director, MOL, 

for all aspects of NRO responsibilities (all briefings, information, 

discussion). 

Contrd &Atoll].