NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY 

August 11, 1965 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

SUBJECT: MOL Sensor Development 

Activities at Issue 

The MOL sensor development competes with other current 

and projected projects in the NRP involving large optics. 

The relevant contractors are Eastman Kodak (EK), ITEK, and 

Perkin-Elmer (PE). The activities at issue are listed below. 

Current: 

At EK: G, G3, Lunar read-out (NASA contract), APOLLO 

pointing camera (SAFSP contract for NASA), VALLEY (technology 

studies), S2 studies, DORIAN studies; 

At ITEK: CORONA, CORONA improvement, S2 studies, teChoolOgy, 

of large optics, DORIAN studies, balloon camera for atmospheri0 

studies; 

At PE: FULCRUM studies, DORIAN studies. 

Projected, non MOL: only S2 is considered. 

MOL: The MOL program is defined as the development of a manned 

system having 60" to 70" aperture, and a parallel effort permitting 

conversion to an unmanned system. To convert would require the 

termination of the manned effort, transfer of its resources to 

the unmanned, and might entail a six month's delay in launch. 

It is considered that these parallel efforts will be with one 

contractor. Follow-on larger systems are not included. An 

independently developed unmanned system is not considered. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Data now available 

In connection with a management survey at Eastman, EK has 

provided estimates of total manpower required for current projects 

at EK, for S2 if awarded to EK, and for the MOL (DORIAN) without 

unmanned backup. 

EK has stated that MOL will take four times as many 

professional man-years as G3 - i.e., about 1000 professional 

man-years. 

Estimates of ITEK and PE manpower now available are based 

on EK's estimate of S2 requirements, and upon the fact that ITEK 

and PE each have stated their readiness to undertake S2 at once. 

More data will be provided by ITEK soon. 

Some judgements 

EK hires cautiously and with standards appropriate to 

permanent retention of all new employees. The company is concerned 

about maintaining high standards of performance, and expands 

slowly. The labor market in Rochester is showing the effects 

of current expansion at EK. 

EK does not wish to become a program-manager contractor -

wishes to retain full control of all major program elements and 

to minimize management of subcontractors, subcontracting mostly 

fabrication of components or subassemblies. 

EK is now larger than ITEK or PE, has larger resources on 

which to draw, and a larger base on which to build. 

It seems to me likely that each of ITEK and PE will be less 

conservative than EK in undertaking a high rate of expansion. 

They can each draw from new sources. 

It seems likely also, but perhaps less so, that ITEK and 

PE would be more willing to become managers of subcontractors. 

2 
ITEK has not had the full experience of developing and 

flying a system of the size of GAMBIT, but they came close 

to this with LANYARD. They have, of course, had extensive 

development and flight experience with the smaller and less 

demanding CORONA camera. They have also been working closely 

and intensively on design and planning of large systems for 

the last 18 months. PE is much less experienced and is a less 

promising candidate for a prime position on DORIAN. 

EK's estimates on DORIAN include all optics, camera and 

film handling, alignment gear, on-board film handling for 

read-out and for recovery, on-board control and display consoles, 

tracking telescopes, tracking system, AGE, and optical test 

facilities to support development and fabrication. They call 

for 50% subcontracting according to the EK philosophy - that of 

breaking out a large number of relatively small subcontracts. 

It is not clear that the prime contractor needs to follow this 

philosophy. Breakout of a large subcontract seems entirely 

possible to me. 

Facilities are troublesome, but manpower is the controlling 

factor, and it is probably professional manpower, rather than 

total, that counts. 

With respect to professional manpower, there is little 

question that EK is now spread thinner than either ITEK or PE. 

Hence, ITEK and PE each has, relative to EK, a possibility of 

a higher proportionate rate of expansion of total manpower. Each 

also has, proportionately, probably a little better basis for 

managing a major subcontract. 

Manpower Estimates 

The following table estimates total manpower commitments 

and requirements, and projected manpower available. 

Starred estimates are based on Eastman data. All other 

estimates are my own. The DORIAN requirements are based on 

EK's plan to subcontract 50%, mostly drafting and fabrication 

of subassemblies. They include also an arbitrary requirement 

of 100 for the unmanned backup. 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

3 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Estimates of Total Manpower 

Required for current projects 

EK 

ITEK 

PE 

July 1965 

1500* 

200 

100 

July 1966 

1200* 

100 

0 

July 1967 

900 

100 

0 

Subtotal 1800 1300 1000 

Required for: 

S2 100* 500* 400 

DORIAN 100* 1000* 1300* 

Total Requirements 2000 2800 2700 

Potentially available if required 

EK 1500* 1900* 2000* 

ITEK 500 800 1100 

PE 400 700 1000 

2400 3400 4100 

The estimates of those potentially available now at ITEK 

and PE may be low. 

Conclusions 

Assignment of DORIAN and of S2 must be considered together. 

If S2 does not go to EK, EK's estimates show that they will 

have to modify their estimates or their subcontracting philospOy. 

in order to handle DORIAN with unmanned backup. In connection 

with our management survey, EK stated that they could undertake 

DORIAN in the absence of S2. 

If S2 does go to EK: 

(1) There is no possibility to handle DORIAN at EK; 

(2) ITEK could probably handle DORIAN without breaking 

out a major subcontract; 

4 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

(3) ITEK and PE together could handle DORIAN with 

one as prime and the other a major subcontractor. 

Possible Actions 

There is no doubt that, from the point of view of the 

MOL, a clear award now of both S2 and DORIAN is desirable. 

Either of two contractors could be prime on DORIAN, and perhaps 

all three should be examined; all three are already in competition 

for S2. Award of both tasks to one contractor is of course 

excluded. There are other possibilities which, I believe, must 

also be excluded. 

The interfering factors arise because of the present 

situation on S2. I have the following judgments in this regard: 

1. There exists today a completely valid and justifiable 

basis for an award of S2 to Eastman; 

2. There exists today no comparable basis for an award 

of S2 to either of the other contractors, and indeed both of 

the latter are pursuing designs having elements of risk not 

present in the EK design; 

3. It will be several months before either ITEK or PE 

can establish a basis for award to them that is comparable to 

Eastman's; 

4. I doubt that, considering all factors of risk, 

reliability, and performance, ITEK or PE will ever show clear 

superiority over EK on S2; in any case ITEK would be several 

months behind EK in schedule, and PE many months behind that. 

On the basis of these judgments, I cannot recommend an 

action now that would prejudice an award of S2 to Eastman. 

The possible courses of action that remain are therefore: 

1. Continue present DORIAN studies at EK, ITEK, and PE, 

initiating purchase of large DORIAN blanks as each contractor 

reaches that stage of design. Await the award of S2 before 

final award of DORIAN. 

5 

—71111isai inuessm 
Brockway McMillan 

ij 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

2. Award S2 now to EK. Take the EK work to date on 

DORIAN and make it available to ITEK and PE. Continue these 

latter in paid competition on DORIAN for two months, on the 

following terms: they are competing for prime, but each is 

to propose a breakout of major subcontracts, and each is to 

indicate subcontracting areas in which it can serve best. The 

flight program is to begin with the EK DORIAN design unless 

the bidder can demonstrate that he has a better design that 

will meet the schedule. 

3. Combine (1) and (2) by competing all three contractors 

under the terms of (2), while awaiting award of S2. 

If it is considered that DORIAN has greater overall 

importance than S2 and should get the most experienced contractor, 

and therefore denies the premise that a way must be kept open 

for EK to undertake S2, then a fourth option is available: 

(a) to assign DORIAN to EK at once, (b) to select ITEK as the 

S2 contractor. In this case I would take the whole of the 

EK work on S2 and turn it over to ITEK, obliging them to pursue 

it as an alternate to their own concept, with a selection of 

design to be made later. This would preserve something of the 

safety I feel in having this design available, but would 

certainly delay the best schedule by several months. 

6 

lt lhlTl•l 1 11111