thiMAN 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

SECRET NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

This is the manned MOL configuration. Its 

CHART 2 

major elements include the: 

1. Gemini B, used as a personnel vehicle 

during launch, and a recovery vehicle for the 

astronauts and exposed film. 

2. The Laboratory Module, consisting of a 

pressurized compartment, and an unpressurized 

service section housing propellants and 

propulsion system, oxygen, hydrogen, helium, fuel 

cells, and a tunnel which connects the GEMINI and 

the pressurized compartment; 

3. And the Mission Module which contains 

the optical assembly. As you will recall, this 

is a focal length frame camera. The 

earth image is reflected from this six-foot 

diameter mirror -- which tracks the target 

continuously during photography -- to another 

six-foot mirror, to these diagonal mirrors, and 

then through corrector lenses to the camera. 

2 

via BYEMAN 

rzrazi System 
aINN Lie YEMAN 

Control System 

--BEGET 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

This spacecraft will weigh about 

30,000 pounds and will carry enough expendables 

for at least 30 days. It will be launched from 

Vandenberg Air Force Base into polar orbits 

which will provide photographic access to the 

entire world. 

This is the unmanned version of the MOL. 

Its major elements include: 

CHART 2 

Overlay 

1. A Support Module, in lieu of the 

GEMINI B in the manned version, which houses 

6-8 film recovery vehicles of the same kind used 

by present reconnaissance satellites; 

2. A Modified Laboratory Module, with the 

life support and manual controls of the manned 

version removed; 

3. And the same Mission Module -- or 

optical assembly -- used in the manned version. 

The unmanned spacecraft will weigh about 

26,000 pounds and is expected to function on-orbit 

for at least 30 days. Expendables for about 

42 days on-orbit lifetime will be carried on 

initial flights. 

"PalLik - r"AN 3 

.10,1r1 
JORIAN 

!!ln:ile via BIEMAN 

Control system 

=KT 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

There are five major associate contractors 

involved in the MOL Program: 

CHART 3 1. Douglas provides the- Laboratory Module 

and the external structure of the Mission Module 

which houses the photographic system. Douglas 

also will physically integrate the major MOL 

system segments and perform the final launchreadiness tests and checkouts. 

2. McDonnell builds the GEMINI B. 

3. General Electric provides the control 

system and structure for the large tracking 

mirror in the Mission Module, most of the 

photographic mission-related control equipment 

in the Orbiting Laboratory, software for mission 

accomplishment, and data return capsules for 

the unmanned system. 

4. Eastman Kodak is responsible for 

developing and manufacturing the optical and 

camera elements. Camera performance will be 

tested in Eastman Kodak facilities before 

shipment to the West Coast for final vehicle 

assembly. 

4 
DORIAN 

!Ink via BYEMMAli 

control System 

SECRET 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULy 2015 

5. Martin and other Titan III associates 

are providing the Titan IIIM launch vehicle 

and booster launch services. 

Here are a few of the program milestones 

prior to flight and the flight schedule. The 

MOL Program, as presently approved, includes 

seven launches: two unmanned launches to 

qualify the Titan IIIM booster, verify 

spacecraft structural integrity, and qualify 

the GEMINI B; three 30-day manned-automatic 

missions in all-up configuration photographic 

systems; and two 30-day -- or longer --

unmanned-automatic missions with all-up 

photographic configuration systems. 

5 

717" 

Cri07.1 

6ECRET 
DORIAM 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Contrcl Systnm —8E04E4— NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

You will recall that last summer, the 

first manned launch was projected for 

December 1969. During the project definition 

phase, it became obvious that there was 

insufficient time to accomplish all sequential 

ground testing prior to that date. Additionally, 

in view of the small number of flights, and 

to insure the very best resolution photography 

at the outset, we decided to fly a productiontype optical assembly rather than a development 

model. This required a nine-month program 

adjustment into 1970. Then, for higher 

assurance in meeting critical milestones, and 

in view of expected funding levels in FY 68 

and FY 69, another three months was added. 

Thus, the first all-up manned flight now is 

planned for December 1970. 

All associate contractors participated in 

the formulation of the present master schedule; 

all agree it is technically attainable, 

realistic, and can be accomplished within the 

funds estimated; and signed contracts to that 

effect. 

.„ 6 
UUKIAI 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control Syst m 

SECRET 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Note the more than two year period 

required for manufacture, assembly, and test 

of a complete system. 

CHART 5 This is the manpower picture -- present 

and projected -- for the five major associate 

contractors. 

The level-off this last spring reflects 

the transition period from the old schedule to 

the current one. 

For comparison purposes, the APOLLO Program 

had between 65 and 70,000 contractor personnel 

on board at its peak about the first of this 

year. 

CHART 6 This is the estimated total cost of the 

MOL Program. The red bars on the chart indicate 

the amounts included in the current DoD 

Five Year Defense Plan. 

7 

[TN: 
010N 

llanFille via BYEMAN 

Control System 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY,2015 

Note the discrepancy in FY 68. The 

$480 million NOA requirement was the MOL 

Program Office estimate at the start of the 

year. The current AF Financial Plan includes 

$440 million. We are tracking forecast versus 

actual expenditures and commitments very closely 

for the first six months of Fy 68 and will have 

a more precise estimate about the first of the 

year. 

CHART 7 The major extensions of current technology 

occurs in the Eastman Kodak and General Electric 

efforts associated with the camera system. 

Since they will talk about areas such as these 

listed on this chart, I will not. 

I would like to mention, however, that 

back-up work is underway in several areas, 

for example: 

1. Alternate mirror polishing techniques 

at two different manufacturers and one 

university; 

2. An alternate mirror material called 

Cer-Vit which has greatly superior thermal 

qualities to the present fuzed silica. 

LvlULL 
pOKIAN 

„ingla via BYEMAN 

Control System 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Not only must the optical assembly and 

camera be manufactured with great precision, 

but several technically-difficult functions 

must also be precisely accomplished on orbit 

if resolution photography is to be 

achieved. This is where man becomes an 

important asset in diagnosing troubles, adding 

vernier adjustments, or manually operating 

failed or malfunctioning automatic subsystems. 

Simulations indicate that man can provide at 

least as fine a control as the automatic 

systems for these four functions . . . and 

you will hear more about these during the 

course of the evening. 
DORIAN 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Also, once the automatic devices are 

working reasonably well and do not require 

repeated adjustment or extended manual 

operation, we expect the astronauts to 

increase both the quantity and quality of 

photography acquired through weather avoidance 

techniques and/or the selection of targets 

having a momentary increased value -- for 

example, a missile on a pad versus a nearby 

but empty pad. 

CHART 9 Last, a word about Government management. 

The MOL Program has both an open and covert 

management channel under SecAF and the DNRO. 

General Ferguson, the MOL Program Director 

reports directly to Dr. Brown and Dr. Flax 

and is responsible in the Air Force solely to 

them for the program. He has a small Program 

Office in the Pentagon, to assist him in 

Washington matters, which I head up as a 

full-time duty. 

10 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Handle via WWII 

Control System 

The Systems Office in Los Angeles, 

headed up by General Bleymaier, is responsible 

for overall management of the contractors. 

The Aerospace Corporation assists him in the 

general systems engineering and technical 

direction functions which are Government 

responsibilities in the MOL Program. 

This evening, you will hear from the two 

major associate contractors concerned with the 

most critical elements of the MOL pystem . . • • 

This is the agenda we propose to follow . . 

Let me note on behalf of GE that they are not 

on their homegrounds and some improvising has 

been necessary in terms of items on display. 

With that, let me introduce Mr. 

from the Eastman Kodak Company. 

SECRET 
eN$ reciMir

otAt.. 

• 

• 

• 


4 

II 4. 

I 

4 h ■ 

N 

.1, ; i 

1 

t7- 

No 

4 

4 

1 

No 

b„. 4 

Ift 

Ilts t■ 

IA 

la 

SW.g.i./ .ifi vria-701d 

risToPries MIA 

4 

ift tt

las 

SE 

It 

t 

4. 0 

it V 

S 

A 

ixec 

1.- 

k 

IA 

N 

1.1 

1. 

''' 

.4 4t 

v 

c/P-77j/ C7.360,6iWNO 1 

•••■ ••-•••■•••■■■ . ct 

of 

O 

04 

0 

El 
LO 

0 2 

LL 

0 _ j 

LL1 

> 

0 ,- 

Ce 

0_ w 

a. co 

uJ < 

0 -J 

CC ill 

IX 

ti 

1 

ail 
011 

O 

1 

1.0 11/4 

O k

Ac 

ki 
aV 

to 

•Ct 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

GAMBIT/ DORIAN 

Handle via HYMN 

Control System 

GAMBIT/DORIAN COMPARATIVE 

INFORMATION 

INDEX 

I. Summary Cost Comparison MOL & G-3 

2. Costs/Data re G, G-3, C, and Hex 

3. MOL Miscl Costs/Data. 

4. G Flight Performance 

5. G-3 Flight Performance 

DORIAN/GA/err 

t Byour 

Gentiti SIstarn 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Handle via BYEMAN 

Patel System 

COST COMPARISON TABLE 

MOL 

Manned -Unmanned 

1965 Program Cost Estimate $ 1.5 billion $ 1.2 billion 

Current Program Cost Estimate $ 2.35 billion $ 1.93 billion 

Cost per Launch $ 85 million $ 66 million 

Cost per day/30 day mission $ 2.83 million $ 2.2 million 

Cost per day/8-16 day mission 

Cost per Photograph $5600.- $3300.- 

Cost per Cloud Free Target $23,600..-* $22,000.-* 

Strip Camera 

(average) 

* The MOL target deck will contain approximately 14000 targets. The target geometry is 

such that a single aiming point usually covers more than a single target. On a single 

mission, we estimate photographic coverage of approximately 3000 targets in the unmanned 

configuration and approximately 3600 in the manned configuration. 

** Based on actual take from 6 flights, and an estimate of the 7th flight. For G3 

calculation, any photograph which contains a target which can be positively identified as 

such, is included in the count, irrespective of its resolution. On this basis, the 

average is 850 targets per flight. 

1/ Includes about for increased reliability, double RV's, and other 

improvements. There are no recurring or production hardware dystema (not even first six) 

included in this total. 

2/ Cost of first six = approximately ■ each 

Cost of double RV (#23 on) = approximately each 

3/ Cost per day from 8 days to 16.days 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Pantile via BYEMAN 

Control System 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

System 

Launched 

Cost (x106

) 

Weight Days on $/Day on 

On Orbit Orbit Orbit (x106

) 

GAMBIT 

G #1 -4 G #25 

G #2690 #29 

G #30-3 

GAMBIT-3 

G-3 #1-4 G-3 #8 

G-3 #89 G-3 #23 (1 RV) 

G-3 #24 (2 RV) 

KR-4 

C #14C #25 (1 RV) 

C #26-9C #56 (1 RV) 

C #57-')C #91 (2 RV) 

*C #92-3C #102 (2 RV) 

C #102-.0(2 RV) 

KR-9 

KR-9 #1 

4200# 

4400# 

4500# 

4-5 

6 

8 

7200# 8+ 

7200# 8-10 

8216# 14-16 

2300# 4-5 

2800# 5-6 

3600# 8-11 

4000# 13-14 

4000# 13-14 

20,200# 30 

(T-IIIC) 

average 

average 

average 

average 

* First THORAD/14-day AGENA Aug 1966 

Handle via BYEMAN 

control System 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

4.0 

17.0 

MEM 

.5 

TAB A 

Manned vs Unirianned. 

Lab Vehicle 

'Mission Module 

Gemini B 

Support Module 

Titan IIIM 

Crew & Equipment 

Test Operations 

GSE/TD 

TOTAL 

* On a 4 launch per year basis 

Manned Mode*. Unmanned Mode* 

.*25.3 422.0 million 

24.0 22.1 

16.5 

ii 

17.0 

.5 

1.0 

$84.8 million: . 

Halide via 

Control System 

Danuf/GANBIT. 

WORKING PAPER 

SAM INTERNAL 
Experiments 338 378 Includes 10 payloads 

at $8M 

lionile via 8Y MAN 

Control System 

(7 flights) Remarks 

MOL 

Unmanned 

DORIAN 

Program 

(10 fliethto) 

TAB B 

Manned vs Unmanned MOL. 

Cost Comparisons 

From September 1966

Million Dollars) 

NRO APPIROVD.FOR 

RILL'EASE 1 JULY 2015 

DORIAN 

riVOEICING PAPER Nagle via BEM SAMINTERNAL 

Control System 

Mission Module 306 275 

Laboratory Vehicles 836 150 : Costs to 1 July plus 

Termination (0$43M 

TOM 

$250M plus 10 

Vehicles @ $20K 

Cost to 1 July plus 

Termination @ $15M 

Includes 10 Launch 

Vehicles at $204 

New OCV 

Gemini B 

Titan III-M 

Crew 

Test Operations 

Pre-MOL 

Aerospace 

Other 
11....d."'". 4 • 

NRO APRROVEQ F 0 R 

RELEASE 1 JOy4,2J015 

•-. 

Handle vk BYE t, 

Control System 

o What is the cost per launch for the manned system? 

A study completed in May 1967 estimated the cost of 4 launches 

per year for a 4 year period at $85 million per launch. This estimate 

included costs of the Gemini B, lab vehicle, mission payload, 7-segment 

booster and 0&M costs (Tab A). 

o What is the cost per launch for the unmanned system? 

The same study estimated costs of $66 million per launch.. The 

difference is due primarily to substitution of the Support Module for the 

Gemini B, and changes to the lab vehicle and mission module (Tab A). 

o What would be 

ova am Ori 

The program 

estimate of $1.2 

the program cost had we proceeded with an unmanned system 

cost, corrected for price escalations, and using the 1965 

billion as.a base, is estimated at $1.93 billion. 

o What would be the program cost if we now proceed with only an unmanned 

system program? 

Approximately $2.05 billion. This cost provides for the development of 

a new Operational capabilitylfehicle.(000.- • - 

o What are the costs per dat of on-orbit operation? 

Based on the launch cost estimates of $85 and $66 million: 

Orbital Life Manned - Unmanned 

30 Days $2.83 m~iiion $2.2 million 

42 Days 1.57 million* 

60 Days 1.1 million** 

-?or long duration missions utilizing rendezvous techniques, non-recurring 

costs are estimated at $300 million; recurring annual costs for the initial 

vehi le, and 5 resupply missions at 60 day intervals are estimated'at4350 milli 

At $350 million, 365 days on orbit would cost approximately $950 thousand 

per any. 

o Baseline MOL includes a growth capability to 42 days. 

** ?revisions in design allow option of increasing operation time to 60 days. 

lialingitc4VavtAN 

Panty& Rvetaill 

WORKING PAPER. 

SAFSL INTERNAL.' 
Handle via HYENA!' 

Control System 

NR04 APPROVED FOR 

. ,RELEASE -1 JULY 2015 

reS *a.? .142 (11 rvi;is rT 

1) 

o What is.the cost perjhotograph for the Orbiting Lab as compared to G.3 ? ( 

Manned UnthAiiiled

(2) (3) 3 

strip camera 10 day mission OD ON NO • 

30 day mission , $5600.- $33004, 

o What is the comparative cost per cloqdAle target covered for the 

Orbiting Laboratory as =pared to G44 I 

Manned

(4) 

Unmanned(5) G

3 (6) 

10 days (5-8 day, 

actual) 

30 days 

• 

O. 411.1 • 

$23600.- 

(1) None of the cost estimates consider a value factor for enhancement of 

the photographic "take" which the manned, system permits through 

selectivity of target choice, and coverage of targets of opportunity, etc. 

(2) 30 day mission, 13150' of film, 15000 frames 

(3) 30 day mission, 17400''of film, 20000 frames 

v/(4) 3600 targets covered (3000 + 20% manned system enhancement) 

(5) 3000 targets covered 

(6) Based on average launch cost - 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAM 

Control System 

VI>RICING PiAPER 

SL INTh&IAL 

• t:..:- ;''41.1 OIL' i 1'16141 

O 

. 

•-• I • t4N 0 0 

- • en 

;r N N 

U 

LC7 

• 0 

• U- 
4006 Tracking station communication 

Problem (Thule) 

4007 Payload pOwer/command decoder 

4008 

4009 AGENA electronics 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

• IZELEASE 1 JULY 23p.,5 .Keasons for Difference 

# Planned vs Actual Launch Date 

Mission 

Anomalies Remarks 

4031 Favorable checkout progress Hitched-up mode 

4002 Exchange second stage r • H 

4003 Tech. Problems during checkout 

4004 Command system anomaly' Control gas 

depleted rev 5 • 1st OCV solo msn 

4005 Electrical Problems in ,OCV Extreme YAW . •.‘,.,.' 

error no usablekl•-• - • 

photography - .... 

Vehicle unstable 

rev 16 

Vehicle stabilization & film 

wrap up difficulties 

4010 OCV replaced Only 2 days operation `Si, 

due to command malfunction 

4011 ATLAS booster changed command 

decoder malfunction • 

4012 NRO Direction to avoid conflict AGENA failure/no orbit 

4013 

4014 Tech. difficulties during checkout Early recovery due 

to stabilization and 

battery 

4015 Anomalies in OCV checkout 

*Normally . epresents operational problems - not contractual delivery 

TOP SECRET 

Hada via Bram 

Cootrol Sys)* 

of R/V 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RILEASE I JULY 2015 

' GAMBIT 

"OCV PERFORMANCE" 

G-1 "HITCH UP". Hetlit loss had depleted 4400 lb-sec of the 

951 6300 lb-sec of stabilization thrust available at ' 

separation from AGENA oh Vehicle 18. All gas lost on . 

Rev 34 when valves went to high thrust mode. Command., 

decoder inadventently turned off due to noise or 

"switch bounce." 

"HITCH UP." While "hitched up" to AGENA .it was noted 

that OCV control gas temperature was decreasing to 

point where solo OCV operation would be marginal. Recovery executed on Rey 34 and OCV "solo-ed." At 

pressurization of the pneumatic system all control gas 

was expended. Probable cause--cover left off a fuel . 

valve in the OCV pneumatic system. Spurious real time' 

command accepted by vehicle on Rev 14. Attitude control 

power supply lost on Rev 35. 

G-3 "HITCH UP." Recovered on Rev 33. Solo after recovery. 

953 Some problems in proper roll rates due to switching 

anomalies "Prohibited modes" resulted in excess gas 

. usage. 

G-4 Successful recovery Rev 18 on lifeboat. No. useful 

954 photographs. Vehicle unstable Rev 4 due to gyro heater 

.malfunction over heating rate gyro which exploded. NO 

L.B. telemetry due to problem during countdown. 

G-5 Successful recovery Rev 34. No pictures. Error in 

955 commanding sequence on Rev 2 caused vehicle to drift 

in yaw. After slewing film forward cause of error 

found and corrected. Lifeboat failed on, post-recovery 

test. Rev 65--clock recycle and delay time erase 

(Command System problem). 

Successful recovery Rev 51. Roll maneuvers o.k. but 

impingement of.gas on bulkhead gave vehicle thrust 

effect (high thrust only). Lifeboat failed on post7 

recovery test. Orbit Adjust engines showerosion 

effects. 

G-7 Successful recovery on Rev 64, fourth day. 

957 1. 40-60 negative pitch'error after Rev 41.' 

Attributed by GE to short in the H.S. mixer box. 

2. Flew low o.k. 

G-S Successful recovery Rev 34, after bad injection from 

958 AGENA. 

G-2 

952 

G-6 

956 

1. Vehicle 

horizon 

unstable Rev .15 due to IR Scanners• losing. 

reference. Attributed by GE.to:Absci 

FcRiT , . 

_ . 
G-9 

959 

• 

NROrAPPROyED FOR 

• REI....EA irJUL2112o1p 

initial orbital environment. 

2. Also thermal blanket tore, bound the>TARS'platform 

and perhaps reflected into U.S. 

3. No useful photographs after Rev 15. 

4. lOpps time signal failed on Rev 18. 

5. Command readout failure--certain stored program 

commands were not oxocutod after Rev 16. 

6. On Rev 37 the telemetry did not turn on as programmed. 

By BUSS command telemetry revealed store program 

commands were not being executed. Attributed to 

programmer power supply failure due to high temperature.: 

OCV. 

A.. Recovered on Rev 34.. No useful photography. 

. Vehicle lost lock from the beginning in the vicinity , 

of the South Pole. Did not re-stabilize away from -

the pole. 

a. Causes of the instability: 

(1) Horizon Sensor "spooked" by cold environment 

at S.P. 

(2) Reulocated ".Roll Nozzles" reflected into U.S. 

(3) Thermal blanket at rear of OCV reflected 

into H.S. (if it expanded.in vacuum due to 

trapped air). 

b. Fixes: 

(1) Operational procedure--turnoff H.S. in 

vicinity of South Pole. 

(2) Re-locate "Roll Nozzle." 

(3) Restrain thermal blanket and reduce its 

reflectivity 

3. A pressure leak onsecondaiypropulsion system between 

Rev 32 and 34. 

4. Wrench handle left in the R.V. 

G-10 OCV. 960 

1. Recovered on Lifeboat on Rev 66. (Attempted on 50 

but failed due to Kodi problem), 'T"..A•tv' 

• 

'•'"is 2 1. 

; .ii'i 
NRO P.PPRI5VcD•FOR 

P..ELEASE.'1‘ JULY 2 15 

• • • 

2. No useful photos after Rev 23 due to command 

problems (started Rev 10). 

3. SI--did not work after Rev 2. 

4. Command Problem. Could not load stored program 

commands. Isolated to decoder and associated 

circuitry. Most probable cause--coaxil cable 

problems, 

G-11 Successful recovery on Rev 67. Orbit adjust system 

939 malfunction during mission. Only 1 engine apparently 

burned. Also pressurizing gas leaked. SI worked 

fine. Soft photos. 

G-12 No orbit. Agena burned less than one second. Agena 

tiw.L 

nr,r, engine received a.shut down command. No SI on board. 

G-13 . Recovery capsule did not deorbit. Retro rocket did 

933 not fire. Destruct system worked. 

14 Lost stability on Rev 9 due to power trouble. 

964 

G-15 Recovery on Rev 84. Mirror stuck in forward position 

965 on Rev 59 attributed to micro switch failure. 

G-16 Recovery on Rev 81. Mirror stuck in vertical position 

966 on Rev 16. TM anomalies on Rev 63 and 64. Transmitter 

on but no data when first seen. Erroneous readings on 

secure word counter, environmental power turned.off and 

pneumatic control system was in high thrust, Attributed 

to EMI from tape,recorder. 

C 

3 

SECRET 

• Ilan& via BITMAR 

Control Sy tom 
Ci-17 

D37 

• : • 

i. .!.6

yrs 4."• • 

;14 

—rt 

NR6 APP4OVED FOR 

F1ELEASE 1 TRAY 2015 

• . 

o. 

• . 

C ri3 T 

- . .. 

Primary-door actuator failed Rev 4. , ' . 

One 100 second focus test not executed due to 0 

'minute timer. . Focus control malfunctioned by rev 31 .. 

.Excellent photos. Two incidents: (1) mirror servo ;.'(.. 

:. . ,mechanical interference.' (2),Busi test not' ..1 : 

due to ground system problem."" :• , 

4 
• 

•• .: 

• • • . 

• 

• ' • . • •. • 

0 

i 4 

1•... . %. ' eis 

..0 • 

1•• OD 10 • • • 

44110 CO 

0 0 • 

....'.. . Z. o .• :•••• • 

: • I 

4..,....!„ • ::'''.•::::•:.:;..,.. 

• '' ',.' ' 4'. )..'; • ' 1. ... P.. • . . _ ..0 

0 0.1 .. co IA ... , ... , , , - : . it. • * 

,-. 

0 : • 0 

... 41 c2. '. .. r.. in • 4, - .„. 

• 

„ ,. N

'

.1 *-, -a • • : 

' "- ' r'• 14. - CO 0 :.' ::, : 

! ' ' I•3 ' . 

• ,.. '. '.'1', , i'''' " .. 

•• • .14 

0 '13: ,■1.■ 

' ce) - - • 

r. 

, 

' .1i; • ' 

' • 

%° • .*1 N 1 • LI) ; 0 (0 trw ‘r . • 

cd1 0 

0 A A • cr. cr. • eel 

.a• .-s N N CO CO CO 

, . '. • ; • 

• ; , 

. ' 

. • • 

•0 •, • 111%; 

I•• 

C)) - . . 0 cr• 0". • 

• • • • r. iv) - 00 - : 111 ; 1•• •4. 

. ' 

'7':';,`,;.• .". 

.0 .0 . ...; i• . • 

.:, -4- t - . r-f IV ?i ul o -...? :', ‘,41 %fl 0 „. 

. 

I-.l 0 , an 0 0 . '• : 0 .4 .":,- • ' • • .: • • , .: ••• ! .; s: • , . , a • • . .''..-:! ' 0'• N '' 

. 6 • - :* • ..', .:•: ."' :. 

COO 1 * 

; . q0I ••• . .. ..,.. 

ve N N . '• ` ' ' ..4;.;;.:.l=i - 1 ; c• ,.11 IA v..; , . i : 

,i

tt 0% 0% 1 

• 

cO 

co . 

w. . • : • ' : • 

• • ,•• ••• • ; 0 

'• : • 

' • •• 

• • • • 

ell 

N 

• 

• I • . 

• 

• 1 • • • , -I; ,•• 

• • .} , , • ,•: ' • •!ri Iti ' WA.. )4 

• . ••1, 

• " ra) 

: C4 

0.4 

O : 

o cl 

P4 11, g 

iU 

• .., 

1-4 

•

444., 

• • , • ' • ••,r.a.*: 

Y:! 

• 

Ot 

; : : 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 :JULY 2015 -4 

Reasons for Difference Mission 

MSN # Planned vs Actual Launch Date Anomalies, 

•r7 

Remarks 

4301 Ground guidance equipment 

malfunction 

•6 

430& Ground guidance station • 

4303 • 

4304 Hardware delivery from 

contractor 

4305 Delay in delivery of Photo 

payload section 

Failed to orbit 

.TXIIBZndStage Th , 

4306 Photo payload relay , 1st 10 day man 

• • 

4307 Titan 2nd stage skirt 

(Present planned launch 

date - 16 Aug 67) 

TOP SECRET 

Handle via BYERM 

Control System 

• r • nn,^7r7,- ,.

ç, ' 1.• 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 SECRET 

i 

G3 Anomalies 

4301 Slit change mechanism disabled before launch. Time track not.. 

recorded due to known small misalignment of film prior to • 

launch. 

Much of the stellar camera degraded by flare. Flare from 

camera looking:toward earth great enough to degrade adjacent 

frame. Minor pressure and static marks. 

4302 Variable image quality due to out-of-focus condition and 

error in INC. Stellar camera disabled prior to launch. 

4303 Memory malfunction; caused loss of 11 pictures. The stereo 

mirror did not respond to commands to move from the forward 

to the vertical position - 8 frames were lost. Average film 

velocity .38% below the commanded velocity. CORN targets 

read from 38„. 

375 unprogrammed terrain camera exposures were taken due to 

command malfunctions. Terrain camera time block malfunctioned. 

Right stellar camera shutter stuck. open intermittently. 

4304 Focus setting in error by approximately 5 mils CORN targets 

varied from 27” to 84"..; focus sensor performance erratic. 

Right and left stellar camera shutters experienced sticking. 

Flare degraded stellar photography. .Time blocks for terrain 

and stellar Malfunctioned. . ' • 

4305 Failed to orbit,T III B 2nd stage.. 

4306 Best CORN targets - 2 feet. Stop film coast distance gradually 

increased to 6 inches. due to failure of the dynamic brake. As 

a result, 212 more feet of film were used than programmed. 

An error in roll joint position began on Rev 65, corrected by 

softwear compensation on Rev 74. • 

Terrain;camern time word intermittently exposed: . 35 pro-. 

grammed terrain. camera expoeuTea did not occur.. 

• ...• 

BENIN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

SAME VIA 
llcRIANE, 

Hand e oYEMAN 

Control System 

SECRET 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 ;JULY 2015 

Mr. Secretary: 

During the next ten minutes, let me refresh 

your memory on the MOL Program so that the 

Eastman Kodak and General Electric discussions 

which follow may be considered in their proper 

context. 

CHART 1 These are the objectives of the MOL Program. 

We are developing the manned system and plan 

to fly it first because: 1. This gives much 

higher assurance of achieving the primary 

objective; and 2. It is almost essential to its 

early accomplishment. 

The unmanned system is being developed to 

insure the continued availability of this 

reconnaissance capability should international 

objections or a foreign threat preclude manned 

operations, or should man be unable to function 

effectively in space for prolonged periods --

although we do not expect difficulties in this 

latter regard. 

WORKING PAPERS 

flarille via FENIAN 

Control System