• 

Alfpf?..bC/ED FOR 

kELEA8k..1 JULY 2011 

•••■•• .csor 

•;1;.;.:. ' , 

: • • 

• • ... r • 

•-. *-•, . -.. *•' -•- .Log. No. 6 64-6043.

DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING'.- 

' : WASHINGTON as.o.c. • . No. • / 

JAN 4 1965 

4 f

1 

14Eki0RAINgi.UKZ0A.glip.E.IKSECgtiTARY OF THE AIR FORCE. 

SUBJECT: Manned Orbitirig Laboratory 

References: -.a. Memo for DDR&E- frm UnSecAF; Subj: MOL Prdg, dt 

Sept. 180964 . . 

b. Memo for DDR&E frm UnSecAF:, Subj: MOL Frog. 

Nov. 23, 1964 ,' 

4 

c. Memo for UnSecAF frm ASD(R&E); Subj: Gemini 13 Cost. , 

dtd Dec. 24, 1964 

•^••••• •■•••,,,.... • 

1. The Secretary of Defense has changed the priority of the •objectives of the 

' MOL program to provide more emphasis to developments that may lead to 

operational systems.' The following primary objectives listed *order of pri-k 

ority are now eitablished as a guide to planning. 

• 

a. Development of technology contributing to improved military obseri■ 

vational capability for manned or unmanned operation, This raaflucltacie..:. -- 

intermediate steps 'toward operational systems. 

b. DeveloRment and demonstration of manned assembly. 

 and servic.e.af 

-large structures in orbit with potential military applications such as telostoPses 

or radio antennae. This will interact strongly with (a). 

c. Other manned military' experimentation, including the programs given: 

special study by the Air Force during the past year. 

2. Consideration should also be given, in close cooperation.with NASA, to 

following additional' national objectives: 

Basic-scientific and general technological manned experimentation.- 

• 

b. Development and demonstration of manned assembly and service of 

large non-military structures in orbit such as astronomical telescopes and • - 

radio antennae. 

c. Biological responses of in orbit for 30 days or more.. 

bECUSS:P.r.Z.P: 12 

DOD ZIP 
•. • ". ."*. .. • • . < . 

f\RO.APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 :'t 

• 

• 

3. Although it is recognized that the objectives of paragraphs 1 and 2 have 

been studied in developing the MOL plans, I would like to assure that the 

primary objectives as stated in paragraph 1 can be implemented effectively 

by the MOL program awl that the results expected are commensurate with 

the estimated costs. 

• 

4. Therefore, I request that the Air Force define an experimental military pro.)

. 

gram to meet objectives (a),and (b) of paragraph 1 above, and determine the 

essential vehicle characteristics to meet these objectives. This study should. 

be conducted in the same rigorous detail that characterized the studies of objective (c) of paragraph I above made by the Air Force during the past year. 

5. The Air Force is requested to assess carefully the proposed specifications 

of the GEMINI B plus laboratory configuration, employing the launch capabilities 

of .the-TXEAN IUC, against the needs defined in accordance with paragraph 4. 

6. In addition, the Air Force is requested to examine approved configurations 

of the APOLLO system to determine the extent to which any of these could meet 

the needs defined in accordance with paragraph 4 in a more efficient, less costly 

or more timely fashion. 

7. Since the assessment of APOLLO capabilities will require consideration of. 

. the interaction of the laboratory vehicle with the proposed experiments, NASA...*:._ 

is being requested to provide,to the Air Force, as soon as possible, information 

.• concerning the configurations of the APOLLO system currently being. studied • 

by NASA-to meet NASA program objectives. Based on this information and prior. 

Air Force •St-tidies,-thS-Air'Force is requested to provide to NASA.thiisiitc'eidis" 

defined in accordance with paragraph 4 to the detail necessary to enable NASA 

to identify specific configurations of the APOLLO system applicable to DOD 

objectives. NASA, with DOD cooperation, will then make this identification in 

at least preliminary form by April 30,. 1965. These specific configurations of 

the APOLLO system will then be further examin' ed by the Air Force. 

8. The Air Force should also define, in cooperation with NASA, significant 

experiments directed to the objectives of paragraph 2. The impact of these 

experiments on the configuration and cost of the vehicle required to meet the 

objeCiiWa of paragraph 1 above should be defined, and considered in determizto• 

ink the nature of the part of the MOL program whose purpose is as listed in paragraph 2. 

9. I would like to review the results of the work described in paragraphs 4 

through 8 to assure that the results expected from the MOL program are 

commensurate with the estimated coats before release of the FY 1966 fonds 

to the Air Force. It is requested that this review be submitted by May 15, 1965. 
. . 

„ 

1V.R0 APPROVED FOR 

'RELEOE JULY 2015 

10. I believe a reogexaxrdn;;tion. is desirable of the urn maned flights previously 

proposed by the Air For ■:.e. In particular, the ununaa axed flightprogramohoulds 

Make effective use of the TITAN n: !,cD f i ~`:4s. 

b. Provide for steps toward qualification of components of the MOL system. 

c. Contribute to the unmanned operational objectives of the MOL program 

including the test of experimental payloads toward this end. 

U. To preserve the option for proceeding with the MOL on an orderly basis, 

the DOD will employ the FY 1965 MOL funds for work on Pre-Phase I and Phase - 

IA studies and for the work on TITAN III and GEMINI B necessary for launches 

of...”nrrIaTused payloads using the boosters in the presently approved TITAN DI 

research and development program. Funds for proceeding with Phase 133.(narrow.• 

ing of PDP to two contractors) and Phase II (full-scale development) for the 

manned flight development program are included in the 1966 estimates and will. 

not be released until a decision is made to proceed as indicated above. 

12. It is requested that the Air Force fund with industry three prelin.k4v.-ry'design • 

studies of MOL configurations employing TITAN MC plus GEMINI B to meet 

the objectives .of paragraph 1.• The laboratory configurations should include pr • •. • ••• •• , • • • 

visions fer: • • - 

a. Testing concepts' of .assembly of large optical devices in 

b. Servicing large optical space systems. 

c. Testing concepts of assembly and service of large r 

space. 

• 

fi• • 

,c1. Testing high resolution surveillance radar concepts.. 

e. Manned experimentation facilitids. 

The purpose of these studies is to help to provide the Air Force the cost and 

technical information required by paragraphs 4 and 5 above. 

13. The Air Force is requested to choose 3 contractors for the studies of para. 

graph 12 who are qualified to build the laboratory module whether the ,ippreach 

finally selected is: 

a. TITAN IDC plus GEMINI B and lab module. 
• • II. 

••• • N• 

or b. SATURN IB plus. APOLLO CSM with iab ;nodule place Of the,,,i•EK: 

adapter section. 

The choice of. contractors should be used upon: 

a. Grasp of problem. • • •-• • 

. Management and technical resource's. 

c. Integration experience. 

d. Facility availability. 

14. It is the intent of DOD that the final contractor will be selected from the 

three study contractors, without further competition from industry. 

• ..• 

Since the decision to proceed with Phase 1B and II will be made on the basis eon• 

plained earlier, and the possibility therefore exists that the DOD will elect not 

to proceed into Phase 1B and the study work of the contractors in responie 

to Air Force work statements should be fully funded. 

After the implications of the changes discussed above have been studied, I would. 

like to be briefed in detail on the approach the Air Force plans to follow .together 

with a preli-m4Y+2ry program plan which you can support as being suitable "to the 

expanded MOL objectives. A suggested briefing date is 3anuary 

cartnrrecrewse-of-daterrodlunding can be made following this b 

. • , 

• . 

• • ", • • 

KIRCTAPPROVED FOR • 

'RELEASE 1 JULY 2015