, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

MAR 5 1969 

IRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Dr. Flax: 

We are presently preparing a MOL back-up book for use 

by key OSD and AF officials during the forthcoming 

Congressional Hearings. The BU Book will include significant 

points made by DoD witnesses in previous years, various 

subjects that always come up (cost; alleged duplication with 

AAA'; program status; system fact sheets; etc.). It will 

contain very little BYEMAN material, and what there is will 

be clearly identified as such. 

As presently planned, the BU Book is fairly straightforward and is not a concern. There is one area, however, 

on which I do need some advice. The background follows: 

1. In my informal discussions with MOL-cleared 

Senate and House Committee Staff Members, several of them 

have expressed concern re the increasing difficulty of 

justifying MOL to the full Committees without being more 

specific on the "experiments". They all urge "stronger 

justification" but recognize the dilemma of attempting this 

In non-BYEMAN sessions. 

2. I remember the Clifford/Nitze session with the 

Senate Committee last May wherein the MOL "camera" was 

discussed and described as capable of seeing 

. . . This year, except for the DDR&E, 

a new team will appear on the hill. They probably will need 

some assistance on non-BYEMAN defenses of MOL aimed at 

avoiding embarrassing situations, and also should have a 

disaster plan handy in case one of them is backed into a 

corner and has no choice but to discuss MOL as a reconnaissance 

vehicle. 

In light of the above, it might be appropriate to also 

include in the BU Book guidance on increasingly-classified 

Th 
7-) 

I • ' • 

NRO APPROVED FOR is 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 L

, 

g 

Co51rcl Sy5wra 

levels of MOL information, along with appropraite security 

safeguards to be taken, for use with Colluaittees as 

appropriate. The attached very rough draft will give you an 

idea of what I mean. Any thoughts you have along these lines 

would be appreciated. 

JAMES T. STEWART 

Major General, USAF 

Vice Director, MOL Program 

Atch 

a/ s 

r-7.1 77•7 r?L'71 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• u • • • ...at 4. 

CE'Zs1' :07 11 Systau 

MOL JUSTIFICATION 

BACKGROUND 

Recent informal discussions with MOL-cleared* House and 

Senate Committee Staff Members indicate some concern for the 

forthcoming Hearings re the increasing difficulty of 

justifying MOL to the full Committees without referring to 

its reconnaissance mission. They recognize the problem of 

discussing MOL in light of the stringent security measures 

used to protect knowledge of the fact, extent, and capability 

of the NRP, but nevertheless feel that stronger MOL 

justification may be needed this session. 

The problem exists because only a limited number of 

Committee and Staff members are MOL-briefed. The same 

procedure has been used for MOL, as for other covert DoD and 

CIA undertakings -- namely, brief the Chairman, and ask him to 

designate for complete MOL briefings the minimum number of 

Committee and Staff members he feels are necessary to permit 

the Committee to fulfill its responsibilities. The minimum, 

number recommended to the Chairman normally are the Senior 

Minority Member and Chief Counsel. As a result, only a few 

*"MOL-cleared" or "MOL-briefed" in this paper refers to the 

reconnaissance aspects of MOL. 

!!!nr , i • 

11.1 ■1 Waloil r"N 7 7 

1

41x 7., f 4t717•FT 

r 

\ 

I.J 
La -0'4 4,4 

L. r 6.■ 01111601 

P 0!,enr,1 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

•-•-■ 

r.773 7-znr-7-41 

• . 

C' • . • 

are MOL-briefed on each appropriate Committee (Note: For 

obvious reasons, these informal arrangements with the 

Chairman are handled very discretrsly). 

Prior to Hearings by a Commil-t e, the MOL Program Office 

(Gen _.,.1y) briefs the MOL-cleared 

Staff Me-opers ana LviuL-briefed Committee Members (as desired) 

on the program objectives, status, etc. The Chairman, 

MOL-briefed Committee Members, and Chief Counsel then endeavor 

during the Hearings to steer questions and discussions away 

from the sensitive reconnaissance aspects of MOL. In past 

years, this has worked quite well. 

Recognizing, however, that a Committee or a particular 

member may insist on details from a key OSD or AF official, 

it may become necessary to discuss the MOL reconnaissance 

mission with a full Committee. The following are levels of ° 

information which should be discussed, along with appropriate 

security safeguards to be taken, in increasingly difficult 

situations during Couuidttee Hearings. 

PREPARED STATEMENTS; ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS; ETC. 

The following material should be used as appropriate in 

prepared statements, responses to questions during full-committee 

2 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

L 

hearings, etc. (Note: Although initially classified CONF 

or SECRET, as appropriate, most of the following will 

subsequently be cleared for inclusion in UNCL Hearing 

Transcripts): 

1. The purpose of MOL is to develop both manned and 

unmanned space hardware unique to Defense purposes. 

2. In the process of operating and testing such 

payload hardware, a great deal will be learned about the extent 

of man's capabilities in space for military purposes. 

3. Like most DoD major R&D space projects (VELA; 

Defense Satcom; TRANSIT; MIDAS, etc.), which unlike ground-based 

development efforts usually provide an early useful service 

to the strategic and tactical forces, MOL is also expected to 

provide a useful Defense support function at the outset. 

This support function appears to be of,such value as to justify 

the program cost. 

4. MOL does not carry bombs or weapons of any kind. 

MOL in no way abrogates the space treaty. 

5. The NASA AAP Orbital Workshop cannot accommodate 

the MOL experimental equipment (the Workshop cannot be flown 

low enough for the necessary prolonged periods). MOL, on the 

other hand, could meet a limited number of the AAP objectives 

if the DoD experimental equipment were removed. 

. .. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

6. MOL makes maximum use of already-developed 

Gemini, Apollo, Titan III, and other DoD/NASA unmanned systems. 

7. MOL cost has grown from the initial estimates 

for four basic reasons: 

a. More mature experimental hardware was planned 

for the initial flights; 

b. The development of that hardware is taking 

longer than originally anticipated. 

c. Less-than-optimum funding in FY 68. and FY 69 

caused stretchout; and the MOL Program today is dollar-paced. 

Note that Congress has appropriated all funds requested of 

it for MOL. 

d. More precise cost estimates were obtained 

during detailed program definition and contract negotiation 

phases. 

INCREASED COMMITTEE PRESSURE FOR MORE SPECIFIC MOL MISSION INFO: 

1. Ask to go "off the record". 

2. Caution any non-Committee government Legislative 

Liaison people present that the following is highly classified, 

sensitive information -- and no notes are to be taken or 

subsequent memos written. 

4 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

3. Identify MOL as a "surveillance" system which, by 

virtue of its polar orbit, will have overhead access to the 

entire world. MOL contains a very-advanced, highly-classified 

sensor designed to be operated at orbital altitudes on the 

order of 70-80 miles. The technical intelligence information 

obtained is expected to be of great value to DoD force 

planning (R&D and Production) and operational employment, and 

may be highly valuable in any future Strategic Arms Limitation 

Agreement that might be reached. . . . Emphasize that MOL is 

not a bomb-in-orbit. Point out reason for DoD extreme 

reluctance to admit MOL is a surveillance system is the 

international "delicacy" of this subject. 

FULL COMMITTEE INSISTS ON SENSOR/MISSION SPECIFICS: 

1. Ask Chairman to have a few words in private with him. 

Then ask if he really wishes his full Cowiaittee to probe 

further into this subject. If answer is affirmative, proceed 

as follows with the full Committee. 

2. Request to remain completely "off the record", no 

notes, etc. 

5 
'NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 f • 

3. Request that the Hearing Room be cleared of everyone 

except the Committee members, MOL-cleared Committee Staff 

members, and MOL-cleared DoD witnesses. 

4. Request Chairman to have the Chief Counsel keep 

record of all present in the room. State that what you are 

about to discuss is highly sensitive, should not be discussed 

outside the Hearing Room, that indiscrete disclosure could have 

grave repercussions both present and future for the U.S., etc. 

5. Describe MOL camera in layman-terms as world's 

largest, high resolution camera Over to be flown in either 

aircraft or space vehicles. Will have 6-foot diameter "lenses" 

and a ■ focal length. Will provide 

resolution photography from satellite altitudes -- e.g. possible 

to DoD plans to fly about 

two MOL missions per year for technical intelligence on SinoSoviet strategic and tactical weapons systems, etc. MOL 

might photograph as many as 2,500 Sino-Soviet targets in a 

single 30-day mission. • • • Point out this super resolution 

is not needed for broad National Intelligence Estimates 

(e.g. numbers of ICBM's, missile firing submarines, strategic 

bombers, etc.) -- but is needed to determine precisely how capable 

6 
R. •• &m.. al kt 4.11 

S,;stcni 

NRO-APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 'JULY 2015 

the Sino-Soviet offensive/defensive weapons are so that U.S. 

Armed Forces can be planned and utilized accordingly. Note 

that a sizable DDR&E/DIA study effort in 1968 concluded that 

the value of such info to DoD operations and decisions would 

be worth the cost of MOL. 

6. Finally, conclude session by repeating request not 

to discuss or write about MOL as a reconnaissance vehicle 

outside the Hearing Room.