NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE1 JULY 2015 --SECREL 

HEADQUARTERS 

A AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND ••• 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE: ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE 

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20331 

Office of the Commander 

General J. P. McConnell 

Chief of Staff 

United States Air Force 

Washington, D. C. 

12 JUN 1965 

=====a3 

--c m Dear General McConnell: aBilill 

ci` I have recently reviewed in detail the proposed 

co program which has resulted from the MOL studies of the 

m past eighteen months. As you are aware, the specific N. 

m objectives of this program are now heavily oriented 

toward an early operational capability in reconnaissance 

and other missions of military significance. I am sure --......... you agree that this program is of unparalleled importance to the Air Force and that every action must be 

taken which will contribute to its success. 

Our studies have shown that the development task 

is clearly feasible. It is also clear that this task 

is a complex one which will demand the very best talent 

and experience in the industry. The Air Force must 

assemble the most competent and experienced overall 

team to conduct this development effort, employing 

unique capabilities wherever they exist. 

I have reviewed the report and findings of the 

MOL System Source Selection Board and concur in the 

recommendation of the Board and of the Commander, Space 

Systems Division that contractor A be selected to 

conduct the program definition phase. While contractor 

A clearly offers the best overall technical program and 

management approach, the proposal of contractor D is 

superior in a few important respects that bear on mission 

capability. Comparing contractors A and D, one finds 

that contractor D's design study strongly complements 

that of contractor A. This suggests that it may be 

particularly advantageous to the government to include 

contractor D in the program in those areas where his 

I

—,........—..,-....-...........,,,-.-.... A

EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATTC Ith4BADtn,j; 

DOD DIR. 5200.10 DOE,; NOT APPLY 

tiANOLE VIA Bygiftr 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

Copy / of 2 cys 

Page 1 of 2 pages 

BYE 36186-65 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

capabilities will strengthen the development team. 

Examples of areas where contractor D's capabilities 

may be advantageously employed are: 

a. Data retrieval. This is a key element in 

the reconnaissance mission requiring the best of 

existing technology and capability. 

b. Engineering design of the experiment module 

and interface with the optical payload. Existing 

experience can assist in early achievement of the best 

optical performance. 

c. Drive mechanism for the alternate optical 

system. As you know, there are two candidate 

optical configurations, each with specific advantages and disadvantages. In one alternative, the 

optical system is mounted vertically in a separate 

module which is stabilized and controlled from the 

laboratory vehicle by a drive mechanism. Mechanisms 

of the size required for MOL will require the best 

capability and experience in the design and operation 

of attitude stabilization and precise control of large 

space vehicles. 

d. Certain aspects of the command and control 

of the orbital vehicle. Here also existing experience will promote early achievement of the best 

system performance. 

The resulting team will combine the contractor 

who has provided an outstanding management and cost 

control plan with a contractor who has current 

experience and understanding of space vehicle operation, as well as expertise in handling a complex 

interface with large optical subsystems. In addition, 

these contractors together possess the most extensive 

aggregate of existing testing facilities that are 

available for support of the program. 

If you agree with the potential advantages of 

this course of action, I will develop a plan and 

management approach for allocating specific tasks. 

Action can then be taken to initiate discussions with 

the two contractors involved. 

cerely, 

t()R 

,afAkSyS Cy / of 2 cys 

Page 2 of 2 pages 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE: ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE 

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20331 

Office of the Commander 

25 June 1965 

General John P. McConnell 

Chief of Staff 

United States Air Force 

spipmaTWashington, D.C. 

Ampe, m 

maw ma Dear General McConnell: 

o .T1 In accordance with my letter to you of 12 June 

11111r(Byeman 36185-65), the allocation of specific tasks 

T/in the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Program to contractors A and D has been examined, together with the 

management interfaces involved. The primary 

objective of this review has been to define the 

strongest and most responsive industrial team to conduct the development and test program. The purpose 

of this letter is to summarize the results of this 

effort and to emphasize that further progress will 

~ require discussions with the contractors involved. 

EINE 

The tasks to be accomplished divide most readily 

into three major categories dealing with the 

laboratory vehicle, the sensor module, and the pay- 

=mmumme load or sensor package itself. A table identifying 

MIMI! the most significant tasks in each category is 

attached. Contractor A would, of course, be the 

laboratory vehicle contractor and Contractor D would 

be assigned responsibility for the sensor module. 

The specific roles and responsibilities of each of 

these contractors and the sensor contractor are as 

follows: 

a. The laboratory vehicle contractorwill be 

the system integration contractor. He will be 

responsible for structural analysis of the entire 

system through the launch phase and the successful 

operation through the 30-day mission of all elements 

P. A except those actually contained in the sensor module. 

He will be responsible for system documentation, 

integrated testing, and launch site management. 

i-T;;)M .!,.!;T!,!ATT(7, 

Page 1 of 3 pages PLY 

M.I01011.7W . Copy / of 2 cys 

DORIAN SAFSL BYE 36586-65 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

b. The sensor module contractor will be 

responsible for receiving requirements from the 

sensor designer and the System Program Office. He 

will define, design, and engineer a discrete 

structural carrier for the sensor package and 

associated crew displays. He would also assemble 

and test the sensor module elements and prepare 

them for launch. The sensor module contractor 

would provide interface requirements to the laboratory vehicle contractor for his own equipment as 

well as those from the sensor contractor. 

c. The sensor contractor will be responsible 

for the design, fabrication and test of the sensor 

elements and package. The sensor contractor will 

interface principally with the sensor module 

contractor. 

A number of alternate management arrangements 

involving associate and subcontractor roles have 

been considered. The laboratory vehicle and 

sensor contractor will be associate contractors. 

The advantages to be gained in dealing with the 

sensor module contractor as an associate far 

outweigh any disadvantages attributable to an 

additional associate in the contractor structure. 

In addition to a rapid start-up capability, this 

approach allows the Air Force to apply existing 

special technical capability and experience directly 

to mission objectives. The resultant well-defined 

interfaces will allow the Air Force significantly 

more flexibility as other MOL missions are defined 

and other payload contractors brought into the 

system. Finally, it permits that compartmentalization necessary to minimize the number of sensitive 

clearances required and enhance security control. 

In summary, further review and analysis has 

confirmed the potential advantages of including 

contractor D in the program to perform specific 

tasks which take full advantage of his special 

capability and experience. Moreover, it is clear 

that this arrangement can be implemented effectively. 

Further definition is contingent on management 

discussions with the contractors involved. These 

Page 2 of 3 pages 

Copy 1 of 2 cys 

DORIAN SAFSL BYE 36586-65 

ANWH 

fifitittiA 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

discussions may indicate that some adjustment in 

the responsibilities described above is desirable. 

I am prepared to initiate such discussions as soon 

as the identity of the contractors involved is 

announced. 

Sincerely, 

el-S'/9F 

B. A. SCHRIEVER 

71feneral, USAF Commander 

1 Atch 

Page 3 of 3 pages 

Copy / of 2 cys 

DORIAN SAFSL BYE 36586-65 
z 0 C:1 

MOL CONTRACTOR TASKS 

5 

LYi 

0 

ca 

Optical System 

PayloadOperational Modes 

OnBoard Film Processorand 

Viewer 

Film Cassetts 

RecceSimulation Requirements 

Payload AGE Payload Tests Pointingand TrackingScope 

Programming&ComputerReq. 

Alignment Equipment 

Camera(s) 

Point Sensor 

Module 

TVLink 

Point with Tracking 

Mirror 

TrackingMirror 

Drive 

Optical Relay 

MissionModuleRequirements 

(Mech, Elec, Thermal) 

Operational Requirements 

Payload Data Handling 

(DataLink) (Re-entry Vehicles) 

RecceSimulator MissionAGE 

PayloadIntegration Tests 

PayloadControl Station(Pointing 

TrackingScope-Payload Integration) 

(DataDisplayand Controls) 

Computer Programming 

Pointwith Tracking 'ointensor Mirror Module 

Largeimba 

Powered Gyros 

Control Cab 

Expanding Struc- Expanding Structure ture Environment Environmental 

Control Control 

co c.) a) A 

co 

a) 4.4 U2 ›.2 

Cn .-1 c'S 

k 

> 

0 

cri 

o 2 

as 

cl, 0 

-s-a 

CO 

0 

El 

-i.a 

4 

;r41 

44 fi> t

5 k 4a" O 

U 

0.? 

bn 

:g 

as Pi 

El 

0., 

Pi ti)

E 

CD 

El 

g 

Ps •,4 4.1 

2 ca 

ca tn" 

CD .--1 to 

k 0 4-■ 8 E w k 

-1) CD 4..) 

 el 

`" 0 c-. 5 

k -1•J E <4 C.) 

0 63) W 

1/2 ri cn r1 ce ,_ ... ._ .0 

,-1 IrE 2 62 

4a) 

E •re 0 CY 

w 

ry 0 

a.) .,.4 -1.4 44 0 Cd k 

fal bA 0 

P > 0 ct 0 

0 Z 04 
REPLY TO 

ATTN OF: MSF -1 4 itiN 1965 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

HEADQUARTERS 

AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20331 

smumm Source Selection Board Activities 

TO: General Schriever 

e. As a result of General Maxwell's briefing to the 

Air Council, a small group of cleared people is being 

established to "review the documentation of the Source 

Selection Board." Apparently this group will be composed 

of me as Chairman, Colonel Snavely (DCS/S&L), Mr. Fine 

(Comptroller), Mr. Ross (SAFRD), and representatives from 

Assistant Secretary Charles and Assistant Secretary Marks' 

offices, as yet unnamed. At this point it is not clear 

exactly what this group is to do or to 211hiigylifiiel 

ur 

Copy / of 2 cys 

Page 1 of 2 pages 

FORGING MILITARY SPACEPOWER 

• 

BYE 36186-65 

1. Attached is a suggested letter which has been 

prepared in accordance with your instructions. Its 

preparation has involved discussions with General 

Maxwell, Dr. Leonard, General Ritland, General Keeling, 

General Carter, Colonel Hedrick, and Colonel Carter. 

General Ritland, Colonel Carter and I, however, are 

the only ones who have seen this letter in final form. 

I believe I appropriately reflect the view of all three 

of us when I recommend that this letter be used as a 

talking paper instead of being transmitted formally to 

General McConnell. My reasons for this follow: 

a. The idea of integrating the two strongest 

contractors into a single team is indeed attractive. 

Its implementation may be quite difficult. One example 

is as follows. Contractor A is strong in management 

and cost control; contractor D is strong in certain 

technical areas. Hence, it seems logical that contractor 

D be a subcontractor to contractor A. Contractor D may 

not care much for this position; at least he has not in 

the past. Further, this could make direct access betwee 

the SSD/Aerospace SPO and contractor D •ui d fficult. 

b. Another point to consider is that contractor D 7 may not in fact be the best contractor in the country 

to perform the particular tasks that we have outlined in 

4 the accompanying letter. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

..• 

d. Dr. McMillan has indicated that Dr. Brown's 

view of one solution to the two versus one laboratory 

contractor is not to announce a winner but to enter 

into negotiations with the top two contractors with the 

intention of selecting the better deal for the government and proceeding with a single contractor for the 

definition phase. 

2. With all of the above clutter appearing on the 

scene, I feel that further discussions may be appropriate prior to your actually dispatching a letter such 

as that appended. 

EglipmeigHARRY L EVANS 

Brigadier General, USAF 

Dep Comdr for Space (M0L) 

1 Atch Pyrio 

a/s 

2 

Copy / of 2 cys 

Page 2 of 2 pages 

BYE 36186-65