Cr) 

EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMAT 

REGRADING; DOD DIR 5200.10 

DOES NOT APPLY 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Pko 

10NOV tcP6S 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

SUBJECT: 8 November 1965 PSAC Reconnaissance Panel Roundtable Discussion on DORIAN 

1. As previously explained to me by Dr. Flax in a KY-9 telecon, 

PSAC had specifically requested this round-table discussion for the 

purpose of ensuring a better understanding of their desires concerning 

the manned and unmanned modes of operation. They had reviewed the 

documents previously prepared by PSAC to reflect these desires, and • 

those which had subsequently been sent to us on this subject, and felt 

that neither fully explained their views. 

9/Z1i0V

-3A8 

2. Those present included: Dr. Hornig (Chairman, PSAC), Dr. Land 

(Chairman, PSAC Reconnaissance Panel), Dr. Shea, Dr. Purcell, 

Dr. Garwin, Dr. Puckett, Dr. James Baker, Dr. Goldberger, Dr. Ling; 

also present were Dr. Steineger, Executive Secretary, Mr. Thomas, BOB, 

Mr. Fink and Mr. Koslov of DDR&E, Dr. Flax, General Berg, Dr. Leonard 

General Martin, Colonel Allen and LtCol Knolle, and Mr. Waggershauser,• 

Mr. Simmons, Dr. Oder, Mr. Sewell, and Mr.. Collinge, all of Eastman 

Kodak Company. 

3. Prior to the round-table discussion, at Dr. Land's request, Colonel 

Allen and LtCol Knolle summarized briefly the general approaches 

being followed in the present efforts to define the unmanned aspects of 

the DORIAN effort. 

4. Dr. Land explained that PSAC feels that the MOL Program must 

include both manned and unmanned capability. He stated that the option 

must be available to continue the program on an unmanned basis if for 

any reason the President should decide to forego any specific manned 

flights at any time. He also said that, in any case, there should be unmanned flights in the on-going program as well as manned flights, 

perhaps as many as four or five unmanned flights for every manned 

flight. Dr. Land stated that the Panel is absolutely convinced that 

both the manned and unmanned versions can make use of a considerable 

Handle via Kam 

Control Systenglink 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BYE-40312-65 

amount of interchangeable major components provided that the original 

design is carried out, from the beginning, on this basis. He further 

stated that the Panel is convinced that the same performance can 

probably be attained in an unmanned mode as can be attained in a manned 

mode provided the necessary attention and effort is devoted to this 

objective. 

5. Dr. Purcell explained that the desire for inclusion of automatic 

features in the manned version as well as the unmanned is based on 

their conviction that the manned version will be better if the automatic 

features are provided than if they are omitted on the basis that the man 

could get along without them. In the Panel's concept, the use of man 

shoiild be predicated on his using or adding to automatic functions which 

are adequate for unmanned operation, rather than replacing these 

functions. 

6. Dr. Shea explained in detail the Panel's present concern, which 

appeared in the subsequent round-table discussion to be the most 

important single point for calling the meeting. This point was that the 

MOL Program must have the manned and unmanned capability designed 

into it from the very inception, rather than designing on the basis of 

manned operations, and then converting this initial design to unmanned 

use. He illustrated this with NASA's experience in the Apollo Project, 

pointing out that they had a good example of how to do it, and another 

example of how not to do it. The example of how to do it was the Lunar 

Excursion Module (LEM), in which the requirement was placed from the 

earliest inception of the project to fly the same basic equipment in unmanned as well as manned modes. Everyone accepted this requirement 

from the beginning, and the solution was relatively simple. The case of 

how not to do it was the Command Service Module (CSM). In this case, 

Shea said that everyone "barrelled along" for awhile, designing everything for a manned-only mode of operation. Later they tried to convert 

this to add the unmanned ca pability, and the result is very complex, example of just what they want us to avoid in the MOL. It was clear 

throughout the discussion that the entire Panel completely indorsed 

Dr. Shea's explanation of their intent. They want the unmanned operations 

designed from the very beginning in every sense. 

7. The Panel made it clear, in discussions by Dr. Land, Dr. Garwin, and 

Dr. Hornig, in response to my questions, that there is some flexibility 

with which their desires can be met. There is no requirement for rapid 

changeover from manned to unmanned operations; this can be done within 

the normal 2-3 month pad cycle. The appearance of the unmanned system 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

2 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 BYE-40312-65 

does not have to be the same as the manned system; that is, it is. 

acceptable that any observer seeing the system on the pad can easily 

distinguish between the two. There was agreement that the Gemini 

capsule may be removed for unmanned operations, and replaced with 

a fairing or with a multi-recovery module, as appropriate. The Panel 

clearly believes that the laboratory module can and should be designed 

so that it can be used in either the manned or unmanned operation. For 

unmanned flights, components not necessary would be omitted; for manned 

flights, some things not useful in any sense to the manned operation also 

would be omitted. The initial design should be for a single laboratory 

vehicle which accommodates both of these capabilities in the simplest and 

most effective way possible. We also may consider an entirely separate 

spacecraft for use in the unmanned mode in lieu of a joint-use laboratory 

module as described above, but in this case, the Panel would desire 

careful cost comparisons. They made it clear, that while they were 

willing to consider this apprdach, it is their present view that the jointuse laboratory module would be much less expensive; and they see no 

reason why it could not be developed. The Panel made it clear, that in 

the unmanned operation, sufficient recovery buckets must be included to 

make the unmanned operation effective, either within the laboratory module, 

or in a separate recovery vehicle module to be used in the unmanned mode. 

It was quite clear that the Panel desires the payload to be the same for 

both the manned and unmanned modes, and wants it designed for both 

modes from the beginning. 

8. Based on the discussion concerning the above points, I got the strong 

impression that the Panel, as such, is interested only in cost comparisons 

between reasonable alternative methods of meeting their desired objective 

of manned/unmanned capability through joint-use of all feasible system 

components; they are not interested in comparisons of any of these with 

any alternative which does not meet their stated desires. I think that 

they will be quite hostile to detailed consideration of any manned-only 

type system; with the flexibility they have given they are convinced that 

their objective can be reached if we orient all program emphasis to this 

objective from the beginning rather than "barrelling along"on any mannedonly approach. Although it was not clear that all members would agree, 

it seemed quite clear that the most vocal of the Panel members are really 

not interested in any manned-only version of the MOL; they are convinced 

that the unmanned version is an indispensable part of the program, and 

can be obtained relatively simply provided the proper attention is given 

to this objective from the beginning. 

9. In answer to my question as to whether the Panel would accept an 

unmanned capability in which the expected performance might be somewhat 

3 Handle via BUM 

Control System 
4 lianeic via BYEAIM 

Control System 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 iiYE-40312-65 

degraded from the expected resolution performance of the manned 

version, Dr. Garwin answered emphatically that it would not. He 

stated that under these circumstances the whole program should be slipped 

until this performance could be expected, or even cancelled. Dr. Hornig 

explained that the nine months presently specified in our guidance as the 

acceptable lag between the first flights of the unmanned version and the • 

manned version was not a "magic" date; the unmanned flight should be 

made as soon as the expected performance warrants. Both he and Dr. 

Land made it clear that the unmanned capability is desired as soon in 

the flight program as possible, even the first MOL flight, if possible, 

but that the expected performance should determine the first flight date 

of either version, whether the first flight of any MOL system is unmanned 

or whether the first unmanned flight is six or bine or 11 months or so after 

the first manned flight. The point was made that the subject of a lag came 

up only because they anticipate that some additional 'time may be required 

to obtain the unmanned performance. Dr. Land repeatedly expressed the 

opinion that it might be more desirable to actually fly the first MOL flight 

unmanned. 

10. Both Dr. Land and Dr. Garwin emphasized several times the importance of obtaining the design resolution performance. The Panel is convinced that the ground resolution must be obtained to justify 

continuance of the program. Dr. Land emphatically pointed out that 

there is absolutely no point in having this expensive program come in 

with results not significantly better than those expected from the 

GAMBIT-CUBE project. 

11. Dr. Garwin emphasized that there should be no separate manned/ 

unmanned competition in the MOL program. He stated that it is the 

Panel' s view that this type of competition would be most unhealthy and 

should be avoided. They want a single program with the capability 

of operating in either mode, with minimum changes between such modes, 

as outlined in the discussion. 

12. Dr. Land stated that there must be continued availability of unmanned 

capability after the initial demonstration but that the amount of this was 

a programming decision outside the purview of his Panel, in which he 

deferred to Dr. Hornig. (Although not stated explicitly, I interpreted 

his reference to mean Dr. Hornig's role not only as the advisor to the 

President, but more specifically his role as chairman of the NRO 

Executive Committee, established under the 11 August 1965 NRO 

Agreement). 
5 Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 BYE-40312-65 

13. Dr. Land stated that the Panel wishes to review the basis on which 

program decisions will be made prior to these decisions actually being 

made. In response to a question as to the next appropriate meeting for 

such a review, Dr. Flax suggested early in January. 

14. Dr. Shea invited us to review the LEM and CSM cases to see 

examples of how to proceed and how not to proceed, and then to have 

NASA discuss with us how they would do these same jobs now if they had it all 

to do over. He emphasized again the Panel's fundamental concern that the 

capability for operating in either mode must be built in from the beginning; 

rather than designing for manned operation and then converting to unmanned 

capability. 

15. The following is a concise summary of what PSAC walits, taking the 

entire discussion in .context: 

PSAC wants a single MOL program which is designed from 

the beginning to provide the option of manned or unmanned 

reconnaissance flights, with minimal changes in the basic 

configuration to convert from one mode to the other, within 

the two to three month pad cycle. These changes may include substitution of a fairing or a multiple recovery package 

for the Gemini capsule when converting from the manned to 

the unmanned mode. PSAC believes that the payload and 

the laboratory module can and should be designed from the 

beginning to be operable in either mode of operation, with 

some laboratory module components unplugged and omitted 

or changed when configuring for one mode or the other, and 

appropriate multiple recovery capability added for the unmanned mode. PSAC is willing to consider a separate unmanned spacecraft which would be substituted for the 

laboratory module in the unmanned mode only if the cost 

comparison is favorable, which they do not expect. They 

want the maximum use of automatic features in the manned 

mode, with the man's functions added or superimposed, 

rather than substituted for such automation. They want 

both modes to be capable of the same resolution performance, 

and they believe that this can be obtained if sufficient effort- is 

placed on this objective from the beginning. They believe that 

MI I 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

VE-40312-65 

the attainment of ground resolution is 

absolutely necessary to justify continuance of the 

program. They want both modes of operation as soon 

as possible in the flight program, and they want the 

first flights of either mode to be determined by the expected attainment of the ground resolution. 

They don't want any competition between manned 

and unmanned modes; they want a single program capable 

of operating in either mode with minimal changes, and 

they want it designed this way from the beginning rather 

than designing a manned version and then adapting or 

converting it for unmanned operation. They expect 

unmanned flights in the program on a regular basis, in 

addition to assuring the option of continuing the entire 

program on an unmanned basis if for any reason a 

decision should be made at any time to discontinue 

manned MOL flights. 

SIGNED 

JOHN L. MARTIN, JR 

Brigadier General, USAF 

Director 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

6