"Yr 

AMES T. STEWART 

Major General, USAF 

Vice Director, MOL Program 

I 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

0 

OFFICE OP THE SECRETARY 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

18 June 1968 

Dr. Flax: 

Per our discussion, attached is a talking paper on 

MOL/AAP considerations. The'paper, which should be viewed 

as a rather preliminary cut at the subject: 

1. Describes the MOL and AAP Programs (only the 

Orbital Workshop portion of the latter) in reasonable 

detail; 

FAH7or '. 

2, 'Discusses the possible use by NASA of MOL 

hardware in lieu of the Orbital Workshop and concludes that 

MOL, unless considerably modified, could not fulfill key AAP 

objectives; 

3. Discusses-the possible use of Apollo and AAP 

hardware for MOL purposes and concludes that only the 

Saturn IB (in lieu of the T-IIIM) might be desirable if 

"free" and if there were no follow-on MOL or growth in MOL 

on-orbit weight. 

.4. Infers that neither MOL nor the OWS portion of. 

AAP will be terminated and proposes a gradual unification of 

the two -- to limit the OWS to 5 or 6 launches; reorient 

marginal OWS experiments to support a possible 60-90 day 

MOT: and any future Saturn V-sized space station; and consider 

the NASA use of MOL vehidles and Apollos to fill the future 

gap between the OWS and the next generation, large, long 

duration, space station. 

5. Discusses management considerations and other 

aspects of the above. 

At this stage, I guess we need some advice. as to any 

desirable next step. 
44RO APRROVED FOk 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 : 

• . , 

!KEEN 

Cor.ltrd f!,y;,:tom • • • .• • 

:4 

a1711.11:141 

DI :ilia via D1111411- 

Cc trot Systam. 

Pago'.1... of g243agos 

of oopios d

9AIPS.L; ConirolNelisatiwriea." 

. • • .111 Lib ' 

' •:;,` 
NROIAPPROVEC) FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

w!itnyt:!T 

U 

IStadj 

Cld;) via DIVAN 

Card Cyatora 

Manned Orbiting Laboratory Program:. . Y. 

Use of AAP Hardware for MOL.. 

lizriel!0 via DYES IAN 

Ceritrc! SvR?fro 
• Itsdia vla MAN 

C053Ci 2%03 

1■1RO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1,JULY 2015 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Severe budget limitations in FY 69 plus general 

Congressional/public criticism of the parallel and apparently 

duplicative MOL and Orbital Workshop Programs have required 

that Don and NASA again assure that the continuation of 

separate programs is still valid and that the two efforts are 

as correlated, coordinated, and cost-effective as possible., 

This paper examines the two programs in that general 

atmosphere. 

The sections which follow describe the MOL and AAP' 

(Orbital Workshop portion only) Pro ams; discuss the 

.!,possible use of MOL hardware by NASA and the possible use 

Apoilo/AAP hardware for MOL purposes; propose a gradual 

"unification"and closer correlation'of the MOL and AAP. 

Programs; and discuss various management considerations 

other aspects.:, 

via 

Ccarci Sptca 
flaneile via DIVAN 

Control System, 

NRO APrROVED FOR 

RELEASEI JULY: 2015 

• 

MANNED ORBITING LABORATORY PROGRAM 

. MOL Baseline Technical Objectives: 

The principal objective of the MOL Program is to sure 

or-better resolution photography of significant 

targets in denied areas for technical, strategic, and tactical. 

purposes and, at the same time, to determine the extent of 

man's capability to operate, adjust, maintain,, and process 

the output of complex military equipment in space. The 

objective is to be reached through the development of the ' 

necessary high resolution optical technology and flight 

vehicles for either manned or unmanned use.:.. 

. Flight Hardware and Mission Profile:,,. 

1. The Manned System: 

The major elements of the manned space vehicle include:. 

the GEMINI B; a LABORATORY MODULE consisting of a pressurized 

compartment and an unpressurized service section housing 

oxygen, helium, hydrogen, fuel cells and attitude control 

and auxiliary propulsion systems; and a MISSION MODULE which 

houses the optical, assembly. 

The GEMINI B, LABORATORY MODULE and MISSION MODULE 

will be launched as an integral. unit' by a TITAN IIIM booster 

ricra), via CUlli1N 

EcOrci System 

Page 4 of 64-2,pages 

Copy --- of Y- c_ Lies 

StAI+SL Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

) 

6.i J 

trrrIt'S seri .641: 

Cutral S.Istora 

and carry sufficient expendables to function on-orbit for at 

least 30 days. This vehicle will weigh approximately 

29,500 pounds at injection into the normal 80 x 180 nautical 

mile, elliptical, 90°-inclination polar orbit. 

The two MOL astronauts will ride in the GEMINI B 

during launch; transfer through the tunnel to the pressurized 

laboratory after injection into orbit and work in a 

"shirtsleeve" two-gas (oxygen and helium at 5 psi) atmosphere, 

, during the 30-day reconnaissance mission; transfer back to:. 

the GEMINI B along with the exposed film at the end of the 

mission; detadh from the LABORATORY/MISSION MODULE and reenter 

the earth's atmosphere for landing in a predesignated 

recovery area in either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans. 

LABORATORY/MISSION MODULE will:then be de-orbited into the 

South Pacific area, burning up during reentry.. 

2. The Unmanned System: 

The major elements of the unmanned space vehicle 

include: the SUPPORT MODULE housing s...x.film reentry 

vehicles; MODIFIED LABORATORY MODULE without life support. 

. , 

equipment and manual controls;:,and the MISSION MODULE housi 

the optical assembly. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 t .-01,E1P.N 7

Control Siistzu 

The SUPPORT MODULE, MODIFIED LABORATORY MODULE, and 

MISSION MODULE Will b• launched as an integral unit by a 

'TITAN-IIIM booster and carry sufficient expendables to 

function on orbit for approximately 56 days. , This vehicle 

will weigh approximately 27,400 pounds at injection into the e. 

normal 80 x 180 nautical mile, elliptical, 90°-inclination 

,polar orbit. 

Upon completion of photography, film will be transferred 

sequentially to the reentry capsules, one of which will be 

returned to earth approximately once each 7-10 days 

(depending on the operational situation or "health" of the 

vehicle) and retrieved in the air near Hg.Taii. After recovery`:,.'' 

of the sixth reentry vehicle the MODIFIED LABORATORY/MISSION 

MODULE will be de-orbited into the South Pacific'area 

burning up' during reentry. 

. .Ground Environment: 

1. Government/Industrial Base: 

The MOL Progran has, both open and covert management 

channels, under the joint executive management of the 

Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of the National 

Reconnaissance Office (DNR0). 

I ; - • 

;..14 

Ecr;Ello via 

Control System.. 
,14 tid 

11 4^ rITUrVt' 

NRO APPROVED FOR fiL.ti 1 .V y LNii ir4 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Other participating government agencies include the: 

• Air Force Satellite Control Facility; 6595th Aerospace Test 

Wing; Western Test Range; Pacific Missile Range; 1st Strategic_ 

Aerospace Division; National Range Division; and the 

Department of Defense Manager for Manned Space Flight Support 

Operations. 

The design, development, manufacture and test of. the 

MOL system is on contract with five principal Associate 

Contractors, who as of June 1, 1968 had approximately 

12,000 direct and indirect personnel assigned to the MOL'. 

Program. A peak of approximately 18,000 will be reached in , 

late FY 69 or FY 70 (depending on. FY 69 fundieg). The . 

contractors and their responsibilities are: 

a. The Douglas Division of the McDonnell-Douglas 

Corporation who provides tha Orbiting Laboratory and the 

exterAal structure of the Mission Module which houses: the 

photographic, system. 

b. The,McDonnell Division of the McDonnell-Douglas. 

. • • 

Corporation who builds the Geraini B, used as the ascent 

vehicle forthe'crew :and:thereturn'vehicle'for both crew 

)7:;- 

ile.ez•N ff rimi„Am vit.4 11 t 

rap 4L of if..2-ilizos 

Copy o.1 .4g.. copies 

.Control 

Contici System 
'•NIRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

. The General Electric Company who provides the 

control Jolt.= and mounting struCtura for tba large tracking 

mirror in the Mission Module, most of the photographic mission H 

related control equipment in the Orbiting Laboratory, software 

for mission accomplishment, system integration functions for 

the photographic payload, and data return capsules for the 

unmanned system. 

d. The Eastman Kodak Company who is responsible for 

the optical and camera elements. Included in the Eastman 

Kodak contract'is'provision for approximately $30 million 

of industrial facilities built and equipped specifically for 

the MOL Program. 

e. The Martin-Marietta Corporation and its TITAN-III 

associates (Aerojet General, AC Electronics United Technology 

Corporation, and. Spacecraft Incorporated) who are providing 

the, TITAN-IIIM launch vehicle and booster launch services. 

. Launch Facility: 

SLC-6 at.VandenberglAFB.' 

• Command. Control and Communication::.`'_ 

Satellite Control Facility. 
4-.1771r1 

lifinzliz via 

CcraTel System 

• Page _7_ or 11_2...rictElos 

Copy -- 

SUSI Control. 

. • • 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE l'JULY 2015 

it71 }7.7V1117/, 4.1.1.Ne 1 

• Codrei Ssjstara 

Recovery: 

Department of Defense Manager for. Manned Space Flight 

Support Operations, and recovery aircraft of Satellite Control 

Facility (for unmanned operations). 

. Schedule 

Booster/Gemini Qualification Flights . 

Manned All 

Nov '70 

April '71 

Aug '71 

Jan. 72 

May 

Sept '!72 

•Jan .1 73: 

• Funds 

Baseline MOL Fund:Requirements for the Engineering Phase 

which began September 1966 are as follows:!: 

FY 69 

$722 Million $600 Million 

. Realigned Program 

Because less than optimum funds apparently will be 

-available in FY 69, a proposal has been made to defer all 

development effort on the unmanned system from FY 69 to FY 70. 

A fourth manned flight would be added to the program and 

inserted into the flight 'schedule 'prior' to' the two unmanned 
Feb '71 

July '71 

Dec '71 

May '72 

• Oct '72 

Mar '73 

r,),(:")•"' r !"1 

; • 

,!•.;■ 

1:4,:t+C.:4 via LlWort 

Ccatrd Syctsm • esoL, i"ClI. rT 

'WO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

F-7 

rin.n1V,1 

Via 

Ccild Systo 

flights. By concentrating on the manned effort in FY 69, 

the maximum return Could be obtained from the available funds 

and the effects of fiscal restraints lessened. The schedule... 

and fund requirements that might result from such a realignment of the program are covered below: 

1. Schedule 

Booster/Gemini Qualification Flights 

Manned All Up Flights 

Unmanned Flights - first to be scheduled 

in July or August 1973 if work is 

reinitiated in FY 1970. 

2. Funds 

Fund requirements for the realigned program are 

estimated as follows (These cover only the scheduled six launches. 

If the unmanned effort is reinitiated in FY 70, appropriate 

"delta" increments are required in FY 70 and beyond, and the 

total cost increases to approximately $3.1 billion): 

FY 68 & Prior 

$722 Million 

FY 69 Total Program 

$530 Million $2.71 Billion 

Pago la 132 451..pages 

Copy _L. of co tos. 

WM Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

III. APOLLO APPLICATIONS PROGRAM 

A. Technical Objectives: 

The stated objectives of the Apollo Applications Program 

(AAP) are: 

1. Obtaining information.an how best to sustain or improve~ 

the effectiveness of man in space in terms of biomedical con 

siderations, living conditions, mobility, and work station 

designs. 

2. The achievement of long-duration operations. 

3. The conduct of scientific, technical, and applications 

tasks with the aim of assessing, 

increasing man's capabilities for 

well as the acquisition of useful 

experimenting with, and 

performing these tasks as 

data and results. 

The Apollo. Applications includes three separate 

elements: 

1. The low earth orbital phase using the empty hydrogen' 

tank of the S•IVB stage as an orbital workshop; 

2. Lunar exploration missions; and 

3. A large ground outfitted workshop employing a,Saturn V 

as the launch vehicles.' 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

U 

cit.;;;t Vas 

":".•„. •■ • 

14. LAJLa 

The latter two elements, lunar exploration and the • 

Saturn V "dry workshop, are not discussed in this paper since 

they are'not pertinent to the current MOL/Orbital Workshop 

*:! 

considerations in FY.69. 

.Mission Profile: 

The basic AAP mission concepts are to: 

1. •Use launch vehicles and spacecraft developed for,Apollo. 

2. Accomplish space revisit, resupply 

3. Use an open-ended mission philosophy. 

'4. Minimize development of major new hardware. 

In the low earth orbital element, the program can be described 

in two categories. The first category includes five Saturn IB 

launches for which contractual action is in progress.. The second" 

includes three additional Apollo CSM launches to revisit the 

orbital workshop (these presently are only in the planning stage). 

In the first category, the initial mission consists of the 

AAP-1 and AAP-2 launches which together are designed to place 

the orbital workshop in operation. AAP-2 is an unmanned vehicle 

which will precede AAP-1 AAP-2 will be launched on an inclination of 28.9 degrees into a circular orbit at an altitude of 

230 n.n. . Following the successful orbit of AAP-2, the manned 

:73 tr;a DIE:71TEll 

v;;■)Ltitli 
man and his spacecraft to function effectively for long periods 

of time in space.. 

, 

•r1 • •"r,lt 

• 3.4 .• .v Lia..11.11 

• 

...I -14 

• • 

• 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 AI—A11.4 

AAP-1 will be launched into orbit at a time and azimuth to 

facilitate rendezvous with AAP-2, the orbital workshop. The 

orbital workshop will use the empty hydrogen tank of the 

S-IVB stage (after its use as a launch vehicle stage). The 

manned AAP-1 (an Apollo Command and Service Module (GSM) modi 

fied . for extended mission duration) will then rendezvous with 

the orbital workshop. The three man crew will outfit the 

workshop for living and working and .initiate the experimental 

phase of the mission. The duration of the mission will be 

"open-ended" for up to four weeks. At the completion of this . 

Terlod, the workshop will be stored in orbit for reactivation, 

and reuse on subsequent missZons. 

The next mission (AAP-3A) will be ,a revisit to the 

orbital workshop by a three man crew launched on a Saturn IB 

and employing the Apollo and the CSM. The purpose of this 

mission is to flight test the concept of reusing a habitable 

.space structure after a period of several months of unattended 

operation in orbit. The planned duration of this mission is 

56 days, with the objective of progressively extending mission 

length, to systematically test and evaluate the ability of both 
plex .34 at Kennedy Space Center: 

.• 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The third mission involves the orbiting of AAP-3 and 

AAP-4 for a solar astronomy mission. This mission uses the 

S-IVB Orbital Workshop as a base of operations for the manned 

Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) solar observatory. One Saturn IB 

(AAP-3) will launch a three man Apollo CSM configured for. a' 56; 

day mission and 'a second Saturn IB (AAP-4) will launch the ATM 

(on a modified LEM) with its payload of solar instruments. 

After the CSM and the LEM rendezvous and dock, with the orbital 

workshop, the crew reactivates the workshop and begins the in 

orbit phase of the mission. This' mission will be a test of. 

equipment and operating conCepts for future manned and unmanned 

astronomical observatories. 

In addition to the above,,aseries of three more launches 

is being planned for subsequent'revisits to the orbital workshop. These missions will employ the Apollo/CSM configuration, 

with a maximum mission duration of 56 days. Iy 

C. Flight Hardware 

1. AAP-1 is a manned vehicle' consisting Of an uprated 

Saturn 1 launch vehicle and a Block II Apollo Command and Service., 

' . 

Module (CSM). It, will' be launched after AAP-2 from launch con-. 
• • , 

t NRO AFIPRbVED FOR 

RELEASE1 JULY 2015 

2. AAP-2 is an unmanned vehicle consisting of an uprated 

Saturn I launch vehicle, an airlock, a multiple docking adaptei 

and a nose fairing. Ic.will be launched before AAP-1 from, 

launch complex 37B at KSC into a 230 n.m. circular orbit at, an 

inclination of 28:9°. 

3. AAP-3A is a manned vehicle composed of a Saturn IB 

launch vehicle 'a modified Apollo Block II CSM and resupply' 

, . • .• 

. , • 

provisions as needed to sustain a 56-day mission. 

4. -AAP-3 will have the same vehicle configuration as 

AAP-3A. 

5. AAP-4 is an unmanned vehicle composed of a Saturn IB 

launch vehicle, the ascent stage of 'an Apollo Lunar Module. 

and the Astronomical Telescope Mount. (ATM). It will be 

launched at a time and azimuth to ;facilitate rendezvous 

the CSM from AAP-3. 

6. It is important to understand that a very large pro-, 

portion of the . AAP flight hardware for the low earth orbit mis m. , 

sion is already available or is being fabricated at this time. 

Based on data presented to Congress this year by NASA in support 

of the FY-69 Budget Hearings and NASA, reports" dated May 68, the 

following is a summary status:* 

. • • 

'1 

r'7r^.11•a 

1' LI 

:411 
'NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

. , 

3

j

j;.7.1.11. 

• 0 IA 11 

• t.in r • ppj 

01. 

a. Saturn IB.. Twelve of these vehicles have been : 

procured. Four have been launched. Vehicle 205 is scheduled 

for launch late this year as part of the Apollo qualification ,' 

program. Vehicle 206 is- in checkout.' •Vehicles 207 .through 

• 212 are in storage or completing fabrication. Two additional 

• vehicles, 213 and 214, will be in manufacturing by the end of 

`FY 68,*with the long lead items for 215 and 216 ordered, and, 

a future planned production rate of two vehicles per year. 

b. Command and Service Modules, Block II. Twenty 

CSMs are on order (Flight Vehicles 101-119). Vehicles 101 

through 105 are substantially complete with the remaining vehicles' 

in various stapi of completion. Vehicle 101 is scheduled for 

launch late this year as part of the Apollo qualification pro- , • 

gram on Saturn IB number 205Atthepresent;T:six CSMs are 

allocated to the AAP'programfor modification for'long-dUration 

(56 . days) missions. 

Ground Environment:. 

Government/Contractor Industrial Base:_ 

North American Rockwell - )

Command Service Module. 

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp 'Lunar.Module. 

Lockheed Aircraft Corp - Astronomical Telescope Mount. 

• -" 

Vy4t.Ceill 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

. 

-.7•• 

. 

Chrysler Space Division - Saturn IA Launch Vehicle 

at Michoud. 

McDonnell Douglas - (Douglas Division) SIVB stage 

and Orbital Workshop. (McDonnell Division) Air Lock. 

Martin Marietta - Systems Integration. 

Boeing Co - Saturn Vat Michoud. 

,Marshall Space Flight .Center Launch Vehicle Test, 

-Multiple Docking Adapter. 

Kennedy Space Center - Launch Operations, Launch Support.. 

Manned Spacecraft Center Spacecraft Crew Training, 

Mission Operations. , , 

Office of Manned SpaceFlight. Total Program Management, 

Launch Facility: 

Kennedy Space Center. 

Command, Control and Communication:, 

Manned Spacecraft Center for Mission control. 

::`Goddard Space Flight Center for Computer . Center. 

World-Wide NASA. Manned Flight Ground Control Network. 

Recovery: 

.Department •of 'Defense 'Manager, for Manned Space Flight 

Support:... 

M 

I N• 

• • • Jui 
•-••!•••••••••?"•"r•••••••Vrrn•:mrasirc -rmrs••• 

s , 

:NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• s 

E71213 1171.:;!i1:1 

• 

E. Schedule AAP (Approved). 

Plight Mission #1 

AAP-1/AAP-2 

Flight Mission #2 

CY 1970: 

AAP-3A 

Flight Mission #3 

Y1970 

AAP-3/AAP,74' CY .1971 

Funding AAP 

FY70- 

FY67 FY68 FY69 Beyond 

Research & Development 80.0 253.2 395.0 . Unknown 

Facilities 1.2* 2.3*‘. 2.0 

Administrative Opns 8 . 7* 28 . 2* 35.0 

Total 89.9 283.7 432.0 

*Represent proportionate share of MSF budget estimates 

based on AAP percentage of all MSF R&D (SourCe: 

Dr. Mueller statement before the.Committee.on 

Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the U.S.!Senate 

The totals do not include Saturns,. Apolloss'ILEWs;°'- 1 • etc.' funded .in. the' basic APollo'Program.: 

' . 

3., 

. • 

:''Ptige./.1r-or.V.2.4pagoc 

• Lc% 

.zCoatrol 
v1,1 .1, 7r •

51:,01 

414 • &mai

4 

ail 

The MOL System can be viewed in three general configurations' 

(and time frames) when evaluating its potential usefulneSs for . 1 ,. 

fulfilling AAP objectives. These are: 

a. the present'30-day manned space vehicle, less the 

camera system; 

b. the present 30-day manned space vehicle, less the 

camera system but modifie4 for 40-60 day on-orbit durations;' 

• 

and 

. the basic MOL hardware, reengineered and modified for 

very long durations on-orbit (up to one year) using a space 

•rendezvous/resupply technique. 

A. ,PRESENT MOL SPACE/VEHICLE 

The present MOL system would be taxed in terms of weight, 

power, pressurized volume, crew-time availability, etc., to 

-accomplish' anything more than the very high resolution photographic reconnaissance mission.',.'Thus, unless the camera system 

were removed,'all that NASA will (or could), learn from MOL 

flights is physiological information on the effects of 30 days 

weightlessness, and,the performance of astronauts in a complex 

..';Pace,/1-of4.1.99asos 1

:SAFr•SIJ Control 1.-Ltr4h0,6 

• 

NRO APPROVED FOR , 

RELEASE. 1 JULY 2015 

MOL HARDWARE FOR AAP PURPOSES 
• 

NIRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 •••■•• ••77:11P4 

and demanding task (the latter is unique to MOL, and will 

constitute a significant contribution to the national space 

program). 

However, the MOL camera system could be removed from the 

vehicle and either a vehicle diverted from the present MOL 

program or one or more additional MOL booster/space vehicle(s)• 

produced for NASA use. In this regard, either Flight Vehicle 5 

(third manned launch in present MOL Program) might be diverted 

for NASA use or an FV-5A (FV-6A, etc.) might be built exclusively, 

for NASA. If the present MOL Program is stretched-out, as now 

being considered in conjunction with the FY 69 budget, FV-5 

will be launched in about September 1972. An additional vehicle, 

for NASA (FV-5A) could be launched about two months later with 

interfering with the-basic MOL Program. NASA should be able r:•: 

to "buy" a launched, basic MOL systen (not included are NASA-- 

experiments and their integration costs) for about $80 million., 

`First NASA funding would be required in FY 70. 

If the camera system were removed from the present MOL 

manned system, approximately 11,500 pounds of discretionary 

payload would be available for:the Mission Module structure. 

• 

• • 

(10 ft.,diaMeteriand up to 36 feet'long). and NASA experiments. 

rago,...240e4,47mges 

Copy---of-c rContra 
rageggl-of-9.2.-pzzos 

$AX-Sis Control gia.-4.-fd :(4 

• -,rt 

v!;a1 rrrvirfAill 

r;nz:;•...111 

iat14'1 oi 

ditional non-recurring costs. discretionary payload 

• ' 

'NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Virtually all NASA experiments contemplated for the Orbital 

Workshop except for the 36 day mission duration, randasvous/ 

resupply operations, and the Advanced Telescope Mount could.: 

be accommodated in a Block I MOL space vehicle. No information is available as a bass,.. pqtimating the development 

and integration costs of these experiments. 

In April 1968, Douglas completed an in-house assessmell; 

of the "Utilization of MOL for Astronomy in Space". Douglas 

concluded that most of the emphasis for astronomy from space- 

..i tdj iiit :r 

111 1e1113 IF;r1 81S1:11qt 11:::i4';i;.4 14 L .•••••- 

Ce, ..:..rs; 4.. 4.. s tg,,Ls ti1LUi. 

. craft in low orbits should be at the short wavelengths (UV,. 

, X-ray, and V-ray), and studied specific payloads in this area. 

This study is available in the MOL Program office. 

The preceding generally contemplates.NASAJMOL launches 

from the WTR; if ETR launches were made, the T-IIIC ITL at 

Cape Kennedy could be modified' to accommodate MOL (Cost estimated to be as much as $75 million, including MCP and MOL 

AGE). Modifications to MOL for operation within the NASA 

Manned Space Flight Net (e.g. not using SGLS) would add ad- 
. . 

%A v. 

SAP -St:doutrol 

TAI r ' 1 

•NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1.JULY 2015 • 

for the MOL Mission Module and NASA experiments, at the in 

.clination planned by NASA from the ETR, would 'increase from 

11,500 pounds to approximately 17,500 pounds. 

B. MODIFIED PRESENT MOL HARDWARE 

Relatively atraightforward modifications to the present 

MOL*Wace'vehicle for increased on-orbit duration and/or 

increased pressurized volume are possible in approximately 

the same time frame as present hardware could be made avail:- 

able to NASA. 

The extension of the unpressurized expendables compartment 

now planned for the unmanned MOL system (to give it a 56 day 

on-orbit capability) is also being designed for inclusion in 

any MOL Block II manned vehicles (to increase on-orbit duration, 

to 40-45 days). This could be included in a Flight Vehicle-5A, 

if desired.. The non-recurring costs are estimated at about 

$25 million and the recurring costs approximately $5-10 million 

per vehicle. However, the added expendables would reduce the 

'. discretionary payload for the. Mission Module structure and 

NASA experiments from ..- the previously noted 11,500 pounds to 

about'9,500 pounds 

•••; t,L1 
"NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

V ■e•■ 444i: ;01 ' 

E! .254 I.1".11 

• 

Another possibility for increasing the on-orbit duration 

of the MOL vehicle as well as the pressurized volume is to 

pressurize all or part of the Mission Module section, incorporating a separate Environmental. Control System for this 

purpose. Up to about 2500 additional cubic feet of pressurized volume could be made available in this manner and the 

on-orbit duration increased to 60 days or more. There are 

many possible variations of this configuration; including combinations of some with the "stretched" expendables compartment 

described above. Discretionary payload for experiments. would 

be reduced,to.2-3000 pourids'. Non-recurring costs could' run 

as high as $200 million,- and recurring launched costs (less 

experiments) could exceed $100 million per mission. 

The above possible modifications'all contemplate WTR 

launches. Non-recurring costs should be adjusted properly. 

for ETR launches; however, discretionary. payload would be in 

creased by about 6,000 pounds. 

The configurations described in this sub-section would 

accomplish essentially all of the AAP objectives except the 

• • 

.•- 'y ry!

3

1:.-t!r Te.473.43LoZ.:9:4-# 13. 

SA-3214 Coa ro 

_crlirl 
and recurring costs of, a three-year on-orbit program (three RIVs,-. 

eighteen RRVs) at *$2.2 billion,-with three' years of development' 

prior to the first launch.;`,These cost estimates appear to be . 

• , 

rendezvous/resupply operations and the ATM experiment (as the 

mount, as presently designed, is too large). 

C. GROWTH VERSIONS OF MOL 

In late 1967, Douglas completed a NASA-funded study of a 

one-year duration MOL vehicle (which employed space rendezvous/. 

resupply. The basic concept is to first launch an RIV (Rendez 

vOus Initial Vehicle) consisting of a Gemini, MOL pressurized 

laboratory, and lengthened unpressurized expendables compartment with a TITAN IIIM into a low earth orbit. This is to be 

followed by an RRV (Rendezvous Resupply Vehicle) launch -- 

generally similar to the RIV -- and rendezvous of the two 

vehicles in orbit. Four men would then be on orbit for 60 days 

at the end of which, another RRV would be launched, two of the 

first four astronauts would return to earth, the initial RRV 

discarded, and the process repeated at 60 day intervals. 

Douglas envisaged the RIV as lasting one year, and being 

resupplied six times by RRVs., :Douglas estimated the non-recurring 

• 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 —111.413"" 

‘,. .1 ; 

, r.1 ti 41.• • 1,,,h,irut 

(1.0.J. 

L;Liit4 ciOttol.a 
. , 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Ltr • 

IRIL.01%40 2 

) 

!1::”.'%•1!^1 11;.) r„s4.• '",11111 

priwoh, 

quite low, even though a great deal of basic MOL hardware 

would be used. 

Nevertheless, such , a configuration is technically quite 

feasible, and probably could be developed for launch in the 

1973-1974 time period without:undue interference to the basic; 

MOL Program. ,: SuCha. configuration would meet all of the AAP. 

objectives (except to, utilize Apollo hardware) as currently • 

i.T.Tr, rzt'fi:xtr111 

v... 

4 azeac-o:#2..pago5 

Control. 
• • 

ARO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 • 

firitabfill 

,• 

CcMcl 2,1= 

V. USE OF AAP HARDWARE FOR MOL f 

[ 

Background: 

As a part of the effort to accomplish a manned lunar 

landing in this decade, NASA has developed a very large hardware, and an in-house and contractor manpower capability which' 

might be applicable to other uses. The underlying motivation 

for the Apollo Applications Program is the utilization of 

Saturn/Apollo hardware. Thus the AAP missions are a. 

consequence of this situation rather than an original require 

ment. 

On the other hand, MOL does fulfill a requirement of 

National urgency and, therefore, this gives rise to the 

obvious thought of using Apollo hardware for the MOL missions. 

The Apollo program production plan required a procurement of 

Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles as well as Apollo 

spacecraft (Command Modules Service Modules, and Lunar 

Modules) in such quantities as to insure with great confidence' 

the successful accomplishment of the lunar landing goal. 

Presently it is becoming increasingly obvious that therd may. 

be many surplus articles available which will have been 

procured with lunar landinifunds. 

Page .24 ce. 4f:2...pages 

Copy °fit- coni 

SA SS, Control 

1.'.7.* 

• 

larifIlD Oa 1317.:1P,N.,, 

ecnire9 Srtom 
r 7 

. r 

-7"75777.1:1-' 

currently under develoliment,for AAP could not serve this purpose, 

Elamn 57EV,AN 

Ccntrel J1 1:7 

NtRO.APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NO 

111. • 

1.1 1 

Caticl SysIzz 1:4 

At the time the MOL program was being conceived and 

approved (1965)i it was not clear how much of the basic Apollo 

hardware would become excess, and, therefore, in any considerations for MOL the full cost of Apollo spacecraft and launch 

vehicles has to be assumed. On that basis, the Gemini-MOLTitan III combination specifically designed for the military .. 

mission proved to be significantly less expensive. 

tion of the use of Apollo and/or AAP hardware for MOL 

purposes reconfirms the earlier findings. For example 

not feasible to install the MOL payload inside the S.-IVB 

Orbital Workshop since it is being launched with the hydrogen 

,propellant, and the delicate payload would not be able to 

withstand the cryogenic environment. 

It is conceivable to place the MOL Mission Module in the 

, Apollo Spacecraft Launch Adapter and use the CSM as the crew 

vehicle instead of the Gemini B. However, this approach 

still doesn't appear to be desirable since it would require 

the development of a pressurized compartment to carry the 

MOL payload controls and display's as well as. some means.of 

permitting crew access to the area. The Airlock Module• 
• uti.atAN 

CenVal 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The development of a new pressurized module would be at:, 

• • least' comparable- to the current development of the MOL..-, 

Laboratory Module. 

B. Use of the Saturn IB: 

The alternativeof using the Saturn IB only, without the 

Apollo Spacecraft, however,'may be worthy of reconsideration.' 

The basic Apollo program has used four Saturn IB vehicles 

to date, and one more launch is planned in support of the 

manned lunar-landing effort. The Apollo Program plan is to. 

employ Saturn V vehicles after this last Saturn IB launch. 

Thus, if everything goes well, there will be at least seven 

Saturn IBs available which will, have been fabricated. In 

addition to this, NASA has ordered the long lead items and 

began assembly of four additional Saturn IBs. Thus, if the 

• earth orbital portion of the Apollo' Applications Progr'am 

were cancelled, seven to eleven "free's Saturn IB launch. 

• vehicles could possibly be Made available to the.MOL Program., 

As a parallel action to this, the Titan IIIM would be 

• . • .• • • • 1.• ' • • 

cancelled. Such a' cancellation would' avoid the. expenditure 

of about $300 million in MOL funds. 

TaCe .24. f-.2..pat.,:es 

Copy _-_ of 0. conias., 

SAM Oontrol 

v:a 

COifel System • 
• 

p , 

NRO APPiROVED FOR 

RELEASE t JULY 2015 V112 

rt:Rf,,:k1 

1± A :01;:(41* 

Since MOL requires polar orbits, a. Saturn IB launch 

facility would have to be constructed at or near the current • 

MOL launch complex. Most of the MOL supporting buildings: 

and facilities could be utilized, but Saturn IB AGE and other 

launch vehicle supporting equipment would have to be 

transferred from ETR or newly acquired. It is estimated that 

a new Saturn IB facility at WTR might cost as much as 

$150 million, although at least half of this amount could be .. 

. saved if ETR equipment could be utilized. In addition to 

this, $50 - $75 million more probably would have to be 

expended to integrate the MOL Orbiting Vehicle with the 

,Saturn -IB. The MOL vehicle qualification program would have 

to be redefined for the new environment, a new spacecraft-tolaunch-vehicle adapter constructed to mate the 22 ft. S-IVB 

to the 10 ft. MOL, and possibly a launch escape tawer added 

to the Gemini because of the more explosive character of the:., 

'hydrogen/oxygen. propellant' in SfIVB. 

It appears that if the NASA ,surplus Saturn IB vehicles 

do41d-be made available at no expense to the DoD, some 

initial savings might accrue toi.,:the...MOL program. Once these -

• . 

however, any additional MOL launches'. 

• Ikthlta Oa 

Catrel Sy3tom 

vehicles are eXpended 

I • .1'• 
. • 

NRQAPPROVE D FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

pircei-77 me, 14,, 

1:4 sit.1■4‘iso 

Cant Sistcal • 

would have to utilize newly produced Saturn IBs with an 

approximately $15 - $20 million cost difference per flight 

as compared to the projected Titan IIIM recurring costs. 

Thus, in summary, if the Orbital Workshop portion of AAP 

were terminated and Saturn IL's diverted to MOL, some initial 

savings probably would accrue from termination of the • 

Titan IIIM effort. If there. were a follow-on MOL program,,.:: 

however, the higher costs of the Saturn IB would soon offset': 

this advantage. If the AAP Program continues as planned,' 

however, the Titan IIIM•boosteris cost advan'tageous for. 

• 

MOL. 

C. Other Considerations: 

The current Apollo program contracts may also produce.„: 

excess spacecraft for possible use other than the MOL 

reconnaissance mission. 

1:Zi:11:0 Via 131rEtili1;. 

.Contrc, Systear• • 

rasa) ec2 or 4.24agOS 

QPPY of os 
NERO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE1 JULY 2015 

Pago a of .4(ZLagos 

Copy or. 

SAFEL Coutrol 

fizz:ila SIMIAN. 

Ccritral Svsilm • 
-:‘ 

r 

r-f-•-:Ir t'. 1

..11•••".1 NkQAPPR'OVED FOR 

RELEASE 1•JULY 2015 

VI. '!'UNIFIED" MOL/AAP PROGRAMS 

Neither of the two, possibilities discussed in Sections 

IV and V are attractive. Total termination of the earth 

, orbital portion of AAP is not realistic since much of the 

hardware has been or is being produced for either Apollo or ' 

AAP use; a large Government/contractor team is at work, etc.;, 

and further, MOL could not fulfill all of the major AAP 

objectives without entering a major engineering/development 

program. On the other,hand, virtually none of the Apollo 

or earth-orbital AAP Program hardware'except the Saturn IB. 

booster could be useful' to:thepresent MOL Program. The use, 

of the S-IB in lieu of the T-IIIM might only be cost-' 

attractive from the short term view if the S-IB's could be 

provided "free" to MOL by NASA; the S-IB would not be cost 

competitive with the T-IIIM if there were a follow-on MOL 

buy. Further, if MOL should "grow" ,to 40-45,000 pounds on 

orbit weight for longer manned missions, it appears that'the' 

T-IIIM,could be uprated at less cost than the S-IB.. 

As an alternative, the possibility of "unifying' or 

semi-merging the MOL and earth-orbital AAP Programs toward 

?ago 43.2.0o2 i/lopagos 

Copy --- of coos 

lAl".Sla -Control 
rv-zr7V1 

T.1;--421::c■ vLa Tr,449 

ri.71 ..; 

NRO APPROVED FOR 17,TAL...1 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

coordinated, national objectives and to reduce total DoD and 

NASA space expenditures in FY 69 and subsequent years has 

,;.alscvbeen examined. 

MOL objectives toward vo.ry high resolution photography,'. 

the development of both manned and unmanned reconnaissance 

systems, and the collection of data on man's ability to 

perform complex military functions in space are "hard" and 

have adequate Executive and Legislative support. In comparison 

the AAP earth orbital objectives of extending the duration of 

manned space missions and conducting scientific and earth, 

resources applications experiments are relatively "soft" and 

have questionable Legislative support in the present 

environment. For the short term, it does not appear sensible 

to either terminate or combine the two programs; however, a 

closer merging. of current objectives efforts, and mid-term 

follow-on plans should serve to make the earth orbital portion 

of AAP more technically useful more palatable to the 

Congress, and insure that future NASA/DoD space station 

efforts are coordinated and economical. 

Reasonable "unified" objectives of the two programs . , 

appear to be military missions in earth orbit (MOL), general 

if;rfrit; .via G72n111 

Pagoal oz :alma 

0145' of cosi.44044 

SAFSL Contra 
0. r!!VIT:rd • brj*::%.• 

1.441 

Co'7,1c' 

INFt0 APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

CEilt:11 e7c07.1 

manned operations (both), very long duration manned 

operations, including rendezvous and resupply (AAP), and 

manned applications experiments in orbit, including earth 

resources (both), and astronomy (AAP). One possible approach 

toward these objectives is discussed in the following 

paragraphs. 

Specifically, it is envisaged that the MOL Program would.' 

be 'approved at present for six launches (2 unmanned, 4 manned,' 

;''deferring development of unique unmanned items'in FY 69, as 

now being considered for the program), and AAP be limited to 

a maximum of six ,launches (2 to assemble workshop; 1 resupply 

for 56 day mission; 2 for ATM assembly and resupply; and 

1 as a backup or for a subsequent revisit), while the future. 

courses of action for both programs were studied and 

coordinated between now and the submittals of the FY 70 and 

71 Budget Estimates. The objectives and configuration of 

the present MOL would be unchanged; houmver the AAP, aside 

from its primary objectives of rendezvous/resupply, 56 day 

earth orbital missions and astronomy and earth resources 

experiments, would be reoriented somewhat. Certain of the 

additional experiments now planned (many of which are short 

.I1r,..1.-,11fta • 

Ha z70 1112 BIEZIAN 

Cold Systom r 

'a 4:1a. ► 
MIRO.APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

• 

term and/or could be accomplished in unmanned vehicles) 

would be replaced by tests of specific subsystems and/or. 

components (generally non-camera related) for application 

to any future 60-90 day MOL Block II/III vehicles. 

A joint DoD/NASA group of'appropriate officials would. 

'be established to study future objectives and meshing of the 

,two programs. The first few months should be spent on 

reorienting lower priority Orbital Workshop experiments to 

direct support of the 60-plus day MOL. Then, the next step 

'::in the earth orbital portion of AAP should be evaluated. 

, One possible solution would be to conclude the present Orbital 

Workshop Program after the first three missions (5 launches) 

and have NASA then use basic MOL and/or available Apollo/CSM 

hardware for further earth'resources or astronomy experiments, 

pending possible development of a Saturn V-sized space • 

'station. 

A cursory examination of this concept indicates a possible,. 

"savings" of perhaps $200 million in MOL and AAP in FY 69 

(from program.goals and dollar 'needs as set forth in the 

• .:.,Pago 

sa—a' 

r 
r19 

EE 

AUn.:A

on-!. lc, on ne.,17Afst La4,4;:u v.;1 

• Canttal Systza • 

NRNAPPRoVED FbR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

S

ri'. 4-.^ (..” 1

tes 

FY 69 Budget Estimate) withol:t se::iously damaging either 

program. This potential 4', 200 million comes from a reduced/ 

. stretched MOL Program (70)., deferral of Saturn V workshop 

studies (20), reduced Saturn 1B launches to six (20), 

reduced or closed excess NASA launch vehicle facilities, AAP 

integration contracts, and Houston AAP effort (potential 

$100 million). 

Additionally, the Michoud facility might eventually be 

phased out, and Saturn V fabrication transferred to the 

Marshall Space Flight Center. There Nasa, employing the 

'arsenal" concept, could utilize NASA personnel for production 

of the limited number of Saturn Vs required for further lunar 

• 

=J exploration, deep space 'and/or_the,:large earth: 

orbiting station. under. study by NASK.- 
• 

. • 

NRCrAPPROVED.FQR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

T VII., MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 

Si NASA. were to use, MOL Block I hardware, leas the camera 

;system, the most straightforward management arrangments 

.probably would be for NASA to: contract through the AF for--. 

. the basic MOL hardware; collocate a NASA management group 

with the MOL Systems Office to look after NASA interests in • 

.this regard; and contract separately with Douglas for 

experiment integration, providing the experiments as NASAfurnished equipment. Alternatively, NASA could ship the 

Mission Modules to MSC or MFSC and install the experimental 

:equipments there. Another task' of the NASA Management Group :., 

in LA would be to work out launch, on-orbit control, and 

recovery plan details with the Systems Office. Undoubtedly, 

a joint Washington-level DoD/NASA group should also be 

established to oversee and provide policy guidance for the . 

entire operation. 

If NASA, rather than using basic Block I MOL hardware 

were to elect to proceed directly to a longer than 30 day 

duration MOL, the extent of the changes would probably 

determine the revisions necessary to the above management 

arrangements. For example, the preceding arrangement could • 

113!;:11:4:11163::: 1374k1111.1. 

1:C7;C:: 'S .!.(:::;::;! 

•

i 

• .. ilarf 1

•a vaM2A • Copy of 

Pag0 .3_7 of. %Lpages 

0 

•`-' San .0ontrol Cei:tici Systop 
4 • . • 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

) 

• handle the.40-45 day MOL (incorporating the unmanned system.. 

expendable "wafer" for increased on-orbit durations).. 

However, 'a 60-90 day MOL, or continuous on-orbit operation,., 

at an early date would undoubtedly require considerable 

revision in the above contracting approach, with NASA probably. 

contracting directly with DAC for the major effort, and the 

AF providing various subsystems (Gemini B, T-II1M, ECS, etc. 

as GFE items added on to existing AF contracts. 

Were the DoD to decide to use the Saturn IB booster in . 

lieu of the T-IIIM, the most straightforward management 

arrangement probably would be for the AF to "contract" with 

NASKto provide the S-IB's and the launch services, and fors . 

NASA and the AF to establish joint offices at both. MSC and 

Los Angeles to coordinate and monitor details of spacecraft/ 

booster integration, changes to the SLC-VI at VAFB, etc. 

If the DoD and NASA were, to elect, however, to pursue'the . 

"unified" approach discussed in Section VI, the first step 

should be an ad hoc effort by appropriate DoD and NASA 

officials (perhaps, the MSFPC would be appropriate for this ' 

task) to define and agree on the scope and objectives of thee. 

MOL Block I/II'Programs and the earth orbital portion-of the 

LI. 

, . 

4e1 p

Li ,rc:rvi 

I+ 

u` 

..• 

rap oZ .g.:1,posos 

• 'Copy of con PS 

• Control 

' ••• • 

UiLii.4641 

ert7!”.-^110•1■4:r,r1 

• 
• 

NRO,APPROVE'D FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

. •._, 

L

".4," 41 v[a Cite.1k1 

• Pcrtrri 

11 

• AAP, and to prepare a charter for a DoD/NASA MOL/AAP Planning 

and Coordination Group. The short term objectives of the 

latter should be to first reorient some of the Orbital 

Workshop experiments toward technology for longer-duration 

MOL and Saturn V-sized space.stations, and next to study AAP 

earth orbital objectives and.hardware approaches for the_ 

period between the completion of the present OWS program and 

any Saturn V-sized space station. The efforts of the P and C 

Group would, of course, have to be closely coordinated With 

the booster'itudies now.beginning. 

ilaridi3 via HEIM* 

Sytim. • 
VIII. DISCUSSION 

• 4. d • .? • n :,; 1.• • I .1 

11,1:* to. 

• nIr.,."“,'• 

C 17•11.Zi ZiSj ••■•07:1 • 

NRC, APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The various possibilities discussed in this paper range 

in scope from immediate NASA involvement, in MOL to questions 

of long term national space policy. There are apparent 

advantages and disadvantages in each for the DoD and NASA 

and, in some cases, to both. Any serious consideration of 

any of these proposals will require in depth analysis and 

examination of alternatives. At the present time, MOL seems 

to' enjoy a fairly solid position in Congress, with the 

exception of some not thoroughly briefed congressmen who 

• continuously raise the MOL/AAP duplication question.: Some 

joint venture might be useful to appease those MOL critics.. 

The key problem, however, is NASA's dilemma in the Apollo 

Applications Program and the long-term Apollo/Saturn V future. 

The latter is a national problem of major proportions. This 

paper has confined itself largely to the MOL/AAP interaction., 

The "unified" program discussed in Section VI appears to 

1/0 

have appeal for a variety of very useful reasons, provided 

certain restrictive ground rules are observed and Inforced. 

These ground rules can be summarized as: 

PIniC,P•1 

• 411 •I • 1, PIA 

twa ri0 bx 41.7.-pages 

qppy „, oopLes 

• AMA Control Gr 
NRO)APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• • 01 • 

■•■. o.; 

t 

cl!"1•r •-s i tgri:u 

• 

a. The MOL in any military vehicular version must' 

operate exclusively within the althority and constraints of 

the NRO and NRP security. 

b. The MOL must continue to emphasize the primary 

purpose of the program which is an operational reconnaissance 

mission. 

c. In no case will any plan consider the flying, 

on a NASA spacecraft, of reconnaissance equipments or 

reconnaissance related equipments as a major or principle, 

• 

experiment.. 

Within these specific constraints, a number of technically 

significant and nationally important advantages can be - 

realized. Some of these are: 

. To the DoD - 

. Assists in. keeping DoD.space development efforts 

oriented to military applications while advanced space 

technology developments are properly carried out by NASA. 

b. Insures the development of the'technology, common 

spacecrafts and boosters for-defense:and-civilapplications 

outside of the DoD:budget. 

• Ev,,r45n.t7r,114:1A inf.; pus 

Pago f of k...;11azes 

.dopy . 
c. Enhances the DoD ability to influence and guide, 

NASA in the achievement of common goals and national 

economies. 

To.NASA - 

a. Strengthens the. -1S<? _Austifiction for the 

present earth orbital portion of AAP by g AAP a mission 

in support of Block II/III MOL. 

b. Provides a medium to plan for, a future large 

space station on a national basis. 

c. Provides a means for NASA in cooperation with 

DoD to guide the AAP program to make best use of the hardware 

bought for and/or already under development for AAP, MOL 

and, to .some extent, future Apollo activities. 

For both DoD and NASA.- Will improve the 

congressional and public image of both agencies from the 

viewpoint of DoD/NASA cooperation. Additionally, real benefits 

should be derived by both in close coordination of objectives, 

hardware . plans 

gi4ih,w 

Sinteril 

*r. 

MVAPPPOVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

r