/a 10 fro Handle via BYEMAN 

-SECREf- SPECIAL HANDLIlatroi System 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2011 

DISCUSSION POINTS FOR EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 

The following points are presented as the salient elements of 

information which should be considered in any discussions with EKC 

concerning their schedule for the DORIAN Program. Attached to this 

paper for background information is a general chronology of schedule 

data and descriptive, data pertaining to the development models used 

in the DORIAN Program. 

1. EKC has been consistent in their schedule information since 

their Dec 66 position even though it may appear that they have extended 

the schedule since that time. This consistence is apparent from the 

following examination of the key schedule items. 

a. The Dec 65 schedule (Plan A) provided for an Oct 69 

delivery of a checked out mission module at Rochester. Assuming the 

possibility of shipment of the mission module directly to VAFB with a 

three month test and launch cycle, Plan A resulted in a Jan 70 launch 

date for the first DORIAN Sensor (FM-1). 

b. In early Feb 66, in response to our continued exercising 

of the schedule problem, EKC presented Schedule Plans B and C. Plan B 

showed a six month schedule improvement with FM-1 delivery in Apr 69. 

This was accomplished by elimination of the compatibility model. Plan 

C retained the compatibility model and showed a three month schedule\,, 

improvement over Plan A with FM-1 delivery in Jul 69. This was 

tMcP 2-66 

accomplished by concurrent release dates for the compatibi — 

4ualification models. 4 

SPECIAL HANDLING 
SECRET SPECIAL HANCMia ByEmm 

Control System 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

c. During the MOL Management Review of 5 Feb 66 

it was agreed to use Oct 69 as a planning launch date for the first all 

up sensor. That is, we were in the "ball park" with the Jul 69 

delivery date for FM-1 under Plan C assuming a three month launch 

cycle after shipment from Rochester. 

d. All of the above plans were based on an EKC facility 

go-ahead no later than 1 Feb 66. Actual facility approval was obtained 

5 Apr 66 resulting in the delivery date of FM-1 moving from Jul 69 to 

Sep 69. 

e. The test flow plan, as now defined, requires the 

mission module to go from EKC to DAC to VAFB. The DAC. VAFB 

span is approximately seven months. Based on Sep 69 delivery of 

FM-1 this results in an Apr 70 flight date. 

2. From the above discussion, two points could be considered, 

both of which deal with program risk. First is the consideration of 

eliminating the compatibility model entirely or actually flying it on 

the first manned flight. Either approach does introduce elements of 

technical risk into the program and are not recommended. The second 

point is that of modifying the present baseline test flow by shipping the 

mission module directly to the launch base fromRochester. This would 

eliminate the thermal vacuum test of the complete lab vehicle in a 

mated configuration at DAC; however, the lab module and mission module 

would individually have a thermal vacuum test. BYE-66692-60 

SECRET 2 

SPECIAL HANDLING 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 SPEC A ANDLI L HNLiAlar'''11 v11"1,14" 

3. During all of the many schedule discussions and investigations 

with EKC, the attempt has been made to find or identify the pacing items 

in the program. It has been extremely difficult to single out particular 

critical items so that they could be given special attention. As items 

have been identified such as mirror blanks, polish time, fabrication time, 

test time, etc. , the contractor has maintained that in his judgement he 

requires the time spans as allocated for the various tasks. It is felt that 

there are three significant reasons that contribute to his position: First, 

he has undoubtedly fact ored into his planning the bitter experience he is 

presently having in attempting to meet G3 schedules. Secondly, he is 

undoubtedly concerned about the availability on schedule of the large new 

facility and the unknowns facing him in the area of simulated zero gravity 

testing of 72" light weight mirrors. Thirdly, he must produce specification 

performance on the first flight. Considering the cost per 

flight, he is not disagreeing with this rationale; however, past programs 

have started initially with lower specifications and v.o rked up to specified 

performance over a number of flights 

4. The Company's personnel policies should be recognized. It 

is felt that EKC is perhaps a bit too conservative in their hiring practices, 

and that the rate of new hires can and should be increased... The rate of 

hiring can only be understood by a knowledge of EKG's philosophy toward 

TVE-6692-66 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

3 
qt-row" — 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Handle via Ban 

Control Systra SPECIAL HANDUNG 

its employees. They believe in a well groomed organization and 

believe that such an organization comes about in part by increasing 

personnel strength at a modest rate - a very modest rate in comparison 

with most other large DOD contractors. New personnel are sent 

through a short indoctrination course, and then assigned to a job with 

well defined responsibilities and interrelationships, thus preserving 

a solid "teamwork" attitude and approach to the project. EKC believes 

that this philosophy is more economical and is necessary to assure a 

satisfactory end product. 

IfekS 4 SPECIAL HANDLING 2-6 6 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

-SECREf SPECIAL HANDLINandle via It' ELIPA 

Control System 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON EKC SCHEDULE BYE.,or pe- uw 

Prior to July 1965: 

The target date for the first flight of a DORIAN Sensor was carried 

as October 1968 during the early study phases of the Program. 

July 1965: 

During July 1965 EKC officials discussed with Dr. McMillan the 

company's capacity to perform all work contemplated for EKC in view of 

the pending selection of a DORIAN contractor. The general consensus of 

these discussions was that EKC did not have the capacity to do all the 

work plus DORIAN on the time schedule contemplated. 

Two alternatives were discussed in these preliminary talks: 

a. One possibility suggested by EKC was a consortium 

arrangement, under which certain firms in the optical field would 

manufacture portions of the DORIAN payload. 

b. Another possibility was suggested by Dr. McMillan, 

who asked EKC whether they could do all the projects except S-2, if S-2 

work were transferred to Itek. On 16 July and again on 19 July, EKC 

advised Dr. McMillan that under certain conditions their answer would 

be in the affirmative. These conditions were: 

(1) First DORIAN flight would not be before April 

1969, and it may not be possible on the first payload to obtain optimum 

M-66692:66 

--SEGRg SPECIAL HANDLING 

performance. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 SPECIAL HANWRI CaollnitrOlviSapli Li NG t Ten:" 

(2) Authority to proceed would be forthcoming 

immediately, and would include go-ahead on facilities, long lead items 

and unlimited overtime. 

(3) There must be capability for quick decisions 

on the part of the Government. 

(4) Secretaries McNamara, Vance or Brown would 

verbally indicate to EKC an assurance that DORIAN was planned to be 

carried out through a flight schedule, and that the project was not to be 

terminated soon. 

(5) Other SP projects and Lunar Orbiter would not 

be transferred from EKC, and in future years similar levels of effort 

would be maintained at EKC, in order that the company might have such 

relatively less difficult work on which to train personnel for more 

advanced effort such as D. 

As these discussions proceeded, Dr. McMillan requested through 

General Martin a Management Resources Survey of EKC. Such a survey 

was conducted by a committee under Colonel G. T. Smith with the results 

documented in "Report of Survey Committee", 30 July 65, BYE-40252-65. 

This report thoroughly explores the manpower situation at EKC in regards 

to actual and proposed workloads. The committee's conclusions essentially 

supported the EKC position contained in paragraph b. above and this 

course of action for the prosecution of the DORIAN program was subsequently 

directed on 22 September 65 by WHIG 0001. Vit-CE6 j 

SPESHRIDLING SPECIAL HANDLING 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Into v!n Try SPECIAL HANDLINVontroi 

The above information has been covered to point out that it was 

during the discussions of 16 to 19 July 1965 between Dr. McMillan and 

EKC that an earliest DORIAN flight date of April 1969 was established 

by EKC with a January 1969 delive ry of the flight article. Prior to these 

discussions the target flight date had been October 1968 as pointed out 

above. 

14 Dec 1965: 

The April 1969 date with a January 1969 delivery had been used 

as the planning schedule prior to the receipt of the EKC letter of 9 Dec 65 

indicating a 10 month extension in their previous schedule forecast. The 

EKC letter was received by SAFSP on 14 December 1965 and its contents 

were immediately discussed I)), General Martin with Dr. Brown and 

General Schriever with the understanding that SP had not had an opportunity 

to investigate the validity of this new schedule. This new EKC schedule 

was a key point of discussion at the MOL management review of 20 Dec 

attended by Dr. Foster, Dr. Flax, Mr. Fink, Mr. Ross, General Schriever 

and General Evans with the understanding that SP would conduct a review 

of this schedule situation. Dr. Foster also visited EKC with Messrs Fink, 

Kirk and Ross on 22 December to take a first hand look at the schedule 

problem. 

5 - 8 January 1966: 

To conduct the desired schedule review a committee appointed by 

3 

DUNG SPECIAL HANDLING 
NRO APPROVED FOR SPECIAL HANNAY% NEI'vr:AN 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Control Sptcm 

General Martin visited EKC in Rochester from 5 to 8 Jan 1966 and 

met with EKC officials, principally Messrs Simmons, Foster, Sewell, 

Soebbing, Fellows, Brown, Ratliff and Dr. Oder. The committee's 

approach was to examine in detail all available current EKC schedule 

information, the reasoning and philosophy behind this information, and 

the physical and personnel resources associated with the schedule 

information. In all applicable areas comparisons were made with 

GAMBIT and GAMBIT-CUBE experience noting differences in size, 

design, etc. , and estimated differences in complexity. The affect of 

government decisions on schedule, e. g. , facility go-ahead, factory-topad flow, etc. , were also considered. During the final day of discussions 

at EKC, information was received pertaining to the desirability of 

maintaining essentially the original schedules for the UPWARD Program. 

Later discussions and a briefing to Dr. Flax on 20 January 66 indicate 

the manpower impact of this development on the DORIAN effort. 

In response to the reviews in the above areas the contractor 

presented a considerable amount of preliminary schedule information. 

This information was presented as representing his first detailed look 

at the overall schedule during the Contract Definition Phase with this 

information prompting his 9 December 65 letter. 

The results of this committee review are reported in Schedule 

Task Group Report dated 27 January 1966. 

BXE-6f,; 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

"r‘ 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 IECREL SPECIAL HANlipta 

r. 

r N. 

28 January 1966: 

As a result of the above schedule review and the briefing to 

Dr. Flax on 20 Jan 66, EKC submitted by letter subject, Revised EKC 

DORIAN Schedule dated 28 Jan 66, the results of further scheduling 

studies. This letter contained a Plan B which eliminated the compatibility 

model and proposed delivery of FM-1 prior to completion of the qualification of the Qual. Model. This approach resulted in a FM-1 delivery of 

April 1969 as opposed to Oct 1969 under the original plan (Plan A). This 

approach was not considered desirable from a quality assurance point of 

view and EKC was asked to again consider the problem. 

9 February 1966: 

In response to our request above, EKC presented Plan C on 9 Feb 66 

showing a July 1969 delivery date for FM-1 while still maintaing the 

compatibility model and completing qualification testing prior to the 

flight of FM-1. Applying the same 3 month time span from FM-1 delivery 

to launch gave a planning launch date of Oct 1969 for the first all up 

DORIAN Sensor. Go-ahead on EKC facilities was required by 1 Feb 66 

to hold this schedule. 

15 March 1966: 

Based on the more definitive assignment of contractor's roles and 

responsibilities which occurred by TWX 0191) on 19 Feb 1966 and 

meetings with EKC on 23 Feb and 4 Mar to clarify these roles and 

responsibilities, EKC presented revised schedule information on 15 Mar 66. 

i5 SPECIAL HANDLfiC'' 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 --Siga SPECIAL HANDONG 

This schedule information showed delivery of a Camera Optical 

Assembly (COA) at Rochester 37 months from authorization to proceed 

with facilities. 

21 - 31 March 1966: 

A series of meetings were held with EKC during this period to 

investigate the 37 month requirement for COA delivery and to define 

the testing to be done at Rochester on the Mission Module after COA 

delivery. Agreement was reached for planning purposes on a test span 

at Rochester of 102 working days or approximately five months giving 

a total of 42 months from facility go-ahead to the availability of a 

checked out Mission Module. 

2 April 1966: 

The above information was presented to General Schriever at 

the MOL monthly management review on 2 April. Assuming immediate 

facility go-ahead, this schedule would result in a Mission Module 

delivery to DAC in September 1969 and a launch in April 1970 based on 

the seven month test span time required at DAC and VAFB. 

3 April 1966: 

EKC facility go-ahead received. 

4 May 66: 

TWX to EKC containing Option 6 Flight Schedule which kas the 

first manned flight in Dec 1969. EKC was informed that the Dec 1969 

6 

SPECIAL HANDLING 
SPECIAL HANDLINda 2v: 

%14 

- Corilsci 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

flight was to include all fit ght objectives which are possible and they 

were asked to define what these would be and to provide specifics in 

all respects where the payload for this flight would not meet fully 

qualified flight performance, either by degraded components and/or 

complete omission of components, or where this schedule increases 

risk in the program. They were also informed that the April 70 and 

subsequent flights were to carry equipment that is fully flight qualified 

to perform the reconnaissance mission. 

10 May 66: 

EKC reply received to 4 May 66 TWX. 

7 

SPECIAL HANDLIN' 
a ,„ 

IIIIIn noun 

,, ...... N 

Al 

■ ... .,!. :::::::::=..,,, 

.... • ... 

•L.. lommins IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE. ■SHIN 6 ow ■

4, ••1•11 

• • MOON III: .

g

-r-11 1111 

MIN '1 

TX 

I 1‘ 1 III 1 f 

14. 

IIIIII=

11 

1111 

- Mil •• Ilia: 

I • • • i IMO 1111••••••• ■

(2.-.< In """" 

"1"•••••••• 

il 

1 all NOM 

t -21 Mall • ' MEM •••••1•••••• 

n 

/11 

, • Imo •••••1 •••1•11•1• 

-2 III p.,,4 NMI II RIME In 111111_ -a INIMMII MN URI= NINuommi 

--1 1 MI 11'. Le. 

OM. _i___Ct. 

. Ins II t& - 1111 li 

-II 

l'i 

_r__1 4 . IIIII • 11111111111111111 

iimaN 0111110.1111111 • 111111.1.1110118 

z 

. a 

-t- 

, 1_,........ , 

• ' ,p«..,..4-,-.-. 

9 

,s 

_r_ .u. 

+.1 _; __ .. _ a a 

N 

111111_ allIIIIIM 

-----V 

to 

- - -- 1 1.41; ... II 

1-I 1I 410 ill...m:111 all111011111. 

1_4:t i''fi` a: - . f. , i • • P-12 • iii 

- ..---.--1 . 1 --.- . . 

4111 

I; I 1 ■1"--- oi 

1 -,--1 

:1 ,,_ __sipv., 

•••:( 

, r . i ' . 

t... .1:,_: ir_-T 

1._, 

IP -1 ; 

; PJ -FT . ' ; T ' 

, ., . • r• 

„ ___t_ 

' 'Or 1":4". 

■ LI,' 

=1'1 

0-°=-- 

CI 

z7"----1 

, 

• t - -, 

P. --",- 

I , to _ 1 ", ' '''_',.: ,' 

• ' ' --- J. --t.• '...i - — 

, .,_.,4CL 

.,2,ci -lit IA - 

It; 

 -VII 

111M8111111111111111111 I 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 

- - -1.--4.--,---t -- - . - - 1---t12 4 4*--•-• : . ' '---1-1" ''' - '''''-: -4 - i -g---b0 -I ' d 2 - - - -. t • - V -M-it - NEI 

-X—i- ... • . - ,- ' Aa ; - d 

tr. • 

els PA/ 4:11 - 

1 , 

uk V • 

" . - 

...- ... 

• 

41.1 

CA k.,_ % . , ...4. . 44 -• 

' N ' AA 917- 12"t . - -ri 

'- ' I . - 

u, i • •—• -.1 ■ a I - - - -. 2 

. 

- _r_i _ p... .., .„ , 

03'44 

i I 'De 7 - ,mo 

, Ir. 5 ' 1 , ' 4ft-r --r--- r-t 4 ---,-----,-- -- •A c:4 a! 4_ 1 i f--, + ---4- - -• - I - -•-- •-• - -- - a 0-0,- 

; T" 

. I" ' , 

1 

1 

;Efil l 

.A 

_ 

g

F 

<I- 

, 

' 

I . 

. 

I 

, 

' 

its *( 

01 r ..... 

T 

wat>- ......twg 

ot 84, 

21--46 

octobi 

SU Clig.i. 

• ...-JZ 

2 

106 

5, 4C 

4 

p.I 

* i 

S H. 

1 

2 1 

-a • 

ILI 

ar 

=L 

..... 

1 

, 

0 

Om, 

0 4z 

Pia P.4..-1 

w D 

> 0 

a_ w . CL C.0 

< 

0 _1 W Z 
• 

II 11 1 1111 

hilli 

1:11.11 

1 

i : 1 

"..) I 

, ii

IS •Al 

I 

I

1

ta z i 

.t.11-■ 

ill 

i ;--=— 

• 

11 

I 

il: 1 '`-z 2i— 

to' . ... 2..._; 

•—•"---- 7. i . 

' — , 

41 

,.... a .___.....t._ _. cIelt?„..1_i_ 

ny- z ,....... At- - - - 

, o cc -li 

......... 

° .e " ass ERE. 

6 `ate ,-„,- - r - .. -di h o 

_ 

- .,....1 *- En - .,...-4.- 

'77.4Ce- ___ .cz. op - • — 

_--, ii - — - ' . - I-- —__________ • 4 

I iii 

V -1---..,..t"....r ilt° •— • I 2.=MeweDame• 

7

i . - , -1---i-, 

NOME 

i .-r--i = -j—t,- --Y_" • 

i .- 

.., 

.M.11111 II 

ett— I-4-4; "•-1••• ' • - t-,,,,,-, •-• ---i-• • • -, 

..,----1A;-7- ...itu 

:.- 

.4. .ebbAn 

., . . 

• ,_A j--1--t• 1 , • Z:,, ,..1.- 

; 

AD-0 r---1-- , 

...... 

1 . . 

1 - I-1- +-•-, 

I 

: 1 

nil 

t i- t 

1,.•:.--f•-• 

.- - •- • , . -„,___:-. . __47,..._;_____ a_ a a i-.1 

-- - CI—, IL 

: -5---- • ..--1 ----— -: • 7 - 

-E. fad 

- 

III 

_ ).• i ! . -i --P - - 4.1 --) Ate_ ',•• - "1-7— r --• ---1•-•. Tflj -- -I- . 

<_... 1 

r i•-• . 

. L ' ' ' --. 1 P 

1111 

- _ : ------+ •• • !- --• ---71---i----- a_i_. -i-_ -r11,, i 1 ill,- z —4-4-- • --, • ! -4-- +- • • .----*-t in 0 

41 . — --L. ----,-----f-±-7— - -- T-1--t • - ---- ----.---, - 1 : ., I— cg . 

- --1 1.- 1 

ul--r 

A_-r 11. - . • 

WIAt T-1 

---,----1--i+ 

. . 2*--4.--1-t• 1- 

/ 

-.;-7-r-r" il-1-1 I . '! . , .---- g —[ --"ue----i 

' : -1' '-it- 7- '-'" .------__ .''. 44 

,- 4.--7--...--.---4---r, .-- -1....:_u. ‘r) 4.,_4 _____...-;--son pi 1....-.1-. 

; 2 14 44IT IT' ›.."- -4-1.-' ."---- -4--- • - 

.--.. . -1-"."- ., ' t-1-'-+-""' ; "-'-'- , '47.--i la • ' 

. . 

.r t-. •-r 

-1 

LJ • : - , e 

kt L.) 

..... 

• Am • 0 AC "

% ►

u.: 1.... a 

0 

...---- 

1= j .... 

14111 . 

II 

' 

, 

CO . 

-- . I . 1

fti I - cr.i-: c..1 1 ....,.:."-•'= 

ai. i la,,, 

,„ t-i il I I ,, 

, 

, 

a-, 

,., 1 Ii•i 

- • 

• 

0 

et 

w 

2 

0 

0 

Z 

0 zX 

.00 

•IE •=4" 

sei O naW ci-) 

< 

LU Z X 
V 

Z 

• • 

> 

'44 • 

I. ■■••••••••••••••••••11111111•011001111101MINSIINN 

441- 

;_._ • . 

• t.‘„ „ „, _, • ..0 

• — 

fl 

- 
FY 

FY FY 

CY 1

9 67 cY 19 68 

CY19 69 CY 19

7 0 

FMAMJ AS ON D FMAMJ AS ON D FM AM1 AS ON D FM

A MJ J AS ON E 

A 

111.111111111111111111111WA 

• 

A • - * c • S t 

TWOIMMI • 

• 

ILWWNIMMII mmnimmumm 

MTAIWAIMIMMIONN ,, 

MAMIE MOMS 

MENICIN MIN Immo MOM 

-

nom 

mommor mm 

Eammom ■ma mum 

Namociamm ■mmo Imam 

mmlaaaaaaammmammamamw a 

a lammaan 

ammarom malmo am. a 

Enamaamaamalmom aim maw maramoommaammi am a 

NIIMIINNIINIIIIIIIININIIINININNIII ■ IN OMNI IN 

■ ININNIIIININIIIIINNIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIII MINN MINN 

NINIIIIIININNINI111111111111.111111111 MINI 

NINNIIIINIINN11111111111.111.1.111 MINN ■ NININNI IN 

IN 

EMNIMMIINNEMMENWN NEUMNI 

IIIMEMMENNMEMMININ NI 

IIIMM 

• ■ IIIMM 

INNINNINININNININN INIUNI1111111 ■ 1111MWMN 

a NI 

MME 

NNININNINNINIIIIIIIIINIIMINNINNINI 

MEN 

EMEMINEINIM 

MENEM 

EMU 

IN 

IIIMM 

INIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMINIIIIIIIIIMENII a 

NI 

IIIIIIIII MMIMM IIIMM II MM. 

NININIIDINNINNINNINNINIMINN ■MEM 

■

NIIIIINNIIIIIIMININIIIIIIIINNIIIIIII MOM 

SEIM ■ III 

111 

MOM • MI 

MEN MINE ■ 

MONMINNWENWN NI 111 

INIIIININIIIINS IN NI 

NI = 

EMINSOMENIMMIINNIMM 

MME • 

111111:1:11:11 111 

UM IN 

1 Dynamic Sim

ulator 

N 

3 For

m

ula Sample 

44, ,na 

.4 

u -0 0 

..4 

V 

E 

k 

V 

X H 

7 Eng inee

r ingMode l 

CO 9 Comp

a tibilityMode l 

a 11 Re liabilityComp

one

nts 

c4 13 Qua lification/Re liabilityMo ll 

r4 

i 

44 

.eaal.com 

tV 

t 

2 4i 

ce 

s 

4 

20 

1 I 

t 

2 44 

.—ifti 

WI 

1 

2 

M NO4040.4svw mt M 

N 

44 

Ws 

N N*MUMX 

I 1 

IR%M 0 

PLAN "C " SC

H ED ULE 

o 

[CI= z 
1 

ill1111111111111111111111111111111 

1 MINK ounichthla 111111MIIIIM 

• 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111€1111r111111 1111111111111••••••••• 

1111111111111 

cn mommilimmtmommumnivummommummummw 

< sommEmmummilimmumuwmammmummumm • MMINIMMINIMMUMMEMPMMEMHELONEMOMMMEMMEMEW1111i 1111011111111111111 summmOmmmommilimmmimOmmummilummmummmi 

11111411C111111M111111111111111111 

1111191111111411111111111111111 11111101111111MINIMMEMMUM plIMMLION.MMAIMMAIERMMEOIMEMMEMMEMMEMMEM 

lalliA101111:11111111111111111111: 111t4IMMOMMOMMEMEMEMMEE MEMO= MMOIRMEMEM 

R 14111PIIIIIiiiiii:011111111111111111 

7 • MMOMMEMUMEMMEMMEME 

1 LL II 1 

 1111111111111111111111111111118111 

I di 111111111111 111111111111 

1 • MU mumellim 

II 

..ri 

• ■ 7 

ir 

■ 1 I I 

Til 

et i ; i 

T.r •; It :■.■ IV 

Fe: r„ w 

. 

t 7 -. Ii; w w - 

w ; .77 17 ,.r. 

:7tpumidpnwrpm 

O immumio mummorNumriivommi ■

• Nui 

0 • 

AMMEMMAIMOMM 11111Q awalm 

2 MINIMM0411 MMINIMPli mimmovommormoplowiln--- .1.0111 '

t 

111 1111 CANIMMILMEMM MIUMMEMMEMMINIMMEM IIIMMEMMEMEMEM MMEMMEMMMEMINMM MEMSMOIMMEMMIIMMW_ MINIMMEMMEMMEMMI. 

I I 

r. 
- >4. 

11111111111* 

March 31 1966 

z 

a 

< i 

.. .. , 1.., 1... 1...1•111111 RBI I NMI MB MIMI 

==. 1 ail MIN NI' ■ NMI MINI mum!! alirm um mainnisrim MEM= 

12 

211230.E1E•faMEMMEEMEEI 

:•• 

, ..1. 

ul 

--, 

- 111"4 L^ illook:sisezt;s1MmilialimmemENNI1221.10=11121M1111 

ineammusfmniiis■ aramannumarimilmin a 

moiiMPrilallanWmEMEMBEEBEIME NEM NM MN IMMUMBEEMEI II 

13111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111 itinnimialThilrnimminiNeamimainwaimosonmala 

LL Mai: IMEMMEMMEMUMMEEMM Ma imiMmoNNIThallIMMI. 

WM 

1101111911M111111M11111111 1111111111111111111 

umsammellIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII•1111111111111111MINIMMIMM1112 

, 

i ! ' 

to 4 it% kte r-,! 

i ! I I 

&JIMMY-MEW 

PJO Yom. 

a 

II 

76 

g • 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 AECIET- SPEC;AL HANDUNG 

DEVELOPMENT MODELS FOR THE DORIAN PROGRAM 

Based on the experience gained from previous programs, six 

development models have been planned for the DORIAN Program prior 

to delivery of Flight Model #1; these are: 

1. Dynamic Simulator 

2. Thermal Model 

3. Formula Sample 

4. Engineering Model 

5. Compatibility Model 

6. Qualification/Reliability Model 

In addition to these six models there is a Wood Mockup produced during 

the initial phases of the program. The purpose of these various models 

is as follows: 

Dynamic Simulator 

As a result of the difficulties encountered in attempting to 

analyze the complete dynamic behavior of the optics support structure 

to vibration for ground handling, boost and on orbit vibrations it is 

necessary to develop experimental data to allow system design to proceed. 

Thus the dynamic simulation must duplicate mass, inertia, and structural 

rigidity of the actual flight model. Early tests of this structure uncover 

resonance problems, structural magnification factors and produce data 

for component design requirements. 

SECRET cr„,:011 • 1;).US G 
SPECIAL HANDLINtr" NRO APPROVED FOR SECRET \111 1119114 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Thermal Model 

The overall complexity of the Thermal Control Analysis 

and the inability to analytically predict installation effects result in a 

need for a thermal model. In general this model must duplicate the 

thermal characteristics of the prime hardware. The mass, thermal time 

constants of the structure, insulation effectiveness, and surface 

radiation characteristics must be duplicated. Previous programs have 

demonstrated that without an extensive test program it is impossible 

to design an acceptable system. The DORIAN Program is much larger and 

is more sensitive than previous systems. 

Formula Sample 

The optical system performance is obtained from very 

detail comprehensive analysis of the performance of each optics element. 

These analysis cannot include all the random effects of manufacture, 

installation and alignment. It is possible to use other than flight weight 

glass since the primary purpose is to demonstrate an acceptable optics 

formula and evaluate alignment tolerances and methods for aberration 

balancing. The actual demonstration of the optics system performance is 

an essential part of the development of the optics formula. 

Engineering Model 

The purpose of the Engineering Model is to develop a 

complete set of flight type hardware. Actual functional tests of all the 

SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING Tif:666-c6 66 
SPECIAL HANDIOR uba ByEmAN 

tontrti 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

systems and processes proposed are shaken down prior to manufacture 

of the first flight model. All flight type equipment and systems must 

be used. 

Compatibility Model 

The primary purpose of this model is to uncover any 

interface difficulties in the entire flow plan. The shipment, integration 

in the mission module, compatibility with the laboratory, Titan III-M 

and all of the AGE is accomplished with this model. 

Qualification/Reliability Model 

This model serves to demonstrate the capability of all of 

the flight hardware to survive the intended environment and in addition 

demonstrate that adequate life exists. 

The relationship of the above development models is shown 

graphically in the attached Figure. In general the development models are 

typical of the G & G3development, although some of the earlier model 

designations were not necessarily identical with D designations. The 

February change in roles and responsibilities has changed the designation 

of the dynamic simulator. The functions required of the dynamic 

simulator as described above will be met by a Static Load Structure (SLS) 

and a Structural Development Model (SDM). After use by EKC, the SDM 

will be refurbished and modified as necessary to be used by GE as the 

11 

Lka UNG 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 -SEW- SPECIAL HANDLIN 

!•t, 

hr; Est 

Acceptance Test Simulator CATS) for the camera optical assembly. 

Past experience has shown that each of the proposed models has been 

essential to an orderly development. 

4 BYE-66692-66 

SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING