#0 1 5 . . 

'i. 2,196$ 

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. FLAX 

SUBJECT: MOL Fuel Cell 

As you know, Pratt and Whitney has been encountering some 

development difficulties in their PC-3 (Bacon) Fuel Cell. 

Recent development powerplant test data indicates that the 

present P&W configuration probably would not meet primary MOL 

electrical power specification requirements for: 

1. 720 hours operation in the high temperature. mode. 

2. Full electrical load transient. 

3. Powerplant temperature reset time. 

(I also gather that the PC-3 will be rather marginal as a 

50-60 day power source for Flight Vehicles 6 and 7.) 

Over the past several months, P&W and DAC have been 

discussing design modifications to the PC-3 which would correct 

its shortcomings. These include an increase in the basic cell 

sinter area, elimination of one cell, further optimization 

of the cell ceria coating, and further adjustments to cell 

operating temperatures. The DAC evaluation, supported by 

Aerospace, is that the so-called "Big Sinter" version of the 

PC-3 probably would meet the flight requirements -- with, 

perhaps, minor specification deviations -- of FV-3, 4, and 5, 

and also FV-6 and 7 (if the proposed power allocations for 

those vehicles can be met by the Associates). There is some 

increase in program cost associated with the "Big Sinter" PC-3. 

In May, NM propos i to DAC that in 113u of the "Big 

Sa_ter" PC-3, they be p—mitted to change to a matrix fuel 

cell approach (the PC-8) -- same external configuration, same 

/NJ 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE' 1 JULY 2015 

.interfaces, etc. (P&W hap been doing in-house matrix:fuel * 

_ 

cell research in an attemlit"8-ketii up with Allis-Chalmers).;.- 

The industrial "espionage" System being what it is, Allis., 

Chalmers heard of the P&W 1#0Possi within a very' short while 

and immediately descended on the MOLJ'erogram PffiCe,..MOL: 

Systems Office,and DAC with an A-C MOL fuel cell proposal 

Allis-Chalmers obviously is: now very sagertOget into the M01; 

Program and has been for some time, (witness, the periodic 

correspondence from Congressman- Laird -- see Atchs --:on 

behalf of A-C),'even though they did not choose to participate 

in:the original MOL fuel cell competition. 

DAC was rather "cool" at first to the Allia-Chalmers 

proposal, apparently concerned that there might be significant 

interface problems and also -- I suspect -- that 4-C's project 

management capability was cOnsiderably less reliable than 

P&W's. However, A-C had numerous sessions with DAC, with the 

results being that the latter's concerns were allayed, and A-C 

submitted an unsolicited fixed-price'proposal.of $10.1 .million 

to develop and produce flight-qUalified fuel cells for the 

baseline MOL Program. 

Allis-Chalmers representatives talked with me in June, 

and I assured them that if the matrix fUel cell approach; were , 

taken for MOL, it would be donecompetitively and they would 

be invited to bid; however,; of necessity, because of schedule 

consideratiena,' there'would,haVe tohe a.sbort competitiOn. 

(perhaps, only 45 days). Di. Stanford assured me, in turn, 

that A-C now was thoroughly familiar with the MOL requirements 

and specifications, had submitted an unsolicited Proposal to 

DAC, and would feel that they were being fairlytreated even 

in a 30-day competition. 

Meanwhile, in mid-June I heard rumors that 12Whad . 

visited Mr. John Disher, NASA, expressing an intent to "get out. 

of the space fuel cell business" after fulfilling their basiC 

Apollo contract. P&W repregentatives visited me.shortly 

thereafter to assure me that they were not thinking of backing 

out of the MOL commitment, that-P&W had a continuing future 

interest in fuel cells (commercial market, etc.). We discussed 

the P&W matrix cell proposal for MOL briefly, and I flatly. 
_ . 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

stated that the AF could not I sole-source the PC-8 matrix cell 

i development to P&W, that if Such.a change weremade, it had to 

be done competitivelY4 In response to:my question and 

expression of hope that'PSM Would compete "if"., theyrassured. 

me they would do so. 

The P&W people also gruMbled that A-C had-been funded for 

several years for fuel cell advanced technology work;. me 

while, P&W was restricted,to;1961 technology,. etc. They'. 

inquired as to the maintenance of a competittve base should theMOL fuel cell be competed and A-C won (through advanced. 

technology at P&W). I only assured them that this would be a 

considerationsinoi the GovernMent generally didn#t prefer.. 

single sources

.. for important'subsysteMs, etc. 

On July 3, DAC, the MOL'Systems Office and Aerospace 

reviewed in depth a comparison of matrix and Bacon fuel cell 

power plant4- the background and development status ofthe 

P&W and,A-C matrix fuel cell) proposals; current development 

problems and the proposed solutions for the PC-3; NOL power 

requirementsietc. The general :conclusions were that the.;.. 

matrix fuel cell offered substantial program advantageS41:: 

terms of. performance, weight, operations, flexibility far' 

future growth, cost and FY fund requirements; th4either,,.P 

or A-C should be able to meet the prOgram schedule with a 

matrix cell without jeopardy to intermediate milestones or 

flight dates; and that DAC and the AF would be 1117-advise 

Pursne.further the Bacon fuel cell deVelopmentbeoeue 

inherent limitations as well as current technical problems. 

DAC has prepared a fuel cell RFP (which has been reviewed 

by the Systeme Office and Aerospace) which asks bidders to 

submit a primary proposal without deviation from the. specs or. 

Statement of Work (alternates may also be submitted); requesting 

either a firm fixed price or fixed price-incentive contract be. 

signed and submitted with the response. I will havea-copy Of 

the IF•P early next week shoOld you care to see- it. P&W, A-C, 

GE,and perhaps Union ,Carbide will be requested to propose. 

DAC proposes the following achedUiei1. July 17 - -- issue RFP. 
:„. 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

August 19 - ReSponees due. 

3. 19'August-27 September`- Evaluation and fact 

finding (DACwith AF participation). -

4. September 30 -1DAC source selection. 

October 1-14 AF review. 

6. Odtober 15 - AUthority to proceed. 

During the competition process, DAC proposes to continue 

PIM at a reduced level, working only in areas whidh are common 

to both, the PC-3 (Bacon) and PC-8 (matrix). This preserves 

the oPtion to still continue' the PC-3, if desired, and/or 

P&W's capability to start the PC-8 should they win the matrix 

cell competition. The cost for this continuing effort at POT 

would be $900K. 'Should, P&W -lose the competition, another 

$150-200K termination costs would be incurred. 

If a matrix cell were started October 15, it is a consensus 

of opinion 'that an EDCTU date of June 69 and a 1st flight 

equipment delivery date of September 1970 could be met by. 

either.P&W or A-C. These dates could be compatible, if 

necessary, even with our former August 1971 first manned launch 

date. 

The - Cost situation briefly is as. follows. tie' present 

PMI PC-3 contract.value is $31.4 million, to be increased by 

upgrading development costs:to atleast a total contract value 

of $33.5 million. $14.9 million will have been spent by P6OW 

through July 15. P&W therefore would still spend an additional 

$18.6 million on the PC-3 (Bacon), or as an alternative, 

proposed $20.5 million more:for the PC-8 (matrix) program .

($35.4 million total).. MeanWhile, A-C submitted a $10.3 million 

proposal (FP or FPI) to DAC:for the same progiam. Thus, on 

the surface, it appears that P&W could be carried 'through 

October 15,“terminate4, and ,A-Cgiven the contract for perhaps 

a $27 million total investment (including all prior coats).- '' 

A question is whether any credence be placed at this 

time in A-C's unsolicited proposal (both cost and technical 
WRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE JULY 2015 

assurance). The answer •,probably :•10‘.. generally affirmatiVe since 

A-C is "hungry", they have done: a'great - dead. of work on the 

matrix fUel dell. apptoach, and:ate.,.de*elop#:ta essentially the 

:same ce11:.as - a: back!..itp for.:•Ap011O•• and thiS AAP orbit* Workshop;i 

with regard to th“atter,! NASA on July 1 started negotiating-_-: 

a 15 'menthptogram with develOP and. prOdUce_ flight 

quality 21 g'Ma#ix. fuel cells;: (one to be: qualified at.` 

1500'-houra; a second to undergo 2500 heut.a: extended life 

testing t plus two spares) 1, assume, if development goes 

that NASA will utilize the A-C fuel cell in, the Orbital Work 

shop tether than the NM Bacon 

In summary, DAC, General' Bleymeier, Aerospace, and 1 all 

believe that we should reeompete the MOL fuel cell and take 

the matrix approach for cost,; performance, reliability, 

simplification (e.g., abandon the present automatic switching 

kluge), growth potential, etc., reasons. 1414 Palley has no. 

qualms about this. Neither does Dr. YarYmovyeh. I recommit 

we do the following: 

1. Authorize DAC to 

bidders on July 17. 

- 2. Direct the continuation of the P&W effort at a 

reduced level, as described previously, through the competition' 

procesa to at leest preserve the option of continuing the 

Bacon cell should none of the matrix Proposeld be attractive, 

3. Advise Congressman Laird promptly of ehe course 

of action we are taking (also NASA -- I have informally advised 

'Beth Mr. Mathews and Mr. Luskin that we are considering such 

a change). 

4. Review the DAC/Systems Office evaluation plan 

prior to the receipt of Proposals from the bidders. 

ssue. RFP s to qualified" 

4 Atchs 

a/s 

JAMES T. STEWART 

Major General, USAF, 

Vice Director, MOL Program