DO'rdf: 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Ctrm 

—SW_ NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

.N1D RT DATA ENTERED 

.22) \\.. DATE 

T1 MICROFICHE 

DATE 

TALKING PAPER 

MOL/AAP CONSIDERATIONS 

BYE-21385/67 

I Ill t, 

S 

rs1.1c, 1 

uthi,L%lci 

ittlgie yin MAN 

di SZOnll 

Page ,L_ of #4,pages 

Copy _/1 of __Yelies 

SAF&L Control. Seistenerfrat) 

"C,S;LASt 

12- 
DEE] 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control Sjstom 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

INDEX 

Section Page 

I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

DON 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Cortr,' "SWPage Ag! of 4 24pages 

Copy of cop ea 

SAFSL 'Control 

A 1 37E-4 1 

Introduction 3 

Manned Orbiting Laboratory Program 4 

Apollo Applications Program 11 

MOL Hardware for AAP Purposes 19 

Use of AAP Hardware for MOL 26 

"Unified" MOL/AAP Programs 32 

Management Considerations 37 

Discussion 40 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Handle via BYEMAN 

r_Ttrol System 

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 DoD 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) Programs; discuss the 

possible use of MOL hardware by NASA and the possible use of 

Apollo/AAP hardware for MOL purposes; propose a gradual 

"unification" and closer correlation of the MOL and AAP 

Programs; and discuss various management considerations and 

other aspects. 

Harifie via EYEAN 

Cntrci eflui 

Page _a of ,,pages 

Copy of 44 co ieS 

SAYSL Cvaro1 

.1. 131.5-4 1 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DORIAM 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

II. MANNED MANNEORBITING LABORATORY PROGRAM 

A. MOL Baseline Technical Objectives: 

The principal objective of the MOL Program is to secure 

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. 

B. 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 

NEE, 'BAN 

Pc71.71 System -1E-RETPage 4._ of *.tpages 

Copy _L of y_ c lee 

Sag, Control 

40.• 3 e Zs" (161 
DORLI 

Handle via BIEMAN 

Control System 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

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; detach 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. The 

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 six film reentry 

vehicles; MODIFIED LABORATORY MODULE without life support 

equipment and manual controls; and the MISSION MODULE housing 

the optical assembly. 

r!rFIAU 

i'Aztli4;;i4 tat.14 

PCITI "IfeREIL 

Page 4 of Y2,pages 

Copy of _y co les 

sAAYSL Control 
001111‘:i 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

„sEGREL 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The SUPPORT MODULE, MODIFIED LABORATORY MODULE, and 

MISSION MODULE will be 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 

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 Hawaii. 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. 

C. Ground Environment: 

1. Government/Industrial Base: 

The MOL Program 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 (DNRO). 

Handle via NEIIIN 

Control System -"SECRET-- 

Page le_ of Ya.page$ 

Copy 1_ of co lea 

SUSI* Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

D01¢:1 

Handle via BMW 

Control System 

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 funding). The 

contractors and their responsibilities are: 

a. The Douglas Division of the McDonnell-Douglas 

Corporation who provides the Orbiting Laboratory and the 

external structure of the Mission Module which houses: the 

photographic system. 

b. The McDonnell Division of the McDonnell-Douglas 

Corporation who builds the Gemini B, used as the ascent 

vehicle for the crew, and the return vehicle for both crew 

and film. 

;1:n:,:e r:41.111 

Control System 

Page .:74 of g..2...pages 

Copy _A! of 44_ co es 

SUSL Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DORIL1 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

c. The General Electric Company who provides the 

control system and mounting structure for the large tracking 

mirror in the Mission Module, most of the photographic missionrelated 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. 

2. Launch Facility: 

SLC-6 at Vandenberg AFB. 

3. Command, Control and Communication: 

Satellite Control Facility. 

Hanle CI ClutiAN 

Control System ifeRET-- 

Pogo 4: of P.pages 

Copy J of ...frf copies 

WaSli Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Handle via HYMAN 

Control System 

4. Recovery: 

Department of Defense Manager for Manned Space Flight 

Support Operations, and recovery aircraft of Satellite Control 

Facility (for unmanned operations). 

D. Schedule 

Booster/Gemini Qualification Flights Nov '70 

April '71 

Manned All Up Flights Aug '71 

Jan '72 

May '72 

Unmanned All Up Sept '72 

Jan '73 

E. Funds 

Baseline MOL Fund Requirements for the Engineering Phase 

which began September 1966 are as follows: 

FY 68 & Prior FY 69 Total Program 

$722 Million $600 Million $2.84 Billion 

F. 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 

Handle via `E 111 

Control F, r9 _ 

Page of iq.pages 

Copy _t_ of 

SAFSL .Control bi 
DOM. 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

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 Feb '71 

July '71 

Manned All Up Flights Dec '71 

May '72 

Oct '72 

Mar '73 

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 

Handle via .77,711AN 

Contrci "SW-- 

Page 1O_ of is ages 

Copy _i_ of it co es 

SAM Oontrol 

1E-REL 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

. V:1-3 41 

Coatrel Oysism 

III. APOLLO APPLICATIONS PROGRAM 

A. Technical Objectives: 

The stated objectives of the Apollo Applications Program 

(AAP) are: 

1. Obtaining information on how best to sustain or improve' 

the effectiveness of man in space in terms of biomedical considerations, 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, experimenting with, and 

increasing man's capabilities for performing these tasks as 

well as the acquisition of useful data and results. 

The Apollo Applications Program 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 vehicle. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

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. 

B. Mission Profile: 

The basic AAP mission concepts are to: 

1. Use launch vehicles and spacecraft developed for Apollo. 

2. Accomplish space revisit, resupply, reuse. 

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.m. Following the successful orbit of AAP-2, the manned 

r 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

L'1 

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 (CSM) modified 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 

period, the workshop will be stored in orbit for reactivation 

and reuse on subsequent missions. 

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 

man and his spacecraft to function effectively for long periods 

of time in space. 

j _._, • ... 

"IrtgitEl,„ 77,mAN 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 (.77,71r 

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 inorbit 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, a series 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. 

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 complex 34 at Kennedy Space Center. 

...2epages 

pi 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

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

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

and a nose fairing. It 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 with 

the CSM from AAP-3. 

6. It is important to understand that a very large proportion of the AAP flight hardware for the low earth orbit mission 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: 

-17 ;2:, C -Ylopag e s 

111/411/4046 
~e../&.. 3f..02—pages .

lt—Zle.twg*I6 

BVEMAN 

tl 

via BYEMAN 

4,vm 

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 stages of completion. Vehicle 101 is scheduled for 

launch late this year as part of the Apollo qualification program on Saturn IB number 205. At the present, six CSMs are 

allocated to the AAP program for modification for long duration 

(56 days) missions. 

D. Ground Environment: 

1. Government/Contractor Industrial Base: 

North American Rockwell - Command Service Module. 

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp - Lunar Module. 

Lockheed Aircraft Corp - Astronomical Telescope Mount. 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Chrysler Space Division - Saturn IB Launch Vehicle 

at Michoud. 

McDonnell Douglas - (Douglas Division) SIVB stage 

and Orbital Workshop. (McDonnell Division) Air Lock. 

Martin Marietta - Systems Integration. 

Boeing Co - Saturn V at 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 Space Flight - Total Program Management 

2. Launch Facility: 

Kennedy Space Center. 

3. 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. 

4. Recovery: 

Department of Defense Manager for Manned Space Flight 

Support. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 triOirit? 

7M 

E. Schedule AAP (Approved) 

Flight Mission #1 

AAP-1/AAP-2 

Flight Mission #2 

AAP-3A 

Flight Mission #3 

AAP-3/AAP-4 

CY 1970 

CY 1970 

CY 1971 

f. Funding - AAP 

FY70- 

FY67 FY68 FY69 Beyond 

Research & Development 80.0 253.2 395.0 Unknown 

Facilities 1.2* 2.3* 2.0 11 

Administrative Opns 8.7* 28.2* 35.0 It 

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, Apollos, LEM's, 

etc. funded in the basic Apollo Program. 
1 EYEMAN 

IV. MOL HARDWARE FOR AAP PURPOSES 

The MOL System can be viewed in three general configurations 

(and time frames) when evaluating its potential usefulness for 

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 modified for 40-60 day on-orbit durations; 

and 

c. 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 

Faisolof+U„ages 

Copy_ 02 ^o ie 

Colatrol 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Prn571 

asp 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

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 without interfering with the basic MOL Program. NASA should be able 

to "buy" a launched, basic MOL system (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. diameter and up to 36 feet long) and NASA experiments. 

_e2.4 9-2...pages 

• Contr0 
Pagoette_04eges 

11,27::le E7Ef'll SLF—S14 Control 

SIcitein 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BOLA 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Ccntrel S7:13:1 

Virtually all NASA experiments contemplated for the Orbital 

Workshop except for the 56 day mission duration, rendezvous/ 

resupply operations, and the Advanced Telescope Mount could 

be accommodated in a Block I MOL space vehicle. No information is available as a basis for estimating the development 

and integration costs of these experiments. 

In April 1968, Douglas completed an in-house assessment 

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

concluded that most of the emphasis for astronomy from spacecraft 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 NASA/MOL 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 additional non-recurring costs. However, discretionary payload 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

,e;ULL:!zi 

Sysiam 

for the MOL Mission Module and NASA experiments, at the inclination planned by NASA from the ETR, would increase from 

11,500 pounds to approximately 17,500 pounds. 

B. MODIFIED PRESENT MOL HARDWARE 

Relatively straightforward modifications to the present 

MOL space 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 available 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. 

SAF-;31.: Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

-.73 via EITEMAN 

2V,om 

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 pounds. 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 increased by about 6,000 pounds. 

The configurations described in this sub-section would 

accomplish essentially all of the AAP objectives except the 

2._f24,7 

_._c &AS-Zia C 4 1,rolStatztaeit 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

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 (Rendezvous 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 

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 

1 

:7; ; 

`.CUs 

-&ers.cv,6 

Nude via BYEMAN 

Caztrel System 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BORN 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

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. Such a configuration would meet all of the AAP 

objectives (except to utilize Apollo hardware) as currently 

stated. 

„;;-1 

r, 

nt71.:1, 

1■41 "111 

941.2.5n #.24pag es. 

404,6 z.J/11--SiJ Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DOW 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Cantni Sjstem 

V. USE OF AAP HARDWARE FOR MOL 

A. 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 requirement. 

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 there may 

be many surplus articles available which will have been 

procured with lunar landing funds. 

Handle t BYEMAN 

Centel ,7:77''71 SECRET 

Page 44 of ..pages 

Copy i__ ofg_ co i a 

SAM Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Dow Handle via Ellin 

Control System 

At the time the MOL program was being conceived and 

approved (1965), 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. Reevaluation of the use of Apollo and/or AAP hardware for MOL 

purposes reconfirms the earlier findings. For example, it is 

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 displays as well as some means of 

permitting crew access to the area. The Airlock Module 

currently under development for AAP could not serve this purpose. 

Handle lila Etir.2.1;41 

Control Systo 

rageo2t of .44/spageS 

Copy _ of 40s. co les 

SiAFSL Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR SECRET 

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 alternative of 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 Program 

were cancelled, seven to eleven "free" Saturn IB launch 

vehicles could possibly be made available to the MOL Program. 

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

cancelled. Such a cancellation would avoid the expenditure 

of about $300 million in MOL funds. 

Handle via HYMN 

Control System -1Effigrage 024' of 41..42. pages 

Copy 4C_ of 0 co 

•

iQS 

SAM Control 

Hob via BYEMAN 

VOW Svstem 
EMIL 

Handle via IRIAN 

Control F!"'t771 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

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 TB. 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 tower added 

to the Gemini because of the more explosive character of the 

hydrogen/oxygen propellant in S-IVB. 

It appears that if the NASA surplus Saturn IB vehicles 

could be made available at no expense to the DoD, some 

initial savings might accrue to the MOL program. Once these 

vehicles are expended, however, any additional MOL launches 

lodia via PZIAN 

Cohn! Sycnin 

PaRg .7.7 of 4k2pages 

Copy of Co 

SAFSL Control 

SECRET 
Page 63C/ of 0...pages 

GPPY of co 

Panli Control 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

OrTMEL_ DOR_ 

Randle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

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 IB'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 booster is cost advantageous for 

MOL. 

C. Other Considerations: 

The current Apollo program contracts may also produce 

excess spacecraft for possible use other than the MOL 

reconnaissance mission. For example, the Lunar Module 

represents an attractive space maneuvering capability with 

possibly as much as 10,000 ft/sec velocity change available. 

&Lunar Module combined with a Gemini B re-entry spacecraft 

when launched on a Saturn IB represents an interesting 

possibility for 

v!A 711:11;1 

Centre, Syztem 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 4C-Ftg-- 

DOPtik.:-] 

Randle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

NEON 

r!rtrd --SECRETPao a of 4a.Pageg 

SAYSL Coutrol Copy-4 of 4!..1=11.4.6 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

PrrIrr.1 

L.- . 

Unrr".1 v701 r7714ftu LiAnn 

A-417-4 

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 the present MOL Program. The use 

of the S-IB in lieu of the T-IIIM might only be costattractive from the short term view if the S-IB's could be 

provided "free" to MOL by NASA; the S-IB would not be costcompetitive with the T-IIIM if there were a follow-on MOL 

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

R. 

r‘l 

r-,-1 

Page 31...of Oldpage9 

(70P:: 1_ of 41... co ies 

SA/Z.1; Control 
110"1 Jimmie via FJYEMAN 

Cortr .!'s.77tom 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

coordinated national objectives and to reduce total DoD and 

NASA space expenditures in FY 69 and subsequent years has 

also been examined. 

MOL objectives toward very 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 

PI rilt1 Pio 777 1!“.1 

Pap 33 of Japages 

0014V Of 41 co 

Gontro 172u1114 Crtrol 

SECRET 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Handle via BYlllilAN 

Centel 77;t1-71 

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; however, 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 

Page 4 of *El.pages 

Copy of 4E_ co a 

SLYSL Ccatrol 

13w44.4 

hal v12 FEM 

Control S's'7: 
r nIrl 

EYEMAN 

LIal Sistem 

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 

Pagt..s.ltk_of.41-ops. 

C opy-j-crf 

SP,.F-SL Contro 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DORIAN 

Handle via MEM 

Control Systn 

FY 69 Budget Estimate) without seriously damaging either 

program. This potential $200 million comes from a reduced/ 

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

studies (20), reduced Saturn IB 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 

exploration, deep space exploration, and/or the large earth 

orbiting station under study by NASA. 

Handle v!in 777.7!" 

ContrA 

Page IC of Y..,opages 

Copy of4La=s a4oe

S UM Control 
SECRET NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

VII. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 

If NASA were to use MOL Block I hardware, less 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 

pr.), icT 

Page 3..) of 12.pages 

Copy of - co ei,s 

CetrI SAIPSL Control 

Handle via BYE IAN 
DORM 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Cartel c, 1r1 

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-IIIM, 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 

NASA to provide the S-IB's and the launch services, and for 

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 the 

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

„ P • tf;,1 171f1 Val a 

. Contrci Systom 

Pagr e ,s3g of #1.pages 

Copy of c o• 

SAFSL Control • 

SEir7 
-7gLum.1 NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

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 studies now beginning. 

Ugh) 

Handle via YE 4N 

C:7111 

Page3141. ofiLipages 

Copy of o 

SAPSL Control 

13Mkilantile via BYEMAN 

Contra! !7.7tcyn 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DOP:1711 

km via EVEMAN 

Control system 

VIII. DISCUSSION 

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 

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: 

DOR:' 

n'771Artf 

pr,rlfz,! '..../;;;LZZ;■■ 

Vra 1.0., 

g@ 14)6f 447-pages 

Copy ar 4e._ co ies 

SAFS4 Dant/v.1, 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

D

an e via HEI'viAN 

Control System 

a. The MOL in any military vehicular version must 

operate exclusively within the authority 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 - 

a. 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 civil applications 

outside of the DoD budget. 

, r • 

Control S7st3m 

Page y_ of f_Ipages 

Copy of Y co i a 

51ASSL Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DORiAti 

Handle via BIEMAN 

Control System 

c. Enhances the DoD ability to influence and guide, 

NASA in the achievement of common goals and national 

economies. 

To NASA - 

a. Strengthens the NASA justification for the 

present earth orbital portion of AAP by giving 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, and products. 

UU 1'61 

7 t•Fm 

ControlSvz' I 

Page Y.2.-of Y.2•••pages 

Copy of y_ cop 

MAISL Control