NRO APPROVED,FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

orrice OF THE SECRETARY 

Contr cteil 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

APR 2 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. McLUCAS 

SUBJECT: SAF-Level MOL Management 

In our March 21 discussion on the above subject, you 

requested my views on possible alternative SAF-level MOL 

management arrangements and the pros and cons of each. That 

is the purpose of this memorandum. As a background for such 

considerations, however, let me first briefly relate the 

early AF management objectives for special handling of MOL 

and the management arrangements which evolved by mid-1967 and 

continued through mid-March 1969. 

OBJECTIVES OF SPECIAL MOL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 

In a January 14, 1965 letter to DepSecDef which described 

the USAF plan for early management of the MOL Program, 

Dr. McMillan (then SAFUS/DNRO) stated that the Air Force 

objective had been to define a management concept which 

provided for the following: 

1. Streamlined management for both black and white 

portions of the program. 

2. Centralized program direction for both black 

and white portions of the program.. 

3. Firm management control and continuous review 

of the program at the Secretary of the Air Force level. 

4. Effective coordination with NASA and other 

Government agencies at the Secretary of the Air Force level. 

MOL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS. 1967-1969: 

However, all of those objectives were not fully realized 

until September 1967. The major features of MOL management 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

liandie via UYEMAN 

Control Svstern TOP 57.T.'w1ET 

'Page_k_of-a-pages 

Copy__—of_--o Jo 

SAF-SL Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 via BYLiiii 

Control System 

arrangements from then until mid-March 1969 included: 

1. A MOL Systems Office in Los Angeles who administered and managed all MOL contracts and activities and was 

responsible for implementing the approved total program, 

reporting directly and only to . . . 

2. The Director/Vice Director MOL in the Pentagon, 

who was responsible for daily supervision and direction of 

MOL Systems Office activities and for all Washington area 

AFSC/Air Staff/SAF-like MOL activities, reporting directly 

to . . . 

3. The former SAFRD/DNRO who was the single AF 

"executive agent" for MOL, exercising overall technical/ 

financial program supervision via a MOL Program Review Council 

on a generally monthly basis, and who theoretically reported 

to • • • 

4. A MOL Policy Committee "Board of Directors" 

chaired by the SAF (who met infrequently because the former 

SAF apparently preferred less cumbersome and time-consuming 

means). Additionally, 

5. OSD designated a single MOL focal point (formerly 

Mr. Kirk and now Mr. Palley, DDR&E) who worked informally and 

directly with the MOL Program Office and participated as an 

Ex-Officio member of the MOL Program Review Council. 

EVOLUTION OF MOL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS: 

Attachment 1 and its tabs present a brief chronology and 

graphical depictions of the evolution of MOL management 

arrangements from January 14, 1965 through March 17, 1969. 

MARCH 17, 1969 CHANGE IN MOL MANAGEMENT AT THE SAF LEVEL 

Dr. Seamans' March 17 memo to appropriate AF officials 

stated that you, in your capacity as DNRO, are also responsible 

for the "MOL Reconnaissance Payloads" (Atch 1, Tab J). 

Meanwhile, SAF Order 100.1, dated September 1, 1966 (Atch 1, 

Tab E) is also still in effect which holds SAFRD responsible 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via HENN lop cECRET, ilontifil SyMIDI • 

Pagea2-_of_a_pages 

Copy -of _ _ pi a 

Ohl Gantt° 
vm) GrIluT 

NRO APPROVED FOR aNY L9' 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

via 

Control System 

for "directing and supervising all space programs and space 

activities of the Air Force . . ." Since all NRP space 

programs and activities technically belong to OSD -- not AF --

they are automatically excluded. Also excluded, both past 

and present, from the provisions of this directive are the 

reconnaissance aspects of MOL. 

As a result of these two documents, the Director, MOL 

became responsible directly to the DNRO (SAFUS) for the MOL 

reconnaissance payload and operation, and to SAFRD for all 

non-BYEMAN elements and aspects of the MOL Program. . . 

All other management responsibilities and arrangements 

apparently continued unchanged from those that were in effect 

on March 16, 1969. 

ASSUMPTION RE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS: 

For the purpose of this memorandum, it is assumed that 

no changes are contemplated at this time in MOL Program Office 

and Systems Office responsibilities, functions, or general 

program implementation management/administrative procedures 

now in effect. In that vein, the following considers only 

possible allocations of MOL Program supervision responsibility 

and direction authority between the DNRO and SAFRD. 

BASIC ALTERNATIVE SAF-LEVEL MOL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 

There are three immediately-apparent, reasonable SAF-level 

general management arrangements which should be considered: 

1. DNRO Manages Entire Program: this arrangement 

is envisaged as similar to the situation which existed until 

March 16, 1969, with the MOL Director/Vice Director/Deputy 

Director reporting directly to the DNRO for all aspects of 

the Program. The current SAF would presumably inject himself --. 

as did his predecessor -- into program management matters as 

desired and/or required (via discussions with the DNRO and 

Director MOL, monthly reports, MOL Policy Committee meetings, 

etc.). 

This arrangement would insure that the MOL 

Program continued closely allied with the NRP, was managed by 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Cnntral LP SECRET 

fagca.ofi_pageS 

Copy,...-of----13 lc 

Ohlfbh 
NRO APPOVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

krET Bailie via iVEMAN 

Control System 

the same individual responsible for those programs, had an 

authoritative SAF "voice" to direct and/or commit the program, 

and minimize SAF-level management review/approval interfaces 

for the MOL Program and Systems Offices, etc. 

The apparent disadvantages are that this arrangement would place another significant workload on SAFUS (in 

addition to the DNRO responsibility), would not take full 

advantage of SAFRD experience and knowledge in space technology, 

nor insure that SAFRD was kept well informed (so that he could 

guide related AF R&D activity and/or explain or justify MOL 

as necessary in the Congress and elsewhere). 

2. DNRO/SAFRD Manage Clearly Identified Elements 

of the MOL Program: There are numerous possible variations of 

this management arrangement -- with the SAFRD responsible for 

distinct MOL subsystems ranging, perhaps, from the T-IIIM 

booster to all non-reconnaissance elements of the MOL system, 

and the DNRO responsible for all else. SAF participation is 

assumed as described in Sub-section 1 above. 

The apparent advantages of such an arrangement 

are that the SAFUS/DNRO workload presumably would be reduced a 

proportionate amount; appropriate advantage would be taken 

of SAFRD experience and knowledge in space matters; SAFRD 

would be kept better informed on MOL status, etc. 

The advantages, however, might be more apparent 

than real. Major MOL management problems have consistently 

been and probably will continue to be associated either 

directly or indirectly with the payload, or with overall 

program schedule and cost considerations. Thus, the SAFUS/DNRO 

probably would continue to be deeply involved in most MOL 

management matters regardless of the black/white division of 

responsibility between he and SAFRD. Further, those elements 

assigned to SAFRD probably would constitute an added personal 

workload for the SAFRD since MOL is managed, funded, and 

supported completely apart from normal AF R&D channels and, 

except for the Titan IIIM, is related more to the NRO and 

NASA than any on-going AF activities. 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

hide via BYEMAN Copy...-of_-__o pi 

141.44 Contro Tno 

,4 43c 5-2s .5,FPPKI 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

lioritile via BYEMAN 

Control System 

3. SAFRD Manages Entire Program: In this arrangement, it is envisaged that in addition to the still-current 

provisions of the September 1966 SAF Order 100.1, the DNRO 

would delegate day-to-day responsibility for payload 

development supervision to the SAFRD. SAF participation is 

assumed as described in Sub-section 1 above. 

The apparent advantages of such an arrangement 

are that it would reduce the DNRO/SAFUS daily workload, take 

full advantage of SAFRD experience and knowledge in space 

matters, keep SAFRD fully informed on MOL, etc. 

Here again, the advantages might be more apparent 

than real. Since the DNRO presumably would retain DoD 

management responsibility for such NRO/MOL matters as SOC 

targetting activities, interfaces with elements of the 

Intelligence Community, SCF operation, EK resources utilization, 

BYEMAN security and MOL public information policies, etc., 

he could not divest himself from fairly frequent involvement 

in the MOL Program even at this date. SAFRD, on the other hand, 

would have no basis, except via discussions with the DNRO and the 

MOL Program and Systems Offices, to insure that MOL NRO/ 

Intelligence Community interfaces were progressing in a 

satisfactory manner, that GAMBIT-3 experience was reflected 

in MOL and vice versa, etc. 

MODIFIED BASIC MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE 

A modification of the preceding basic management arrangements which might be considered is one which retains 

centralized SAF-level management of MOL with full SAFRD participation in program planning, approval, and implementation. This 

arrangement envisages the DNRO retaining SAF-level executive 

responsibility for the entire MOL Program, with SAFRD participation in across-the-board program management as a member of 

the MOL Program Review Council. 

Although SAFRD presently isa member of the SAF-chaired 

MOL Policy Committee, that group is neither chartered nor 

expected to concern themselves with day-to-day program details. 

The MOL Program Review Council, on the other hand, has 

generally met monthly and reviewed and approved in necessary 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 

rInntrol Svonni 

pag.4.d.of_z_pages 

cbrp gAY,§h Oar° 

/.!;/-,%- •;eT;;.'cs- 
Page_4._oe../_pages 

Copy__-_of-___opi 

BAY-SL Control. 

WO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

-7(71 (17.9.7 IiL Ale via B1EMAN 

Control System 

detail all technical, financial and operational matters. 

West Coast meetings of the PRC usually have been accomplished 

in conjunction with DNRO reviews of SAFSP matters. 

Attachment 2 includes the charters of both the MOL Policy 

Committee and the MOL Program Review Council. 

This arrangement should not increase DNRO workload any 

significant amount over split-responsibility alternatives 

since the majority of the management problems concern either 

the payload directly or indirectly or overall program funding/ 

scheduling matters. It would take advantage of SAFRD 

experience and knowledge in space matters and his advice and 

counsel on the entire program rather than one or more subsystems, and would keep SAFRD fully informed on MOL as background for his direction of any related AF R&D activities 

and official dealings with NASA and the Congress. 

RECOMMENDATION/IMPLEMENTING ACTION 

I recommend the above arrangement be adopted for at 

least a six months trial period. The administrative actions 

to do so are relatively simple and will not call attention to 

any special SAFUS (DNRO) responsibility for MOL. 

In my opinion, relatively few people inside and outside 

the Air Force really understand some of the subtleties of 

MOL management arrangements. Most regard it simply as a 

take-off on the old ICBM management procedures, with a MOL 

Project Office in Los Angeles who reports directly to the 

Director, MOL in the Pentagon who, in turn, reports directly 

to SAF as specified in published, unclassified AF orders. 

Even many of the DORIAN-cleared people did not fully understand 

the former DNRO/SAFRD's involvement since MOL clearly was not 

yet a part of the NRP. The implications of SAF Order 100.1 

(re SAFRD space responsibilities) probably were meaningless to 

most people other than the Director, MOL since SAFRD has these 

same responsibilities for all AF R&D programs. . . the real 

details of MOL management are set forth only in limited 

distribution BYEMAN-classified documents. 

Therefore, all that is necessary to implement my 

recommendation is to: 1. delete the last para of SAFRD 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via 5TUAN 51,rinrT 
• _ - 

NRO APRROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 EP ECRU Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System • 

responsibilities as now stated in SAF Order 100.1 (re space) 

and issue a new version; 2. have SAF issue a BYEMAN-classified 

supplement to his March 17 memo, re delegation of authority 

to the DNRO, stating that the latter's responsibility includes 

the entire MOL Program (same addressees plus Director, MOL, 

with info copies to DepSecDef and DDR&E); and 3. make the 

necessary minor modifications to the MOL Program Review Council 

charter. The MOL Program should not be specifically identified 

in any unclassified SAF/SAFUS/SAFRD functional statement. 

g

e 

S T. STEWART 

G<. 

ajor General, USAF 

Vice Director, MOL Program 

Atch 

a/s 

cc: Mr. Hansen 

Mr. Davis 

Dr. Yarymovych/Gen Berg 

Gen Ferguson 

DORIAN/GAMBIT 

Handle via BYEMAN 

control Sy:;tem 

Page=7-0t:70Lpages 

Copy....0--- pi 

DADA Centro