NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BIF-137-50Z49-69 

Copya of a 

Page 1 

Total Pages: 16 

To: B. F. Knolle 27 june 1969 

Subject: Technical Status of the 

Dorian Payload at the Time of 

Termination 

From: G. D. Mc Ghee 

Reference: General Bleym.aier's letter -

I. In response to your informal request that the Aerospace 

Systems Analysis Office furnish an input for the technical evaluation 

which General Bleyrnaier requested all Air Force directors to 

perform, the following summary is offered. Eastman Kodak had 

made impressive progress on the facilities, flight hardware, and 

ground test equipment required to fulfill the objectives of the Dorian 

Program. At the time of termination they were essentially on 

schedule with all elements of the program, although there were 

some minor slippages on the order of 2-4 months. Recovery action 

appears feasible and there were no major show-stoppers. The 

progress on the hardware and software required to support this 

program can be adequately documented by the monthly progress 

reports and by on-site inspection of the condition of the facilities 

ASE and AFE inhouse at this time. It is suggested that Eastman 

Kodak be encouraged to document the facilities and hardware status 

at termination in a photographic summary. 

2. As is the case with every substantial hardware activity, 

there were a number of problems in work at the time of the termination. 

An outline summary of the significant technical problems is incorporated as Attachment 1. 

3. The major technical problem appeared to be the camera, 

which was significantly out of spec from a dynamics standpoint, 

and which appeared to be extremely marginal from a reliability 

standpoint. Both of these problems were inwork with a significant 

tiger team activity at Eastman Kodak and Itek. Both problems were 

considered by this office to be solvable, although it appeared that 

the solutions required essentially a complete overhaul of the camera 

design which suggests that the bulk of the camera development 

costs were still ahead. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

.13:2-K.7-50249-69 

Page 2 

4. Another major problem was the failure to produce 

rms on the 72-inch light-weight blanks. Although the schedule does 

not require availability of blanks polished to specification at this time, 

the importance of demonstrating this capability by doing" is quite 

apparent. Specifically, it was felt that by the time of the next fiscal 

year's budget review, optics capability would receive much more 

scrutiny. Recognizing that there were a large number of optical 

elements in process, EH was asked by an action item at the last 

Technical Review Meeting to examine the feasibility of working a 

single set of light-weight elements to an accelerated schedule, giving 

sufficient priority to ensure that the schedule is met. It was felt by 

this office that this activity would bring into focus whatever remaining 

problems might exist in the manufacturing, processing, and particularly 

measurements area. 

5. Attachment 2 is an action log for the Aerospace Systems Analysis 

Office, current as of the time of termination. It is furnished to indicate 

the level of activity on minor and major problems. It appears that the 

bulk of the problems by number were related to laboratory interfaces of 

the manned . e quipm ent s . 

.07 

Mc Ghee 

Attachments: 

1) Significant Problems in Existence at Time of Program Cancellation 

(2 Pages). 

2) Action Log for the Aerospace Systems Analysis Office (11 Pages). 

3) Letter from General Bleymaier dated 17 June 1969, Technical 

Evaluation of MOL (1 Page). 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

3:17, 

Page 3 

SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS IN EXISTENCE 

AT TIME OT PROGRAM CANCELLATION 

The following items apply to the configuration existing at the 

time of termination of the Program: 

1. Camera dynamics and reliability - a considerable amount of 

work remains to reduce or eliminate internally-generated 

vibration and to improve reliability. 

2. A film with the characteristics defined in the Statement of 

Work may not have been available to match predicted resolution requirements. GFE problem. 

3. Eastman Kodak component qualification was not formally 

submitted; yet tests were proceeding. 

4. Activity on redundant IVS provisions was not at a sufficient 

level to meet schedule demands. 

5. Some thermal control modifications may have been needed, 

based on results of COA thermal test. 

6. Interface mismatch on tracking mirror ring deflection 

relative to the trunnions required resolution. 

7. Capability for manufacture or test to the "state-of-the-art" 

optical requirements of this program had not been physically 

demonstrated, 

8. EMI - Eastman Kodak was in process of questioning requirements and re-opening specification and testing program. 

9. The implementation and control of operational computer 

software was not directly accessible to EK via the interface 

arrangements. 

10. Effectiveness shortcomings - 

(a) EK contract (and expectation) not in agreement with 

SP/DR allocation. 

(b) Policy regarding review and correction of single point 

failure modes. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

13IF-107-53249-69 

Page 4 

, 

11. Diagnostic and health check measures for on-orbit usage 

had not received adequate attention and consequently were 

ill-defined. The same can be said for contingency analysis. 

12. Focus sensor technique was subject to systematic error. 

13. Complexity of the interface system caused. extreme difficulty 

in reaching technical agreements, converting such agreements to realizable hardware, and controlling configuration 

of both development and prime hardware. 
C 

4-, 

C's 

0"‘ 

0 

(), 

■—■ 

Ct 

4-1 

-4—, 

Cd 

■-• 

-ti• 

0 

r 

r‘. 

1 

tf) • 

Lc) 

4 .! 

.-, . 

r '...4 

..,-. .,e. 

L) "... 

0 

. 

. . 

i 

• • • 

• . 

r." ri , ,...4 1 

6' '-'-' 

,-, ,-.- 

.-4 

>•4 0 H 

;:r-i cn Z 

,-, 0 

i-1 " rril UZ ILI 

' . 

.- .. • 

• 

. 

... •- . 

• 

I 

..- _... -. 

..-.4 1 T ‘ 

1 ., 

1 

1 •0- 

1 

I 

I - 

U) 

.! 

• 

i 

1 

 • . 

I 

, 

1 

.1 

i 1 

, DUE DATE OPEN 

Z r-i 

n 

0 

OPEN 71 

..o 

---. 

,--, •C4 

— 

-- 

n 

0 

,:r, Z 

r.,..1 '7 

0 

, 

Z 

,.. H...-. 

.0 

..,4 

0 

0 

i 

1 

,------, 

..... 

s) 

- i 

=■ ; cl i 

,.. . 

;••;'H, 1 

' C) 

CA1 •,... 

.., 

■ ) 

11 

'I). 

ROBINS MOSK WA 

E-i 

. 

i--i 

• I T j. 0 

HOWARD - 

, 

• LT.1 

0 e 

ROBINS 

c

,..,.: 

MCGI-IEE • 

WATSON 

ROBINS / GIBBS 

..7. 

0 

0 

SAFETYU RBAN SAFSL • 

30033 • 

DEVIATIONS 

! 

■ 

. 

0 0 ..« 

r••- ,..4 

C.,:i ' IC, 

up in 

.r., 

co (24 

.0 In 

N.: I 0 

• 

'-- 

. cil 

-,i 

,... 

(D 

I) 

(..) 

).--i 

H ,21-i 

0 . 

. cr) 

HOWARDTWX IN 

C0011.11INA TI 

1TWX H-5874 

.._ 

`,.-. 

.e. r.; 1 ■-4 

VIEWER: LIGHTING APPROACH; W EIGHT POWERNEGOTIATIONS BRUSH DC MOTORS - WHY NOT BRUSHLESS 

CONTAMINATION REVISIONTO SAFSL 

30033 

VIBRATION BUDGETS/EFFORTS - WORKING • 

APPROACH-HALENBECKTIMELINE 9MAY 

V241, . 91-US1 oc._ v CAN Lv_i ;3 

SAFSL INTERNAL EXPLOSION HAZARD t-C=1. 

VO MAGNIFICATION DRIVE FAI LUREMANU AL BACKUP ACCESS 

AUTOMATIC FOCUS PROPOSAL IVS INTERFACE OPENITEM RESOLUTION 

POSTPASS TELEMETRY SIMULATION REQVS 

DIRECTION TO EI< • 

VIBRATIONATTHEVO EYEPIECE 

• 

cr'■ //6( 1'-'s 

PANEL G LASSBREAFAGE HA.ZARD 

1 . 

t 

co / 1f? c- : 

... 

.-, 
___C________ OMP LE'i ED _ _ 

BY -ER-AU THORIZED-TC 

PROCEED PROC. VI. 

TWX 

. . 

• 

ii 

eli ■•• 

....1.4 

9 

..-, 

.41 

'• A 

P i.) 7.1 t.J 

1 

.S? 

1. 

° C...; 

1 

L\-••• 

2 

r 

4-, 

1 ! 

i } 

! I 

i 

. 

i 4 

2 2 

! i 

1 

i 

: 

i 

i 1 

i ! 

t 

r". s.14 

1....1 • 

--_.1 

' 

Z 

PA 

0 

• 

JUNE 

TH ERMAL _TEM • 

OPEN 

n ■--, 

0 

'•7 

.-, 

z 

C.? 

..-1 

z 

N 

n ,--i 

0 

OPEN 

_... 

1 

1 

• 

1 

! 

• 0 

-'1 

...., '- ■• I 

(,) .< 

••••••4 

Er' 

u) 

DAC / MOSKWA 

HOLTZ 

HOLTZ 

EMERSON / 

HOLTZ 

H OLTZ 

DANTA 

DANTA 

WATSON . 

EA RRINGT OD 

FEST 

L , mcc,„,,,,,, 

.......____ . _...._ 

■--.. 

0 

0-, ..9 

CO. 

L n 1 

0 

... 

H 

r;',1 1-1 

H 0 u) H 

. 

6 u) 

TSOM 9 

MASS PROP. 

REPORT 

H 

. Cis ,...0 

N 

0 

. 

■-•-, , 

- ; 

1 

i 

--, 1 :•-.-4 

..t. 

H ,--1 

.-v 

• 

INTEGRATIONTEST REQUIREM ENTS 

SPECIFICATION(LVITRS) 

.SIGNOFF 7 11-0 0 143-4,5, 6 I 

PROCESSOR MOUNTING - THERMAL ISOLATION 

HUMIDITY CONTROL IN BAYS 1 & 5; DAC 60% 

RH MAX, EK 30-50% RH • 

LM THERMA L CONTROL REVIEW 

REVIEW MASS PROPERTIES REPORT 

CONTRACT CHANGE LISTS 

PROGRESS REPORT . 

CDRL REVIEW 

AEROSPACE CORN TARGET 

RECOMMENDATIONS • MMFS ACOUSTIC LEVELSHOTSPOTS • 

ALUMINUMPLUMBING TEM 

0 

- ..... ::::, .0 03 0 • 

- 

0 

--1-; 

0 

,f , 

— 

 C. 

_. 

\ 

. 

...••••• ,. — 

,--•• 

' 

- -• — 

.2; 
WATS ON. IIOWARD 

H 

< • 

O 

H 

O 

0 

z 

H 

•

o 

VERSUS LL-2 DEFLECTIONS 

H 

U 

H 

0 fa. 

EG- 12 UPDATING REQUIREMENTS 

U) 

0 

0 O 

ti 

O 

PED 17 FLUX SENSOR COATING(THERMAL 

U

QQ

i 

2 

U) 

ri 

< H 

i. 

co 

t1 t1 tr, 
Y S Y.; M 

• P.- • •• , 

■ 

0 

r"1 

1 

1 F

r 

..--. 

41 ■•-• • 

. 

o

I 

r 

a 

. . 

i 1 

Z ' 

'1 

--' 

.< 

. 

Z - 'r--- -, 

I 

›- n 

HO 

. 

1 

I 

i 

- 1 

# 

1 

1 

1 

i 1 

■ . 

1 

i 

I 

, 

, 

j 

1 

r-1 T-x.1 

r--. ...-.4. 

'""" ..-.. ,. ! 

1 r

) 

1 • 

1 

c.,--• 

—..... 

P., ■ ...... 

• n 

(f) 

MCGHEE 

I SOM 10 1 ROBINS 

WATSON 

••

-- . 

, 

, 

HOWARD SCI-IMIDT 

, 

-,

,--; 

< C 0 

,... 

1 i 

0 ,--4 re• 

0 1-4 

1—: 

.. 

. ., 

. 

 . 

..........—..---,...—.... 

TM COMMERCIAL SHIPMENT 1-SOM. 10 

■ 

CD ....4 

, 

4 

0 

C.i) 

r—Th 

' INPUTTO FLIGHT CREW TRAINING 

REQUIREMENTS DATA BANK .. . 

• 

VO IMAGEDEROTATION 

FAMS INTERFACE • 

U PDATE EXCHANGE HARDWARE OPENITEM 

LIST 

EAR RESPONSE 

FLIGHT CREWTR AI N) NG 

r--- ---i 

 \ 

s....1 

C--- 

- \> 

CO Cs.1 

N 

. 

..:-..)' 

N 

P.- 

rs1 • 

7 

- i' 

(I, 

' r, 

r re, 

1 

i •-:::. 

', ,,-, .... , 

: 
CGOMP EF'T'A

BY ) 

' 

S. 

' (1. 

.., 

. , 

,..- 1.... 

\ 

1 \ .../ 

1 

. 

,1 

,. 

' 

i 1 

I 

S. 

,, 

I • 

i 

I 

I . 1 

- 

,:,,, 

,--■ 

4—, 

- -, 

(.:) 

1--- 1 

i 

i 

1 

. 

. . . 

• 

LI- 

.... :l ,

..:-. 

(.....) 

---r_ 

,..-, 

ar.,' 

, 

: 

i 

. 

1 

i 

■ 

• 

;4 

r-72 ■-,.. 

U 

-..... 

. I i L., 

.r-T-■ 

... 

i. .,. 

1 • / 

• , .--- 

, 

, ‘, ',"•-.. r : -

'? ..' v/ 1 

;": '''-'• i 

■ 

• 

\ -? 

\ 1 

i / 1 

. 

. 

; 

. 

.z--1 

i \ I 

..'-2, I \ 1 

0 1 \ t 

,--4 

-,...... i 0 1 

- , 

f ....-- 

r',1 ',:".1 

(.7.1 

. C., 

,...0 

--__ 

..o .--4 

.....„ 

.0 

- n 

ill 

..,. •, 

--. 

Ci) 

4/) 

GIORDANO/ 

ROBINS 

k-IM7J<\ 

. N i 

......„,. ..n1 

. 

ROBINS 

,L'i. 

.--,. > 

0 

. 

, 

r, 

0 

.Y. 

' C 

0 

or) 

r- 

. 

1 

\ N 

1 

I 

1 

1 

ON i 

1-.,::ry 

(Nil Q 

C> ■.., ,--Cr...-f-' 

EMERSON 

'107-50210-69 

• ■---1 

• 

cr) 

H 

c\a 

'FR 3 A.I. 

Tit 3 A.I. 

. v.-I 

en 

.S.4".. 

, - . 

...--, 

H 

• m •si 

H 'FR 3 A.I. 

TWX 

•,--.' ..e., 

:J1 

H' 0.4 

FLIGHT CREW TRAINING (INPUT TO FLIGHT 

CREW TRAINING REQUIREM ENTS DATA BANK 

SI EXCE TION tPT. 6 MA 1969 --- 1*ERMAL)DISTQRTION ANAhYSIS OF T 1E COA, 

ALU‹171.3M 

• 

SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS 

, 

• ..1 le tl• - • . 

VO ST'-LG. CHANGEICN-EXPEDIT E GE 

ti 

DE-34 THERMAL BLANKET ICN C' -tEXPEDITE TO GE S /0 

- - - 

CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN EK SIMULATOR • 

EQUIPMENTS 

• 

CONSTANTWEAR GARMENT SAMPLE DATA CORP.COMMENTS ON CORN TARGETS 

.1.0k VS.IF 100 FOR FACILITY REQUIREM ENTS 

- 7- RESPONSE TO A. I. VO 

• 

./ 

a 

...... , 

• --s i 

..... 

,..., 1 .s, 

\ M 

‘ 

‘.... 

ci kr, 

• 

‘..-? 

, . 

, 

,...__ 

"7. 

.-.. 

Lc) 

o 

>- 

LU 

L " 

o_ a. (a 

< < ELI 0 _J 

UJ 

Z 

• 
CN 

ON 

Nj4 

N 

CD 

r-- 

CD 

4-4 Cj 

ffr-1 

7-. 

rj) 

C) 1 C1 

(N.1 

LC) 

N N N 
< 

r 

• 0 

WATSON 

• f 

I 0. 

z PROG1:AM 

H 

■ 1 

, 

1 i i 

• i r-, i i i 1 

i 77•• ■ ! .. ; I .:.-■ 

H 

i 

/ / 

`...L.; 

l., 

i■ ' 'CI 

/ i 2 i 1 i 

CY■ 

r,,. 7 ;''-1 'i 

t ',...4.4 ,... i 

; 

• 

i 

7 

(-.] -. I 

t...--) i 0 X 1 

. 

; V 

C- H 

,--i Cl.) 

727 

• 4 

1 

• 1 

! • 3 

.. .N.1 

• 

, < 

0 c.,c! , ? ' • P i 

X' 0 / X e -■ ---1 ; ,.,... N 

E-I■-14 ? H i 1

' 1 

. 1 (,-.4 • j . , 

.. . 7 

i 14 1 

i •H ' 1 

—J . 

 

NI . 1 •i U 

1 H ' 

i-n7. i 4 

14 t < 1 

. 4 

4 • 1 • 

.0 1L- si 

0 i i 

I.-4 ( ■ . 4 Z.• cn 'rx' 1-1 i .5 

72 1 . z .--; 4. z 4 El 

1.,.:IzesL 1 

, 

\ 1 

Cf. . 

r . c, 
3 t 

3 1 

I 

1 

1.,Th • i 

1 i 

ON ? , -') 

, • 

I •

i 

'') 

1 

i 1 ,,O 

• i r-•-■ 

0, . 

i A'-'i ',.., 1 • . 

-CO 

('\: I 1 

0 -in 3 

c, „--, 3 3 3 r..... (., 

7 

11,17:; :77 -1 1 

1 

I 4 

i 

I 

7 

Z 

i 

Uz.) , i ) 

orz 1 2 

. 1 Z 

;4:I' 

(7 , . E..,i 

E__, 

1,1 i 0 

) 

< I •< 

3 l------- I 27-,..• 3 

,-4 

1 . ■-■ 7 

no•■•••)....... 

ICOO 

1 

1 

H H 

, < .--, 

0 

ID-1 1 cn 

H 

W E-t 1 

1 

Z . • ,0-1 c-1 

1 

• ›-I 

ID 

cl, 3 

0 3 

rZ-1 

CI) 1 

i fz4 . I 

H 0 

1 Z•a, . I cal 1 

Q ' 

i .,...., n r. V) 

E--)1 i-,-i 

-4

▪ 

U•>-+ ' t E 

1 .-1 

0 • i-, 1 ,-4•1 r

1 

3-4 <•H 4 

L a z 

< 

ra 

3 t--.3 

,--, 

>-3 .. c,4 g 

r 0 

1 H 

■-71 El H 

1 

a—: 

1 g )---1 (-.) 0 

1 

• )-1 

:34

H 

I 

(I) t24 

1.4 E-I E-.3 

,4 . z Z i z 

•r.xl 0 • -4 :,1--3 0 1 0 

, 

a, 

.-,--{,,s. L), 0 1 

. —....„... , 

i..=-4 3 - 

• „....„ .-- ; :-.•,-..--, 3 c•-• 7 ...‘, ; iv I ;NI 

*OEM. 

1 

3 

N 

; . 
1 , 

■ :. 1r. ! ) 

1 , 

i 1 1 

: t

-....... ! f

12) : 

1 1 I 

1 '

i ! 

■..., 

0 

• 4-4 

,:t• 0 0 ; oj H 0.0 

 41 4 

0 

r.f) 

2--( • U0 

-4 

■-7.4 c4 H 

„;) 

;14 , 

- 

C.;•1 

W, CI) 0 

0 

0 

01 

H 

0 

Z 

CI 

U) 

fx•I • • 

0 

H • 

0 

HZ 4-4 

co 

. 

• 

A 

• o !,-'4 a • 

Q 

• 

ra"4 

() 

• - 

c) 

GE-49CONTROL CONSOLES ICN 

cf) 

z 

0 

H 

0 

H 

(-1 

2 

n 

• --.... r r.4 

ETD' C-14 

4 • 'r— r 41 H 

U) 

U 0 Z z

U 

Z 

H 

0 

U 

a4 

cr) 

r4 0 

H H 

7-4 

LO 

!;'-: • t

0 C (-) 

4 

4-4 

c.?• 

0 

u.) ,u) H ;4 

O 0 

0 

E--4 z 

• Z 

• C-4 

U 

U) 

z C) i .U i 
0 

N I . 

E"( 

▪ Z.r) 

oti, rti 

cz-t 

- I 

r'S 

• 1••••, 

r•-•- 

C.7.1 

▪ 

 i • i*"4 \ 

z . 

X X 

• 

• / 

( '-- 

,-. • "1-,- 

H 

03 

0^. 

• 

CAMERA DYNAMICS REVIEW 

0 

H 

U) U

0 

0 

LlGIIT MONITOR 

(COA LEVEL) 

0 

z 

U) :3- 

.z

U 

U 

U 

0 

t-1 

iu) cf) 

0 f -1 

,_r• 4 a 

PROCESSORTRACK 

••■•••••••,. 

• 

u_ 

u.; D 

cc 

LO 

a_ L•11 EL (.0 

< 

_J 

rZ 

Z 

N 

/ 

In .0 •.-,-, 1...^) 03. 

C \I C"\) .0 • 3 -..0 '../..., i 
, ,...'.• , 

• 1 ; 

t .!./' f, • i t 

„, ,„ .... r , .,.,•:'f•-•,?...'• '1 . 'C..' -• ' ,.,.: 1 $ 

1 !"..•1 

1.4441 ,-•••■ 

0 

• 

..7! 

; 2‘, ■ 

t ...„...---” <1.--1 

. . - ..- , , :,... 

cil , 

...:::/ 

ei ,..,; ; 

-,:-.,•• 

'.7 

t . ...) ••,..„...,•... .:,. t1, i 

,,, s.„:„.„ 

..—. . 1 .••• 

t. fs.■ . /7.- - - 

0 

I 7 I ' - i 

, L-•-i ....-1 I .. i..-_-' 

....._..- —:- 

• 4 i • ...'■ 

" ,c.2. ; • i 

. k, ?....., i 

t.. 1 

,..... • • • 

......., 0/ ‘.. 4/... c 

; 

CI 

L. 

—, 4, ■,- 

- 

'' ii l■ i 

.......i

'1 

'.f?' 

0 1 

i 

7 

, V 

• ' •• 7 

,...- —......., 

-..: • 

) ....../.-5 1 • ,..., 

,,•! 

,...-----r;'-, '

C.1. —"

■—_. ' ' 

, i••-------I C:; C; -- /t 

1 

---r 

,,.... -,..,• 1,--_____e; ...-■-,.,z- W 1 7.'r 3 1 (.:-..; • tl) ; [.\--i 

. ..,.,..: ? i i 

,...''' 

0

i__ <) 1 _ r 

N ., 1. 

1 

, 

/ 4 1 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 BIF-107-50249-69 

■Ass T5ASORA7ORY, SYSTEM:Z. ;3..A 

AF ■.;N:T POST .OFFiCE, L•:::,S ANGEL-ZS, CA RA 

3_JS-L-1 

Evaluation of CL 

An objective technical evaluation o where. the -2-rograa stands 

today is recuired. The evaluati= should be in accord with the tasks, 

:3reakdown Structure of the wOrk statements and/or by functional 

areas;, such as engineering, manufacturn, etc., whichever termits the 

ost local and meaninsful &valuation. Coordination with Government 

develotment engineers or support engineers located at the -plants is 

recuired. 

The evaluation rust comy,are the work done on the terminated -oar 

of tne contract to the amount of work contemtlated by-tne entire conTechnical evaluations need not isolate undefinitized from ;lefinitized effort. Incurred costs compared to total contract estimated 

costs are not a suitable auide as they often do not accurately reflect 

the amount, timeliness, efficiency or difficulty of the work -oerformed 

by t-he contractor. Once the cualitative evaluation is made, a rcant 

comtlete at date of termination should be documented. 

Technical evaluation o subcontractor effort is not recuired cut 

ao. evaluation of the -orime contractor's management of the subs should 

. _ oe ine_Ludea. 

Incentives do not reuire technical evaluation since only those 

already earned are included in -profit fee).. 

The technical &valuations'need not be lengthy dissertations and 

should be accomplished as soon as practicable. 

Cy to: Iv.,DAC-WD AP-PRO (G. Gavora) -/---- — --,,--,'. , ----.' •'' s , . ,-, _ 

/., . S. B.— ,, ..-_,:t ,aj un, 'MO .7. -, - , 

.1DAC-ED NAVPLA:s1RE20 ..de,aty Director, I'LL _ 

(a. :ink) 

2W DCASR (.7. Wood) 

LC Elect AYPRO (J. Belga) 

YN.O AFPRO (L. McCabe) 

Aerojet-Gen AFPRO (G. Carney) 

72C =a° (C. Xjelland) 

G17, APPRO (.. -baacson) 

Ear Std DCASD (R. Burke) 

Whirlpool DCASR (C. Woznicki) 

7CD (ClE) 

ONLY 

C') 7;1 EN 'In