Y D 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

JUL 1 1968 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

SUBJECT: MOL Meeting with NASA AAP Representatives 

At the request of Mt. Charles 10thews Deputy Associ 

Administrator for Manned Space Flight, NASA Headquarters, 

a meeting was held at the McDonnell Douglas facility at 

Huntington Desch on Juno 25, 1968; at 0900 hours, The pur 

pose of the *eeting was to further define information 

required by t*SA for potential. NASA. use of MOL hardware. 

The meeting. grew out of a letter to General Stewart, dated 

June 1'4 1.968 and a meeting between General Stewart and 

Mr.' Harold LOalgin on June 20', 1968. A copy of Mt. Mathews' 

letter is attached as Tab A.- 

Principals present at the meetingwere Major General 

Steware, Major General Bleymaier, and Mr. Palley representing, 

AF/DOD; Mt. Charles Mathews, Mr. Harold Laskin and Mr. Douglas-. 

Lord representing NASA. In addition to the above there were. 

six' other NASA employees and other Air Force personnel present, 

Mt. Robert Johnson, McDonnell Douglas also sat in most of the 

meeting. 

The meeting opened with an introduction by General Stewart 

who covered the following points ill his remarks. General 

Stewart recounted the background on the Mathews June 17 letter 

and his conversation With Mr. Luskin. He assured the group 

that the Air Force is prepared to provide any DIM data 

requested and to do any studies within reason. He explained 

the purpose of the meeting was to establish a clear cut understanding of what data RASA wished to have on the 1IOL Program. 

General Stewart cautioned:the group it would be necessary, 

due'to security considerations and,contractual constraints, 

for the. NASA people to work closely with both the Air Force 

and the contractors. . 

Mk, Mathews responded- to General Stewart introduction 

by summarizing NASA's interest and objectives following the 

lunar landing and return phase of Apollo. .He alluded to their 
APPROVED.FOR 

SE 1 JULY 2015 

desire to conduct subsequent lunar explorations and long 

range manned trips to the near planets. qtr. MathoWs 

pointed out that one area of fairly high 'priority in NAA 

is manned earth orbital experiments in tire. near term time 

frame. The objective of these flightsluill be to learn 

new technology, refine.manimachine relationships, etc. The 

knoWledge gained will be applied to long dureti00:anstained 

orbital operations in large space stations. 2r. Methewt1„; 

further:explained„that recent events have eaUsei&them to 

re-evaluate their position,and revamp their concepts on 

advanced planning. Thus, NASA. has set up a task force to 

Contider the future in terms of five year increments. One 

Of the actions of the task force is' to consider the -01741,-00s. --

available to NASA for the near term extension of manned space 

flight. In this view,- NASA wishes to look at the:depabaitY 

potentially offered to -them by the MOL Program hardware. 1.1e.. 

stated that NASA, had not developed a speeifie plan to this 

point, but that there was some urgency in:Prodneingi at :ledit 

an initial position by September with the- pbjective of 

refining that position during the coming year. He observed 

that this meeting was the-first step $.4 getting the specific 

technical data that NASA needs to help them exaMind the eppliacability of the MOL capability and the possible extension c.), 

this capability into longer duration on-orbit operations. 

• lhe first presentation was given by Berry Moss, Aerospace 

Corporation, who reviewea.MOL subsystems. Lt Col Larry Skante 

followed this presentation with a:desdription of MOL advented 

.planning activities concentrating largely On MOL studies. 

:relating to 30, 60 and 90 day orbital operations. 

At the conclusion of the presentations, a short discussion 

followed. The group was then taken on a tour of the Douglas 

MOL facility including the lab mockup at the SAR level, 

'lAfter lunch, the group met in a working session to define 

specifically the information desired by NAsA. The result?, 

of these activities are summarized in Tab B showing the 

data to be provided to NASA. Channels of communication 

agreed upon were that the following individuals would be 

normal points of contact within the organizations for the 

exchange of these data, however, there was no requirements 

to rigidly follow channels on routine details. The parties 

agreed to keep each other completely informed. NASA, 
APPR6VEID FOR 

6SE 1 •JULY 2015 

.0; 

Dr. Franklin Dixon; MOL 'Program Office 'Colonel Ralph 3. 

Ford; 140L Systems. Office, Lt Colonel, Larry Skantz, 

McDonnell Douglas,' RobcZit Johnson, 

SIG' 

APB J. FORD_ 

Colonel, USAF. 

Chief, Prograni. and Policies 

Div, SA 'SL 

2 Atch 

Cys to: 

SAFSL Chron File 

SAFSLP - Official File 

SCG Read 

Col Ford/SAFSLP/50945/1 July 68/shw 

.ti 
, 

NIROAPPROVEL) 

Ria,EAF..11.)1,Y 201. 5 

• . 

iA 

, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND .SPACE ADMINISTRATI 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20546, 

IN fi6h:4 Ntrth 1'0: ICY 

Major General James T. Stewart, USAF. 

Vice Director, MOL Program, SAF-SL 

Department of the Air Force 

The Pentagon 

Washington, D.C. 20330.. 

Dear General Stewart: 

- In its continuing study, of progrM alternatives in the post-Apollo-. 

time period, NASA is giving partipular attention to alternative manned 

Barth orbital systems and missions capable of meeting the objeotiveS 

of eXtended duration manned taistit deVelppment and experimental .data. 

return. At the conclusion of the re cent Saturn V Workshop Study, in 

which ColOnel Battle and Colonel Bitchieparticipated, it was apparent 

that at least-three aspects of the alternative approaches re-Oared' 

farther investigation. 

(1) The feasibility of decoupling or loosely coupling major 

prOgram elements (e.g., experiments from spacecraft developMent 

schedules) so that complex technical, managelent and funding pidbleMS 

could be rendered more tractable. • 

(2) The comparative merit of programs in which the flight 

qualification of long duration systems and experiments would be 

aecomplished through a series of steps rather than the all-up 

singlestep apprpadh considered in the previous workshop study. 

(3) Identification of possible systems capable of multiple 

application; e.g., high and low inclination or altitude, or both 

military and NASA missions. 

All three of these areas for further investigation suggest modular 

approaches .to workshop configuration and prOgram plv,Ining. Therefore, 

ve want to carefully reconsidext:M01; and. MOL derivatives as possible 

alternatives to laboratory or logistic systems based on,Saturn/Apollo 

derivatives. The major thrust of this present activity is outlined in 

instructions which were sent- to the NASA Manned Space Flight centers 

earlier this year. JI:copy,of,theseinstruCtions is attached as 

Enclosure 2. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

.RE4..Et1/4SE 1 JULY 2015 

' The types of questions which haVe been raised relative to possible NASA 

use of MOL are summarized in Enclosure 1. 

Neither the NASA-MOL study for one-year dUration missions. conducted by 

Douglas nor the descriptilie inforMation presented at the AACB Manned 

Space Flight Panel meeting on April 25, 1968 provide an adequate-basis 

for input to consideration6 of workshop and logistics vehicle 

alternatives of most interest to NASA today.; 

Proper consideration of the presently planned or more advanced MOL 

systems by NASA is, of course, dependent on information and support 

from your office.. I would like to propose, therefore, that with yonr 

concurrence a meeting be set up between NASA and DOD technical PsiSonnel 

to permit an'exchange of information:and ideas on the enclosed questions. 

Sincerely yours, 

Charles W. Mathews 

Deputy Associate Administrator 

for Manned Space Flight 

EnclOSureS: 

(1) NASA MOL Questions . 

(2) Letter to NASA Center Directors 

reviesting support for TOWS, 

April 25, 1968 - 
NRO"APFROVtD FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

ERC.11):;(11i1 ( I) 

QUESTIONS RELATED TO POTENTIAL NASA USE OF MOL 

Considerations or the possible use of MOL to accomplish the NASA objectives 

exclude. the payload module and the subsystems and components which arc 

directly related to it. Those systems which may have common applicability 

include the basic pressure vessel; electrical, environmental control, 

stabilization and control, telemetry, and crew support systems; launch 

vehicle, and certain portions of the ground support system. The following 

questions are, therefore, related to these elements: 

1. Without changing basic USAF subsystem approaches, what would be 

the maximum feasible mission duration for a MOL to aid NASA development 

of long duration manned flight capability? Which subsystems would 

'present the most critical reliability and safety problems in extended 

duration missions? 

2. Has the USAF considered mission duration extension with the MOL 

using some form of resupply without changing basic subsystem approaches? 

If so, and considering the NASA interests, does such an approach seem 

feasible - and for what duration? 

3. Has the USAF examined the feasibility of increasing the present 

MOL orbital duration through subsystem modification and increase in 

expendable quantities? If so, what changes have been considered and what 

lifetimes appear possible? 

4. Have development costs and schedules been estimated for either 

approach 2. or 3.? 

5. Has any consideration been given to accommodating a separable 

and dockable Mission Module? What cost would be involved? What time 

span would be required for development? 

6. Has the USAF studied the possibility of modifying Complex 40 

or 41 at the ETR to provide MOL capability? If so, have costs and schedules 

been estimated? 

7. Would joint USAF and NASA operations at Vandenberg be possible 

using separate spacecraft but common launch and mission support systems? 

What form of joint operations might be the moSt.practical7 Would additional facilities be required- ror reasonable non-interference and, if so, 

what are the costs and schedules associated with them? . 
NROAPPROV/ERFW 

RELEASE 1 J41h`(2015% I.CiX.I.OSU (2) C 0 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

WAsHinGTon.0.C. 20546 

,h 

IN ikr.MY AU LR TO, wry April 25, 1968 

Mr. Charles J. Donlan, Acting Director 

Langley Research Center 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Langley Station 

Hampton, Virginia 23365 

Dear Charlie: 

During the past few weeks there have been many discussions, presentations, and reviews of the results of the recently completed 

Saturn V Workshop study with the objective of determining which of 

.the programs proposed came elo:;est to meeting the Agency's objectives 

within the constraints of projected funding limitation. These 

reviews have identified areas requiring further study and developed 

new objective's and guidelines for additional study. This letter 

requests your aid and the aid of your staff in continuing these 

studies and developing the knowledge required to prepare FY 1970 

?rogram Memoranda which arc scheduled for preliminary submission 

to:the Bureau of the Budget in July. .1 am requesting that each. 

.Center which has conducted extensive studies of manned earth orbital 

activities in the past, namely MSFC, MSC and Langley, perform independent studies to identify the most desirable Agency program for 

. the Saturn V Workshop and provide a Project Plan. No multiple 

Center committees will be formed since these studies can probably 

be most effectively accomplished within the existing Center organizational structure. The objectives and guidelines attached are 

intended to provide directions for the study and should not be 

considered absolute constraints nor should they prevent the exploration of new ideas or concepts. 

Doug Lord and I have selected Frank Dixon to act as the Headquarters 

focal point for this in-house study activity in keeping with his 

position as Director, Manned Spacecraft, Advanced Manned Missions 

:Program and in relation with the activities of the Extension of 

Manned Space Flight Capabilities Program Category. Working Group 

chaired by Mr. Lord. Dr. Dixon plans to hold a study kick-off 

meeting with the study directors designated by you on May 6 or 7, 

1968 Washington. At this meeting the attached study objectives 

and guidelines will be discussed and clarified.' Suggestions on 

schedule of activities and content with identification of planned 

Center efforts. as specifically as possible would be helpful at that 

time. 

COPY ENCLOSURE (2) .0 0 P Y. 
COPY ENCLOSURE (2) COPY 

NROAPPROND FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

C d r . ENCLOSURE (2) C 0 V. 7 

2 

The AllOney WUut 110e definite plans in order Le proeeed 8t; the 

earliest practical data with the presrAm diatiti41,04 Phe§0 t4 

Workshop. This could be completed in the last quarter of this 

calendar year or in the first quarter of next year depending on the — 

selected contracting approach and level of in-house definition 

efforts. The first or interim phase of this effort to be completed . 

by July 1, 1968 will concentrate on the conceptual design and programmatic trade-offs. beginning with the objectives, guidelines and 

expected results'listed in Enclosure (1). The number of alternative 

design and programmatic approaches to be carried further into the 

detinition phase beyond the July 1 milestone should not be decided 

arbitrarily at this time. 

Enclosure (2) includes three charts which I have used in discussions 

with NSF and NASA management outlining items not conclusively • 

resolved in the Saturn V Workshop studies, providing an alternate 

approach and indicating a possible Intermediate Workshop concept. 

Ic is important to keep in mind that the Agency is faced with 

difficult decisions in an environment which promotes detailed evaluation of the Nation's space activities. A plan, to be accepted, 

must logically follow the programmed activities in AAP, yet be able 

to adapt to future changes in objectives, technology, and funding. 

it must keep the Nation's space capability functioning, provide 

significant rewards and accomplishments, and at the satla time. not 

demand excessive resource commitments. Structuring a program to 

meet .these challenges, ill require application of. the best talent 

available within NASA.`, 

Sincerely yours, 

Original Signed By 

; Charles W. Mathews 

Director, Apollo Applications 

Enclosures 

2 a/s 

Identical letter to: 

Dr. Robert R. Gilruth„ Dir., MSC 

Dr. Wernher von Braun, Dir., MSFC 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE .1 JULY 2p15 

INTERMIATE 0101fTAL WORK:::1101' 

nENNO.: The most important requirement CO be satisfied by Li" e cont;Win6 sLudy is to atructure a peogram which can flexibly MCQC 

changes in funding, changes in technology or changes in experiment 

requirements. This intermediate workshop is not intended to be the 

ultimate space station but should be configured for truly long 

duration operation, which implies adequate in-flight maintenance 

and repair provisions. The flexibility requirements lead naturally 

to some form of modularization in which each module can be developed 

in a nearly independent tmanner. The core living systems and control module might then be orbited with relatively simple mission 

oriented modules separate from major advanced experiment modules or 

from modules containing advanced subsystems which could be launched 

later or incorporated later in the program. This approach allows 

the decoupling of the experiment development program from the spacecraft program to provide improvement in program clement phasing. 

Also, 'this approach would permit accommodation of late developing 

experiments or of semi-independent use of the station by DOD. In 

addition, some portions of the-workshop, namely the crew module and 

operating subsystems, might be used in higher energy modes 'such as 

polar orbits (launched; from ETR or WTR), and synchronous orbits. 

The systems and crew module should be compatible with conversion to 

an artificial gravity mode. 

This phase of Workshop Study activity, referred to as the Intermediate 

Workshop Study, will be conducted during May and June 1968 with continuing Center and contractor accivity,leadingto project definition. 

ORJ7CTIVES FOR INTERIM PERIOD: 

1. Define program and configuration approaches .which arc relatively 

insensitive to funding levels and schedule-changes. 

2. Identify program and configuration approaches which are compatible 

with a build up of flight qualification (or relief of extensive ground 

testing requirements) for long duration systems without requiring 

total workshop. replacement in orbit and recommend best approaches. 

3. Provide practical alternatives for decoupling the omajor experiments 

programdesign, schedule and funding from the spacecraft development 

program. 

4. Define new modular configurations which not only contribute to 

the previous objectives but can provide major elements for; • 

a. Polar orbit missions. 

b. 24-hour synchronous orbit missions. 

ENCLOSURE (1) 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

( 

Enulosuro (1) 

J. i'cov;41■! a preliminary ranking of experiments for prioriLy and 

Lased on realistic hardware schedules. NAt:A m:.:1:.;y 

generally sopports.biomedical/behavioral, operations, technology, 

aatronomy, earth resources, other OCiOACO, and apPlicacions expertnights as useful objectives for orbital workshop activttioa. A 

structured approach to a sound experiment program integrated into . 

the Workshop program is desired. 

6. Integrated program schedules with substantiating data for 

critical paths will be provided., 

7. Provide program cost comparisons of alternatives on a consistent 

basis with trade-off sensitivities, including comparison with updated 

costs for previous Saturn V Workshop Studies. 

3. Identify program flexibility in terms of ability to react to 

increased or.decreased funding, delays in experiment development, 

changes in test philosophy or changes in primary objectives. 

GUIDELINES FOR INTERIM PERIOD: 

1. For this study phase, the target period for Saturn V Workshop 

launch will be late 1973 to 1974 following a Saturn I Workshop program 

consisting of: 

a. Saturn I Workshop flights in 1970 and 1971. 

b. Automatic rendezvous and remote docking of ATM. 

c. Revisits employing a simplified, open-ended 56-day CSM. 

d. Extensive biomedical experiments ,for 60 days or more per man. 

e. Preliminary earth-resource experiments. 

2. Workshop configurations will not be Constrained to Saturn-Apollo 

mold lines. (Note that the intent here is encourage versatile smaller, 

not larger vehicle designs)- . 

,3. One approach to long duration subsystems will be assumed to require 

newly designed components packaged for maintenance, repair, and onboard 

checkout. Estimates from past contract studies will be used and 

updated as necessary. 

4. Nominal 6-man crew with capability of growth to accommodate 9. 

Operable with a 3-man crew. 
. • 

RO•P■PPROIVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

.e.iW10:.M.**: (1) 

5. Two yea: operational lifetime goal. .

4. .Now w3:i34 of aubayatema capable of eventually achieving 171411 

mission life will be specified with required stet:141'in flight'qualifiw 

caeion. 

7. Not existing structure (S-I1.10 unless proven to be most effective. 

S. Start with CSM resupply vehicle and show requirement for growth 

or new system phasing. 

EXPECTED RESULTS IN INTERIM REPORT: 

1. A reasonably detailed description of the preferred technical and 

programmatic approach to the Saturn V Workshop to be launched by 

Saturn V or Intermediate boosters with operations, logistics support, 

experiment phasing, and subsystem development plans. 

2. A less detailed description of the alternative designs and programs 

considered. 

3. A.compilotion and assessment of the trade-off data and considerations ulied in the selection process. . 

4. Statement of objectives to be met by experiment and flight 

activities proposed. 

5.. Recommendations and plans for future contractor support to include 

studies, systems definition, project definition, production, and 

operations. 
• 4, % • 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

"4\ 

ML-4/9/63 

SATURN V WORnHOP STUDIES 

1. IMPLICATION OF ALL-UP PHILOSOPHY 

2. LACK OF DEFINITION OF EXPERIMENT OBJECTIVES 

3. QUESTIONABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH/SUPPORT OF DOD. 

4. MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY 

' 5. L CONFIGURATIONS OFFER LITTLE IMPROVEMENT OVER SATURN I WORRSHOP 

6. C CONFIGURATIONS LEAVE LONG GA? IN MANNED EARTH ORBITAL PLIGHT 

7. C CONFIGURATIONS DO NOT ALLOW FOR PROGRESSIVE BUILDUP OP SYSTEMS 

CAPABILITIES 

3. DIFFICULTY OF SELLING A "TOTAL" PROGRAM 

9. HOW FAR CAN WE cox= TO ZERO G OPERATION? 

10. HOW DO WE ESTABLISH A FAVORABLE "SALES" POSTURE? 

Enclosure (2) 

Pogo 1 
. . 

ivilb APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

SATURN V WORZUOP ALTERNATE, • 

MODULARIZATION TO 

a. PERMIT PROGRESSIVE BUILD-UP OF EXPERIENCE 

b. PERMIT SYSTEM EVOLUTION AND REPLACEMENT 

c. IMPROVE CONFIDENCE IN MISSION SUCCESS 

. MINIMIZE CONFIGURATION COMPROMISES 

a..DECOUPLE EXPERIMENT/SPACECRAFT SCHEDULES 

t. IMPROVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PHASING 

E. IMPROVE POSSIBILITY OF JOINT NASA/DOD USE 

it. IMPROVE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST TO CHANGE 

I 

- Enclosure (2) 

Paga 2 
Enclosure (2) 

Paga 3 

NRO APPROVED FOR!, 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

INTERMEDIATE TEM WOR1(S110? CONCEPT 

REDUNDANT, SYSTEMS MODULE' 

GOOD MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR PROVISIONS.- 

CAPADLE OF HANDLING' NINE MEN 

CONTAINS LIVING QUARTERS 

EXCESS CAPABILITY FOR POWER, COOLING, ETC. 

LIMITED PRODUCTION 

FLEXIBLE MISSION MODULES 

GENERAL PURPOSE LADS 

ONBOARD EXPERIMENTS (LIMITED. FOR FIRST FLIGHT) - 

•,".T—HANGAR AND.DOGKING PROVISIONS 

A 

. FLY UP maviImux, EXPENDABLES AND MODULE DELIVERY -

POSSIBLY SEVERAL GROUND LAUNCHED CONFIGURATIONS 
• 

4\IRO, APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DATA LIST 

From MOL Systems Office 

1. MOL study dated July 1966 which is 

examination of the MOL vehicle under a 

operations, e.g. inclinations, orbital 

time on orbit, etc. 

directed to the 

variety of orbital, 

altitudes, life 

2. Current weight budgets exclusive of payload. 

3. Briefing charts from the June 25, 1968 meeting including 

bo,ackup materials (this presentation was based on the PSAC 

presentation earlier this year). 

4. Estimated costs and schedules to include recurring and 

non-recurring costs for hardware and hardware lead times 

for two MOL vehicle versions. Case I - 30 day on-orbit life, 

MOL vehicle less MOL payload peculiars. Case II - Modification to MOL baseline vehicle for 60 day, on-orbit, manned 

operations less MOL program peculiars. 

5. Cost of additional manufacturing facilities if required, 

e.g. separate NASA vehicle assembly area, etc. 

6. Cost and schedule associated with conversion of MOL 

vehicle command and control equipments (AVE) to use with 

NASA command and control net. 

7. Cost and schedules associated with lab module simulator 

and Gemini B simulator less MOL peculiars. 

8. Cost and schedules associated with ETR launch of NASA 

MOL vehicle, including the following considei.ations: 

On-pad build up, for one pad or two pads; additional 

facilities to accommodate T-IIIM MOL configuration to 

include pad modification, additional supporting buildings 

and services, e.g. fuel. Also AGE peculiar to T-IIIM 

boosters, laboratory vehicle, Gemini B. 
'1141RO'APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY, 2015 

Cost schedules associated with use of a single pad and 

vehicle build up in the ITL facility modified for MOL 

hardware. 

Facilities requirements for installation and check-out 

, of laboratory module simulator and Gemini B simulator. 

Data prepared on ETR will be qualified to reflect that 

the provision of the cost estimates in no way implies 

.Air Force agreement for NASA use of T-III facilities at 

ETR. Special agreement will be required. 

9. A narrative paper on the availability of MOL flight hardware which discusses considerations on schedule, conflicts 

in manufacturer's tests, qualification, and check-oUt.of 

NASA hardware including the ramification of MAC/DAC, 

Huntington Beach security. 

From McDonnell Douglas Company 

1. Copy of the ground test plan. 

2. Available data on failure mode analysis (mean time to 

failure). 

3. Available data on MOL 60 day design analysis. 

4. Discretionary astronaut time lines for on-orbit activities. 

5.' Vehicle lay-out drawings less MOL payload peculiars. 

6. The MOL data books (subsystems descriptions). 

7. AVE/CEI specifications. 

8. Copies of the Air Force/DAC Long Duration Operation study 

(LDO) and the NASA sponsored NASA/MOL study. 

9. Breakout of power requirement by subsystems. 

10.. Typical power profile. 

11. Information on weight capability and volume of Gemini 

data return containers. 

ti 
.NROAPPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DATA LIST 

From mol, Systems Office 

1. MOL study dated July 1966 which is 

examination of the MOL vehicle under a 

operations, e.g. inclinations, orbital 

time on orbit, etc. 

directed to the . 

variety of orbital, 

altitudes, life 

2. Current weight budgets exclusive of payload. 

3. Briefing charts from the June 25, 1968 meeting including 

backup materials (this presentation was based on the PSAC 

presentation earlier this year). 

4. Estimated costs and schedules to include recurring and 

non-recurring costs for hardware and hardware lead times 

for two MOL vehicle versions. Case I - 30 day on-orbit life, 

MOL vehicle less MOL payload peculiars. Case II - Modification to MOL baseline vehicle for 60 day, on-orbit, manned 

operations less MOL program peculiars. 

5. Cost of additional manufacturing facilities if required, 

e.g. separate NASA vehicle assembly area, etc. 

6. Cost and schedule associated with conversion of MOL 

vehicle command and control equipments (AVE) to use with 

NASA command and control net. 

7. Cost and schedules associated with lab module simulator 

and Gemini B simulator less MOL peculiars. 

8. Cost and schedules associated with ETR launch of NASA 

MOL vehicle, including the following considerations: 

On-pad build up, for one pad or two pads; additional 

facilities to accommodate T-IIIM MOL configuration to 

include pad modification, additional supporting buildings 

and services, e.g. fuel. Also AGE peculiar to T-IIIM 

boosters, laboratory vehicle; Gemini B. 

`)