NRO A1»PROVED 'FOR: RlEtEASE .~~, ' 

• t>ECLASS'lf]ED BY: C/IART' .. ~ 

DECt:AS,~IF'ED ON: 10CTOBt::R~dil2 

: ........ ', .. :". 

:!.~:. : .' ~'. :, 

-t8't NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE. :O.;:-·F1CE 

W'ASHINGtON, 'c.c. 

···;;;~\··~I~~i~I~Ci 

Of Flee OF THE DIRECTOR 

Honorable R.1oha:r'f~.lJns·. . Direotor ot Oerit~~Intel1igehoe 

Central Intelligence Agency 

'Washington, j)~ C~· . ~ 

• Dear Mr. Helms: 

~ . :.\.' , 

"', .. 

The Director of the Bureau ·of. Budgot sent you: a., , Di~lIlorandUm d.ated . 

savingsfJ of I believe it ap:·; :.priate to furnish 'the NBO 

Maroh 22, 1969 (Bl~ 1166,3-69) aadressing th~H~GON issue. Ih8.SJnuCh as 

an imPortanMIIM:0n to the BOB view is an es~1ma.ted "5 y~ar 

oost assessmen 0 e ,mix options. ~-: .. is indicates that tq.e sa.vings,:· 

a.s the BOB ,approac~"wou1d more'iikelybe '. 

In sp.ecii'ic relaii~oll.:to.the FY 1970· ·'t>.i¥.lget, ' 

a is ,.~ieated to be ap~evable)i1 iIEXAOQN; ,:yerC) ,i, 

terminated as :;,.W;1.th. succes'siV'eli lowe~:redl1cti9ria it. the> . program we:-& terminated at later ·dates. .' 

The' ~'RO Comptroller asse:.unneni; is. ~E!!lected . ill., the. attach~ent.All. .' 

costs anticipate that if CORQNAverecontillued,. t,her$:wouldbe ~,'!mp~ove~" 

menta in the system, and there' would be no ~rov1sion. for a 12" S/I camer~:':' 

program. If e1 the:: or' both 'a~l)ump.t~()ns are inCOrrect, .ar,y potential. ' 

. savings would be 'reduced s:1gril;f.:!cantly. 

Attachment 

00: Y..;r.,·aobart :v~, Director, BOB 

"AIOO~' VIA, 

~"r:!'." r N oJ ~ .. ~h.""~ 

~Q .. no~ '''5''101 

.; .•.... 

Sinoerely, ,'.:.': ... 

; ~ '0 

~ 'liL~ 

p'-. L. -£ Y~CAS '\\.\~ ~ 

~ireotor' . 

.,- : 

:~.~.(ONTIIOL~O 1h;,0 ':: lr"G~ ';' co~.,·· I: 0_ =;a ", CC,I'J(f,' 

.. :.:.! ... ~~.(. . I' OF /' ! . .!.':i\. 

. .• ~~~:;. 

f· 

Ii!' 

. If:.: 

1, 

't':':-' . 

!, 
t(RO· APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

• [).£CLASSlfIED BY: C/IART .. ~ 

DECLASSIFIED ON: i'OCTOBER 2M2 

EOB "Equal Peri'op;t-mce C'Jtion~ II - ~Y.AGaN. . 

(Enclosure IITAB Gil to 22 }'~ch 69 Yao to DOI) 

Comparison of· BOB EstimateS ,.nth Cost Facts 

BOB 

Launches 

Unit· 

Cost Costs Lsumches 

. Unit' 

... ~ 

k.~"l~ 

CQsts 

~4x Out-ion 1: 

CORONA 

. G-3 

Titan Impaot 

Total 

7 

6 

6 

7 

Notes: 1.0013 identi:a?ied this mix as ncurre~1tly app~ovedlt for' FI 1970. ~e current appr<?val is 6 CORONA and' 7 Gkiv.:BIT for n 1970. 

2. Tne BOB costs exclude the impact on other Titan boosters, 

pr.eviously re~ognized in all cost tabul&.tions. 

. 3.' Both sets o:r figures exclude anyimprovement$ in COBaNA, and 

make no provision for a 1211 . s/I Camera. . . . 

B03 NRO 

~:' •.. 

Icpmche:so 

Unit 

~ 

.ArM"'lual 

CQsts. Lalln@es. 

Unit 

~ 

Annual 

Gosts 

. lrUx Onti. on 2: 

HEXAGON 

G-3 

Total 

5 

5 

5 

5 

Notes: 1. ':(he BOB u..'1i t cost estimate tor 5 HEXAGOl, used the same unit 

cost as . foi: 4. . 

2. The BOBrei'ers to an April 1968 USIB source for the number of,. 

launches. ?he Ex Com Novamber.1968 deoision approved 4 HEXAC~N aud 4 . G~~v~IT for PI 1973 ~d 1974. Acoordingly, the BOB Option 2 reflects a 

higher number of la~ches tha.."l the Ex Com .approval s.nd .the ~m.p 5 YGs:r 

progra.m~ Ii the 4 ~.AC-o.N/ 4 G:...\ffiIT basis were used; tile bosts would be: 

-HEXAGON 

G-3 

Total 

4 

4 

; . 
NRc) APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

• DeCLASSIFIED BY: C/IART . ~ 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 1 OCTOBER 2cri 2 

~·tix Option 2 vs e Mix Opt:i.on '": 

~. If the corrected IJJ.x 0. ptionl is appropriatel .. '1. adj.usted· totha ~.r~ual cost, and using th~ BOB 5 HEXA~ GA.\ffiIT Opt~ at 

• appropriate co~.,s, the differenoe woUld b~ annUally,. o~·or .. som.a 5 year pariod. . . . . 

. 2. It, however, th.e Mix Option ~ at 

program of 4 HEXAC..QI"i14 GAMBIT, the 

for so~e 5 year period, in comparison w~t~ the 

(incidentilly overstated, as ~e BO:a ari trunetic \otorks out 

'rAG BOB note states that "the ~nNA/G-.3 mix would probably produce ~ even g4"eatar savings due to the .foll0·~~'lg faotors: 

Surveillance requirements aan be met with 4 G-J 

missions per year in mix option . ~¥l 

... HEX .. ~GON would proba.bly req¢re 5 mssions rather 

'thnn.4 in oach of the ~irst 2 years in mix option . #2 as the system is maturing 

. Addi~ior~ HEXAGON development costs 

AdditionaJ. 

5-y~&':: 

s?~ri~,··;: 

produce ~ total .cost Q1:!r~~E~n1~a~ 

a 5-year period. 1t 

Addressing each of these BOB points in sequence: 

~ 

. If option 1, as.co~ect6d, vere adjusted to 4~ssions per 

(illstead. of 7) ~""'ere would be a dizi'arence o~per year, or 

_tor soma 5-year period. . .. 

. If liEU." . OON, ~ere based on 5 ~·ss~ons ~ather.han· in ~a.ch ?f the f~rst 2 years~ ~Aa difference wow.d o~o.&. (ag~n, tn.e BOB 

o·verlookad the unit cost dii"£erences i~ ca:r: ·ons). In anY' 

event, this is an unrealistic "savings, n as the otf'icialprogram is 4 

in each of tlles6 ·,'Wo ye~s. 

.~' .. : ~: .. 

... ~ . 

". 

. . 

. -. __ .. --_._ .... _--_._._-_ ..•. , .... _.. .. --.•... --..• -.--.--.. --.. ,--,.........--.~ ---_ ..• __ ... ---.. ... 
NRO" APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

... D~CLASSIFIED BY: C/IART ----.~ 

'. DECLASSIFIED ON: 1 OCTOBER 2~ 

~·~n1j foE' f!:qt"7 ~ ~li tJ.l.J.~~ ~ 

. ?ne 3GB estin-ate o~or addi tioni.U HEXAGON development oosts. 

:!.s evidently based 011 a statement on page :3 :that'a "program slippago ot 

3 to 0 :lO:'lths will probably occur. II T'nero h~s bean no request for, or 

Ch8IlZO in, tne objective Ootober 1970 first launch date. Accordingly, 

this i~ a speculative added cost by BOB. ' 

From a total ; year "savings" sta.ndpoil~t:1 then, using ~'l option of' '.' 

6 coroNA r..nd 4 GAl·~s 4 F...EV.GOX a..'ld 4 GALM- M 

• • .. "savell in soma 

5-year PQriod abou~s. the BOB es-t::'ma.te 0 ~n.e t(1)r;u nsome 

.5-year pe:-iod It is used nerein" because t.'1.e 5-ye~ would start when 

a·laval-off recurring cost year wara reached (est~ted to be.FY 1973 at 

the present time). For example!'the current official planned launches by 

fiscal yes:r axe: 

FY 19'70 

J!Y 1971 

IT 1972 

IT 1973 

FY 1974 

-; 

CORONA 

6 

4 

HEY..AGON GAf.~IT 

7 

4 5 

4 5 

4 4 

4 4 

70 acljust to the BOB "programll of 6 (or 7) CORQ,.~ and 4 G.A.L\fi3IT in 

the near-term would'require a negation of the reasons for the Ex Com 

establishment of the c~rent ruL~IT schedule. InCidentallY, o~,Page 3, 

the Boa status tiThe COR(L~A m:iX will probably flot require rr.orethan 6 

CORONA's a.~d i Gl~8IT-3Is: so thore is a BOB inconsistency between page 3 

and Ta.b C. If 6 CQRilNA and 5 were planned per year,. the "some 

F" Y.. 1970 Bud .I7(,t Consj.de~B.tion8: 

T'nis should be a mort) pertinent conside::"ation than "some 5-year 

savings. II In Feb:ro.a.-""Y 1969, revised costs and "savings", if HEXAGON vere 

terro.i.1'lated a.s of 1 M:-=trch J.969 were .fu."'-nished for "t;he BOB/OSD diS.· 

as the progrD.."'.l was not termin&t6a by 1 Y~rch, and ab9ut 

pe:i." month costs are being incurrad at this time, the est· '-

v reduction would now approximate 978M against a , Apr;l terminda.te, _against a 1 l·~y tel"'mi.1.a.tion data, etc. . ' 

T:'lis is . empha.sized, because other w.teria1 from. BOB on potential' 

reductions in the FY 1970 budget indicate considerably higher IIsavingstl 

!or.a F~GON te~tion. 

.... 

" --... .. -"~.""----"-" '.- ... ._ .... -......... _- ~~-.. -...... --.. -----..... -............. . 

I 

I 

I. 

I 

I