NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 ■■■• %:.%')1+ E.ri . L.;:i r to 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

flaNge via irEfAU 

C011iTe! 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

ONITYHEXAGON 

Eand:z via NEMO 

Contof System 

Won 

(Q y j 74-0 

NG PAW§ 

8 June 1969 

General Bleymaier: 

The purpose of this note is to give you an idea of the 

future plans for the DORIAN camera system -- as I understand 

them -- as guidance for what should be terminated and what 

should be continued in the present MOL Program. 

Starting a couple of years back, LMSC accomplished some 

studies for SAFSP on the possibility of combining the DORIAN 

camera system (including the Mission Module structure) and 

the HEXAGON spacecraft. Both T-IIID and T-IIIM launched versions were studied (main differences being in number of RV's 

and orbital lifetime). Most LMSC effort was focused on the 

T-IIID launched version, and some design changes were made in 

both the HEXAGON spacecraft and launch facility to preserve 

the option of possibly carrying the DORIAN camera at some future 

date. The MOL Systems Office (Skantze) periodically has provided SAFSP/LMSC info and data on the camera. 

The LMSC studies of the T-IIID launched version assumed 

a "GFE" complete Mission Module, camera assembly, film supply, 

computer, camera controls, etc. LMSC proposed to mount the 

HEXAGON Satellite Control Section on the aft end of the MOL 

Mission Module; build a new short section ahead of the Mission 

Module to house the camera, film supply, computer, etc., and 

carry four Mark V RV's in tandem on the front end. Using the 

T-IIID, an approximate 60 day lifetime appears possible. 

The cost estimates for the LMSC portion seemed very low 

to me. (They were "validated" by SAFSP and their Ae.::)space 

people); however, great dependence was placed on the 6.1itability 

of production of HEXAGON components from an on-going HEXAGON 

Program. Very few camera/spacecraft integration problems were 

assumed, although certain areas (dynamics, thermal, etc.) were 

analyzed in some depth. However, even if the LMSC cost estimates 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Coatrol System 

are low by a factor of 2 or 3, that approach appears to be 

considerably cheaper than either the manned MOL or the previously planned unmanned version of MOL (the former FV's 6 & 7). 

When MOL termination was considered a couple of months 

back, it was agreed that at the least, an option for a future 

VHR system should be preserved More recently, the specific 

question posed to the Land PSAC Panel concerned the feasibility 

of going unmanned at the outset with the DORIAN camera in a 

HEXAGON on HEXAGON-like spacecraft. (They, of course, "voted" 

affirmative). 

When it was decided to terminate MOL and continue only 

the "automatic" camera system effort, some DDR&E people and 

the Land Panel advocated an immediate "marriage" with the HEXAGON 

spacecraft. I objected to this on the basis that the LMSC studies 

were "shallow" (there was no direct GE and EK participation), 

glossed over integration problems too lightly, and were grossly 

under-estimated cost-wise. I suggested instead that a limited, 

covert spacecraft competition be held in FY 70, that only limited 

progress be made on the camera system in FY 70, and that a new 

system be started in late FY 70 or early FY 71. That was adopted 

as the general approach (it was also the lowest in FY 70 costs). 

The plan for FY 70 generally is as follows: Using the DORIAN 

camera/Mission Module generally as is (only removing crew-related 

items and developing the unmanned controls previously planned), a 

performance spec and RFP for a T-IIID-launched unmanned system is 

to be developed in the next two months. Then, a funded covert 

spacecraft competition will be held between LMSC and Mc-DonnellDouglas (presumably, the latter would propose the use of maximum 

components developed for MOL; LMSC's proposal would be based on 

the HEXAGON system). A winner is to be selected in the second 

half of FY 70 and the spacecraft developmc:r.,t -- assuming the expected performance. reliability, etc., appears to be worth the 

cost -- started shc.:1.1y thereafter. The first launch would - take 

place in CY 1973. 

I understand that about will be included 

in the NRP budget for all camera system and camera system-related 

Da irjAN /HEXAGON 

liana° via BYE MAN 

Contra System 

2 

TOP, SE APT 74419_,(c83 7d- q 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Dandle via BYEMAN 

Conn' System 

efforts (including subcontractors) in FY 70. Up to 

more probably will also be included for the funded spacecraft 

competitions and for a possible late FY-70 start of spacecraft 

development MOL termination costs beyond the Obligation 

Authority available to MOL on June 10 will be budgeted elsewhere. 

The new project will be a part of the NRP and managed by 

SAFSP as soon as practicable. Since SAFSS/SAFSP apparently are 

somewhat swamped at this time, I may be directed to head up a 

team of MOL (Skantze's office, plus others), SAFSS, and SAFSP 

people in the interim to prepare the plan and RFP for the new 

spacecraft. I assume SAFSP will take over the DORIAN contracts 

early in FY 70 and responsibility for the entire program by 

early Fall In the interim, we will have to reorient and 

replan the EK and GE efforts as best we can (deferring any new 

developments unique to the unmanned system until it is more 

precisely defined). 

I hope the preceding is helpful in determining what should 

be continued, changed, or terminated immediately Larry 

Skantze is cleared on HEXAGON and is generally familiar with the 

LMSC studies and should be helpful in that regard. 

It is important fund-wise that MOL activities be turned off 

or down ASAP. I will come to LA as soon as possible and help 

you sort out the pieces. 

JAMES T. STEWART 

Major General, USAF 

Vice Director, MOL Program 

3 

/ HEXAGON 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

g: r132-, 61 *401