riftbA*FNOVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

H February , 12 I 1968 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

SUBJECT: MOL Program Briefing, DORIAN Level, for Key Staff Members 

of the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on 

Department of Defense (Mahon) 

At 1000 hours, 9 February 1968, General Stewart gave an MOL/DORIAN 

briefing to the following named Staff Members of the House Committee on 

Appropriations: 

Robert Michaels 

Ralph Preston 

Frank P. Sanders 

The meeting began with an informal discussion between General Stewart 

and the Staff Members in which the following points were covered: 

a. General Stewart stated that the purpose of the briefing 

was to review the MOL Progrcm in some detail for the benefit of the 

Staff Members and to solicit their advice for the need of additional 

update briefings for the members of the committee. Mr. Michaels pointed 

out that when Secretary Brown had recently met with Chairman Mahon, during 

the conversation, Secretary Brown had also made an offer to provide 

update MOL briefings to the members of the committee. It was Mr..Michaels' 

opinion that they would have a better feel for additioni briefing require—

ments following Secretary Brown's testimony, as it will be clearer at 

that point as to how much opposition has developed. 

b. Mr. Preston asked as to whether or not General Stewart 

had heard anything further on the subject of the House Committee on 

Government Operations reviewing the MOL Program. ,General Stewart 

briefly reviewed his talk with Mr. Herbert Roback, Staff Administrator 

to the Subcommittee on Military Operations (Holifield) on 25 January 

and his visit with Chairman Rivers, House Committee on Armed Services on 

9 February. Both these discussions tended to minimize the possibility 

of an MOL revio,-; by any of the subcommittees of the Government Operations 

Committee. General Stewart emphasized the point that babes made with 

other members of Congress that an intelligent debate on MOL vs AAP cannot 

be made in other than a BlraAN security environment; therefore if a 

proposal is made to make an MOL/AAP comparison, at either an open or °,1/ePoti 

classified hearing, he will take every possible positive step to have 

such a proposal withdrawn. 

•

Page /of fd:pages 

r1”-z rrilalt Copy R of .copies 

" 42" s • I

SAFSL Internal 

DORIAN 

• 
NRO APFR OR 

JULY 2015 

".1!0 via BYENAN 

Page of 9 pages 

Copy sof .5copies 

SAVSL Internal 

DORIAN 

c. Mr. Preston made the observation that Mr. Henry Reuss 

(D-Wisc.), Chairman of the Subcommittee On Research and Technology 

Programs of.the•Committee on Goverament Operations, who is a Democrat 

liberal, wants all space expenditures reduced and the money devoted 

to housing, the inference obviously being that Reuss is unsympathetic 

to either MOL or AAP. • 

General Stewart then proceeded with the formal briefing using the 

same charts as used to brief Congressman Miller on February 5, In the 

introduction, General Stewart did comment on the move of MOL from Package 

6 to Package 3 of the DOD Budget Structure and briefly described the 

rationale developed within the office for this move. During the course 

of the briefing the audience asked a limited number of specific questions 

an the system which were answered by General Stewart. 

In the discussion following the briefing, Mr. Sanders pursued at 

some length the question of how much the program could be advanced with 

additional funding. The type of questions he asked were, for example, 

you have lost $90M in the last two years, how much of your schedule is 

a dollar slippage?; Where are you taaing changes to meet the present 

schedule?; How about reliability (with the new dollar ceilings)? 

General Stewart's responses are summarized as follows: The dominating 

factor in our schedule is the camera system. We are striving for 

performance in the camera and a development of this nature cannot be 

accelerated even with unlimited funds. The camera contractor is being 

funded at the level that he states is necessary and adequate. If 

additional funds were available they could be profitably used in the 

other elements of the system to accomplish work at an earlier date and 

not leave it to be done until the actual need date as determined by the 

launch schedule. This approach does not leave a margin for uncertainties. 

The way that the program is now structured, unrestricted fund availability 

would not alter the proposed launch data by more than a few months at best. 

A brief discussion then followed on the subject of the NASA/AAP 

Program, the Orbital Workshop, and the Apollo vs MOL hardware. General 

Stewart briefly reviewed the philosophy of the Orbital Workshop and 

the tests that will be conducted by NASA for MOL. Ha also recounted 

the various studies doneon Apollo hardware and its application to the 

MOL mission. NASA's reviews of MOL hardware ere also briefly discussed. 

During these remarks, General Stewart stated that La the original plan 

for a MOL launch in late 69 the plan envisioned flying a non-Production 

camera system. This concept was abandoned as being very unproductive, 

however, a flight vehicle without camera could have been available in 

the late 69 early 70 time period. Mx. Michaels seemedinterested in this 

point and asked if it would still be possible to fly a manned vehicle 

without a camera by late 70. General Stewart responded by saying that 
O APP FOR 

E 1 JULY 2015 

tqa 

it might be possible but the question could not be answered without 

an examination of the impact that such a plan would have on the rest 

of the program. Mr. Michaels then asked General Stewart's opinion 

as to the political and physiological advantages and disadvantages to 

flying a man at en early date. General Stewart indicated that he felt 

that such a plan would be a disadvantage as we would, in fact, be 

duplicating the things that NASA is doing. 

Mr. Michaels then posed a question as to whether or not we had any 

new or more forceful reasons for MOL that could be presented at the 

hearings. He stated that he felt that MOL was going to get some 

resistence. General Stewart responded by describing the philosophy 

expressed in Dr. Brown's draft posture statement. 

Mr. Michaels and Mr. Sanders proceeded to ask a series of questions 

concerning other applications of MOL. These included FOBs, an inspection 

satellite role, and the use of radar. General Stewart's response may be 

summarized as follows; The MOL system will have considerable operational 

flexibility in its primary role as a reconnaissance satellite. Other 

roles are possible to a limited degree at the expense of the primary 

mission. Since the vehicle, the software, and the flight profile are 

all optimized for the photographic mission, the MOL is not well suited 

to other applications not compatible with the photographic objective. 

Mr. Michaels asked about the quick read-out capability which he had 

heard about in his earlier briefings. General Stewart reviewed the history 

of the removal of the read-out capability from the program and stated 

that provisions for its subsequent inclusion have been preserved. 

Mr. Preston asked whether or not .a radar in MOL would have an advantage 

over a radar in a similar vehicle. General Stewart stated that at the 

present time there are no plans to incorporate a radar into the whicle, 

Me stated that the intelligence community expresses a great deal more 

interest in photography than radar imagery, 

Mr. Sanders brought out the point that in the congressional testimony 

of last year, the statement was made that the fabrication of flight 

hardware would begin in FY 68. He asked if this was still correct. 

General Stewart responded by saying that the various reprogramming 

activities which have taken place over the past year have pushed Ilight 

hardware fabrication into FY 69. Er. Sanders then discussed speculation 

concerning MOL program status and MAL missions that has appeared in 

various publications such as U. S. New and World Report and News Week. 

He had extracts of some articles in his possession. A discussion followed 

concerning the inability to control speculation and the activities of 

the press. Mr. Michaels observed that a peculiarity of the MOL program 

was that the publications seems to know the mission but that we (government officials) cannot confirm it. 

DORIAN Page 3. of - *ages 

Copy 4 of s codes 

SAFSL Internal. 

<.- 

• 
"14,:q1 n;t1 

OU 

• 

NR ,rtpRol ..f, 6";C; 

tTEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The meeting concluded with General Stewart emphasizing the fact 

that he would make himself available for follow-up refresher briefings 

on any other information which the Staff Members might find helpful. 

The Staff Members appeared to be quite satisfied with the briefing and 

very impressed with the program, They repeatedly offered all possible 

assistance to General Stewart during the coming congressional season. 

Copiesto: 

SAFSL Chron File 

SAFSLP -.Official File. 

SCG Read 

RALPH 3. FORD 

Colonel, USAF 

Chief, Program and Policies Div, 

SAFSL 

Col Ford/SAFSLP/50945/12 Feb 68/shw 

Page h' of 'pages 

Copy 4 of 5- copies 

SAFSL 

• •