MEMO TO DR. CHARLES W. COOK FROM HANS MARK

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96B01172R000400020010-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 27, 2003
• Sequence Number: 10
• Publication Date: August 25, 1977
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Re ase 2003/06/06: CIA-RDP961301172 040
TOP SECRET
(S) NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFI
WASHINGTON, D.C.
25X1A
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR NRO review(s) 25 c.~-2
completed. ugus.t :1977 -_~
g? 6 i~
1RT71.fAT A war r-
BRIG. GENERAL WILLIAM L. SHIELDS JR 4C1000:;
MR. JIMMIE D. HILL, 4C1000
MAJOR GENERAL JOHN E. KULPA,' JR., PROGRAM A,--SAMSO
MR. LESLIE C. DIRKS, PROGRAM B, CIA
REAR ADMIRAL GROVER YOWELL, PROGRAM C. U.S. NAVY
Gentlemen:
25X1A
Now that I have had some preliminary orientations and
discussions of the National Reconnaissance Program I would like
to call a meeting of the Program Managers and the senior NRO
Headquarters staff members for a general discussion of the
major issues that will be facing the National Reconnaissance
Program in the coming years. Fortunately, the mission statement
of our organization is very simple so that we have a good common
starting point. The statement says: "The NRP is responsible
for the research, development, acquisition, and operation of all
United States Government reconnaissance satellites."
The major point is, of course, that the mission emphasizes
reconnaissance and space platforms and that is all that need
concern us at the moment. On the other hand, there are some
quite important and complicated questions that arise even from
a simple mission of this kind. These questions deal both with
the technology of space-based reconnaissance and with the use of
space-based systems that is compatible with the future evolution
of our national, foreign and military policies. We need better
definition of many of these issues and for this reason I would
like to have an in-depth discussion with all of you in the
near future.
As I see it, there are four main issues that seem to be
uppermost in the minds of the people who use our products:
25X1A
GEN~F{AL DECLA35TF1C7iT10N SCHEDULE OF v,~ v ~~ ~ - - - - ? ? ? -........ z......-CONTFML 1
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11652 EXEMPTION CATE- T J ("nov nr !-.~~
 Approved For Release 2003/,06/06 : CIA-RDP96B01172R000400020010-6
TOP SECRET
25X1A
have outlined. There may, of course, be vulnerabilities that I
have not included in this list.
2. Declassification or "open skies." During my short
tenure in this office so far I have seen a number of pressures
in this direction both from civilian and military people. I
think it is important that we develop a specific philosophy
toward the declassification of any of our space-based recon-
naissance systems so that we can join the debate over the
declassification issue in an aggressive way. I want to emphasize
here that I believe it is not simply enough to take a negative
position and to say nothing should be declassified. I believe
that the pressures to do something in a declassified way will
be too strong to resist. Personally, I believe it would be a
mistake to completely declassify any of our current systems
but I 'think we should look at contingency plans that we would
follow when, in our judgment, it becomes necessary to take such
a step.
compromise of one of our systems through espionage or leaks.
'All of these vulnerabilities are important; and I would like to
have your judgments and priorities on what we should do to make
our systems less susceptible tot e specific dangers that I
1::.. The vulnerability of space-based systems. There
are three.-separate aspects of vulnerability. One is the vul-
nerability~that we have in case of overt Soviet action against
one of our systems. This action may either be an ASAT attack
or it could be denial by ground-based means. The second
vulnerability is a technical failure, either at launch or on
orbit, of one of our systems. The third vulnerability is the
3. The "national" versus "tactical" use of space-
based reconnaissance systems. There is a spectrum of opinion
on this particular subject which I believe we should define
and then understand. To some extent the discussions I have
heard about this problem are governed by semantics since people
tend to mean different things when they use the word "tactical."
.On the other hand, it is extremely important for us to under-
stand both the opportunities and the possible pitfalls in the
widespread "tactical" use of the space-based "national" recon-
naissance systems.
25X1A
CLASSIFIED BY 1. EXEMPT FROM aa ~+~i CONTROL N
5X1 Ap r 9 1 E " ''. / ~C:IS~iiiliy6B01I72R0004000200tO 6r o S
GORY 5B2 DECLASSIFY ON IMP DET. _ _ _ Z _
 Approved For ReI ase 2003/06/0 I 01 172R
0400020010-6
4. The emergence of new technologies. There are a
number of new technical developments on the horizon which I am
sure will bear very strongly on our activities, There is, for
example, the development of the space shuttle vehicle and the
opportunities and problems which it presents. If a shuttle
transportation system is actually developed to its full
potential, then the erection of large structures in space, and
the operation of man-tended systems, becomes a very real
possibility. I would like to understand what such developments
mean in terms of the future programs that we would want to
develop. There are also technologies that.are independent of
the launch vehicles. For example, there are developments in
cryogenics that have clear applications to space-based systems,
specifically, the sensors that can be used. There have also
been interesting new developments in
sensors that we should consider. Fina y, the development of
high energy space-based laser systems is something that should
be studied and perhaps taken into account. These are simply a
few suggestions that come to mind and I am sure there are many
others. What I would like to know is whether our research and
development programs cover the fields that seem to us to be
most promising.-
This list is obviously not complete and please feel free
to add to it. As you can see, I am not interested in discussing
specific project plans. Rather, I would. like to see individual
projects evolve from some general principles that we develop in
discussing the issues that I have outlined here.
I would like to suggest that we meet in my office in
Washington on Saturday, September 10, for a day long discussion
of the issues that I have outlined. There will be no formal.
agenda but please let me know if you would like to add any
other major topics that should be considered.
With best personal regards.
25X1A
25X
NRO
25)
NRO
Hans Mark
25X1A
25X1A
5X1 Ieese T19E OF AA Ay 172R00040002Q$~ L N
L ION SCHEDULE OF ~ ?ft96BO1 EXECUTI VE ORDER 71652 EXEMPTION CATE. N L COPY OF COPIES
C L SYSTEM GORY 562 DECLASSIFY ON IMP DET.
PAGE 3 OF 3 ^~r..