PROJECT SAFE - TALKING POINTS FOR DDA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01495R001200150013-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 29, 2005
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: February 3, 1975
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Ref ase 2 LAA-KUFUL) B01495RW4200150013-2
3 FEB 1?7~
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Intelligence
SUBJECT Project SAFE - Talking Points for DDA
1. This memorandum responds to your request for
talking points concerning the DDA memorandum of 24 January
1975 on Project SAFE.
2. Mr. Blake's memorandum basically deals with two
facets of SAFE. First (his second), is the end product of
the "feasibility panel" (which CRS prefers to call the
"technical advisory panel") and the difference is more than
semantic. Mr. Blake wants the panel's blessing before
resources are committed. He wants the panel to say either
"go do it; we know you can" or hold up design until the
state of the art makes the risk less. The panel is not
likely to make either statement. They may, however, say
that SAFE looks doable with the risks being outweighed by
the potential gains. Whether the resources are adequate or
the time frame is realistic depends in very large part on
things that the panel can't know--how much internal support
will be provided? What will OMB, etc., do about the FY 1977
funding level?
3. More importantly, however, the panel will not be
able to come up with a "hard" judgment until some resources
are used. Dr. Perry, you will recall, wants "simulation"
before rendering a "final" judgment and so does CRS. This
requires cash outlays.
4. Thus, the DDA wish to await panel approval before
continuation is a little unrealistic. The panel clearly
should advise, now and in the future, pro or con on continued
investment on the total concept and on the individual parts
as we proceed towards and into each. Basically, however, we
do not believe that we can get the clear-cut, once-and-for-
all-times verdict that the DDA seems to desire short of much
before 1980.
89trl;rg Petr -
Des?rey ;ita=r
1 Jan 1977
..............................................
Approved For Release 2005/ - 014 01200 a0
 Approved For Reijase 2005/11/23 : CIA-RDP80p01495R4 1200150013-2
SUBJECT: Project SAFE - Talking Points for DDA
5. If possible, the February session should result in
a conclusion by the panel on whether to proceed. If we
can't get it then, we should have another session in late
March or early April. In the meantime, CRS, at least, must
act as if a favorable diagnosis will be forthcoming. Pros-
pects for success and for the first operational date will
both in part be results of how much cooperation we get in
the meantime from DDA.
6. The second DDA question (Mr. Blake's first) has to
do with how much of OJCS's resources needs go to the SAFE
development. He says 15 people. We think that the 15
figure is perhaps double the requirement for at least the
next year. Dr. Bitzer, you may recall, said that the SAFE
is was now about the right size and had about the right mix
of programmers and systems analysts. We think that he
continues to be correct. The problem is that OJCS management
has got to be actively involved in the design. The involve-
ment must include OJCS commitment (within reason, of course)
as the development occurs so we do not have to do all of the
work for the design development and then have it done again
when OJCS begins to implement.
7. CRS sees something more like six to eight full-
time SAFE people concerned with the system hardware con-
figuration and software. If OJCS is willing, CRS would
provide at least three, maybe five, of these people. Attached
is a wiring diagram (in OJCS possession, also) that shows
the organization and the kinds of numbers that we see for
the SAFE team.
8. As we get down the pike, I see the additional
people involved in writing software. These individuals
would not be part of the SAFE management team. They would
be writing specific programs to specifications, and it would
make relatively little difference whether they are employees
or contractors who could be either individual or corporate.
OJCS as we move down the road to SAFE implementation will
clearly have a major commitment of personnel. How major is
not presently discernable because personnel requirements
will be the result of several undetermined factors--what
kind of equipment will be used to operate what kind of
software that requires what kind of operator intervention.
Approved For Release 2005/h 1/23 : CIA-RDP80BI1495R001200150013-2
 Approved For Relgase
SUBJECT: Project SAFE - Talking Points for DDA
9. Thus, in my view, the DDA overstates his present
problem. OJCS has a full-timer on SAFE and is committed to
providing another. These two plus the CRS three to five
equal five to seven, which leaves OJCS a commitment of an
additional one to three.
10. Again, in the CRS view, numbers are not what is
important. What is important is OJCS participation in the
design decisions as they are being made and not after the
structure is complete. Who is assigned is far more important
than how many.
11. There is an alternative. CRS, with currently
commuted OJCS participation (two), does the whole design and
OJCS will then be bound to implement as CRS plans. CRS
doesn't think that this is practical and doesn't think that
OJCS should think so either.
Attachment:
As stated
Director, Central Reference Service
-3-
Approved For Release 200 B01495R001200150013-2
 Annrn~ierl Fnr Ralaasa ?f1051
11123 : CIA-RDP80B014~5R001200150013-
r-r
PROJECT SAFE
COng/Dtinecttion/Contno~j~ DCRS , DOJ~S
(P.kog. Oven~,ight/Ditect.ion)
Pir.o j.
OJcs
Ta,s k
Foxce
VL'L cto
Pnoj. Cth
O6'j.ice
Con'suttan-t
SAS
Sta66
3 JAN 1975
STAT
r-I
T-
L AdIgmentation
L_
Haxdwane
?SeZection
?AcquJ4.itLon
? I n.b.tat2a.t.io n
So 6,twan.e
FAWtFic ,tion4
oj.t4ane
(SSD augmentation)
j e u nom OJCS)
N b sl
(P p~ ~7F e se20 1112 ti ~~R[~P 01495Rp 6~ 5~0~ -ad 6oundau.ion in both hdwn/bo6-twan.e!) STAT
 Approved For Release 2005/11/23 :A-RDP80B01495R001
OFFICE OF THE DD/I
18 February 1975
NOTE TO: Director, Central Reference
Service
I have read your comments on Blake's
memo. It seems to me that should
do some planning that shoul elp the
Technical Advisory Panel, me, and Blake.
The plan. (or schedule) should lay out several
decision points together with 'dates and kinds
of data needed. We should. make an effort
to have the data available (or estimated) so
that the TAP can advise us on whether to go
to the next point. Perhaps this is already
done for the TAP, but I have not seen it.
If we have something like this in hand,
I think that Blake and the Director could have
a better idea of where we are going and what
will be needed to get there.