What I wonder is why didn't they just consider building more Lunar Orbiters? An Atlas Agena was a lot less expensive than an Apollo-Saturn V, without risking a crew.
Any idea of how this "lunar KH-7" would have compared to LRO, resolution-wise ?
Wouldn't it also have been a backup to Lunar Orbiter in case the developing film in space and beaming it back to earth part didn't work? I seem to recall USAF having some problems with that hat trick...
Quote from: Archibald on 11/29/2010 04:19 pmAny idea of how this "lunar KH-7" would have compared to LRO, resolution-wise ? I did not have time to do the math. Plus, I'm lousy at math.But it was a 77-inch focal length camera at 30 nautical miles altitude. Somebody can calculate that.My guess is better than 1-foot resolution. Probably close to diffraction limited (in other words, near the absolute best that the optics could produce).
Wouldn't mascons have made very low orbits useless? Not that they knew about those at the time.
Wouldn't mascons screwed with an elliptical orbit even more so?
Any chance to image Apollo landers long before LRO, shutting Bill *crackpot* Kaysing mouth ?
So the modified KH-7 would have remained attached to the CSM for the entire lunar portion of the mission? I would expect the modules would have needed to separate in order for the camera to be operated properly. Then the modules would need to rendezvous (or at least re-dock) afterward, to retrieve the exposed film.Maybe the planning never got to that level of detail...
So the modified KH-7 would have remained attached to the CSM for the entire lunar portion of the mission?
I would expect the modules would have needed to separate in order for the camera to be operated properly. Then the modules would need to rendezvous (or at least re-dock) afterward, to retrieve the exposed film.Maybe the planning never got to that level of detail...
your illustrations will probably be much better, however in the mean time....
Quote from: Jester on 12/01/2010 06:47 pmyour illustrations will probably be much better, however in the mean time....That second one is NOT LM&SS. It's a different AAP mission.The first one shows the LM&SS with a truss structure around it. I don't know what the truss structure is for. Maybe it provides collision protection? Mounting points for additional instruments? EVA handholds?
The truss is hold the LM&SS in the SLA like the lunar module. You can see the corners which are like the "knees" of the lunar module which support it in the SLA
Quote from: Jim on 12/01/2010 08:06 pmThe truss is hold the LM&SS in the SLA like the lunar module. You can see the corners which are like the "knees" of the lunar module which support it in the SLAYeah, but it wouldn't really be necessary after the LMSS was removed from the SLA.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/01/2010 11:19 pmQuote from: Jim on 12/01/2010 08:06 pmThe truss is hold the LM&SS in the SLA like the lunar module. You can see the corners which are like the "knees" of the lunar module which support it in the SLAYeah, but it wouldn't really be necessary after the LMSS was removed from the SLA.That was among the trades, where to make the disconnects
Well, if that chart (I have to look closer at the source) indicates that they tested the LM&SS docking collars for vibration, shock, physical fit, function, and thermal vacuum, then it confirms that hardware was actually constructed.
It sure looks this way, those documents are part of the Apollo Application Program (AAP) Payload Integration - General Test Plan, made up of 4 volumes.I just found the GSE tools used for testing the LM&SS, in Volume 1http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19680015081
So the consensus NASA and NRO aparently reached was something like *no way you ever use that camera in Earth orbit, but we don't care about the Moon*
Question: was Martin-Marietta responsible for the Apollo docking collar?
The Quest article is a little confusing. It never mentions General Electric or Kodak, although they were responsible for the OCV and the camera, respectively.
Isn't there something still missing? What really is the make up of the OCV? Was it just a spacecraft bus? Who made and integrated the structure that contained the camera, mirrors, avionics, SRV, etc that remained after the OCV was eliminated.
If the OCV was eliminated, or shortened (because of no stabilization system), it would explain the location of the sunshade on the side of the cylinder. Giuseppe de Chiara, who did the illustrations that I used, made a best estimation on the location of various things based upon my information and the limited dimensions that we had.But he calculates that the opening for the camera was a little closer to the one end of the vehicle, whereas the few illustrations posted here show the sunshade more near the middle of the tube.If you assume a shorter OCV on the opposite end from the film platen (where the film was exposed), then the sunshade could move a little farther away from the docking end, more near the middle.But we're still guessing.
Also talks about the thrus, and stabilization issue for the PM when attached to the CSM, mentions a cold gas attitude control system like the Gemini Augmented Target Docking Adapter.
mentions a cold gas attitude control system like the Gemini Augmented Target Docking Adapter.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/07/2010 05:29 pmThe Quest article is a little confusing. It never mentions General Electric or Kodak, although they were responsible for the OCV and the camera, respectively. Isn't there something still missing? What really is the make up of the OCV? Was it just a spacecraft bus? Who made and integrated the structure that contained the camera, mirrors, avionics, SRV, etc that remained after the OCV was eliminated.
Quote from: Jim on 12/07/2010 06:17 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 12/07/2010 05:29 pmThe Quest article is a little confusing. It never mentions General Electric or Kodak, although they were responsible for the OCV and the camera, respectively. Isn't there something still missing? What really is the make up of the OCV? Was it just a spacecraft bus? Who made and integrated the structure that contained the camera, mirrors, avionics, SRV, etc that remained after the OCV was eliminated. Itek did a lot of that work.
Itek did a lot of that work.
Okay, dumb question...There where backup Earth orbit missions in case a lunar mission failed to leave earth orbit. What would they have done with in this case?
Yeah, I think that the LM&SS evolved off of AAP by this time.
I'll have to take a look at all this new stuff soon. Been busy with work. But my suspicion is that you had the high-level discussions over whether or not NASA would be allowed to fly LM&SS now that it was no longer necessary for the lunar landings, but you also had people at a lower level continuing to plan for AAP missions. So there might have been a lag time where the people doing the negotiating expected that it would all be canceled, but the people at a lower level still thought it might go through.AAP is just such a weird thing to wrap one's head around. It was way too big an ambiguous before it got scaled down again and again. That's typical of a lot of NASA stuff where it takes years before the worker bees understand that they need to focus very narrowly.
Also wondering if some of the hardware survived....
When they connect the LM&SS to the station, they would want that port connected to the station so that the astronauts inside the station could easily reach the film.
QuoteWhen they connect the LM&SS to the station, they would want that port connected to the station so that the astronauts inside the station could easily reach the film.Perhaps - just my own little opinion - they could retrieve the film via an EVA ? As far as I remember that what was done for the Apollo Telescope Mount...
However the quality is crap and I was wondering if somebody had a better copy and/or knows the source of that image (probably marshall / OWS Presentation)
Quote from: Jester on 12/14/2010 09:46 amHowever the quality is crap and I was wondering if somebody had a better copy and/or knows the source of that image (probably marshall / OWS Presentation)Here you go. Sorry that it is a massive pdf file, but I don't have a way of converting this to jpeg on this computer.
As one official intelligence said "Hell, even its initials were supposed to be classified"
thank you. This discovery prompted myself to read again the long series of NRO-related articles you made ofr the Space Review since 2006.
I particularly liked this part of the article QuoteAs one official intelligence said "Hell, even its initials were supposed to be classified"
Blank letter head paper was pre stamped "Secret"
Quote from: kevin-rf on 11/29/2010 05:26 pmWouldn't it also have been a backup to Lunar Orbiter in case the developing film in space and beaming it back to earth part didn't work? I seem to recall USAF having some problems with that hat trick...That part worked. There were two problems: resolution (too low), and number of pictures that could be transmitted in a day. The latter was not an issue for Lunar Orbiter, because they did not require a lot of photographs of a lot of areas. The former might have been an issue--they might have been concerned about the quality of the imagery that LO could return, and what data could be extracted from it. I do not know the criteria for certifying that a potential landing site was safe. It is one thing to say "it must not have a slope of greater than 5 degrees." It is another thing to say "we KNOW that it does not have a slope greater than 5 degrees because of the following technical factors."
Okay, now my head is really screwed up. Lunar Orbiter used the SAMOS "camera" but not the SAMOS lenses? So it was an adaptation of the SAMOS system, but not the SAMOS system?
(cont' of my previous post)d) Fact that the SACC and NSAM 156 Committee reviewed and approved Apollo earth orbit Contingency Mission Plans for missions 13-17, and that the 18-inch focal length Hycon camera in Apollo 13 and 14 Service Modules could be used to image the earth, and that the Itek 24-inch focal length panoramic camera in the Apollo 15-17 Service Modules likewise could image the earth.
uhm... interesting.Point c needs more digging,the SACC was a subgroup of the Manned Space Flight Policy Committee, (MSFPC)Discussions about LM&SS probably where going on in both groups.Given the fact that the SACC was appointed as a subgroup on september 12 1966, pretty close to the cancellation time-frame of LM&SSsource:http://history.nasa.gov/HHR-32/ch8.htmEDIT:These two groups mentioned in a declassified NRO document proposed on camera's flying on Apollo 6http://www.private-files.com/documents/declassified/nro_apollo_6/nro_apollo_6.pdf
d) Fact that the SACC and NSAM 156 Committee reviewed and approved Apollo earth orbit Contingency Mission Plans for missions 13-17, and that the 18-inch focal length Hycon camera in Apollo 13 and 14 Service Modules could be used to image the earth, and that the Itek 24-inch focal length panoramic camera in the Apollo 15-17 Service Modules likewise could image the earth.
Quote from: hoku on 01/07/2011 08:43 pmd) Fact that the SACC and NSAM 156 Committee reviewed and approved Apollo earth orbit Contingency Mission Plans for missions 13-17, and that the 18-inch focal length Hycon camera in Apollo 13 and 14 Service Modules could be used to image the earth, and that the Itek 24-inch focal length panoramic camera in the Apollo 15-17 Service Modules likewise could image the earth.Like Graham2001, I had been unaware of cameras in the SMs of Apollos 13 and 14. Did these actually fly? Since there was no EVA to recover film, it would seem they must have been video cameras rather than film cameras. If so, how could their resolution have been high enough to be useful, given the technology of the day and the weight and power constraints? Would there have been a video tape recorder in the CM? It all seems unlikely....
<snip>Like Graham2001, I had been unaware of cameras in the SMs of Apollos 13 and 14. Did these actually fly? Since there was no EVA to recover film, it would seem they must have been video cameras rather than film cameras. If so, how could their resolution have been high enough to be useful, given the technology of the day and the weight and power constraints? Would there have been a video tape recorder in the CM? It all seems unlikely....
On Apollo 13 and 14 the Hycon camera flew in the CM.
Quote from: hoku on 01/10/2011 06:25 pmOn Apollo 13 and 14 the Hycon camera flew in the CM.That makes more sense. Thanks.Next question: were any plans produced for contingency missions in lunar orbit?
We recently had a thread over the decision to fly AS-503 (the third Saturn V) manned (April 1968).Then, at a famous meeting early August 1968, decision was taken to fly Apollo 8 to the Moon without Lunar Module. It was replaced by a ballast, the LTA.Maybe some day we'll find a document (classified or not) discussing the possible use of LMSS on Apollo 8 as an alternative to the LTA.Maybe !Thought ? could one out of four LMSS been completed circa 1968 and flown on Apollo 8 ? (speculative, but couldn't resist).
If NASA had finished construction of Upward Flight Unit #1, would NASA have sent it to the Moon with Apollo 8?
Upward could be flown as close as eight kilometers (five miles) above the Moon in such a forensic mission. It is possible that the resolution at that altitude could be as sharp as 15 centimeters (6 inches).
The LMSS module would probably have been left behind in lunar orbit after the Apollo crew retrieved its film load. This may have inspired NASA to consider the capability of independent flight. A simple version would have allowed Upward to hibernate in lunar orbit between missions. This was to have been tested in the Earth orbit AAP mission.A more complex approach would have included an LMSS capable of continuing a lunar mapping mission after the Apollo crew had reloaded its film. In its engineering proposal, Kodak had described how the LMSS could be equipped with the Bimat system that it had developed for Lunar Orbiter. Such an onboard processing and readout capacity would have allowed the astronauts to gauge the status of the KH-7 camera. After the crew had departed, this would have enabled Upward to continue an unmanned survey mission. Some years later, a similar system was considered by the NRO for real-time Earth reconnaissance. This Film Read Out Gambit (FROG) was cancelled when the NRO decided to pursue electronic read-out in its KH-11 satellite.
Would NASA have published any photos of the Upward module taken during a mission to the Moon?
What I never understood clearly is that NRO tried two times film readout technology - the first atempt that become NASA lunar orbiter (Samos), the second was FROG, and both failed ? film readut just didn't worked in Earth orbit...
http://thespacereview.com/article/2596/1
In view of these factors, I have substantial reservations as to the prudence of any attempt to accomplish scientific astronomy with MOL.
Some more images from the article.Note that the early concept was to put the camera inside the Service Module. I have a hard time seeing how that ever would have worked, which may be why it was not pursued.
Quote from: Blackstar on 09/18/2014 03:23 pmSome more images from the article.Note that the early concept was to put the camera inside the Service Module. I have a hard time seeing how that ever would have worked, which may be why it was not pursued. I would have thought that it would work the same way as the SIM bay cameras on the actual J-class missions? Or am I missing something important?
I love document 22 on the NRO page, where they basically say using MOL/DORIAN for astronomical observations would mean that astronomers would quickly figure out and report the optical capabilities of the imaging system:QuoteIn view of these factors, I have substantial reservations as to the prudence of any attempt to accomplish scientific astronomy with MOL.
The LMSS was tantalizingly close to flight capability when it was canceled. At that time, two of the planned five flight units were close to completion. In fact, the first unit was to begin vibration/acoustic testing at the Manned Spaceflight Center in Houston on September 15, 1967.
LTA-B brought the total payload weight to 39,780 kilograms.
Numerous tests had been made for payloads of around 38,555 kilograms but none for those in the 29,435- to 31,750-kilogram range. And Apollo 8 CSM mass was only 28897 kg MSFC had therefore asked that the minimum payload for AS-503 be set at 38,555 kilograms. Because LTA-B brought the total payload weight to 39,780 kilograms, that vehicle had been selected for the Apollo 8 mission.
a baseline mass of 2,085 kilograms
Numerous tests had been made for payloads of around 38,555 kilograms but none for those in the 29,435- to 31,750-kilogram range.
You'll be seeing some more on this subject in the near future (not all by me).
Okay. So I just got the issue and can say that it's available. Phil Horzempa has a very big article on UPWARD/LMSS in here.
Well, this is great Soon we'll have the opportunity to discuss possible crews for these "secret" Apollo missions.
Quote from: JoeFromRIUSA on 08/25/2020 07:16 pmWell, this is great Soon we'll have the opportunity to discuss possible crews for these "secret" Apollo missions.Already done:https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3751/1
Somewhat absurdely it is next to impossible to find dimensions of the SIM bay anywhere. I finally found this (attached) 50 inch "deep" and 146 inch long.
They used the same argument to try and save MOL, at some point. "If something break, the crew can fix it. Target of opportunities, too."
As for UPWARD/LMSS, that still leaves the argument that it might be needed because Lunar Orbiter might work, but the photos would not be good enough. But I think even that argument probably faded rapidly once they were looking at images from the second mission.
Lunar Orbiter best ground resolution was 1 m or slightly better. The massively powerful UPWARD would have been 0.3 m or even less (3 ft vs 1 ft, approximatively - for your imperial units maniacs).
In passing, something is troubling my little self... the Apollo 11 landing "incident". Supposedly, the place where the computer drove the LM to land, had been cleared of boulders and craters. Yet we all know that only Armstrong (and Aldrin, too) steel nerves prevented a crash and they had to land 5 miles away. Was that a case of Lunar Orbiter imagery not high-res enough ?
Quote from: libra on 08/31/2020 11:23 amIn passing, something is troubling my little self... the Apollo 11 landing "incident". Supposedly, the place where the computer drove the LM to land, had been cleared of boulders and craters. Yet we all know that only Armstrong (and Aldrin, too) steel nerves prevented a crash and they had to land 5 miles away. Was that a case of Lunar Orbiter imagery not high-res enough ? No. Due to navigation errors the LM trajectory was *already* over 4 miles long at the start of P64 when the LM pitched down to provide Armstrong a view of the landing site through the LPD. So the LM wasn't targeting the original landing site "cleared" by Lunar Orbiter imagery, but a spot over 4 miles downrange.
An interesting sideline to this story was the squabble over who would build the Upward rack. The competition was between Lockheed and NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. The NRO believed that the fastest and cheapest course of action was for Lockheed to build the structure. This seemed logical as Upward would be using equipment from a highly classified program and Lockheed’s personnel already had “Top Secret” clearances. If NASA insisted that Marshall personnel be used, then additional time and money would be needed to “clear” that new group. In the end, the work went to Marshall.There may have been a bit more to this story. In a parallel sequence of events, the Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) project also underwent an overhaul in early 1966. Like Upward, its solar telescope payload was no longer to be housed in Bay 1 of the Apollo Service Module, but was to be moved to a separate module, a modified Lunar Module. In July 1966, Marshall also won the contract to build the ATM.
Some mentions of the "lunar mapping and survey system" in tech papers from the late 60's. It is a basic search using Google scholar. I will check some of these papers. https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=1,5&as_vis=1&q=%22lunar+mapping+and+survey+system%22 Attached, one document > https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/85246165.pdfNow look at page 37 and 38 of the pdf. There are illustrations of ATM and LM&SS racks... and they look quite similar. No idea if it is a simple coincidence or not. But I'm reminded of this https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2596/1QuoteAn interesting sideline to this story was the squabble over who would build the Upward rack. The competition was between Lockheed and NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. The NRO believed that the fastest and cheapest course of action was for Lockheed to build the structure. This seemed logical as Upward would be using equipment from a highly classified program and Lockheed’s personnel already had “Top Secret” clearances. If NASA insisted that Marshall personnel be used, then additional time and money would be needed to “clear” that new group. In the end, the work went to Marshall.There may have been a bit more to this story. In a parallel sequence of events, the Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) project also underwent an overhaul in early 1966. Like Upward, its solar telescope payload was no longer to be housed in Bay 1 of the Apollo Service Module, but was to be moved to a separate module, a modified Lunar Module. In July 1966, Marshall also won the contract to build the ATM. The LM&SS rack was nothing sensitive and not classified by any mean. Because it was, just, well, a rack. If Marshall won both contracts, as per above quote, makes some sense the two racks ended looking similar in the document I linked...
This has echoes to another adaptation of classified reconnaissance technology for civilian NASA work: the Hubble Space Telescope.From what I recall hearing (first hand), NASA insisted on doing the build outside of the classified environment in which the 2.4 m "spy satellite" systems were being built. The loss of experience and the replication of hardware had a direct path to the metrology error that resulted in the primary mirror having the spherical aberration figure error and the failure to detect it before launch.
Do we know what happened to the Kodak mirror? Was it ever completed?
P.S I worked on the ATM, particularly on the Harvard College Observatory ultraviolet spectroheliometer.
Well there is still the "official" story that NASA went from 3 m to 2.4 m because Congress in 1975 - Senator Bolland, from memory - zeroed the budget. They only got the budget back when they shrunk the telescope. What role did the NRO played in that, no idea.
Quote from: John Santos on 11/03/2020 06:41 pmDo we know what happened to the Kodak mirror? Was it ever completed?Yes it was. It was, I think, donated to the Smithsonian, which had it on display for awhile. And I think it now resides in a non-Smithsonian museum. I also believe that it was tested and did not have spherical aberration.
in downtown DC is still closed because of the COVID situation. No word as to when it will open.Yes, I believe it's still on display in the "Explore the Universe" gallery, 1st floor, east side of the building.(I qualify my statement because of the ongoing building renovation. That was being done in sections before March 2020, and the work continues. There has been a LOT of artifact packing and moving since the project started.)
Here is a bit of what I remember from that era. Just after college I went to work at Smithsonian astrophysical observatory.The optical lab for Hubble was in a Perkin Elmer building that the keyhole satellites were built in. The optical lab was at the far end of the building from the entrance. Unless you had a clearance, the problem was that you couldn't even walk down the hall to get to the optical lab where the Hubble mirror was being made. This discouraged ongoing checking of the fabrication of that mirror, as very few astronomers had security clearances, much less ones that would allow you to enter the building.
I happen to interview with Perkin Elmer just after college and have a memory of how that building is arranged, as they had a conference room outside of the security boundary. That's where I was interviewed. I don't believe that briefcases and the like were allowed beyond that point. I was told at some point that there was a very long hallway to the far end of the building where the Hubble optical shop was. If you were escorted down that hall, lights flashed and it was as though you were a leper with someone yelling " unclean " as you went. I am just as happy that I did not take that job and ended up at SAO.
The only astronomer I know of with the kind of security clearance who could have entered that building on a regular basis would have been Dr. James G. Baker, but I believe that Hubble came along after he had relinquished his security clearance. Dr Baker is quite famous in the optical world, and for example the first U2 camera was fabricated by him personally in the basement of his house in Winchester Massachusetts. He and Edwin Land were in the meeting with Eisenhower that decided on the construction of the U2.The LSST design for example is an invention of Dr Baker's.More on Dr Baker and the role he played in national reconnaissance can be seen in the document I have linked below courtesy of the wayback machine.https://web.archive.org/web/20130228074602if_/http://www.afspc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100405-071.pdfI was fortunate enough to work for Jim Baker the summer before I started MIT, and kept up with him after that at SAO, which is co-located with Harvard College Observatory.While Jim Baker was very careful about what he said, I've tried to piece together a bit of his career since then.That Kodak was also able to make a mirror suitable for Hubble came as a surprise to astronomers.
Two things--they started the renovations with the west side of the building...
Quote from: jg on 11/04/2020 02:32 pmHere is a bit of what I remember from that era. Just after college I went to work at Smithsonian astrophysical observatory.The optical lab for Hubble was in a Perkin Elmer building that the keyhole satellites were built in. The optical lab was at the far end of the building from the entrance. Unless you had a clearance, the problem was that you couldn't even walk down the hall to get to the optical lab where the Hubble mirror was being made. This discouraged ongoing checking of the fabrication of that mirror, as very few astronomers had security clearances, much less ones that would allow you to enter the building.That's an interesting observation--maybe the fact that the testing was in an area that was difficult to reach could have affected how well the testing was done.<snip>
PS. The post about Dr James Baker is one I want to like multiple times.
Document 28: "DoD-NASA Coordination of the Earth Resources Survey Program," September 1966. Top Secret/BYEMAN.Source: NASA MDR RequestThis agreement, signed by the director of defense research & engineering and NASA's deputy administrator, established procedures for the review of all NASA space-based remote sensing activities to eliminate any threats to the National Reconnaissance Program. It created the new working-level NASA-DoD Survey Applications Coordinating Committee, which was to report to the existing NASA-DoD Manned Space Flight Policy Committee.
for Secret Project Forum thread about MOL i extracted some Picture of NRO pdf also some of Apollo stuff they look into.Mostly adaptation of Apollo X and AES hardware, but also modified Apollo CSM Source NRO PDF nr°63Study of Utilizing Apollo for the MOL Mission Volume IIprepared by the Applied Mechanics Division for Commander Space System Divison Air-force System commandIt's very frustration not to be able to find Part 1 of this study.
Of course the said U-2 camera ended on Apollo. As PanCam on the J-class Apollos, inside the SIM bay... a very similar camera also flew on SR-71s and on that mysterious semi-stealth Ryan AQM-91 COMPASS ARROW drone that was to spy the chinese at Lop Nor and back but ended cancelled in 1971 by Nixon and Kissinger visits to China.
Quote from: libra on 05/24/2022 03:40 pmOf course the said U-2 camera ended on Apollo. As PanCam on the J-class Apollos, inside the SIM bay... a very similar camera also flew on SR-71s and on that mysterious semi-stealth Ryan AQM-91 COMPASS ARROW drone that was to spy the chinese at Lop Nor and back but ended cancelled in 1971 by Nixon and Kissinger visits to China. I have something on that in the works. But it won't be very revelatory. The pancam was originally built for COMPASS ARROW, but delays in that program meant that it flew on the U-2 first. then it was adapted for Apollo.
Now that's interesting. So it happened in that order ?
Quote from: libra on 05/25/2022 03:14 amNow that's interesting. So it happened in that order ?Yeah, and that's pretty much the only bit of interesting information I have on that subject.
TBH little has been published over the Ryan AQM-91. Which is a pity, imagine: a semi-stealth flying machine a decade before the F-117... and a spy drone with that. I checked the NRO declassified docs many time and even them have next to nothing about it.
Quote from: libra on 05/25/2022 12:00 pmTBH little has been published over the Ryan AQM-91. Which is a pity, imagine: a semi-stealth flying machine a decade before the F-117... and a spy drone with that. I checked the NRO declassified docs many time and even them have next to nothing about it. .... It's about the Apollo 15 EVA to retrieve the film. One of the astronauts later said that they never should have done that.....
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/26/2022 02:21 amQuote from: libra on 05/25/2022 12:00 pmTBH little has been published over the Ryan AQM-91. Which is a pity, imagine: a semi-stealth flying machine a decade before the F-117... and a spy drone with that. I checked the NRO declassified docs many time and even them have next to nothing about it. .... It's about the Apollo 15 EVA to retrieve the film. One of the astronauts later said that they never should have done that.....Why should they "never have done that"? Safety?
Quote from: libra on 05/25/2022 12:00 pmTBH little has been published over the Ryan AQM-91. Which is a pity, imagine: a semi-stealth flying machine a decade before the F-117... and a spy drone with that. I checked the NRO declassified docs many time and even them have next to nothing about it. Working on an article with a co-author. It's about the Apollo 15 EVA to retrieve the film. One of the astronauts later said that they never should have done that. The part I'm writing about is what was on the film, what those cameras were, and why that was important.
What was the objection?