NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Historical Spaceflight => Topic started by: Jim on 01/19/2011 02:39 pm

Title: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2011 02:39 pm
The hatch through the heat shield was the chosen method for the crew to move from the capsule to the lab.  This raises a question in my mind.  How was the tunnel to the lab connected to the capsule and how did it provide an airtight seal?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: simonbp on 01/19/2011 04:01 pm
IIRC, the heat shield hatch swung inside the Gemini (between the crew seats), and was connected by a narrow tunnel to the main pressurized compartment.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2011 04:53 pm
IIRC, the heat shield hatch swung inside the Gemini (between the crew seats), and was connected by a narrow tunnel to the main pressurized compartment.

So how does the tunnel interface with the hatch and account the heatshield.  Did the tunnel butt up against the heatshield with a compliant material that could handle the interior air pressure?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: e of pi on 01/19/2011 05:16 pm
IIRC, the heat shield hatch swung inside the Gemini (between the crew seats), and was connected by a narrow tunnel to the main pressurized compartment.

So how does the tunnel interface with the hatch and account the heatshield.  Did the tunnel butt up against the heatshield with a compliant material that could handle the interior air pressure?

Just a butt connection like that seems like it could be made to work but it does seem like it could be problematic. Perhaps there was a actual docking mechanism that was exposed once the heat shield hatch swung aside?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: tankmodeler on 01/19/2011 07:49 pm
No, there couldn't be a separate mechanism because you'd have to have a way to disengage it to provide a smooth heat shield surface for a proper re-entry. I've always suspected that it was to be a compliant seal. Tolerance control of the mating surfaces would have been a real b*tch, for sure, but if there is a perfect sealing door at the base of the tunnel, the approach could be to permit the capsule & tunnel to bleed down to near vacuum due to an imperfect seal. This would likely have been an acceptable ops concept during the period. It likely wouldn't fly today, but it might have then.

You could get away, perhaps, with an inflated collar with an RTV interface seal between the collar and the heat shield, the RTV actually being bonded to both sides of the interface. At capsule separation you pop the separation plane and either the forces involved break the RTV seal or there is a  small line charge in the inflated collar leaving a rubber collar bonded to the heat shield. Cut it close enough to the heat shield surface and you won't disturb the airflow enough to destabilise the capsule during the start of re-entry. As re-entry proceeds the collar and RTV will all boil/burn away rather quickly and the capsule re-enters normally.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 01/19/2011 09:21 pm
Figure 5.1-5 of the "GEMINI SPACECRAFT STUDY FOR MORL FERRY MISSIONS" from 1963 hints that a "large pressure bulkhead" would have encompassed the entire heat shield base: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750069218_1975069218.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750069218_1975069218.pdf)
(Don't know, though, if this was the final design).

Here is a view of the modified heat shield of the Gemini 2/Gemini B spacecraft (suborbital flight with the modified heat shield in 1966):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/Gemini2xrear.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/Gemini2xrear.jpg)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 01/19/2011 11:15 pm
So here's an intriguing question: how would they have brought back to Earth the big roll of exposed film they took?

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/19/2011 11:52 pm
The whole concept seems like a mess.

I suspect that had The Powers That Be made a more rationale decision in 1963, it would have been to significantly redesign Gemini to allow crew transfer via the nose, separate Gemini launches from MOL, and thus allow MOL to be launched on Titan IIIC (obviating the need for Titan IIIM), and probably would resulted in MOL launches in 1967.

In technical programs, the initial constraints and requirements dictate success or failure of the program, if in doubt, see "Mike Griffin" "Ares".

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 01/19/2011 11:56 pm
You're assuming that the requirement for a Titan IIIM was the long pole in the tent for MOL.  I don't think that's the case.  MOL was incredibly complex, and had little real justification.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/20/2011 12:05 am
You're assuming that the requirement for a Titan IIIM was the long pole in the tent for MOL.  I don't think that's the case.  MOL was incredibly complex, and had little real justification.

AFAIK, Titan IIIM was a long pole, with flight tests not even started as late as 1969. Without the requirement for development of SLC-6 to accommodate Titan IIIM, along with development of Titan IIIM itself, the program would have attained flight status might earlier. Of course, without Titan IIIM, a different flavor of Gemini would have been required, but IMHO, early modifications to Gemini would have been cheaper over the program lifetime than the path actually chosen, which was later and smaller modifications.


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: mike robel on 01/20/2011 12:35 am
I am away from my Spacecraft Films disc, but the hatch was pushed "out" from the heatshield and stored in the tunnel.  There was a distinct lip on the hatch that overlapped the heatshield.  The storage compartment had some positive latch mechanism that prevented the hatch from floating up. 

When I last launched the video, I did not notice how the join was made air tight, perhaps someone else has the video at hand.

The astronauts tested their ability to go through the tunnel both in and out of suits, with film cartridges, and towing or pushing a suited/unsuited incapacatated astronauts.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 01/20/2011 01:13 am
AFAIK, Titan IIIM was a long pole, with flight tests not even started as late as 1969.

Actually, the UA-1207 SRM for the III-M was test-fired in April 1969, according to astronautix.com.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 01/20/2011 01:17 am
It wasn't the Titan IIIM that killed MOL.  It was high costs and continued program slips.  Yeah, a smaller spacecraft would have required a smaller rocket.  But your alternative sounds more complex.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/20/2011 02:35 am
It wasn't the Titan IIIM that killed MOL.  It was high costs and continued program slips.  Yeah, a smaller spacecraft would have required a smaller rocket.  But your alternative sounds more complex.

I would imagine that a redesign of Gemini to allow for transfers through the nose/top would eventually have been cheaper and easier than all these through the heat shield design ideas.

Having said that, the Russians slavishly copied MOL and executed missions with landing craft featuring hatches in the heat shield, although they never risked a crew landing with this architecture.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 01/20/2011 04:47 am
[T]he Russians slavishly copied MOL and executed missions with landing craft featuring hatches in the heat shield, although they never risked a crew landing with this architecture.

A heat-shield hatch sure seems scary, but I wonder whether it's really as risky as it looks.  The Air Force did perform a successful flight test, after all.  Also, IIRC, on an early, unmanned Soyuz flight a plug at the center of the heat shield actually failed.  Although the crew cabin lost pressure, the temperature inside stayed within reasonable limits (I think I read about this in a Jim Oberg piece).
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Hoonte on 01/20/2011 06:02 am
A heat-shield hatch sure seems scary, but I wonder whether it's really as risky as it looks.

Not that risky.. It pretty much welded shut on reentry. Hatches have proven to work pretty fine. The shuttle has hatches for it's gears (Which fortunally doesn't get welded shut :-))

Modify: added some additional pictures I found
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 01/20/2011 06:25 am
Gemini docking per its nose ? would be a new spacecraft. I would try it differently.
As far as I remember the astronauts entered Gemini by two large swinging doors on the capsule side. I propose to replace these doors  by a side mounted docking ring (the crew would enter the capsule by this docking ring, even on the ground)
No hatch in the heatshield then, and Gemini would dock by its "side", a bit like a shuttle or biconic.

The Oberg article was entitled Soyuz 5 flamming return, and it is SCARY.

About hatches in the heatshield: I've read somewhere (can't remember where) that Chelomei TKS-VA had some clever design where the hatch was literally sealed by heat reentry and reentry pressure altogether.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/20/2011 11:13 am

I would imagine that a redesign of Gemini to allow for transfers through the nose/top would eventually have been cheaper and easier than all these through the heat shield design ideas.


Huh?   No way.  Though the nose would be impossible with keeping within a Gemini design.   The diameter is less than the tunnel width.  Where would the RCS and parachutes go?  Add a docking mechanism, rendezvous equipment, 3 axis ACS, translation engines, etc. It would be a whole new spacecraft.

The MOL Gemini just required a hatch and tunnel interface and it had many unnecessary systems removed. 

MOL without a Gemini still required a T-IIIM and adding a docking system  would add back some weight.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Hoonte on 01/20/2011 11:37 am
The hatch through the heat shield was the chosen method for the crew to move from the capsule to the lab.  This raises a question in my mind.  How was the tunnel to the lab connected to the capsule and how did it provide an airtight seal?

I believe that it didn't need to be airtight. The tunnel was merely a passage way to the MOL. The Gemini was depressurized and the floated in their suits through the tunnel to the MOL and sealed and pressurized the MOL..
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/20/2011 12:11 pm

I believe that it didn't need to be airtight. The tunnel was merely a passage way to the MOL. The Gemini was depressurized and the floated in their suits through the tunnel to the MOL and sealed and pressurized the MOL..

Where does it say the MOL flew unpressurized?  Where is the "backpack" and oxygen for the crew while they move from the capsule to the MOL?  The Gemini was to stay unpressurized for the duration of the crew stay?
And the MOL would have to depressurized at the end of the mission so the crew can get back into the Gemini?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: tankmodeler on 01/20/2011 01:01 pm
I believe that it didn't need to be airtight. The tunnel was merely a passage way to the MOL. The Gemini was depressurized and the floated in their suits through the tunnel to the MOL and sealed and pressurized the MOL..
No, I don't buy that. The hatch isn't large enough to exit with a sealed suit, under pressure, and with some sort of self contained life support system. Even the small emergency chest packs were too large to mange through the heat shield hatch & tunnel and, if you've seen the spacecraft films footage of the 0G tests of the hatch/tunnel arrangement, getting throught here in a pressurised suit would have been a real problem, if possible at all.

There must have been a seal and the seal would have had to have been at least good enough to support hours of operation even if it bled down over time.

Now, none of the images I have seen shows a hatch at the aft end of the tunnel. If that is true, then the tunnel must remain perfectly sealed for the whole mission, implying a really good seal.

I wonder if you could adjust the fit of the tunnel to the shield well enough to permit a grease type sealing compound to act as the final seal? That would eliminate the need for a line charge, but you'd need both some sort of actuator (probably springs) to force the separation and a really viscous goop to make the seal. Certainly the surface of the Gemini B shield around the hatch shows signs of precision machining and this is probably to prepare the surface forwhatever the seal was supposed to be.

Bloody good question, Jim. I wonder if the answer to this is still buried out there in "Classified Document Land". MOL was pretty far along by the time it was killed, so there must have been a really advanced design for this seal by then.

Paul
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Hoonte on 01/20/2011 01:37 pm
The internal tunnel structure was not the only possibility

here is a progress report on a expandable gemini to mol crew tranfer tunnel.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/20/2011 03:47 pm
The internal tunnel structure was not the only possibility


The internal tunnel was the final design.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/20/2011 06:51 pm

I would imagine that a redesign of Gemini to allow for transfers through the nose/top would eventually have been cheaper and easier than all these through the heat shield design ideas.


Huh?   No way.  Though the nose would be impossible with keeping within a Gemini design.   The diameter is less than the tunnel width.  Where would the RCS and parachutes go?  Add a docking mechanism, rendezvous equipment, 3 axis ACS, translation engines, etc. It would be a whole new spacecraft.

The MOL Gemini just required a hatch and tunnel interface and it had many unnecessary systems removed. 

MOL without a Gemini still required a T-IIIM and adding a docking system  would add back some weight.

Again, the trade on the table is a single redesign of Gemini to allow nose-first docking with a solo launched MOL vs the actual baseline. Biting the bullet on "fixing" Gemini to convert it into a real ferry spacecraft would have been cheaper in the long run, and IMHO saved the program.

Of course, had the USAF done that, we wouldn't have SLC-6 today.

As for a solo-launched MOL requiring development of Titan IIIM, that implies that the difference in capability between Titan IIIM and Titan IIIC was more than the mass of a Gemini.

So, the trade is:

Baseline:

1) redesign Gemini for rear docking, including development of a pressurized section in the rear for a tunnel, docking, rear crew station, heat shield hatch, access hatch in the re-entry capsule between the ejection seats;

2) Develop Titan IIIM to loft Gemini + MOL for initial habitation. Required construction of SLC-6.

or

Alternate:

1) Redesign Gemini for nose docking and crew transfer, requires different shell, but same subsystems as original Gemini. Fly MOL without Gemini for all MOL launches.

2) Fly MOL from existing Titan IIIC launch pads on Titan IIIC launcher.

I suspect that the alternate would have been flying in 1967, at a much lower cost to the government.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: simonbp on 01/20/2011 07:01 pm
A heat-shield hatch sure seems scary, but I wonder whether it's really as risky as it looks.

I dunno; just how many doors does Shuttle have in its headshield? Off the top of my head, I can think of seven, at least thee of which (the ET attach points) are closed after the orbiter is on in space...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/20/2011 07:02 pm

Again, the trade on the table is a single redesign of Gemini to allow nose-first docking with a solo launched MOL vs the actual baseline. Biting the bullet on "fixing" Gemini to convert it into a real ferry spacecraft would have been cheaper in the long run, and IMHO saved the program.

Of course, had the USAF done that, we wouldn't have SLC-6 today.

As for a solo-launched MOL requiring development of Titan IIIM, that implies that the difference in capability between Titan IIIM and Titan IIIC was more than the mass of a Gemini.

So, the trade is:

Baseline:

1) redesign Gemini for rear docking, including development of a pressurized section in the rear for a tunnel, docking, rear crew station, heat shield hatch, access hatch in the re-entry capsule between the ejection seats;

2) Develop Titan IIIM to loft Gemini + MOL for initial habitation. Required construction of SLC-6.

or

Alternate:

1) Redesign Gemini for nose docking and crew transfer, requires different shell, but same subsystems as original Gemini. Fly MOL without Gemini for all MOL launches.

2) Fly MOL from existing Titan IIIC launch pads on Titan IIIC launcher.

I suspect that the alternate would have been flying in 1967, at a much lower cost to the government.


No,  two launches per mission is going to cost more in the long run especially with a new spacecraft. 

Titan IIIC launch pads did not exist on the west coast.

The difference in capability between Titan IIIM and Titan IIIC WAS more than the mass of a Gemini

Redesign Gemini would be more than the actual Gemini in cost. 


SLC-6 is require in any case and it did not cost that much.

New pad costs are cheaper than new spacecraft.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim Davis on 01/20/2011 07:40 pm
Again, the trade on the table is a single redesign of Gemini to allow nose-first docking with a solo launched MOL vs the actual baseline.

I don't think this works. Remember that MOL was to be launched into polar orbit. Gemini could not be placed into polar orbit by the Titan II. This would have meant launching the redesigned Gemini into orbit on a Titan IIIC or D.

So your scheme involves at a minimum:

1.) Massive redesign of Gemini.

2.) Two launches of Titan IIIC/D instead of 1 Titan IIIM.

3.) Manrating the Titan IIIC/D.

4.) Adding a rendezvous and docking procedure much of which would have to done independently of the ground due to polar orbit.

I think I would have gone the Titan IIIM 1 launch route.

 
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: tankmodeler on 01/21/2011 01:50 am
Again, the trade on the table is a single redesign of Gemini to allow nose-first docking with a solo launched MOL vs the actual baseline. Biting the bullet on "fixing" Gemini to convert it into a real ferry spacecraft would have been cheaper in the long run, and IMHO saved the program.
No, as Jim says, that level of redesign of the Gemini would have cost the same as a completely new vehicle, because that's what you would have needed. The front two subassemblies of the Gemini (the recovery module and the RCS system) filled up the entire volume. If you want to use that volume for a docking system and a passageway, where do the recovery system & RCS go? An expansion of the diameters of the nose means that the outer mould line of the basic capsule has to change to ensure that that the re-entry vehicle aerodynamics remain acceptable. As soon as you do that, you have an entirely new vehicle. Big bucks and even longer schedule.

No, a "redesigned" Gemini is not a cost effective solution and it wouldn't have mattered what was done, the program wouldn't have been saved because the Gemini wasn't the problem. Modern, robotic surveillance satellites killed off MOL.

Paul
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 01/21/2011 01:04 pm
As soon as you do that, you have an entirely new vehicle. Big bucks and even longer schedule.

They really designed themselves into a bind.  If MOL had flown earlier--say, by 1966--it might have had some utility.  But they essentially designed themselves a short-lived, non-reusable reconsat.  By 1969 this made little sense, and because it would have started flying in 1971, it made even less sense.  If Gemini was capable of multiple dockings (i.e. designed with a docking collar), they could have extended the lifetime of the MOL and so it might have made more sense.  But it really had a small window of opportunity and it missed that.  By the early 1970s, it was possible to extend the lifetime of robotic reconsats to several months.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: agman25 on 01/21/2011 01:08 pm
Why didn't they just use Apollo?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Arthur on 01/21/2011 01:18 pm
Why didn't they just use Apollo?

NIH?
Military vs NASA seems a common theme between Gemini-centric and Apollo-centric proposals.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/21/2011 01:19 pm
Why didn't they just use Apollo?

West coast Saturn?

This discussion does have me wondering, why was a new pad needed for MOL, why couldn't the Titan III C/D pad have been used. Did it not exist yet? If not, why then wasn't SLC-6 used when the Titan IIIC came to the west coast for the KH-9? Just curious...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/21/2011 02:38 pm
Why didn't they just use Apollo?

West coast Saturn?

This discussion does have me wondering, why was a new pad needed for MOL, why couldn't the Titan III C/D pad have been used. Did it not exist yet? If not, why then wasn't SLC-6 used when the Titan IIIC came to the west coast for the KH-9? Just curious...

There wasn't a T-IIID pad at the time.  MOL and T-IIID would have been flying simultaneously.

BTW, T-IIIC never was used on the west coast.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/21/2011 02:39 pm
Why didn't they just use Apollo?

Too big and expensive
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 01/21/2011 03:00 pm
Why didn't they just use Apollo?

Well, that's a good question.  I think the most simplistic answer is cost.  Apollo cost more than Gemini.  I don't know how much, but it was substantial.  Plus, Apollo had to be launched on a NASA rocket. 

But there were other programmatic issues too.  If USAF wanted to use Apollo, there was the risk of them getting in the way of the lunar program.  The great thing about Gemini was that NASA was going to stop using it, so USAF could essentially pick up the production run after NASA was finished and they would not interfere with Apollo or any other NASA mission in any way.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/21/2011 04:12 pm

There wasn't a T-IIID pad at the time.  MOL and T-IIID would have been flying simultaneously.


Was the thought at the time, that two pads where needed to keep the two programs from conflicting and each interfering with the other? Does this mean they had a good handle at how long Titan payloads would spend on the pad back then?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/21/2011 04:44 pm

There wasn't a T-IIID pad at the time.  MOL and T-IIID would have been flying simultaneously.


Was the thought at the time, that two pads where needed to keep the two programs from conflicting and each interfering with the other? Does this mean they had a good handle at how long Titan payloads would spend on the pad back then?

T-IIID was for an CIA Hexagon and T-IIIM was for a USAF MOL.  Separate programs, one covert and one overt and very visible.
Title: Gemini-B/MOL IVA transfer tunnel and hatches [Re: MOL discussion]
Post by: John Charles on 02/20/2011 06:19 pm
Good discussion! Sorry I am joining late.

Note that there was one hole in the heat shield, but two plugs for that hole.  The heat shield plug was stowed in the transfer tunnel (as seen in the excellent Spacecraft Films video), and the pressure vessel hatch was stowed in the hatch holder on the aft bulkhead inside the cabin.

The pressurized transfer tunnel was sealed against the Gemini-B heat shield by a pliable pressurized ring with an internal spring forcing it against a special mounting ring on the heat shield.  (See the various photos of the Gemini-B heat shield available on the web.)  Something like this also formed the airtight seal between the Apollo CM and LM.

I can post images if desired (but it will take may some time to find them in my files).

John Charles
Houston, Texas
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 02/20/2011 10:37 pm
The internal tunnel structure was not the only possibility

here is a progress report on a expandable gemini to mol crew tranfer tunnel.


Thanks very much for posting this document!  I have been looking for something like it.

John Charles
Houston, Texas
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2012 11:33 am
From the QUILL files.  Document 25. Semi-Annual Report to the PFIAB 1965-66, PDF page58m,

MOL camera layout
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/12/2012 02:07 pm
Is that a new document? It is the first time I remember the optical layout being published.

It also brings up some interesting questions about unmanned, man out of the loop options and the great KH-9/KH-10 debate that occurred during Nixon.

I does answer the side looking question.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2012 03:24 pm

I does answer the side looking question.

Only for this timeframe, it could have changed later in the program.  Need all the history.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: ChileVerde on 07/12/2012 08:51 pm

I does answer the side looking question.

Only for this timeframe, it could have changed later in the program.  Need all the history.

I agree. There remain serious questions about what the final optical design looked like.  The model in the picture labeled "MOL Telescope/Camera" in http://blog.theavclub.tv/post/mol-update-4 suggests something closer to a Cassegrain design and is more consistent with the UL that the original 1.8 m mirrors for the Multiple Mirror Telescope were KH-10 leftovers.

Edit: And, of course, see http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1371/1
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2012 08:59 pm

I agree. There remain serious questions about what the final optical design looked like.  The model in the picture labeled "MOL Telescope/Camera" in http://blog.theavclub.tv/post/mol-update-4 suggests something closer to a Cassegrain design and is more consistent with the UL that the original 1.8 m mirrors for the Multiple Mirror Telescope were KH-10 leftovers.



That isn't an original source
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: ChileVerde on 07/12/2012 09:03 pm

I agree. There remain serious questions about what the final optical design looked like.  The model in the picture labeled "MOL Telescope/Camera" in http://blog.theavclub.tv/post/mol-update-4 suggests something closer to a Cassegrain design and is more consistent with the UL that the original 1.8 m mirrors for the Multiple Mirror Telescope were KH-10 leftovers.



That isn't an original source

Would you care to favor us with the original source?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/13/2012 02:52 am
Thanks to ChileVerde for the link to The AV Club and two new (to me) MOL images from Douglas Aircraft Corp. In particular, the interior image addresses my question of more than a year ago, about whether there was a pressure hatch at the lab end of the transfer tunnel. If this image is as credible as it appears, and unless the hatch is hiding in the small area behind the rack on the right side of the image, then the answer appears to be: no. This is consistent with images of the mockup used for weightless tests on the KC-135, but not with some artwork that depicts a pressure hatch there. Of course, a pressure hatch might also have been removable (like the Apollo CM docking tunnel hatch) and just not installed in any of the mockups at the time the photos were made.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: simonbp on 07/13/2012 01:51 pm
I agree. There remain serious questions about what the final optical design looked like.  The model in the picture labeled "MOL Telescope/Camera" in http://blog.theavclub.tv/post/mol-update-4 suggests something closer to a Cassegrain design and is more consistent with the UL that the original 1.8 m mirrors for the Multiple Mirror Telescope were KH-10 leftovers.

Not really. The optical train depicted in Jim's image is almost identical to KH-8 and -9, with the exception that MOL apparently did not have the big Schmidt corrector plate that its predecessors did.

So, the full optical train would have been: big flat fold mirror up front (the bottom mirror in Jim's image), the primary focusing mirror in the extreme aft of the vehicle (these are what MMT inherited), and then two flat fold mirrors before a final (not depicted) coma corrector. You can kinda think of it as a classical Newtonian, with a few extra folds.

The upshot of this is that MOL would have had a "nose-first" orientation in orbit (like KH-8 and 9), not "nose-up" like most modern depictions show.

In answer to Blackstar's question from a while ago, it looks like at least one load of film would be sent down partway through the mission, though presumably not all. Could a film canister have fit between the crew's heads, in the space occupied by the hatch? I imagine the sequence would have involved one crewmen putting the film on his lap while the other closes the hatch, and then affixing the film in the space between them.

Anyone know if the parawing would have been used for Gemini B? It would certainly make sense in as much as protecting the film from seawater...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: ChileVerde on 07/13/2012 02:07 pm
Not really. The optical train depicted in Jim's image is almost identical to KH-8 and -9, with the exception that MOL apparently did not have the big Schmidt corrector plate that its predecessors did.

But I think Jim's point, to which I was attempting to agree, is that the system shown in the image is from the mid-1960s and may not represent what finally evolved a few years later.  There's some information that suggests that might have happened, and so I'd recommend caution in concluding that the folded, side-looking optical path shown in the image was the "final" KH-10 design.  Maybe it was, but there might be more to the story than that. 

I trust Blackstar will weigh in on this in the fullness of time.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: simonbp on 07/13/2012 02:37 pm
True, but the real kicker for me is the lack of holes in the MMT mirrors. If the mirror were supposed to be flown in an unfolded cassegrain configuration, it would almost certainly have had a center hole to get the beam to the cameras. A pickoff mirror (like MMT used) would have been unnecessarily complex for MOL.

Also, wasn't MOL supposed to have side-looking radar? That would have worked much better if mounted to the side of a horizontal optical tube.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/13/2012 06:22 pm
The primary mirror in the image that Jim posted is not by any stretch an f 1.8 primary. I thought MMT was provided with the mirrors that had already been figured, not blanks.

btw. For some reason I thought the original MMT mirrors where 72" not 70". Is this a metric english thing, or do I need to start taking some ginkgo root?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: ChileVerde on 07/13/2012 06:58 pm
The primary mirror in the image that Jim posted is not by any stretch an f 1.8 primary. I thought MMT was provided with the mirrors that had already been figured, not blanks.

btw. For some reason I thought the original MMT mirrors where 72" not 70". Is this a metric english thing, or do I need to start taking some ginkgo root?

AIUI, the MMT blanks as supplied by the USAF were flats, or pretty close to it, and then had to be heated and slumped to approximately the desired figure. Whether the USAF intended them to be used as flats in the originally envisaged application or was going to figure them further is unknown, at least to me.

On the diameter thing, I did a quick look this morning and found assertions that the MOL orbit was supposed to be at 150 miles (flavor of mile unspecified) and the desired resolution was 3 inches. (*)  If you take 150 statute miles and 3 inches as numbers to BOTE with, use the venerable resolution = range * 1.22 * lambda/D and use lambda = 5.5e-7 meters, you get D = 2.13 meters. Relaxing the resolution criterion to 4 inches gives a D of 1.6 meters.  These numbers are sort of consistent with the 1.8 meter MMT mirror diameter used as a primary.

(*)  Those numbers were from obviously secondary sources, and it would be a really good idea to find and catalogue, even post if possible, primary sources.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Avclubvids on 07/13/2012 07:30 pm
You guys are amazing  ;D

I have placed as many pics of the MOL as we could find here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jjqctsfcyvd6vrs/J-_m8T6z7o (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jjqctsfcyvd6vrs/J-_m8T6z7o)

I'll probably be moving them around and adding and removing, so grab any that you want now if I've got one that you want.

I also posted some thoughts on the side vs. down shooting camera here: http://blog.theavclub.tv/post/mol-update-5 (http://blog.theavclub.tv/post/mol-update-5), so you guys can see what kinds of ancillary considerations all of this leads to for a film.

Keep it going, this is great stuff.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/13/2012 07:53 pm
Nice collection, thankyou.

Question. I've noticed most art from the period depicts MOL without solar panels. It seems to me that solar panels where added in more modern depictions.

Considering it was designed to live for a couple of weeks in a low orbit and it wasn't until the KH-9 and later models of the KH-8 that solar panels appeared on US recon birds. What are the chances it was not equipped with solar panels?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: ChileVerde on 07/13/2012 09:42 pm

You guys are amazing  ;D

I have placed as many pics of the MOL as we could find here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jjqctsfcyvd6vrs/J-_m8T6z7o (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jjqctsfcyvd6vrs/J-_m8T6z7o)

I'll probably be moving them around and adding and removing, so grab any that you want now if I've got one that you want.

I also posted some thoughts on the side vs. down shooting camera here: http://blog.theavclub.tv/post/mol-update-5 (http://blog.theavclub.tv/post/mol-update-5), so you guys can see what kinds of ancillary considerations all of this leads to for a film.

Keep it going, this is great stuff.


Thanks a bunch for the photos; they do show that, at least, there were a lot of different concepts floating around under the MOL umbrella.

FWIW, I think that the Astronomy Mission figure is somewhat close to the in-line Cassegrain KH-10 notion. The Schmidt and its primary would be replaced by the 1.8 meter Cassegrain primary and the Cassegrain secondary placed all the way back at the end of the barrel, underneath where the "Radiation Counters" thing is shown in the figure.

The interferometer in the figure is interesting, as others have mentioned hearing that KH-10 might have included an imaging radar. I never heard that myself, but if it's so that interferometer antenna might well have been a carry-over from the radar.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: AndyMc on 07/14/2012 08:33 am
I am away from my Spacecraft Films disc, but the hatch was pushed "out" from the heatshield and stored in the tunnel.  There was a distinct lip on the hatch that overlapped the heatshield.  The storage compartment had some positive latch mechanism that prevented the hatch from floating up. 

When I last launched the video, I did not notice how the join was made air tight, perhaps someone else has the video at hand.

The astronauts tested their ability to go through the tunnel both in and out of suits, with film cartridges, and towing or pushing a suited/unsuited incapacatated astronauts.

Here's part of the video you are referring to, I think.

From the beginning ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PC3ExAQEZU&feature=relmfu



Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: ChileVerde on 07/14/2012 02:51 pm
Quote
The model in the picture labeled "MOL Telescope/Camera" in http://blog.theavclub.tv/post/mol-update-4 suggests something closer to a Cassegrain design and is more consistent with the UL that the original 1.8 m mirrors for the Multiple Mirror Telescope were KH-10 leftovers.

To ask the question before the thread ages too much, is the provenance of the model shown in that picture known?  If it traces back to actual program information, that would be somewhat significant. If it was just made to illustrate the UL of a Cassegrain design for KH-10, not so much.

Picture attached for reference.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: ChileVerde on 07/14/2012 05:16 pm

Here's the DORIAN section from the just-released 1966 NRO report to PFIAB.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: neilh on 07/14/2012 09:13 pm
Quote
The model in the picture labeled "MOL Telescope/Camera" in http://blog.theavclub.tv/post/mol-update-4 suggests something closer to a Cassegrain design and is more consistent with the UL that the original 1.8 m mirrors for the Multiple Mirror Telescope were KH-10 leftovers.

To ask the question before the thread ages too much, is the provenance of the model shown in that picture known?  If it traces back to actual program information, that would be somewhat significant. If it was just made to illustrate the UL of a Cassegrain design for KH-10, not so much.

Picture attached for reference.

I think the person who created that model is the same as the person who started the thread here, so you could probably just ask him: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29397.msg928795
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: BrightLight on 07/14/2012 09:52 pm
How did they intend to isolate the vibrations from the  manned portion of the system from the optics - was the pressurized side "floating" in a shock absorber system?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Dalhousie on 07/14/2012 10:27 pm
Having said that, the Russians slavishly copied MOL and executed missions with landing craft featuring hatches in the heat shield, although they never risked a crew landing with this architecture.


They didn't.  TKS-Amaz had a similar role, but was a very different concept in design and operation.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/17/2012 01:34 am
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2121/1

The hour of the wolf
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, July 16, 2012

In the late 1960s two massive, expensive, highly classified pieces of machinery clashed in secrecy. It was a classic space battle between humans and machines, and this time the machines won.

The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program was started in late 1963 after the cancellation of the X-20 Dyna-Soar winged spaceplane. The Air Force has declassified many documents on the first year of the MOL program, but they may be misleading. From the available documentation, MOL appears to have started as a general purpose experimental military space station to determine if astronauts could perform militarily useful missions in low Earth orbit. But by 1965 MOL had evolved into an operational photographic reconnaissance satellite whereby astronauts would operate a powerful telescope, code-named DORIAN, to take images of targets inside the Soviet Union with resolution on the ground up to 10 centimeters (four inches)—almost good enough to spot a softball laying in the grass from over 160 kilometers (100 miles) up in space, if the Russians ever bothered to play softball. Exactly when and how the mission shifted remains unclear, but a group of military astronauts were soon in training to perform at least half a dozen flights starting in the late 1960s. MOL was an Air Force program, with both an unclassified, “white,” Air Force office, and a classified, “black,” program, managed by the Air Force component of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/17/2012 02:51 am
DDay,
Great article, great artwork! Kudos on starting to tie up the loose ends.
The QUILL image begs the question you posed a year and a half ago: how would the MOL pilots have brought four buckets worth of film back in one Gemini capsule?
John Charles
Houston, Texas
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/17/2012 04:08 pm
Giuseppe and I worked on this last week. He's done a great job. I think that this is an accurate reflection of the MOL configuration. According to one document, the configuration was settled on in early 1965, and they increased the diameter of the main mirror to 70 inches. That is consistent with the mirrors made available for the MMT, and it seems highly unlikely that they would have switched the configuration later while keeping the same mirror diameter. Also, simply put, we only have one official document indicating the camera system configuration, everything else is speculation.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/17/2012 04:12 pm
Nicely done... :)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/17/2012 05:03 pm
DDay,
Great article, great artwork! Kudos on starting to tie up the loose ends.
The QUILL image begs the question you posed a year and a half ago: how would the MOL pilots have brought four buckets worth of film back in one Gemini capsule?

Well, we still don't know the answer. My guess is that they planned on conserving film, only taking pictures of high priority targets. As a result, they would not have taken a lot of pictures, and they would have sent some down in a small capsule and brought the rest with them in the Gemini.

The more you speculate about details like this, the more the whole thing starts to look dubious. Compare MOL to the KH-9, with its MASSIVE film supply and four buckets and you see that MOL just didn't make much sense. Why have a guy selectively taking pictures when you can just photograph everything and bring it all back?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: ChileVerde on 07/17/2012 10:25 pm
The more you speculate about details like this, the more the whole thing starts to look dubious. Compare MOL to the KH-9, with its MASSIVE film supply and four buckets and you see that MOL just didn't make much sense. Why have a guy selectively taking pictures when you can just photograph everything and bring it all back?

I have a slight recollection that the idea of having the astronauts (and cosmonauts in the corresponding case) act as real-time photointerpreters/ spotters was floated. So, presumably, the film would be returned later for detailed analysis of the Severodvinsk Ship Yard and the astronauts would give warning if the 1st Guards Tank Army suddenly left garrison.

Whatever the idea was, it didn't carry the day.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/18/2012 04:37 am
I have a slight recollection that the idea of having the astronauts (and cosmonauts in the corresponding case) act as real-time photointerpreters/ spotters was floated. So, presumably, the film would be returned later for detailed analysis of the Severodvinsk Ship Yard and the astronauts would give warning if the 1st Guards Tank Army suddenly left garrison.

Whatever the idea was, it didn't carry the day.

There were two arguments for astronauts:

-real time photo interpretation

-targets of opportunity

Neither was convincing. Lots and lots of effort for very little return.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 07/18/2012 06:38 am
Quote
real time photo interpretation

I can see the reasonning behind that "we don't have the KH-11, not yet. Recovery of the KH-8 and KH-9 buckets takes a looong time.

The answer: have the photo interpreters going into orbit together with the camera and look at the photos, real time, transmitting their interpretation by radio link, real time."

Looks like the NRO holy grail was shortening the photo transmission delay by any mean, with the ultimate goal of real-time.
Didn't they planned a special C-135 able to process the photos while flying from Hawaii to Washington ?
there was also the varied film readout /scanning atempts.
The KH-10 was part of the process - another atempt at real-time !
By the way it says a lot about how big the NRO budget was.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/18/2012 12:44 pm
1-I can see the reasonning behind that "we don't have the KH-11, not yet. Recovery of the KH-8 and KH-9 buckets takes a looong time.

2-Looks like the NRO holy grail was shortening the photo transmission delay by any mean, with the ultimate goal of real-time.

3-Didn't they planned a special C-135 able to process the photos while flying from Hawaii to Washington ?

4-By the way it says a lot about how big the NRO budget was.

1-Only a few days.

2-I'm not sure that it was the holy grail. They were interested in it, but I really don't see evidence that it drove what they were doing in the 1960s. They did a lot of other stuff.

3-I have really only seen one or two references to this. I don't think it was ever seriously considered.

4-It did not surpass $1 billion until the latter 1970s. NASA was always a lot bigger.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Gene DiGennaro on 07/18/2012 04:10 pm
I wonder how spacesickness would have played into the MOL project. I'm willing to bet that gazing into the telescope while things were passing by coupled with zero-g has the potential to really bring on vertigo and nausea.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michael Cassutt on 07/18/2012 04:47 pm
I have a slight recollection that the idea of having the astronauts (and cosmonauts in the corresponding case) act as real-time photointerpreters/ spotters was floated. So, presumably, the film would be returned later for detailed analysis of the Severodvinsk Ship Yard and the astronauts would give warning if the 1st Guards Tank Army suddenly left garrison.

Whatever the idea was, it didn't carry the day.

There were two arguments for astronauts:

-real time photo interpretation

-targets of opportunity

Neither was convincing. Lots and lots of effort for very little return.

Not only unconvincing, but having astronauts on an imaging craft actually made things more difficult, at least according to one very senior SAFSP official I talked to.  To paraphrase, "too much bouncing around.  Even slight, slow movement by crew would ruin the images."

Michael Cassutt
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 07/19/2012 09:05 am
Quote
Not only unconvincing, but having astronauts on an imaging craft actually made things more difficult, at least according to one very senior SAFSP official I talked to.  To paraphrase, "too much bouncing around.  Even slight, slow movement by crew would ruin the images."

Interesting. In this case, what was the point of flying the Large Format Camera on STS-41G (be it a KH-9 camera or not) ?
I mean that the issue of "bouncing astronauts" certainly did not vanished between 1969 and 1984 ?  ???
(just a bit confused)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/19/2012 10:40 am
Quote
Not only unconvincing, but having astronauts on an imaging craft actually made things more difficult, at least according to one very senior SAFSP official I talked to.  To paraphrase, "too much bouncing around.  Even slight, slow movement by crew would ruin the images."

Interesting. In this case, what was the point of flying the Large Format Camera on STS-41G (be it a KH-9 camera or not) ?
I mean that the issue of "bouncing astronauts" certainly did not vanished between 1969 and 1984 ?  ???
(just a bit confused)

1.  It was a low resolution mapping camera and not the main KH-9 cameras.
2.  The shuttle orbiter's mass was much higher (250klb vs 40klb)and less affected by crew motion
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/19/2012 02:13 pm
Yeah, the mapping camera was something like several hundred meters resolution vs. a few centimeters for MOL.

(Note: I am currently too lazy to look those numbers up.)

I find it hard to believe that normal astronaut movement could affect the MOL system, but I trust Mr. Cassutt's unnamed source. There were at least two high-level independent reviews of MOL before it got canceled, and I'm sure that senior optics experts weighed in on the design.

In fact, that will be one of the more interesting stories for me when MOL is finally declassified--who opposed it and why? The optics people that I've talked to generally end up in awe of their ability to achieve "diffraction limited" results from their systems. Put another way, the actual performance of the optics systems that the US flew has almost always been nearly the same as the theoretical best performance that they could deliver. Probably 99% range. Because that has been true in general, you could do some math with the systems that we still don't know about. For instance, what would be the theoretical max performance of, say, the KH-9?

Now that being the case, why would you want to stick dirty humans into the system? They move around, they bump things, they require fans and toilets and systems to keep them alive. And the vehicle is going to be outgassing. What about the urine dumps? What about the local environment around that vehicle?

I suspect that as they continued to engineer MOL, this kind of stuff made the optics experts twitch and then experience fainting spells. Why take a big, beautiful optics system and degrade its performance like that?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/19/2012 02:41 pm
I think the thing that most impressed me, with Giuseppe's excellent side by side KH-9/MOL images is I never realized how small MOL was. This was not really a big spacious space station. It was a change from a couple of weeks in the front seat of a VW Beetle to having a VW Microbus (with implements of photography)!

Also a QA, do we have any evidence that MOL actually had solar panels?



Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 07/19/2012 05:46 pm
I think the thing that most impressed me, with Giuseppe's excellent side by side KH-9/MOL images is I never realized how small MOL was. This was not really a big spacious space station. It was a change from a couple of weeks in the front seat of a VW Beetle to having a VW Microbus (with implements of photography)!

Looking at the image produced by DeepCold.com of the MOL interior, it  looks an awful lot like the interior of the SkyLab multiple docking adapter. Based on that guess, I am providing a NASA slide on the MDA to provide some idea of the size of the MOL pressurized section.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: jcm on 07/19/2012 07:08 pm
I think the thing that most impressed me, with Giuseppe's excellent side by side KH-9/MOL images is I never realized how small MOL was. This was not really a big spacious space station. It was a change from a couple of weeks in the front seat of a VW Beetle to having a VW Microbus (with implements of photography)!

Looking at the image produced by DeepCold.com of the MOL interior, it  looks an awful lot like the interior of the SkyLab multiple docking adapter. Based on that guess, I am providing a NASA slide on the MDA to provide some idea of the size of the MOL pressurized section.


Wow, I hadn't appreciated this before. Makes sense that there's design heritage from MOL to MDA. But how much? Is the MDA really just a slightly
modified MOL pressure section  - is it even possible that the flight Skylab MDA was built from a left over MOL flight test article? The 'docking adapter' aspect is of course new design.

Sort of cool to think that part of MOL (other that the Nov 66 heat shield test) might have actually flown
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/19/2012 08:16 pm

Wow, I hadn't appreciated this before. Makes sense that there's design heritage from MOL to MDA. But how much? Is the MDA really just a slightly
modified MOL pressure section  - is it even possible that the flight Skylab MDA was built from a left over MOL flight test article? The 'docking adapter' aspect is of course new design.

Sort of cool to think that part of MOL (other that the Nov 66 heat shield test) might have actually flown


No, MDA was built Martin Marietta

Edit

Actually, MSFC built the hull and Martin outfitted it.

July 27-31

Representatives of government and industry participated in a Skylab AM and MDA crew station review at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis. Storage areas, equipment, and crew operations were discussed. Astronauts attending the review conducted walk-throughs of the AM and MDA, major elements of the Skylab cluster that would also include large solar observatory quarters for long stays in space. McDonnell Douglas was developing the AM. The MDA was being built by MSFC; and Martin Marietta, Denver Division, was integrating equipment and experiments.

MSFC News Release 70-146, 28 July 1970; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 6 August 1970; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator Skylab Program," 7 August 1970, NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 10 August 1970.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 07/19/2012 11:12 pm

Wow, I hadn't appreciated this before. Makes sense that there's design heritage from MOL to MDA. But how much? Is the MDA really just a slightly
modified MOL pressure section  - is it even possible that the flight Skylab MDA was built from a left over MOL flight test article? The 'docking adapter' aspect is of course new design.

Sort of cool to think that part of MOL (other that the Nov 66 heat shield test) might have actually flown


No, MDA was built Martin Marietta

Edit

Actually, MSFC built the hull and Martin outfitted it.

July 27-31

Representatives of government and industry participated in a Skylab AM and MDA crew station review at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis. Storage areas, equipment, and crew operations were discussed. Astronauts attending the review conducted walk-throughs of the AM and MDA, major elements of the Skylab cluster that would also include large solar observatory quarters for long stays in space. McDonnell Douglas was developing the AM. The MDA was being built by MSFC; and Martin Marietta, Denver Division, was integrating equipment and experiments.

MSFC News Release 70-146, 28 July 1970; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 6 August 1970; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator Skylab Program," 7 August 1970, NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 10 August 1970.


My guess is that stuff went from Huntington Beach to MSFC in the middle of the night sometime in late 1969. Stuff like pressure vessels.

Or else there is a large boneyard of 10 foot pressure vessels out there.

This begs the question of the PSI for the MOL air supply, was it 5 lbs or 14 or somewhere in between. I guess that's classified information.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Bob Shaw on 07/19/2012 11:33 pm
And was the atmosphere *really* O2He as often reported? Those brave flyboys, with such, er, Mickey Mouse voices!
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/20/2012 12:28 am

My guess is that stuff went from Huntington Beach to MSFC in the middle of the night sometime in late 1969. Stuff like pressure vessels.


Wrong, it didn't.  Why do you keep insisting that the MDA was MOL related.

If you want to go by similarity and coincidences, the MDA is more likely Titan than MOL hardware.

MDA was the typical inhouse work that MSFC likes to do.  Much like Saturn I, Shuttle SRB hardware design, Ares I, Orion MSA, etc
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: TJL on 04/11/2013 11:06 pm
According to the following info in Wikipedia there were supposed to be 5 manned launches in the MOL Program.
The note at the bottom indicated that the launch sites were VAFB as well as CCAFS.
Anyone know which (if any) of the manned flights were scheduled to be launched from Florida.
Also, were any other crews named besides the two noted below?
Thank you.

1970 December 1 - MOL 1 - First unmanned Gemini-B/Titan 3M qualification flight (Gemini-B flown alone, without an active MOL).
1971 June 1 - MOL 2 - Second unmanned Gemini-B/Titan 3M qualification flight (Gemini-B flown alone, without an active MOL).
1972 February 1 - MOL 3 - A crew of two (James M. Taylor, Albert H. Crews) would have spent thirty days in orbit.
1972 November 1 - MOL 4 - Second manned mission.
1973 August 1 - MOL 5 - Third manned mission.
1974 May 1 - MOL 6 - Fourth manned MOL mission. All Navy crew composed of Richard H. Truly and Robert Crippen.
1975 February 1 - MOL 7 - Fifth manned MOL.

Operational MOLs were to be launched on Titan IIIM rockets from SLC-6 at Vandenberg AFB, California and LC-40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michael Cassutt on 04/11/2013 11:33 pm
According to the following info in Wikipedia there werwe supposed to be 5 manned launches in the MOL Program.
The note at the bottom indicated that the launch sites were VAFB as well as CCAFS.
Anyone know which (if any) of the manned flights were scheduled to be launched from Florida.
Also, were any other crews named besides the two noted below?
Thank you.

1970 December 1 - MOL 1 - First unmanned Gemini-B/Titan 3M qualification flight (Gemini-B flown alone, without an active MOL).
1971 June 1 - MOL 2 - Second unmanned Gemini-B/Titan 3M qualification flight (Gemini-B flown alone, without an active MOL).
1972 February 1 - MOL 3 - A crew of two (James M. Taylor, Albert H. Crews) would have spent thirty days in orbit.
1972 November 1 - MOL 4 - Second manned mission.
1973 August 1 - MOL 5 - Third manned mission.
1974 May 1 - MOL 6 - Fourth manned MOL mission. All Navy crew composed of Richard H. Truly and Robert Crippen.
1975 February 1 - MOL 7 - Fifth manned MOL.

Operational MOLs were to be launched on Titan IIIM rockets from SLC-6 at Vandenberg AFB, California and LC-40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida


At the time the program was cancelled, the number of planned manned missions was down to four -- don't have the cite handy, but fairly confident of the memory.

There were no crews assigned.  The information about Taylor as likely commander for #1 came from me twenty years ago, and was based on an interview I did with Walt Williams, ex-NASA, then Aero Corp, who was playing a major role in MOL flight ops.  Any other crews, even the supposed "all-Navy" one (a Navy-oriented mission wouldn't necessarily have had an all-Navy crew) are even more speculative speculation.

Michael Cassutt
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 04/12/2013 04:32 am
According to the following info in Wikipedia there werwe supposed to be 5 manned launches in the MOL Program.
The note at the bottom indicated that the launch sites were VAFB as well as CCAFS.
Anyone know which (if any) of the manned flights were scheduled to be launched from Florida.

Note: Wikipedia entries are sometimes, occasionally, possibly, completely wrong.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 04/12/2013 06:59 am
Whatever, four or five flights is not much considering how big an expense MOL was. I do hope more flights were to happen !
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/12/2013 10:02 am
Hey, Hexagon only flew 22 times over a 14 year period. Considering how expensive it was, a flight a year is realistic.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michael Cassutt on 04/12/2013 02:50 pm
Whatever, four or five flights is not much considering how big an expense MOL was. I do hope more flights were to happen !

Four manned flights were budgeted at the time the program was cancelled in June 1969.  Had MOL survived and gone into operation there would have been more -- at least, that was the hope.

MC
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 04/13/2013 04:28 am
Hey, Hexagon only flew 22 times over a 14 year period. Considering how expensive it was, a flight a year is realistic.

Bad comparison. The reason there were so few HEXAGON missions was because they lasted a long time.

What was the longest HEXAGON mission? Something like 270 days. MOL could not last more than a month.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 04/13/2013 04:31 am
Whatever, four or five flights is not much considering how big an expense MOL was. I do hope more flights were to happen !

Four manned flights were budgeted at the time the program was cancelled in June 1969.  Had MOL survived and gone into operation there would have been more -- at least, that was the hope.

Yes. We don't have the programmatic files, but MOL probably followed a familiar trajectory--as the program cost went up, they decided to buy fewer units (see: SBIRS). So MOL could have started as six missions reduced to four. Had it been successful and useful, they might have bought additional ones.

But MOL was in a death spiral by around 1966. It kept costing more and the schedule kept slipping, and while that was happening the robotic spysats were getting better and better. So what good was MOL anyway? What was the point? What did it do that was worth the high cost?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: xraydeltaone on 04/16/2013 06:34 am

A heat-shield hatch sure seems scary, but I wonder whether it's really as risky as it looks.  The Air Force did perform a successful flight test, after all.  Also, IIRC, on an early, unmanned Soyuz flight a plug at the center of the heat shield actually failed.  Although the crew cabin lost pressure, the temperature inside stayed within reasonable limits (I think I read about this in a Jim Oberg piece).

I didn't go back through the earlier pages in the thread, but if you check out the NOVA documentary "Astrospies" at the following link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/astrospies.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/astrospies.html)

As you can see on the webpage, it's a screencap from the actual DoD footage of an MOL astronaut performing egress from the Gemini capsule and handling the heat shield hatch.

Of course, the program talks about Robert Lawrence, including an interview with his widow. It also interviews with nine MOL astros, including five of the seven who signed on with NASA after the program's closure. That includes Bobko, Fullerton, Hartsfield, Peterson, and Truly. Abrahamson, Crews, Herres, and Macleay also speak. Neubeck and Crippen are the only no-shows. Adams, Finley, Lawrence, Lawyer, Overmyer, and Taylor were all deceased by the time the documentary was made.

Also, keep a lookout in the footage of the Air Force test pilot schools, and you'll see some of the Group 3 and Group 5 astros in the background, like Collins, Engle, and Freeman.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 04/18/2013 02:31 am
DDay,
Great article, great artwork! Kudos on starting to tie up the loose ends.
The QUILL image begs the question you posed a year and a half ago: how would the MOL pilots have brought four buckets worth of film back in one Gemini capsule?

Well, we still don't know the answer. My guess is that they planned on conserving film, only taking pictures of high priority targets. As a result, they would not have taken a lot of pictures, and they would have sent some down in a small capsule and brought the rest with them in the Gemini.

The more you speculate about details like this, the more the whole thing starts to look dubious. Compare MOL to the KH-9, with its MASSIVE film supply and four buckets and you see that MOL just didn't make much sense. Why have a guy selectively taking pictures when you can just photograph everything and bring it all back?

I was relooking at this thread because I found a person involve with MOL and the mirrors.   I realized that MOL has at least one bucket.  In Giuseppe's diagram side view, it is in the pressurized section, on the "bottom", next the fluid tanks.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 04/18/2013 04:27 am
It only had one. I talked to some MOL astronauts about that.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: simonbp on 04/18/2013 08:48 pm
Would all the film have gone in the bucket, or did the crew bring any back in the Gemini?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 04/19/2013 01:26 pm
Would all the film have gone in the bucket, or did the crew bring any back in the Gemini?

Both. I asked "Would you have any room?" And got a snort from the (famous) MOL astronaut. "Not much!"
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 08/21/2013 03:36 pm
Folks,

In this month french astronomy ciel et espace (which is pretty serious) there's a story about an amateur stargazer with the name of Mike Clements that wants to build the largest amateur telescope in the world.
(another article on this, much less detailed. If anybody interested I may scan the Ciel&Espace article which is somewhat better)
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=22987812

Acording to Ciel et Espace, in the 80's Mike Clements obtained a 1.80 m mirror from an Itek employee named Vaughn that didn't wanted it to be destroyed (it's a bit more complex than that, but I haven't Ciel et espace on hand while typing)

I'm reminded of Blackstar Space Review article on the Multiple Mirror Telescope, whose six original mirrors aparently come from the MOL program in the late 70's.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1371/1
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Melt Run on 08/21/2013 10:31 pm
Folks,

In this month french astronomy ciel et espace (which is pretty serious) there's a story about an amateur stargazer with the name of Mike Clements that wants to build the largest amateur telescope in the world.
(another article on this, much less detailed. If anybody interested I may scan the Ciel&Espace article which is somewhat better)
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=22987812

Acording to Ciel et Espace, in the 80's Mike Clements obtained a 1.80 m mirror from an Itek employee named Vaughn that didn't wanted it to be destroyed (it's a bit more complex than that, but I haven't Ciel et espace on hand while typing)

I'm reminded of Blackstar Space Review article on the Multiple Mirror Telescope, whose six original mirrors aparently come from the MOL program in the late 70's.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1371/1

[quote author=Archibald link=topic=23864.msg1086636#msg1086636 date
This makes a great story but I tell you that the government guys wanted everything larger then a bucket of bolts accounted for. The idea of someone sneaking out the back door with a a 1.8 meter mirror stretches the limits of credibility.  :o There would indeed have to be a LOT more to the story. A 1.8 M just doesn't fit into a briefcase. BTW Mr Bill Vaughn was not in management.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/22/2013 01:24 am
I'm reminded of Blackstar Space Review article on the Multiple Mirror Telescope, whose six original mirrors aparently come from the MOL program in the late 70's.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1371/1

As Blackstar has pointed out in prior threads, all we know about these MOL blanks is they are believed have been 72" flats when handed over to MMT. They where re-figured. Now what do you use a 72" flat for, and if used as a diagonal, how small is the mirror they are used with?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 08/22/2013 06:02 am
Ok, I understand your skepticism, and respect it. Those NRO things are still shrouded in mystery... and classification. Are you interested by a scan of the article to try and make an opinion ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 08/22/2013 06:47 am
I'm reminded of Blackstar Space Review article on the Multiple Mirror Telescope, whose six original mirrors aparently come from the MOL program in the late 70's.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1371/1 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1371/1)

As Blackstar has pointed out in prior threads, all we know about these MOL blanks is they are believed have been 72" flats when handed over to MMT. They where re-figured. Now what do you use a 72" flat for, and if used as a diagonal, how small is the mirror they are used with?

I having trouble seeing how the MMT mirrors could have been intended for use as diagonals or "image reflecting mirrors", because an efficient diagonal would have to be elliptical in shape, not circular.

Since I can't think of a reason for a large, circular, flat mirror, I wonder whether  the plan might always have been to re-shape the mirrors after they had been cast flat, but MOL was cancelled before Corning got round to re-shaping them.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Melt Run on 08/22/2013 11:32 am
Ok, I understand your skepticism, and respect it. Those NRO things are still shrouded in mystery... and classification. Are you interested by a scan of the article to try and make an opinion ?
Skeptical yes but perhaps Bill was a contact that enabled a transfer. It would be very unusual to go to an individual. There has to be more to the story. Yes I would be interested in the article. Please email.
If you are interested in other large mirror transfers consider Magdalena Ridge Observatory. BTW Magdalena Ridge Mirror had nothing to do with Hubble.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/22/2013 12:55 pm
Is Magdalena Ridge Observatory a light weight blank?

As in 2.4 left over from something space related, or 2.4m spun up by Dr. Roger Angel?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Melt Run on 08/22/2013 01:12 pm
Is Magdalena Ridge Observatory a light weight blank?

As in 2.4 left over from something space related, or 2.4m spun up by Dr. Roger Angel?
This mirror is a 87% light weight fused silica mirror that was completed prior Roger Angle starting the spinning process at U of A. Roger Angle's mirrors are Pyrex.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/22/2013 04:11 pm
Kinda of an interesting size, wink, wink, nudge, nudge...

It was pointed out in the KH-9 thread that Hubble (which has a 2.4m objective) checkout cell was next to the KH-9 and the Hubble cell was also used by the KH-11.

But I digress, ever see the flawed 200" Hale blank at the Corning Museum of Glass? It is not a solid blank, but even then, back in the 40's was a light weight blank.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Melt Run on 08/22/2013 04:42 pm
Indeed - "Kinda of an interesting size, wink, wink, nudge, nudge..."
I assume when you you refer to a checkout cell you are referring to a egg crate construction with with a top and bottom face plate.
This mirror has a totally unique mounting system consisting of 72 numaticly activated diaphragms on the bottom and two rings of titanium tangent bars on the two face plates. This is all necessated by the fact that the original mirror design assumed 0 G.
With this system it maintains a lambda/50 RMS figure in one G at all attitudes.
BTW the testing of the mounted mirror is no easy feat of engineering.
There is light weighting and there is light weighting. The Hale mirror weighs 28,000 lbs. The 2.4 M mirrors we speek of are about 1800 lbs.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/22/2013 07:37 pm
I assume when you you refer to a checkout cell you are referring to a egg crate construction with with a top and bottom face plate.

No, I think he's referring to the satellite bus checkout cell at the then-Lockheed Missiles and Space facility. The KH satellite history threads here have pictures.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/22/2013 08:08 pm
Correct...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 08/31/2013 07:39 am
Here's a scan of the article. I'm quite confident that members with better english skills than myself could translate it. ;)

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/Archibaldlecter/ff2edcaa-0258-4b06-8ef7-fd4fb126f1bb.jpg?t=1377933338

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/Archibaldlecter/001.jpg?t=1377933798

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/Archibaldlecter/003.jpg?t=1377933531



Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 08/31/2013 05:08 pm
Thanks for the article!  Attached is my crack at a translation into English.  Since quotes presumably originally in English are translated back into English, I imagine it would be amusing to compare the re-translations with the originals!

One French phrase that particularly stumps me is la pièce maitresse en vaut la chandelle.  Archibald, could you give me a hint as to what this means?

EDIT:  Updated the translation with Archibald's helpful suggestion (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg1090815#msg1090815) about the above phrase and a few other spots of polishing.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 08/31/2013 07:46 pm
It's a tortuous sentence, I needed the context.

Quote
He knew that Clements' project was not easy. But the masterpiece was worth it

It should translate as something like

"He agrees that Mike Clements project is anything but simple. But the project centerpiece -[the mirror] - is well worth the pain."

A pretty good crack at a traduction AFAIK.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Melt Run on 08/31/2013 08:17 pm
Here's a scan of the article. I'm quite confident that members with better english skills than myself could translate it. ;)

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/Archibaldlecter/ff2edcaa-0258-4b06-8ef7-fd4fb126f1bb.jpg?t=1377933338

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/Archibaldlecter/001.jpg?t=1377933798

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/Archibaldlecter/003.jpg?t=1377933531




OK now I think I have a better handle on how this mirror likely got where it is. For starters the only Itek employee named Vaughn was a Bill Vaughn who would have been an unlikely suspect. The Vaughn Parson mentioned in the article was never a Itek employee but may have known a former Itek employee who was aware of the mirrors.
At the conclusion of a program (in this case 1969) all government property is bagged, tagged, and boxed with a descriptor attached and sent off to a government wear-house. The mirrors that went to MMT would not have had indications of damage where as this mirror likely indicated fractured edge and have been deemed less desirable for MMT. The remaining mirror (this mirror) would then be bundled with other government surplus equipment and after sitting for a required period would be part of a government auction. If items don't sell they are by law destroyed. There are notices that are published weekly. Great cure for insomnia! The trick is to keep track or be aware of when a item is available before being crushed. I expects this mirror was purchased at government auction for a tiny fraction of it's potential value but likely in a manner that was on the up and up.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: carmelo on 09/15/2013 02:12 pm
Are photos of Bob Crippen in MOL space suit or in Gemini-B simulator?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: TJL on 09/16/2013 10:04 pm
Are photos of Bob Crippen in MOL space suit or in Gemini-B simulator?

Not exactly "in" a MOL suit, but...

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/ASTRONAUT-ROBERT-BOB-CRIPPEN-Signed-Photo-w-Hologram-COA-/00/s/NjAwWDc1MA==/z/TN0AAMXQztxSLzGn/$(KGrHqZ,!n4FIp1ucBrKBSLzGnDo0Q~~60_3.JPG
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/05/2013 11:49 am
Sounds like a MOL mirror has found a home:

http://fox13now.com/2013/11/03/utah-mans-massive-creation-may-be-largest-amateur-telescope-ever-built/

(70" sounds very close to the known 72" mirrors of MOL)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/05/2013 07:43 pm
Sounds like a MOL mirror has found a home:

http://fox13now.com/2013/11/03/utah-mans-massive-creation-may-be-largest-amateur-telescope-ever-built/

(70" sounds very close to the known 72" mirrors of MOL)

I started creating a master list in table form of U.S. space reconnaissance projects. I need to find that and work on it some more. I lose track of what diameter mirror and what focal length goes with what system.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/05/2013 10:38 pm
You have them for KH-10 and KH-11?

I thought based on NTT 72" was MOL, but I have not seen the Fl published.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/12/2014 01:30 pm
Okay, tinfoil hat MOL question,

All the KH-11 discussions have me wondering:

While we know the KH-10 used a 1.8m mirror, unlike the KH-9/KH/8/KH-7, the design has not been declassified. Why?

While actions of any government never need to make sense, I am wondering if the reason is because the design was similar to a currently classified system. Like lets say the 2.4m optics in the KH-11.

A real stretch, but could that add some logic to the reason why a canceled program is still classified while other similar retired operational systems have been declassified.

 
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/12/2014 05:07 pm
Okay, tinfoil hat MOL question,

All the KH-11 discussions have me wondering:

While we know the KH-10 used a 1.8m mirror, unlike the KH-9/KH/8/KH-7, the design has not been declassified. Why?

 

But it has. NRO released a schematic a couple of years ago. I wrote about it.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/12/2014 06:29 pm
Must've missed it... I remember a fierce debate about side verses forward looking, but do not recall the debate being settled.

Article link?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/12/2014 08:06 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2121/1

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2014 08:05 pm
More drawings showed up on the wiki page.  Looks like declassification has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-10_Dorian
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Targeteer on 06/18/2014 09:58 pm
More drawings showed up on the wiki page.  Looks like declassification has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-10_Dorian

Interestingly I can't find anything on the NRO or AF FOIA websites...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 06/19/2014 11:32 am
These diagrams show concepts for future MOL-derived variants, possibly part of a sales pitch to USAF or NRO. They must have been classified simply because they were related to MOL. Maybe they were "easy" to declassify after only 45 years because they were never sensitive to begin with.
Title: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 06/19/2014 12:05 pm
More drawings showed up on the wiki page.  Looks like declassification has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-10_Dorian

Thanks. Followed the reference link but that didn't give much in way of clue about this declassification.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2014 01:10 pm

Thanks. Followed the reference link but that didn't give much in way of clue about this declassification.

The pictures on the wiki all are "stamped" "NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 10 JUNE 2014"
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2014 01:11 pm
These diagrams show concepts for future MOL-derived variants, possibly part of a sales pitch to USAF or NRO. They must have been classified simply because they were related to MOL. Maybe they were "easy" to declassify after only 45 years because they were never sensitive to begin with.

One of the diagrams is the actual configuration.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/19/2014 01:16 pm
Someone has edit'd the Wiki page, they are no longer up. At least what I saw last night is no longer up.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KH-10_Dorian&action=history

Cached version from wiki that still has all 25 images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KH-10_Dorian&oldid=613523157
Title: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 06/19/2014 01:49 pm
Someone has edit'd the Wiki page, they are no longer up. At least what I saw last night is no longer up.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KH-10_Dorian&action=history

Cached version from wiki that still has all 25 images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KH-10_Dorian&oldid=613523157

If you read the reason for removal it says there was too many images.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/19/2014 01:59 pm
Shame, some very interesting images in that image dump.

I wonder if we are allowed to post them on NSF? I think I'll ping Chris and ask.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 06/19/2014 02:30 pm
Thanks to Jim for the pointer the wiki page, and to kevin-rf for the pointer to the cache. I had only seen the 2 still at the wiki page initially. Looking at all 2 dozen of them, I still think they are from a 1966 sales pitch for future growth options, in direct competition to AAP (later Skylab), and possibly for a future USAF-NASA "National Space Station" which had been discussed. The unmanned version surface last year, and it is good to see more details. These images also reinforce a point Blackstar made previously, that the initial manned version was only capable of returning a couple of film canisters, versus the six or more film return capsules from the unmanned version. (I don't know how credible the "manned-version-plus-buckets" concept was.)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 06/19/2014 02:49 pm
It's odd that they are not to be found on the NRO site.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 06/19/2014 02:50 pm
Wait for my TSR article.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 06/19/2014 02:53 pm

Wait for my TSR article.

That's the kind of news I wanted to hear.:)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: archipeppe68 on 06/20/2014 09:55 am
Wait for my TSR article.

As also for my updated drawings...  ;)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 06/23/2014 06:38 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 06/23/2014 06:52 pm
Fascinating as usual. About the Gambit 3: indeed I've long asked myself, wasn't MOL role already fitted by the KH-8 ? What value does a bigger ship with astronauts add ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 06/23/2014 06:54 pm
Fascinating as usual. About the Gambit 3: indeed I've long asked myself, wasn't MOL role already fitted by the KH-8 ? What value does a bigger ship with astronauts add ?


And I am sure they were asking that question at the time.

Part of this was probably schedule driven, meaning that GAMBIT 3 was conceived, developed and operational relatively quickly, while MOL kept plodding along. So it was up and running and making MOL obsolete.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/24/2014 12:16 am
I don't know what I found more interesting, the article (which was good) or some of the TSR comments (Which are also good).

Nice article.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 06/24/2014 12:24 am
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1

Fascinating article. Thanks for the write-up of one of the more mysterious aspects of American space history.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 06/24/2014 04:24 am
Fascinating as usual. About the Gambit 3: indeed I've long asked myself, wasn't MOL role already fitted by the KH-8 ? What value does a bigger ship with astronauts add ?


And I am sure they were asking that question at the time.

Part of this was probably schedule driven, meaning that GAMBIT 3 was conceived, developed and operational relatively quickly, while MOL kept plodding along. So it was up and running and making MOL obsolete.

KH-8 didn't really existed back in 1964 when they started MOL but it was a derivative of the KH-7 that already existed, so it was a straight development that rapidly overtook MOL. Now why was MOL continued ? either because USAF wanted its own manned space effort; or perhaps it was just a train wreck no one could stop until, well, 1969...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 06/24/2014 05:09 am

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1

Thanks for the article, interesting stuff.

Shame the images got deleted off Wikipedia.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 06/24/2014 06:56 am
I don't know what I found more interesting, the article (which was good) or some of the TSR comments (Which are also good).

Nice article.

GOOD comments ? does that still exist somewhere on the Internet ? can't believe it... (btw for some time TSR actually had no comments at all, seems they have reintroduced them, perhaps according to the author will...)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Pedantic Twit on 06/24/2014 07:56 am
Thanks for the article, interesting stuff.

Shame the images got deleted off Wikipedia.

The images were removed from the KH-10 entry (Wikipedia pages are not galleries), they're still on Wikimedia Commons here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:KH-10_DORIAN) and here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory).
Title: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 06/24/2014 10:31 am
Thanks for the article, interesting stuff.

Shame the images got deleted off Wikipedia.

The images were removed from the KH-10 entry (Wikipedia pages are not galleries), they're still on Wikimedia Commons here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:KH-10_DORIAN) and here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory).

Thank you for those links.

How were they going to re-supply this station, one of the diagrams shows something described as the manned re-supply, so were they going to just rely on sending supplies up with the Astronauts in the Gemini capsule.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 06/24/2014 12:05 pm
Thanks for the article, interesting stuff.

Shame the images got deleted off Wikipedia.

The images were removed from the KH-10 entry (Wikipedia pages are not galleries), they're still on Wikimedia Commons here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:KH-10_DORIAN) and here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory).

Thank you for those links.

How were they going to re-supply this station, one of the diagrams shows something described as the manned re-supply, so were they going to just rely on sending supplies up with the Astronauts in the Gemini capsule.

No resupply. 30 day mission, throw everything away at the end of the mission.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 06/24/2014 12:10 pm
True. But some of the just-released declassified images depict proposed, dare I say fictional, concepts for future multi-MOL long-term stations with resupply vehicles. I'm not referring to the cross-sections of the KH-10 system, but the others. Those fanciful images cannot have been anything more than sales pitches, more wishful thinking than hard engineering.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 06/24/2014 02:02 pm

True. But some of the just-released declassified images depict proposed, dare I say fictional, concepts for future multi-MOL long-term stations with resupply vehicles. I'm not referring to the cross-sections of the KH-10 system, but the others. Those fanciful images cannot have been anything more than sales pitches, more wishful thinking than hard engineering.

It seems a better proposition than throwing everything away after thirty days.

Was the thirty day throwaway nature of the project and the ensuing costs one of the elements that counted against it.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 06/24/2014 08:15 pm
I think one reason why MOL was pursued after the KH-8 went into service was simply a paradigm thing.  I think the Air Force generals were stuck on the idea that they could have an asset where a reconnaissance of any given location under the groundtrack could be ordered up on the basis of "Hey, guys, we think something odd is happening at Site Whatever, take a look and take shots of anything you find interesting."

The way the MOL paradigm worked, you didn't take pictures of everything, you had human judgment deciding what merited the high-res imagery.  When you get into a paradigm that, whatever else happens, it is always best to have a trained person selecting your imaging targets real-time, you pursue MOL even when it doesn't make sense.  (Italics meant to emphasize the vulnerable aspects of the paradigm.)

BTW, I'm pretty certain that the Soviet Almaz imaging system worked pretty much the same way -- you got a real-time view through the optics, and took pictures of what looked interesting.  I've seen a "recreation" of the Almaz' imaging system being operated and a description of how it was operated by one of the guys who flew it.  I wish I could remember which documentary it was in, but at this point I can blame the pain meds for my lack of ability to access long-term memories... ;)

-Doug (with my shield, not yet upon it)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 06/24/2014 08:21 pm
You're thinking of the documentary "Astrospies." Google it. It might even be online.

Of course, the counter to having somebody pressing the shutter button was just loading up the satellite with a lot of film and taking pictures of everything. Easier to load a thousand pounds of film than 15,000 pounds of astronauts support equipment.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 06/24/2014 08:39 pm
You're thinking of the documentary "Astrospies." Google it. It might even be online.

Of course, the counter to having somebody pressing the shutter button was just loading up the satellite with a lot of film and taking pictures of everything. Easier to load a thousand pounds of film than 15,000 pounds of astronauts support equipment.

Yes, definitely.  That's glaringly obvious to us now, and was so to a lot of people outside of the Air Force at the time.  But, as I say, I think the USAF was somewhat blinded by their paradigm, and just couldn't believe that it was ever going to be better to image everything and reduce it later than having someone pressing the shutter button.

It's amazing how blinding a given set of paradigms can become, I think.

-Doug (with my shield, not yet upon it)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Moskit on 06/27/2014 08:27 am
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1

If HEXAGON was 2 feet / 60cm resolution, how to compare that with "softball dropped on a parking lot" resolution quoted for KH-10?

Ball sizes are anything from 4cm (pingpong, although it's a hard ball) to over 25cm (soft medical ball) :-/
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/27/2014 12:00 pm
Dodge Ball
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 06/27/2014 01:59 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1

If HEXAGON was 2 feet / 60cm resolution, how to compare that with "softball dropped on a parking lot" resolution quoted for KH-10?

KH-10 was 4 inches. I looked up the diameter of a softball. The "adult" softball is about 3.8 inches. So about 4 inches. (I also tried to come up with a better analogy and couldn't get any kind of common object that's around 4 inches and also commonly known to be white. I looked up the dimensions of a pack of cigarettes and that was too small.)

Oh, and HEXAGON was a lot better than 2 feet.

Somebody could calculate the diffraction limit for HEXAGON. I'm just sayin'...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Moskit on 06/27/2014 02:51 pm
Ah, thanks! I did not realize "softball" is a specific kind of ball, chalk it up to cultural difference.

Technology is amazing, I wish Russians revealed as much of theirs in museums and documents as USA folks do.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 06/27/2014 06:24 pm
1-Ah, thanks! I did not realize "softball" is a specific kind of ball, chalk it up to cultural difference.

2-Technology is amazing, I wish Russians revealed as much of theirs in museums and documents as USA folks do.


1-It's essentially the game of baseball, for wusses.

2-The Russians in some ways were/are ahead of us in releasing some intelligence satellite information. I think that with the G and H declassifications, and the MOL material, the U.S. has now released a lot more. But the Russians actually released info on a number of their systems before the United States did, and they have also released some information on their RORSAT, ASAT and elint satellite programs.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 06/27/2014 07:09 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1

Interesting photos of MOL hardware under construction.

So .... what happened to the hardware?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 06/28/2014 10:43 am

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1

Interesting photos of MOL hardware under construction.

So .... what happened to the hardware?

Probably put in a warehouse somewhere and forgotten about.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim Davis on 06/28/2014 04:19 pm
So .... what happened to the hardware?

I hope I'm not stealing your lines here but didn't you once opine that the MOL hardware formed the basis of the Skylab airlock module? I seem to recall you pointing out the identical 10 foot diameters.

Or maybe my memory is failing me.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: DMeader on 06/28/2014 05:12 pm
1-It's essentially the game of baseball, for wusses.
So you've obviously never been hit by a pitch in fast-pitch softball.

I hope I'm not stealing your lines here but didn't you once opine that the MOL hardware formed the basis of the Skylab airlock module? I seem to recall you pointing out the identical 10 foot diameters.

Don't know about the diameter, but the Skylab airlock module did use a Gemini hatch.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 06/28/2014 06:19 pm
So .... what happened to the hardware?

I hope I'm not stealing your lines here but didn't you once opine that the MOL hardware formed the basis of the Skylab airlock module? I seem to recall you pointing out the identical 10 foot diameters.


There is no connection between the MDA and MOL.
The MDA structure was built in-house by MSFC and given to Martin to outfit.  The MDA design task was given to MSFC in early 1967.
There is no connection between the Airlock module and MOL.
McDonnell had the airlock module long before it merged with Douglas.  McDonnell was put on contract in late 1966
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 06/28/2014 07:16 pm
I'm just asking what happened to the hardware that clearly was built.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jparenti on 07/05/2014 10:48 pm
If this has been answered elsewhere, I apologize in advance, but I didn't see anything reading through:

- Where, if present at all, is the film return bucket(s) in the manned version of the MOL? I know it was mentioned that one of the MOL astronauts said there was only one. I don't see it in the documents that were recently released, unless I'm missing something.

- Did the vehicle have solar arrays? Someone asked early on in this thread and I wasn't sure if anyone had an answer.

(I am, BTW, the builder of the [now shown to be wildly inaccurate] downward pointed Cassegrain-type model someone posted to the thread about two years ago.)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/06/2014 02:37 am
If this has been answered elsewhere, I apologize in advance, but I didn't see anything reading through:

1- Where, if present at all, is the film return bucket(s) in the manned version of the MOL? I know it was mentioned that one of the MOL astronauts said there was only one. I don't see it in the documents that were recently released, unless I'm missing something.

2- Did the vehicle have solar arrays? Someone asked early on in this thread and I wasn't sure if anyone had an answer.

3-(I am, BTW, the builder of the [now shown to be wildly inaccurate] downward pointed Cassegrain-type model someone posted to the thread about two years ago.)

1-There are not many options for it. It cannot be in the unpressurized section. It cannot be in the consumables section (behind the Gemini). The only place that it can be is in a small airlock type structure in the pressurized section. See the 2012 MOL drawing for a clue.

2-There is artwork showing proposed MOL civil variants with solar arrays. However, I have never seen the actual MOL portrayed with solar arrays. That said, where was it going to get its power for 30 days? I don't think they could have run on batteries that long. Fuel cells? That would have been pushing the state of the art pretty far.

3-Hold onto that model. A colleague, who had access to classified material, claims to have once seen an illustration of just such a version (he stumbled upon that by accident while working for the community, why which time MOL was long-canceled). He is mystified by the recently released illustrations. He now concludes that what he saw was one of a bunch of proposed variants.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/06/2014 03:08 pm
Fuel cells were temperamental in the early years, but worked throughout the 2-week Gemini 7 mission with only a brief hiccup near the end. They worked well enough throughout Apollo. I thought they were baselined for MOL, although DDay would remind me that MOL was frequently revised and besides we probably have not seen the definitive MOL documents yet.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/06/2014 05:12 pm

Fuel cells were temperamental in the early years, but worked throughout the 2-week Gemini 7 mission with only a brief hiccup near the end. They worked well enough throughout Apollo. I thought they were baselined for MOL, although DDay would remind me that MOL was frequently revised and besides we probably have not seen the definitive MOL documents yet.

You mean the program history which is the key document to be so far not declassified.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/06/2014 10:32 pm
I was really thinking (or fantasizing) about a stack of date-stamped system diagrams with descriptive text. But your suggestion of the official program history is probably more useful and likely.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/06/2014 10:59 pm
Don't assume that answers it. Official program histories often skip the interesting technical details.

Look at the Hexagon histories, for instance. They have relatively little on the development of the spacecraft vehicle.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/14/2014 04:53 pm
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/14/2014 05:08 pm
I guess our intrepid astro-spies would have had a list of primary targets to reconnoiter, and some secondaries in case a first glance indicated that the primary was unusable. Secondaries would have been assessed in real time via the spotting telescopes on the sides of the main telescope, per the diagram.  All would have required diligence and continued attention. This is not how unmanned spy sats work, iirc, but I honestly don't know if it was how airborne recon was done? Or did U2 and SR-71 pilots, and the guys flying Voodoos over Cuba in 1962, just turn on their cameras and photograph everything within the target area, and let the photo analysts sort it our? Is it odd that the MOL pilots came from the test pilot cadre and not recon pilot cadre?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2014 05:14 pm
Is it odd that the MOL pilots came from the test pilot cadre and not recon pilot cadre?

Single seat reconn jets (Voodoos)  had no displays of what the camera sees.  U-2 had a drift sight to help maintain course, but it was not for looking for new targets.  A-12 didn't even have the drift sight, SR-71 back seater eventually had some ability to  see the  flight path (vs the film strip) but it was going to fast to correct and the take from the sensors was somewhat automated.

That is all from the top of my head.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/14/2014 06:45 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: dasmoth on 07/14/2014 07:00 pm
Thanks for another good article on this fascinating project.

I wonder how much the later MOL designs ended up contributing to KH-11?  Perhaps not directly, but with its big mirror, KH-10 seems more similar to the rumoured KH-11 configuration than any of the other film-return systems, so perhaps valuable lessons were learned when working on the KH-10 design (and prototype hardware?).  Could this be an additional factor in keeping the details of MOL secret for so long?
Title: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/14/2014 07:02 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1

Fascinating read so thanks for that.

The length of time its been kept secret is an interesting question as it raises the issue of what was it about the program that required such a lengthy period of classification.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2014 07:08 pm
Thanks for another good article on this fascinating project.

I wonder how much the later MOL designs ended up contributing to KH-11?  Perhaps not directly, but with its big mirror, KH-10 seems more similar to the rumoured KH-11 configuration than any of the other film-return systems, so perhaps valuable lessons were learned when working on the KH-10 design (and prototype hardware?).  Could this be an additional factor in keeping the details of MOL secret for so long?

Actually, KH-10 light path is more like the KH-7/8.  Many think the KH-11 is like the Hubble Space Telescope's light path.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jparenti on 07/21/2014 05:23 am
Well those new images really seem to answer the questions I had asked -- fuel cells instead of solar, and a pretty obvious film-return strategy. The concept for the articulated optics module is certainly something I never would have guessed at. It makes more sense than flying the entire vehicle pointed straight up.

I always look forward to the articles and I never would have guessed that such a wealth of information would all of a sudden be dropped in our laps.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/21/2014 07:40 pm
Another article from Dwayne Day.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2560/1
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/22/2014 02:09 pm
Great article, one question. Was the folding mirror not able to roll right and left of the flight path? The article seemed to imply maybe cold gas jets may have been planned?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: IslandPlaya on 07/22/2014 02:27 pm
From these unclassified discussions is there any reason why vertical integration of the spacecraft would be necessary?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/22/2014 02:31 pm
You might want to integrate/align the optics in the vertical direction so they do not distort when you flip it from horizontal to vertical. Though, when shipped, it had most likely would have been shipped horizontally...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: IslandPlaya on 07/22/2014 02:37 pm
Thanks.
The optics would have to suffer launch forces though so if you'll forgive me that is not a reason for vertical integration. And also they would be horizontal or near enough at many points in the launch trajectory.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: jg on 07/22/2014 02:56 pm
Thanks.
The optics would have to suffer launch forces though so if you'll forgive me that is not a reason for vertical integration. And also they would be horizontal or near enough at many points in the launch trajectory.

Launch forces are primarily in the same axis as the optical axis of the camera on things like KH9, so is way less likely to cause the camera to lose alignment.

If you read up on the KH9, you will note that things shift just between having 1G to 0G after launch, from flexing of the components..  Life is easier to be vertical (if cost is no object) to have less to worry about from launch forces.

These are *really* good and big cameras....
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: IslandPlaya on 07/22/2014 02:59 pm
That's an excellent answer jg.
Thank you very much.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: jg on 07/22/2014 03:17 pm
Similarly, shipping and installation shock forces stay in the same direction as the main optical axis, while handing the payload (unless you manage to swing it into a wall in the process of handling the payload).

So I understand why the vertical integration requirement remains.

I suspect that if you were designing new payloads today, most of this would no longer be a big issue; it's entirely feasible (and probably desirable to do lots of automated alignment.  But a lot of this stuff was last majorly redesigned in the early 1990s; life was a lot harder then.  And at least one generation of ambitious optical reconnaissance satellites had to be canned since then when they succeeded in winning their complexity merit badge and ended up getting cancelled due to insane cost.  Even NRO has
a finite budget.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/22/2014 03:45 pm
It is worth noting that until relatively recently (Shuttle/EELV), all US payloads where vertically integrated. That was the US pad flow.

For such a complicated payload, I suspect a good portion of MOL would have been stacked and integrated on the pad. Has any of the planned pad flow been declassified?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: IslandPlaya on 07/22/2014 04:14 pm
Awesome info. It answers lots of my questions on how vert-int was required.
jg hints at it, but in the opinion of the folks on this thread, Is VI needed for similar optic-based birds these days?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/22/2014 08:53 pm
Is VI needed for similar optic-based birds these days?


There are more types of payloads than just optics-based
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: IslandPlaya on 07/22/2014 08:55 pm
Is VI needed for similar optic-based birds these days?


There are more types of payloads than just optics-based
Thanks. Can you elaborate?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/23/2014 12:34 am
Is VI needed for similar optic-based birds these days?


There are more types of payloads than just optics-based
Thanks. Can you elaborate?

Radar, sigint, etc.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/23/2014 11:14 am
Yes, but IslandPlaya's question was whether optical-based recon sats are integrated vertically these days, not what other kinds there might be. I'm curious too.
Re: MOL, DDay (I think?) also published a photo of a MOL segment being moved in a verticals orientation on a truck. The few construction photos available look vertical too. But I don't know enough about such things to know if that might have been a requirement or just a convenience.
Regardless, I realized upon seeing some drawings which included "launch locks" that considerable realignment was expected in flight before useful imagery commenced. Any guesses how long the in-orbit check-out might have had to last?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/23/2014 02:26 pm
Regardless, I realized upon seeing some drawings which included "launch locks" that considerable realignment was expected in flight before useful imagery commenced. Any guesses how long the in-orbit check-out might have had to last?
That would be one new argument for a human in the loop. The fine tuning of optical alignment can be more easily accomplished when a human is in the loop... That said, they managed to do just fine with the KH-7/8/9.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/25/2014 04:02 pm
Some more.
Title: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/25/2014 04:18 pm
Thanks for those. Interesting to see the astronaut in the giant hamster wheel, for want of a better comparison.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/25/2014 04:25 pm
Yes, thanks for posting, while the primary mirror is extremely interesting, the lifting body crew option was a complete surprise.

Just shows you where the long term thinking was headed.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/25/2014 06:03 pm
The hamster wheel aka centrifuge was an early notion, from the era when MOL was a generic space laboratory. It was discarded in about 1964 iirc. As you might imagine, totally incompatible with hi-res recon imaging. Also, every new spacecraft unveiled is soon informally assessed by centrifuge groupies like me for how large a centrifuge it could accommodate. Most--like this one--would not provide much value to human conditioning due to the small available radius.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/25/2014 08:59 pm
MOL was conceived as a bunch of experiments. At some point it evolved to become essentially an operational reconnaissance satellite. Not clear when or how or why that happened, but it was probably early 1965. So some things that they were thinking of doing early on got tossed. Here is the list of experiments that were finalized:

P-1 Acquisition and Tracking of Ground Targets
P-2 Acquisition and Tracking of Space Targets
P-3 Acquisition of “targets of opportunity” (land/sea)
P-4 Electromagnetic Signal Detection
P-5 In-Space Maintenance
P-6 EVA using Remote Maneuvering Unit
P-7 EVA using Dual Maneuvering Unit
P-8 Autonomous Navigation and Geodesy
P-9 Post attack bomb assessment (later cancelled)
P-10 Multiband Spectral Observations
P-11 General Human Performance in Space
P-12 Biomedical and Physiological Evaluation
P-13 Ocean Surveillance
P-14 Assembly and alignment of large structures in space
P-15 High Resolution Optics System (KH-10 DORIAN camera)


I'll be discussing the elint stuff in a Monday TSR article.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/26/2014 12:35 pm
DDay, if the final list included items P-6 and P-7 requiring EVA (not just for contingency evacuation of the MOL back to the Gemini-B), then there is more about MOL EVA to be deduced.

I suspect the MOL was not vacuum rated, not just because of the airlock for dispatching the photo capsule, but also because a 1968 fire safety assessment of the MOL mentioned every option except depressurizing to vacuum in case of fire. It seems not to have been a viable option.

But the Gemini-B obviously was vacuum-rated, so maybe it would have been the ad hoc airlock. All suit-up preps would be done in the MOL, and then the crew would have moved through the narrow tunnel into the Gemini-B, sealed the aft hatch and used one or both of the large doors, as per mainline Gemini. Maybe any maneuvering units and other experimental hardware were stowed somewhere externally, or left in the airlock for easy access.

However, there are no handholds or other translation aids visible in any of the available diagrams and photos. They could have been attached temporarily, as on Gemini 12, but I haven't seen the evidence.

Anyway, more fodder for speculation.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/26/2014 12:51 pm
Was it even possible to move through the tunnel in a full pressure suit? I thought that the tunnel was quite restrictive.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/26/2014 02:10 pm
Not easily. If they needed to evacuate a depressurized MOL while in "hard suits" (the short hand reference to pressurized suit) it could be done but very difficult. The tunnel was only 24 inches diameter. I couldn't squeeze through it even unsuited. That's why I imagine any EVA would have been out of the Gemini-B and the suits only pressurized once inside it.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/26/2014 05:22 pm
The EVA maneuvering unit got transferred to Gemini. Not sure when that happened.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/26/2014 10:14 pm
Apparently sometime in late 1963 or early 1964, judging from "Project Gemini: A Chronology":
- In January 1964, Gemini-9 was scheduled for evaluating an "astronaut maneuvering unit." 
- In August 1964, the systems displays of the so-called "Modular Maneuvering Unit" planned for Gemini-9 as part of DOD experiment D-12 were to be integrated with the chest-worn EVA Life Support System.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/27/2014 02:51 am
The weekly MOL reports for 1964 might also mention transferring the maneuvering unit to NASA.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/29/2014 02:44 am
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2566/1
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/29/2014 06:29 am

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2566/1

Another great article, thanks.

I suppose the likelihood is even when we finally see a program history for MOL that this area will still be shrouded in relative mystery.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/29/2014 01:59 pm

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2566/1

Another great article, thanks.

I suppose the likelihood is even when we finally see a program history for MOL that this area will still be shrouded in relative mystery.

There are other ways to get at the story, but it will require some work.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: rguser on 09/02/2014 09:52 am
The NRO has posted 42 new documents on their "Frequently Requested Records" page with the title "Manned Orbiting Laboratory/DORIAN illustrations" link.  I have only reviewed a few files and they show detailed optical diagrams, test facility photos, antenna diagrams, "typical satellite inspection test layout" diagram, etc.  Unfortunately, some items are still redacted including the radar equipment in one possible MOL option.  The release date was 10 June 2014.  This is the largest amount of released official information that I have seen involving the MOL program.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2014 11:33 am

The NRO has posted 42 new documents on their "Frequently Requested Records" page with the title "Manned Orbiting Laboratory/DORIAN illustrations" link.  I have only reviewed a few files and they show detailed optical diagrams, test facility photos, antenna diagrams, "typical satellite inspection test layout" diagram, etc.  Unfortunately, some items are still redacted including the radar equipment in one possible MOL option.  The release date was 10 June 2014.  This is the largest amount of released official information that I have seen involving the MOL program.

I assume you're referring too the ones on this page.

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/DORIAN.html
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: rguser on 09/03/2014 08:24 am

The NRO has posted 42 new documents on their "Frequently Requested Records" page with the title "Manned Orbiting Laboratory/DORIAN illustrations" link.  I have only reviewed a few files and they show detailed optical diagrams, test facility photos, antenna diagrams, "typical satellite inspection test layout" diagram, etc.  Unfortunately, some items are still redacted including the radar equipment in one possible MOL option.  The release date was 10 June 2014.  This is the largest amount of released official information that I have seen involving the MOL program.

I assume you're referring too the ones on this page.

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/DORIAN.html

You are correct.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 09/04/2014 04:06 pm
Here they are wrapped into three pdf files.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 09/04/2014 04:18 pm
There is a mention of redocking of subsequent Gemini ferries with MOL. Since these documents seem to show all possible growth modes for MOL, it is not clear whether redocking would be a baseline operation, or simply some future possibility.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 09/04/2014 04:38 pm
You are correct. The documents are not date-stamped or organized, but other documents have shown a very small production run for Gemini-B vehicles, no capabilities for such dockings, etc. In the absence of a definitive history or program plan, I consider plans for dockings, resupplies, and synchronous-orbit command posts to be sales pitches with few prospects of implementation.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 09/04/2014 05:12 pm
Agreed. I believe (I think I've mentioned it here earlier) that four Gemini B spacecraft were on order, and I think that the plan was for six MOLs. So presumably they expected to order two more Gemini Bs. But beyond that I think everything was simply paper.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 09/04/2014 06:06 pm
You are correct. The documents are not date-stamped or organized, but other documents have shown a very small production run for Gemini-B vehicles, no capabilities for such dockings, etc. In the absence of a definitive history or program plan, I consider plans for dockings, resupplies, and synchronous-orbit command posts to be sales pitches with few prospects of implementation.

And docking is one thing, crew transfer is another.  The Gemini capsule design could not support IVA crew transfer through the front of the vehicle.  Either elaborate schemes with air locks enveloping the existing crew hatches or a docking airlock and control station added to the rear of the capsule would be required.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 09/04/2014 08:44 pm
And I don't see how an airlock connected to the hatch ever could have worked. It was a very large area to connect to and try and hold a pressure seal on. It would have been a nightmare. Circular hatches are that way for a reason.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 09/05/2014 12:20 am
Do you mean the heat shield (circular) hatch and tunnel? There was no airlock involved. Just an airtight tunnel pressed by a compressed spring against a special surface surrounding the hatch on the heat shield. Mechanically it made sense, according to those diagrams you unearthed a few years ago. But I wonder if it was ever prototyped and demonstrated?
Title: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 09/05/2014 12:22 am
On re-reading, I think you meant the external tunnel connecting the Gemini side hatch? But a Goodyear study of the concept seemed to involved a circular hatch someplace on the Gemini, possibly as part of the side hatch. That would have been problematic, surely.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: mike robel on 09/05/2014 01:22 am
f you were to order Spacecraft Films you would see tests of astronauts in jump suits, unpressurized and pressurized suits, dragging an incapacitatedastronauts into the test spacecraft and heat shield.  I was pretty surprised...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 09/05/2014 01:25 am
I was responding to Jim's comment about "elaborate schemes with air locks enveloping the existing crew hatches." You can find these in many documents about Gemini advanced missions.

I have many chips on my shoulders. One of them is annoyance with Gemini cultists who think that it was the greatest spaceship ever. (This opinion was usually formed when they were 10 years old and watching a Gemini launch on the television in the living room of their parents' house. Thus, it is an opinion usually held by 58-year-old males.) Gemini was a good interim spacecraft that accomplished a lot of things. But it was very limited in its capabilities. This was inherent in the design. It would have to be completely redesigned to be useful. And instead Apollo was right there, with a lot more capabilities.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 09/05/2014 10:59 am
You are right, and MOL's Gemini-B was NASA's Gemini on whatever the opposite of steroids is (metaphorically-speaking): stripped down and shortened with only a 14-hour independent lifetime.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 09/08/2014 05:31 pm
The latest article from Mr Day.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2595/1
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 09/08/2014 06:26 pm
I'm trying not to bounce the rubble on this subject, but am hoping that by continuing to write articles about different aspects of it that will cause people to come forward with additional information. I happen to have a TON of MOL material, including a lot of stuff that nobody has ever written about before (some of which was obtained from sources that were not exactly public). However, I still have some big holes in my understanding of the program and what was happening, which is why I keep going back to it.

I have something lined up in the next few weeks that could be very interesting and might result in another article.
Title: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 09/08/2014 06:54 pm
I wonder, and perhaps it's an unanswerable question at this time, how much of the technology developed for this program made its way into other programs once MOL was cancelled?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: DMeader on 09/08/2014 07:03 pm
Does that MOL assembly building in the article still exist and if so, what is it used for now?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 09/08/2014 10:02 pm
Does that MOL assembly building in the article still exist and if so, what is it used for now?

http://goo.gl/maps/lG2uf

I think it was used for assembling Titan fairings
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 01/02/2015 03:56 am
There will be a lot of MOL stuff happening in 2015. Trust me.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 01/02/2015 07:41 am

There will be a lot of MOL stuff happening in 2015. Trust me.

Hopefully a official program history, which I don't think we've seen yet.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 01/02/2015 01:31 pm
More than that.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 01/02/2015 04:18 pm

More than that.

Hoping some surviving hardware has come to light.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/02/2015 04:25 pm
Does that MOL assembly building in the article still exist and if so, what is it used for now?

There was a building at the old MacDac plant in Huntington Beach used for assembly of MOL that was subsequently used for assembly of DC-X. It was allegedly next door to a building used for assembly of major Skylab systems.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/02/2015 04:26 pm
I wonder, and perhaps it's an unanswerable question at this time, how much of the technology developed for this program made its way into other programs once MOL was cancelled?

Well, now that you ask, the fact that the Skylab airlock contained a Gemini hatch may be significant.

{groans from everyone}
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/03/2015 01:34 am
There will be a lot of MOL stuff happening in 2015. Trust me.
You can't mean the FIA-O mess resulted in them having to dust off MOL hardware and finally use it? Can you? Can you?  8)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/03/2015 05:08 am
There will be a lot of MOL stuff happening in 2015. Trust me.
You can't mean the FIA-O mess resulted in them having to dust off MOL hardware and finally use it? Can you? Can you?  8)

I suspect that most of it was used, one way or another (some as components of spysats).

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 01/03/2015 11:18 am

There will be a lot of MOL stuff happening in 2015. Trust me.
You can't mean the FIA-O mess resulted in them having to dust off MOL hardware and finally use it? Can you? Can you?  8)

I suspect that most of it was used, one way or another (some as components of spysats).

That's what I was wondering with my question you quoted above.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/03/2015 04:23 pm
I wonder, and perhaps it's an unanswerable question at this time, how much of the technology developed for this program made its way into other programs once MOL was cancelled?

Well, now that you ask, the fact that the Skylab airlock contained a Gemini hatch may be significant.

{groans from everyone}


Wrong, that was independent of MOL.   Again, the Skylab airlock was build by McDonnell St Louis (contracted in 1966) and not Douglas Huntington Beach (the MOL manufacturer).

How many times does it have to be repeated that here is no linkage between Skylab and MOL hardware?  It has been proven to you many times.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/03/2015 04:25 pm
There will be a lot of MOL stuff happening in 2015. Trust me.
You can't mean the FIA-O mess resulted in them having to dust off MOL hardware and finally use it? Can you? Can you?  8)

That was other programs vs MOL.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/03/2015 04:29 pm

I suspect that most of it was used, one way or another (some as components of spysats).


 Other than the optics, which found there way into ground based system, there would be little use of the other hardware for other space systems.   The overall structure would be useless, since there were no other similar manned systems.   The other reconn systems do not show a block change that would be indicative of incorporating MOL optics or camera systems.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/03/2015 05:33 pm
There will be a lot of MOL stuff happening in 2015. Trust me.
You can't mean the FIA-O mess resulted in them having to dust off MOL hardware and finally use it? Can you? Can you?  8)

That was other programs vs MOL.

I see I need to start inserting [humor] tags again ;)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Patchouli on 01/04/2015 01:05 am


I suspect that most of it was used, one way or another (some as components of spysats).




I was thinking the same thing that some of the hardware could have been used but as Jim said some of it such as the main structure would be unique.
But I wonder how much hardware still survives in a warehouse somewhere.


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/04/2015 02:10 am
The problem is that hardware designed for a specific mission is usually not easily re-purposed.  When you try, it rapidly becomes obvious that it's actually cheaper, better and more successful to design and develop new hardware for different missions that support those missions more appropriately.

Yes, there are the exceptions that prove the rule, like a production Gemini hatch being fitted into the Skylab airlock module.  But for the most part, spacecraft tend to be designed and built tightly to very specific mission requirements and aren't easily and cheaply re-purposed to significantly different requirements.

Also, technology tends to advance so quickly that materials, power system designs, fluid systems designs, electronics designs and especially system control designs proceed from older to newer paradigms so fast that older designs, which (as all designs do) include interlocking requirements and capabilities from all above-mentioned systems and more, need such thoroughgoing redesign to take advantage of new technological advances that it's just easier to design and build new.

I will proffer one example, though of a more recent vintage than MOL.  When the Mars Polar Lander (MPL) failed in 1999, NASA went forward with the MERs as its next Mars surface mission.  The computer system on the MERs was more advanced than the one that would have been used on MPL, with a more modern processing structure and more flexible operating system.  As you would expect from a spacecraft designed five to six years later.

After we had become used to how quickly the MERs returned data products, and how well organized they were and easy to work with, we then had the Phoenix lander, which was a clone of (and I believe the backup for) the MPL spacecraft (albeit with a different science package).  It had originally been proposed to fly in 2001, but was grounded after the MPL crash.  To save time and avoid hardware creep, Phoenix used the same computer system that MPL was to have used -- which was, for want of a better word, a lot clunkier and more difficult to deal with than that of the MERs, especially for those of us following the raw data products as they came in.

This was an example of flying a lander designed in 1995/6 *after* flying a set of rovers designed in 2001/2.  It was just very obvious that, while it controlled the planned mission just fine, the Phoenix computer system was simply inferior to that of the MERs.

While InSIGHT (I think I have the acronym correct) is based on the MPL/Phoenix lander design, it's not the backup lander for either of the prior missions, it's being redesigned and built from scratch for the new mission, so I'm assuming it will have a new computer system that will be able to handle the challenges of remotely emplacing seismometers and heat flow sensors and also managing the data return.  What's being copied is the gross design, with, I'm sure, a lot of places where engineering refinements are making the design better and less prone to failure.  I'm as certain as I can be that NASA is not planning on launching a Mars lander in 2016 that will use a computer system designed 20 years ago.

My point is that most hardware left over from old missions and programs tend to end up on warehouse shelves or in museums, but rarely gets re-purposed.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: DMeader on 01/04/2015 02:47 am
Does that MOL assembly building in the article still exist and if so, what is it used for now?
There was a building at the old MacDac plant in Huntington Beach used for assembly of MOL that was subsequently used for assembly of DC-X. It was allegedly next door to a building used for assembly of major Skylab systems.
And that has what to do with my question?

The organization I work for is currently moving into a building once occupied by the Army Reserve. That doesn't mean that I am now in the Army. The fact that a building once used for MOL activities is/was next door to a building used for Skylab production doesn't mean that there was any connection between MOL and Skylab.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/04/2015 04:49 pm
Does that MOL assembly building in the article still exist and if so, what is it used for now?
There was a building at the old MacDac plant in Huntington Beach used for assembly of MOL that was subsequently used for assembly of DC-X. It was allegedly next door to a building used for assembly of major Skylab systems.
And that has what to do with my question?

The organization I work for is currently moving into a building once occupied by the Army Reserve. That doesn't mean that I am now in the Army. The fact that a building once used for MOL activities is/was next door to a building used for Skylab production doesn't mean that there was any connection between MOL and Skylab.

You missed my point - MOL and Skylab assembly were contemporaneous and next to each other.  Saturn SIV-B stages were produced by Douglas Aircraft at Huntington Beach, so the Skylab main structure was also developed there, next to the MOL assembly building.

In mid 1969, MOL was canceled.

Within a month or two, there was a redesign of Skylab.



Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: DMeader on 01/04/2015 05:03 pm
In mid 1969, MOL was canceled.
Within a month or two, there was a redesign of Skylab.

You're insisting on a connection that didn't exist.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/04/2015 05:08 pm


You missed my point - MOL and Skylab assembly were contemporaneous and next to each other.  Saturn SIV-B stages were produced by Douglas Aircraft at Huntington Beach, so the Skylab main structure was also developed there, next to the MOL assembly building.

In mid 1969, MOL was canceled.

Within a month or two, there was a redesign of Skylab.


Those two events are unrelated and had nothing to do with the location of the hardware. 
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 01/04/2015 05:52 pm
In mid 1969, MOL was canceled.

Within a month or two, there was a redesign of Skylab.

The key meeting at which the switch to a dry workshop was put in motion took place on 21 May 1969 (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/part2c.htm), before the cancellation of MOL.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/04/2015 06:23 pm
And to a great extent, the decision to switch from the wet to the dry workshop concept for Skylab was determined when von Braun, and later George Mueller, donned spacesuits, got into Marshall's water immersion facility, and tried to unbolt the proposed hydrogen dome hatch cover through which the Skylab crew was supposed to enter the workshop.  (It had to be securely bolted and specially insulated so the tank could serve to hold LH2 during launch.)  Neither von Braun nor Mueller could even begin to get the bolts off, highlighting the true difficulties in making the wet workshop concept work.

The decision, again, had nothing to do with the status of MOL or any MOL design considerations.  Skylab decision-making and design were completely separate from MOL.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/05/2015 01:25 am
And to a great extent, the decision to switch from the wet to the dry workshop concept for Skylab was determined when von Braun, and later George Mueller, donned spacesuits, got into Marshall's water immersion facility, and tried to unbolt the proposed hydrogen dome hatch cover through which the Skylab crew was supposed to enter the workshop.  (It had to be securely bolted and specially insulated so the tank could serve to hold LH2 during launch.)  Neither von Braun nor Mueller could even begin to get the bolts off, highlighting the true difficulties in making the wet workshop concept work.

The decision, again, had nothing to do with the status of MOL or any MOL design considerations.  Skylab decision-making and design were completely separate from MOL.

Thanks for that bit of trivia, I always wondered what drove the switch. I just assumed it was budget, or lack of budget to execute the full program.

Though to be fair, based on the above, if they tried to push von Braun through the MOL tunnel I am sure the program would have come to a crashing halt much sooner.

I wonder if Backstar's hint actually means some hardware that has been collecting dust since Nixon will end up on display Dayton.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 01/05/2015 04:24 pm
And to a great extent, the decision to switch from the wet to the dry workshop concept for Skylab was determined when von Braun, and later George Mueller, donned spacesuits, got into Marshall's water immersion facility, and tried to unbolt the proposed hydrogen dome hatch cover through which the Skylab crew was supposed to enter the workshop.  (It had to be securely bolted and specially insulated so the tank could serve to hold LH2 during launch.)  Neither von Braun nor Mueller could even begin to get the bolts off, highlighting the true difficulties in making the wet workshop concept work.

The decision, again, had nothing to do with the status of MOL or any MOL design considerations.  Skylab decision-making and design were completely separate from MOL.

Thanks for that bit of trivia, I always wondered what drove the switch. I just assumed it was budget, or lack of budget to execute the full program.

Though to be fair, based on the above, if they tried to push von Braun through the MOL tunnel I am sure the program would have come to a crashing halt much sooner.

I wonder if Backstar's hint actually means some hardware that has been collecting dust since Nixon will end up on display Dayton.

Got a cite for that? According to the offical history of Skylab VonBraun's only 'comment' after the tests was that there needed to be a few more staps and cable attachments included in the tank design AND nothing regarding "difficulties" in getting into the tank.

Randy
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 01/05/2015 04:59 pm
You know, if you scroll back through this thread, you'll see that this whole (dumb) issue has been hashed out here at least once before. It really seems silly to do it here again, in the MOL thread.

I don't know anything about MOL hardware that still survives. That's not what I was indicating. Think in terms of paper and people.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: truth is life on 01/05/2015 05:31 pm

Got a cite for that? According to the offical history of Skylab VonBraun's only 'comment' after the tests was that there needed to be a few more staps and cable attachments included in the tank design AND nothing regarding "difficulties" in getting into the tank.

Randy
It's mentioned in Homesteading Space, which (according to Amazon) had Garriott, Kerwin, and Bean participating in writing. I'd check myself, but my own copy is half an hour's drive away from where I am now, so I can't exactly run over and look at the cover, or give an exact page number. In any case, if anyone would know, it would surely be the astronauts involved, no?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 01/05/2015 07:02 pm

You know, if you scroll back through this thread, you'll see that this whole (dumb) issue has been hashed out here at least once before. It really seems silly to do it here again, in the MOL thread.

I don't know anything about MOL hardware that still survives. That's not what I was indicating. Think in terms of paper and people.

Development blueprints including the evolution of the design and a large cache of photos of the hardware that was developed would be nice starting point.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 01/05/2015 07:21 pm

Got a cite for that? According to the offical history of Skylab VonBraun's only 'comment' after the tests was that there needed to be a few more staps and cable attachments included in the tank design AND nothing regarding "difficulties" in getting into the tank.
It's mentioned in Homesteading Space, which (according to Amazon) had Garriott, Kerwin, and Bean participating in writing. I'd check myself, but my own copy is half an hour's drive away from where I am now, so I can't exactly run over and look at the cover, or give an exact page number. In any case, if anyone would know, it would surely be the astronauts involved, no?

You'd think :) Then again the quote I'm looking at was FROM VonBraun after his time in the tank which makes me wonder...

Randy
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: apollolanding on 01/05/2015 08:24 pm
Got a cite for that? According to the offical history of Skylab VonBraun's only 'comment' after the tests was that there needed to be a few more staps and cable attachments included in the tank design AND nothing regarding "difficulties" in getting into the tank.

Randy

Source: Homesteading Space - The Skylab Story by Hitt, Garriott and Kerwin, Pages 1&2

http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/Supplements/Excerpts/Fall%2008/9780803224346_excerpt.pdf

"The task of turning a spent rocket stage into a livable space station was proving more difficult than anticipated. The man in the spacesuit was attempting to carry out the tasks that would convert the used, empty fuel tank into an orbital workshop. It was a daunting challenge. If the series of steps could be carried out, it would provide an expedient path to homesteading space. If not the station as designed would be worthless, an unusable husk. For the plan to work, when it came to these tasks, one of the agency’s great truisms definitely applied—failure was not an option.
Almost immediately, he ran into problems.
Loosening the bolts before him was a simple enough task on the ground. Here though it was substantially more difficult. When he turned his wrench, instead of the bolts rotating, he did. The bolts were held in place, and since he was floating, there was nothing to keep him still. The gloves he had to wear only made things worse. Their bulkiness made it difficult to perform precise tasks. The fact that his suit was pressurized meant that it took effort to move the fingers of the glove. After a while, his hands would become sore from the effort. It was too much to ask, he realized. It couldn’t be done. Reluctantly, he signaled to the safety divers to bring him to the surface.
That revelation was to be a turning point in the development of Skylab, America’s first space station, and may well have saved the program. The man in the spacesuit was Dr. George Mueller, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (nasa’s) associate administrator of Manned Space Flight, and the event took place in a water tank at nasa’s Marshall Space Flight Center (msfc) in Huntsville, Alabama. Mueller had been trying to find the best solution to the latest in a string of difficult decisions involving the orbital workshop. His quest for answers had led him to get hands-on experience himself with a simulated space station."


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/06/2015 12:32 am
In mid 1969, MOL was canceled.
Within a month or two, there was a redesign of Skylab.

You're insisting on a connection that didn't exist.

Actually, I am just writing down actual facts.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/08/2015 02:25 am
And to a great extent, the decision to switch from the wet to the dry workshop concept for Skylab was determined when von Braun, and later George Mueller, donned spacesuits, got into Marshall's water immersion facility, and tried to unbolt the proposed hydrogen dome hatch cover through which the Skylab crew was supposed to enter the workshop.  (It had to be securely bolted and specially insulated so the tank could serve to hold LH2 during launch.)  Neither von Braun nor Mueller could even begin to get the bolts off, highlighting the true difficulties in making the wet workshop concept work.

The decision, again, had nothing to do with the status of MOL or any MOL design considerations.  Skylab decision-making and design were completely separate from MOL.

Thanks for that bit of trivia, I always wondered what drove the switch. I just assumed it was budget, or lack of budget to execute the full program.

Though to be fair, based on the above, if they tried to push von Braun through the MOL tunnel I am sure the program would have come to a crashing halt much sooner.

I wonder if Backstar's hint actually means some hardware that has been collecting dust since Nixon will end up on display Dayton.

Got a cite for that? According to the offical history of Skylab VonBraun's only 'comment' after the tests was that there needed to be a few more staps and cable attachments included in the tank design AND nothing regarding "difficulties" in getting into the tank.

Randy

Yes, I have a cite, but I'm currently 500 miles from my home, visiting family for a couple of weeks.  Once I get home I'll go through my library and get it to you, if someone else doesn't provide it first.  If I had to try and recall off the top of my head, I'd say it was a book called Homesteading Space, but I could be wrong, so let me check my library when I get home before holding my feet to the fire on it, okay?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/08/2015 02:29 am
And that's what I get for replying to a challenge for a cite without reading the rest of the thread.  Good to know I remembered the right book, though.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 01/12/2015 01:12 pm
Truth is Life, apollolanding, the_other-Doug;

The reason I asked for a cite was because the official history of Skylab differs from the cited history. VonBraun's experiance seemed convincing enough that his ONLY comment was to include some more cable attachment points inside the tanks and he apparently didn't have all that much trouble getting the hatch off. I'll also point out that tools were developed to avoid the issues discussed in the quote.

In the end it was easier to build it on the ground and launch a fully functional station instead of a "wet-lab" but the basic concept is still viable should someone ever decide to go that route. (Which I will admit would take a lot of commitment since none of our current capability or hardware is really capable of such effort)

Randy
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/13/2015 01:53 am
Regarding "cross-pollination" between MOL and Orbital Workshop/Skylab:

And, noting that astronaut autobiographies depend much on the author's PERCEPTIONS of what happened--"I was there."  (That person may know less than they think about events that happened to other astronauts, engineers, etc.)

"Skylab at one time had been my baby."

Walter Cunningham reports in Chapter 14 of his book, The All American Boys that Deke Slayton assigned him as the Astronaut Office's representative to the program after his flight on Apollo 7 (late 1968).  This was after tenures by Alan Bean, Gordon Cooper, and Owen Garriott.

Cunningham also reports that he prodded management to switch from the Saturn IB "wet workshop" to the Skylab configuration that actually flew.

When MOL was cancelled in 1969, seven of that program's astronauts went to work for NASA.  All of these were pilots.  Cunningham reports that he assigned them to make decisions about operational hardware.

Cunningham also says that "those two years at the helm of Skylab became my real contribution to manned spaceflight."

Spaceflight history experts:  Was Walt Cunningham as crucial to the success of Skylab as he represents in his book?  I believe this part of his book is credible--do you?

Therefore:
Might the key not be transfer of hardware or explicit design, but one of knowledge and experience?  I assume there was were many specific, classified facts that the ex-MOL astronauts could not speak about.  But, they had been working on a space station program for several years before coming to NASA.  Did that experience, without divulging specific classified information, help change OWS into the Skylab-as-flown?

Curious,
Zubenelgenubi
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/13/2015 02:06 am
This may have been posted earlier in the thread, but apropros of the prior post, I believe that the open literature states that food supplies from MOL were transferred to Skylab.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2015 02:35 am
This may have been posted earlier in the thread, but apropros of the prior post, I believe that the open literature states that food supplies from MOL were transferred to Skylab.


No, that is not true either. Skylab thought they could leverage MOL crew systems and found that it was an area that there was little work done on it.  Skylab food was just a continuation of Apollo food and some Skylab food was tested on Apollo.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4208/ch7.htm#t5
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 01/13/2015 02:58 am
This may have been posted earlier in the thread, but apropros of the prior post, I believe that the open literature states that food supplies from MOL were transferred to Skylab.


No, that is not true either. Skylab thought they could leverage MOL crew systems and found that it was an area that there was little work done on it.  Skylab food was just a continuation of Apollo food and some Skylab food was tested on Apollo.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4208/ch7.htm#t5

In other words, there was an attempt to use MOL food system research but it was found to be too non-existent to use.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/13/2015 04:53 am
Regarding "cross-pollination" between MOL and Orbital Workshop/Skylab:

And, noting that astronaut autobiographies depend much on the author's PERCEPTIONS of what happened--"I was there."  (That person may know less than they think about events that happened to other astronauts, engineers, etc.)

"Skylab at one time had been my baby."

Walter Cunningham reports in Chapter 14 of his book, The All American Boys that Deke Slayton assigned him as the Astronaut Office's representative to the program after his flight on Apollo 7 (late 1968).  This was after tenures by Alan Bean, Gordon Cooper, and Owen Garriott.

Cunningham also reports that he prodded management to switch from the Saturn IB "wet workshop" to the Skylab configuration that actually flew.

When MOL was cancelled in 1969, seven of that program's astronauts went to work for NASA.  All of these were pilots.  Cunningham reports that he assigned them to make decisions about operational hardware.

Cunningham also says that "those two years at the helm of Skylab became my real contribution to manned spaceflight."

Spaceflight history experts:  Was Walt Cunningham as crucial to the success of Skylab as he represents in his book?  I believe this part of his book is credible--do you?

Therefore:
Might the key not be transfer of hardware or explicit design, but one of knowledge and experience?  I assume there was were many specific, classified facts that the ex-MOL astronauts could not speak about.  But, they had been working on a space station program for several years before coming to NASA.  Did that experience, without divulging specific classified information, help change OWS into the Skylab-as-flown?

Curious,
Zubenelgenubi

My own take on Cunningham's book is that it is poorly researched and fact-checked (for example, he places some Gemini flights as being flown in 1967), and the tone is both defensive and self-aggrandizing.  While it can be an enjoyable read, I wouldn't take what Walt says with more than a small grain of salt, especially when it comes to the contributions he may have personally made.  For instance, he claims that he told management that the Skylab micrometeoroid shield would fail, but that they never paid attention.  I seriously doubt this part of his story, since he claims that he was so much smarter and on top of the engineering than Pete Conrad that if Conrad hadn't bumped him off of Skylab it wouldn't have failed, and that sounds like nothing but sour grapes to me.

However, this is all quite off-topic, so let's just get back to MOL, shall we?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 01/13/2015 01:17 pm
"Wet-Lab" discussion has come up again in the "Skylab-II" thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30609.msg1315317#msg1315317

Randy
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/13/2015 11:11 pm
Thank you, Doug.
If Cunningham's recollection/representation about his tenure on Skylab is suspect, then we really can't use his book's content as reliable evidence towards a hypothesis for or against ex-MOL astronauts influencing the design or operational planning for Skylab.

The hypothesis is still viable and interesting--I'm curious about the ex-MOL astronaut's influence on the development of Skylab.

>>>
However, this is all quite off-topic, so let's just get back to MOL, shall we?
<<<

Ok!  I do look forward to some new MOL declassification!  It's a story overdue to be told!
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/14/2015 03:24 am
Re: MOL food

If one takes the virtual tour of the National Museum of the United States Air Force,

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/virtualtour/index.asp
 (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/virtualtour/index.asp)
and goes to the Missile and Space Gallery to examine the Gemini B spacecraft at location 082, and then turns around approximately 180 degrees, then you'll see the following item and label.

"Prototype Food Dispenser for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory
One of the very few full scale objects to survive the MOL project, this device was intended to hold containers of food and release them to crew members on demand."

It's not the most exciting item of prototype space hardware.

(When I visited this museum as a lad, there was very little or no explanation of WHY this capsule had a rear hatch through the heat shield!  I figured there was a pretty cool reason for this, but it took some research years later to learn (a little) more.  This museum has vastly improved since the 1970s.)

Sincerely,
Zubenelgenubi
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/18/2015 04:07 pm
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/19/2015 02:11 pm
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/19/2015 10:44 pm
In the early days of the Cosmosphere, there was a Gemini capsule that was missing a hatch. It was a 'junkyard' capsule that had lost the hatch cover during a storm. The exposure to weather required restoration before being displayed.

The reason that the hatch was missing was it was removed so the latching mechanism could be used in Skylab.

If memory serves, it went to St. Loius, it's capsule went to OKC, and the Cos received the Gemini X.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/20/2015 03:12 am
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Antilope7724 on 03/29/2015 02:19 am
Here are some documents I found on the DTIC website that have info about the Gemini-MOL / Titan IIIC Heat Shield Qualification test flight of Nov 3, 1966; that sent the Gemini 2 re-entry module on its second sub-orbital flight.

PROGRAM PLAN MANNED ORBITING LABORATORY - HEAT SHIELD QUALIFICATION (MOL-HSQ)
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/472858.pdf

PROGRAM SUPPORT REQUEST MOL - HSQ
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/474362.pdf

A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE MOL HSQ RECOVERY PROBLEM
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/821328.pdf

MOL-EFT PROGRAM. MODEL SPECIFICATION AIRBORNE VEHICLE EQUIPMENT
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/472438.pdf

SSLV-5 NO. 9 POST FIRING FLIGHT TEST REPORT (FINAL EVALUATION REPORT) AND MOL-EFT FINAL FLIGHT TEST REPORT
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/378020.pdf


DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER - DTIC website link
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/search/advanced_search.html
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jester on 04/17/2015 04:22 pm
Gemini B Mockup video

https://vimeo.com/102422452
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 04/17/2015 06:22 pm
I have some photos of that mockup, but the video is better than my photos in terms of sharpness and color. I have a lot of MOL photos, but much of it is lower quality than I would like.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Rifleman on 04/18/2015 01:33 am
I am actually going to the NMUSAF tomorrow, I will try to snap a picture of the food dispenser for everyone to see.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 04/18/2015 04:12 am
It's a dull piece of hardware. I hope that there's something much more exciting buried somewhere.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 04/18/2015 05:36 am
A good friend and former teacher of mine worked at General Electric in Valley Forge, PA on MOL.  I remember in the early 1970s he related how he had worked on the "toilet" systems.  In retrospect, what he described was very similar to what eventually wound up on the Skylab.

Not as interesting as the optics - but I was surprised to learn that a toilet was included instead of the baggies.

I chuckled when he told me how the engineers were actually testing the prototype with their own live loads.  Heh.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: gwiz on 07/31/2015 04:29 pm
Date for your diaries, Oct 22:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Lectures.aspx

"The National Reconnaissance Office will also reveal, for the first time, information about the classified elements of the program."
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 07/31/2015 04:46 pm
Date for your diaries, Oct 22:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Lectures.aspx

"The National Reconnaissance Office will also reveal, for the first time, information about the classified elements of the program."
Wow!
The Manned Orbiting Laboratory Crew Member's Secret Mission in Space
MOL astronauts panel members:
James Abrahamson
Karol Bobko
Bob Crippen
Lachlan Macleay
Richard Truly

I wonder if the lecture date has been chosen to match one declassification date of a large amount of content in October, OR if there will be an initial set of information declassified after today, but earlier than October, and then more in October?

Does the above compound question make sense?

EDIT--clarification of my question's "timeline"
EDIT 2--that will teach me not to blindly copy+paste astronaut names from an aerospace museum web site!  Corrected.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/31/2015 05:00 pm
Just saw all that on twitter and went, wow!
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/31/2015 05:31 pm
After all this time something of a missing link in the optical reconnaissance program history is coming into the light.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/31/2015 05:43 pm
Scroll back a bit in the thread...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/31/2015 05:48 pm
Odd how the NMUSAF misspelled the name of one of their speakers, Lachlan Macleay (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachlan_Macleay). But it is a unique name. He probably became accustomed to many variations over the years.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/31/2015 05:51 pm
Here's the NRO link.

http://nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Skyrocket on 07/31/2015 06:24 pm
Nice artist impression from NRO's tweet: https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/627138592062595073
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/31/2015 07:07 pm
Love that sixties space art.:)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/31/2015 07:18 pm
Yes, it is a nice artist's concept, but probably only a sales pitch. It shows an alternative, future MOL configuration: really two MOLs docked end to end, both with their Gemini-B capsules at their opposite ends. The near one has a bay full of earth observation sensors; the far one has an astronomical telescope on an extendable arm. Douglas was trying to sell this as a space station to NASA in the late 1960s. I wonder why it was ever classified. It is consistent with much of the content in the last large release a year ago: a hodgepodge of approved, planned and even wished-for capabilities, without much organization. The approved program when MOL was cancelled in 1969 was more or less the same as in LBJ's announcement in 1965, with only five manned labs intended to fly, one by one.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/31/2015 07:26 pm
Isn't it stuff like the optical telescope & ELINT gear that's kept it classified so long.
Title: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/31/2015 08:59 pm
Isn't it stuff like the optical telescope & ELINT gear that's kept it classified so long.

The elint mission was removed from consideration by 1967.

So that begs the question why the long classification for a canned project, surely not just the optical gear?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 07/31/2015 09:00 pm
Okay, not declassified but ithe image does have "NRO approved for release July 2015" stamped on it. Isn't that almost the same?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 07/31/2015 10:10 pm
Here's the NRO link.

http://nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html
>>>
A MOL declassification event, The DORIAN Files Revealed, will take place at the National Museum of the US Air Force on 22 October 2015.
<<<
The above answers my question about the timing of the event vs. declassification.

So, no declassification between now and October 22?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Kansan52 on 07/31/2015 10:19 pm
Yes, it is a nice artist's concept, but probably only a sales pitch. It shows an alternative, future MOL configuration: really two MOLs docked end to end, both with their Gemini-B capsules at their opposite ends. The near one has a bay full of earth observation sensors; the far one has an astronomical telescope on an extendable arm. Douglas was trying to sell this as a space station to NASA in the late 1960s. I wonder why it was ever classified. It is consistent with much of the content in the last large release a year ago: a hodgepodge of approved, planned and even wished-for capabilities, without much organization. The approved program when MOL was cancelled in 1969 was more or less the same as in LBJ's announcement in 1965, with only five manned labs intended to fly, one by one.

I hadn't noticed that. Yep, sure looks like "Look what we could build with your money!"
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 07/31/2015 10:29 pm

Isn't it stuff like the optical telescope & ELINT gear that's kept it classified so long.

The elint mission was removed from consideration by 1967.

So that begs the question why the long classification for a canned project, surely not just the optical gear?

It's a long dull story, but in the end it just boils down to inertia. Things remain classified until somebody makes a concerted effort to get them declassified. And if it is sitting in a safe somewhere with a classification stamp on it, it is a pain in the neck and costs money for somebody to declassify it.

What in particular got them moving on this now then?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/01/2015 12:40 am

Isn't it stuff like the optical telescope & ELINT gear that's kept it classified so long.

The elint mission was removed from consideration by 1967.

So that begs the question why the long classification for a canned project, surely not just the optical gear?

It's a long dull story, but in the end it just boils down to inertia. Things remain classified until somebody makes a concerted effort to get them declassified. And if it is sitting in a safe somewhere with a classification stamp on it, it is a pain in the neck and costs money for somebody to declassify it.

What in particular got them moving on this now then?

Maybe they realized that the original MOL astronauts are beginning to die off (they're getting into their seventies and eighties, now), and they wanted to give the guys who are still with us a chance to talk about their 'til-now classified experiences.  I'd love to hear some of their training stories.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 08/01/2015 08:26 am


Isn't it stuff like the optical telescope & ELINT gear that's kept it classified so long.

The elint mission was removed from consideration by 1967.

So that begs the question why the long classification for a canned project, surely not just the optical gear?

It's a long dull story, but in the end it just boils down to inertia. Things remain classified until somebody makes a concerted effort to get them declassified. And if it is sitting in a safe somewhere with a classification stamp on it, it is a pain in the neck and costs money for somebody to declassify it.

What in particular got them moving on this now then?

Maybe they realized that the original MOL astronauts are beginning to die off (they're getting into their seventies and eighties, now), and they wanted to give the guys who are still with us a chance to talk about their 'til-now classified experiences.  I'd love to hear some of their training stories.

I hope that was the reason as it is definitely a missing part in the U.S. human spaceflight history.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 08/01/2015 11:39 am
never realized that the MOL had solar arrays. I thought they used fuel cells...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 08/01/2015 01:24 pm
You're right. The baselined, approved program of five manned flights would have used Allis Chalmers fuel cells, iirc. The solar arrays were added to the proposed NASA variant for longer duration missions.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 08/01/2015 01:53 pm
I bet the "crew members" will be only able to talk about the capsule and station portions.  They probably were aware but not deeply briefed on the payload/camera. We (the members of the forum) probably know more about the payload/camera now, then the "crew members" did back in the day.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: John Charles on 08/01/2015 03:03 pm
Jim, I agree with your guess.

In 1969, the first launch was still planned for 1972. Certainly no mission-specific training had taken place yet, probably only generic training, mostly general spacecraft systems development consultations (including space suits), and general pilot maintenance training.

There was a MOL mockup at Douglas and a Gemini-B mockup at McDonnell, but documents reviewed by Dwayne Day don't give evidence that actual spacecraft construction had commenced.

I wonder if MOL had received any hand-me-down Gemini simulators from NASA yet, or were they re-purposed for Apollo?

Maybe the pilots are coming to the October event to hear what MOL was all about, too.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Antilope7724 on 08/01/2015 03:25 pm
How would an Apollo command / service module equipped with the SIM bay camera system measure up to the MOL in earth orbit? Wonder if the DOD or NRO ever looked at flying the Apollo with the SIM bay camera system on classified earth orbit missions? It had proved itself in lunar orbit on three missions.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/01/2015 03:33 pm
I bet the "crew members" will be only able to talk about the capsule and station portions.  They probably were aware but not deeply briefed on the payload/camera. We (the members of the forum) probably know more about the payload/camera now, then the "crew members" did back in the day.

No, they knew everything. I've interviewed a few of them, just haven't finished my article. They were fully cleared at the time and even had access to the existing robotic systems and their products--i.e. they not only knew about the other recon systems then in use, but they saw the photos. One of them even told me that when the GAMBIT-3 entered service he saw a photo it took and the resolution was so good he knew that MOL was going to be canceled. After all, why launch a big expensive MOL with a couple of astronauts when you could get the same photos with an existing robotic system? Now how much they remember today is a different issue. Keep in mind that for most of them once the program was canceled they left the classified world. Some of them kept their clearances when they went on to other things, but many of them were just out of it entirely.

They'll undoubtedly get a security briefing before they talk in public and I suspect that they'll be told that they cannot discuss the system's resolution and probably a couple of other minor things. But for the most part, they can discuss the program, hardware, etc.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/01/2015 03:37 pm
How would an Apollo command / service module equipped with the SIM bay camera system measure up to the MOL in earth orbit? Wonder if the DOD or NRO ever looked at flying the Apollo with the SIM bay camera system on classified earth orbit missions? It had proved itself in lunar orbit on three missions.

You can do the math fairly easily. The late Apollo missions had the Apollo Panoramic Camera (PanCam) system. That was derived from an aerial camera developed for the U-2 and SR-71, built by ITEK. From what I have been able to determine, that camera system used similar lenses to those developed for Corona. Same focal length as Corona. Essentially it would have had similar resolution in Earth orbit, figure about 6-12 feet ground resolution. MOL was 4 inches.

Re the PanCam: I've never been able to find out exactly what changed in the evolution up to this system. The overall basics appear to be the same, although the film mounting system was altered. I haven't paid attention to that in a few years. But the PanCam was a nice design.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 08/01/2015 05:38 pm
How would an Apollo command / service module equipped with the SIM bay camera system measure up to the MOL in earth orbit? Wonder if the DOD or NRO ever looked at flying the Apollo with the SIM bay camera system on classified earth orbit missions? It had proved itself in lunar orbit on three missions.

No.  It would have nowhere near the resolution of MOL.  "It" had proved itself long before Apollo.  The cameras for Apollo were related to U-2 and SR-71 cameras.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/13/2015 08:30 pm
In response to my FOIA request many years ago, NRO has now declassified the official MOL history:

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Bob Shaw on 08/13/2015 08:38 pm
How did the Metric Camera flown aboard Shuttle compare in terms of resolution?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: apollolanding on 08/13/2015 08:48 pm
In response to my FOIA request many years ago, NRO has now declassified the official MOL history:

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html
Thank you for your tireless effort on bringing this part of spaceflight history to light!  I have my weekend reading now.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/13/2015 08:57 pm
How did the Metric Camera flown aboard Shuttle compare in terms of resolution?


Not even close. That was a mapping camera. MOL's goal resolution was four inches. I don't remember what the shuttle camera resolution was, but probably over 30 feet.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/14/2015 12:55 am
I wrote this awhile back:

MOL was conceived as a bunch of experiments. At some point it evolved to become essentially an operational reconnaissance satellite. Not clear when or how or why that happened, but it was probably early 1965. So some things that they were thinking of doing early on got tossed. Here is the list of experiments that were finalized:

P-1 Acquisition and Tracking of Ground Targets
P-2 Acquisition and Tracking of Space Targets
P-3 Acquisition of “targets of opportunity” (land/sea)
P-4 Electromagnetic Signal Detection
P-5 In-Space Maintenance
P-6 EVA using Remote Maneuvering Unit
P-7 EVA using Dual Maneuvering Unit
P-8 Autonomous Navigation and Geodesy
P-9 Post attack bomb assessment (later cancelled)
P-10 Multiband Spectral Observations
P-11 General Human Performance in Space
P-12 Biomedical and Physiological Evaluation
P-13 Ocean Surveillance
P-14 Assembly and alignment of large structures in space
P-15 High Resolution Optics System (KH-10 DORIAN camera)


Note that in the official history mention of P-2 is deleted. Late in the program a new mission was added. I'm pretty sure that was space-to-space photography, which was later added to G-3 and used to image Skylab (see one of my articles about this).
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 08/14/2015 06:27 am

In response to my FOIA request many years ago, NRO has now declassified the official MOL history:

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html
Thank you for your tireless effort on bringing this part of spaceflight history to light!  I have my weekend reading now.

I would like to second that thanks.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Targeteer on 08/14/2015 10:29 pm
From NRO Facebook page

The second of three newly declassified Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program documents, the History of the MOL Program has been released. The MOL program was developed by the United States Air Force in the early 1960s and acknowledged publicly by President Lyndon Johnson on August 25, 1965. The MOL program’s original purpose was to assess man’s utility in space, and as the program matured, its main mission was to photograph objects on the ground, referred to as the Dorian mission.

Click on the link below to read the first two declassified documents and stay tuned for a third document to be released later this fall leading up to a special event to be held at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force on October 22, 2015. The event, “The Dorian Files Revealed: The Manned Orbiting Laboratory Crew Members’ Secret Mission in Space” will include a panel discussion of five MOL crew members who trained for the program, and the release of additional MOL documents.

Click here to read the History of the MOL Program and President Johnson’s press statement: http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html

Click here to read more about the event on October 22, 2015 at the National Museum of the US Air Force: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Lectures.aspx
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Bob Shaw on 08/15/2015 12:12 am
How did the Metric Camera flown aboard Shuttle compare in terms of resolution?


Not even close. That was a mapping camera. MOL's goal resolution was four inches. I don't remember what the shuttle camera resolution was, but probably over 30 feet.

Thanks!

Were the 'Stubby Hubble' mirrors - the ones passed to NASA - built as part of that effort? I presume they were faster than Hubble, but similarly good at light gathering.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/15/2015 02:21 am
How did the Metric Camera flown aboard Shuttle compare in terms of resolution?


Not even close. That was a mapping camera. MOL's goal resolution was four inches. I don't remember what the shuttle camera resolution was, but probably over 30 feet.

Thanks!

Were the 'Stubby Hubble' mirrors - the ones passed to NASA - built as part of that effort? I presume they were faster than Hubble, but similarly good at light gathering.


Nope. Those are from FIA. And they have not been passed to NASA. They have been made available to NASA. If NASA does not want them, they'll go into a smelter.

The MOL mirrors ended up in the MMT telescope. They were eventually removed and are now in storage at the base of the MMT telescope's mountain.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: vapour_nudge on 08/15/2015 02:37 am
How did the Metric Camera flown aboard Shuttle compare in terms of resolution?


Not even close. That was a mapping camera. MOL's goal resolution was four inches. I don't remember what the shuttle camera resolution was, but probably over 30 feet.
If it was a 'metric' camera shouldn't the resolution be 9 metres instead of 30 feet? :-)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/15/2015 05:56 pm
How did the Metric Camera flown aboard Shuttle compare in terms of resolution?


Not even close. That was a mapping camera. MOL's goal resolution was four inches. I don't remember what the shuttle camera resolution was, but probably over 30 feet.
If it was a 'metric' camera shouldn't the resolution be 9 metres instead of 30 feet? :-)

We don't use the dumb metric system.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: vapour_nudge on 08/16/2015 11:40 am
Now there's an off topic issue there. I was brought up knowing both and couldn't care less which one I use. My country changed over in the 60s and we no longer use the British system that the USA uses. But I still think of my height in feet & inches & fuel economy in MPG yet I think in kilometres per hour. I really don't think it matters what anyone uses so long as they understand what it means. My previous post was a joke. Night.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: gwiz on 08/16/2015 12:05 pm
We don't use the dumb metric system.
One US engineering project, the McAir (now Boeing) T-45A Goshawk aircraft, uses metric units because it was originally designed and partially manufactured in the UK.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: gwiz on 08/16/2015 12:11 pm
Now there's an off topic issue there. I was brought up knowing both and couldn't care less which one I use. My country changed over in the 60s and we no longer use the British system that the USA uses. But I still think of my height in feet & inches & fuel economy in MPG yet I think in kilometres per hour. I really don't think it matters what anyone uses so long as they understand what it means. My previous post was a joke. Night.
I was using both systems throughout my engineering career.  All new projects were in SI units, but we were still supporting old projects in Imperial units right into the present decade.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 08/16/2015 12:12 pm
I was using both systems throughout my engineering career.  All new projects were in SI units, but we were still supporting old projects in Imperial units right into the present decade.

Future generations will be having the same discussion about Python 2 vs 3.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: pippin on 08/16/2015 01:29 pm
I'm disappointed. I thought my trolling would catch more fish.

OK, I'll bite. The French Revolution had it all wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xJfP7-HCc
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/16/2015 01:33 pm
Blackstar, you know there are two types of countries in this world. Those that use metric and those that have been to Pluto ;)

Still digging through the MOL history. A bit dry, but very, very interesting...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: pippin on 08/16/2015 01:44 pm

Blackstar, you know there are two types of countries in this world. Those that use metric and those that have been to Pluto ;)

And then those who have been to Pluto but have used the metric system to go there...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: RonM on 08/16/2015 03:50 pm
Blackstar, you know there are two types of countries in this world. Those that use metric and those that have been to Pluto ;)

Wow, Liberia and Myanmar have been to Pluto too! :)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/16/2015 04:19 pm
And if MOL had been flown, we would have spotted those clandestine missions.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/21/2015 02:08 am
Blackstar, you know there are two types of countries in this world. Those that use metric and those that have been to Pluto ;)

Still digging through the MOL history. A bit dry, but very, very interesting...

I've been going through it too. It is dry. There's less hardware and technical detail than I expected, or want. I would like to know much more about the technical issues and camera design. Note that the astronauts are not mentioned at all. Look up some of their names in the index. They're not there.

I hope we get more on the camera system and the relevant subsystems. I've interviewed a few of the astronauts and I should probably go and try and interview more of them.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 08/21/2015 06:24 am

Blackstar, you know there are two types of countries in this world. Those that use metric and those that have been to Pluto ;)

Still digging through the MOL history. A bit dry, but very, very interesting...

I've been going through it too. It is dry. There's less hardware and technical detail than I expected, or want. I would like to know much more about the technical issues and camera design. Note that the astronauts are not mentioned at all. Look up some of their names in the index. They're not there.

I hope we get more on the camera system and the relevant subsystems. I've interviewed a few of the astronauts and I should probably go and try and interview more of them.

I wonder if the lack of technical detail was a deliberate choice by the author or just how it worked out.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/21/2015 12:22 pm
I wonder if the lack of technical detail was a deliberate choice by the author or just how it worked out.

That's the kind of stuff that Berger wrote. He did institutional histories. I think he is the guy who did a bunch of documents called "The Air Force in Space" that were essentially annual reports. It might have been a case of they asked him to do it and he focused on what he knew.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/21/2015 11:06 pm
I wonder if the lack of technical detail was a deliberate choice by the author or just how it worked out.

That's the kind of stuff that Berger wrote. He did institutional histories. I think he is the guy who did a bunch of documents called "The Air Force in Space" that were essentially annual reports. It might have been a case of they asked him to do it and he focused on what he knew.

There is some explanation from the author for the scope, or lack thereof, of this history in the Foreword:
Quote
This history was originally conceived as a multi-volume series which would cover planning, policies, hardware development, and flight operations of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory.
...the work would be done on a part-time basis.

The author began his research in May 1966 on a two-day-a-week basis, a schedule frequently disrupted, however, by the requirements of his own office.  He was working on 1967 MOL plans and policies when the project was terminated in June 1969.  Subsequently, he prepared three additional chapters covering the important events leading to the President’s decision to terminate the program, all consolidated into this single volume.

The original plan sounds like a full-time job, perhaps for several historians, working for months or years?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/19/2015 05:51 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2849/1

Blue suits in polar orbits: the MOL astronauts (part 1)

by Dwayne Day
Monday, October 19, 2015

Richard Truly still remembers the day when the Air Force publicly announced that he was selected to be an astronaut for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, which had been formally announced by Lyndon Johnson in summer 1965. The eight candidates were introduced to the press at a ceremony on a Friday in November 1965, but there were no questions from reporters. After the event ended, Truly was told by his boss that it would be their last press conference. “And he was right,” Truly said during an interview in Washington, DC last fall. They were momentarily famous, but would never talk to the press again.

But what happened the next day was even more memorable. Saturday morning, the MOL astronaut candidates reported to the Space and Missile Systems Office at Los Angeles Air Force Base, only a few miles from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). That’s when the briefings began.

The eight men were told that the public story about MOL—that it was intended to evaluate what military missions astronauts could perform in space—was a cover story. What MOL was really supposed to do was to take high-resolution reconnaissance photographs of the Soviet Union. And that’s when Truly and his fellow MOL astronauts were briefed on America’s top secret reconnaissance satellite programs. They were told about CORONA, which took broad area photographs of large amounts of territory in order to find new targets and keep track of existing ones. And they were told about GAMBIT, which could take high-resolution images of targets such as ICBM sites and submarine bases. Truly was amazed. He hadn’t known that all of this stuff existed. And now he was going to be part of a program that did it.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 10/19/2015 06:34 pm
Albert H. Crews - the most unfortunate wannabee astronaut ever. One of the very few veteran of both DynaSoar and MOL, both canned without flying. He went to NASA afterwards, but was considered too old to fly.  :-\
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/19/2015 06:50 pm
It appears that the MOL astronaut duties somewhat paralleled those of NASA astronauts not assigned to a mission (not a surprise).

It also appears that the MOL astronauts didn't have the cool T-38 rides that the NASA astronauts did.  I wonder if (true/false?) not having high-performance jets at hand made the travel, of which I assume was extensive, more difficult?

Was there a selection process similar to that for NASA astronauts?

Also, did the MOL astronauts have cover stories for use when on travel, etc.?

Some quick thoughts/questions after reading the above-mentioned article...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/19/2015 07:03 pm
We're just a few days away: October 22, 7:30 pm!

Date for your diaries, Oct 22:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Lectures.aspx (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Lectures.aspx)

"The National Reconnaissance Office will also reveal, for the first time, information about the classified elements of the program."
Wow!
The Manned Orbiting Laboratory Crew Member's Secret Mission in Space
MOL astronauts panel members:
James Abrahamson
Karol Bobko
Albert Crews (added after initial announcement?)
Bob Crippen
Lachlan Macleay
Richard Truly

UPDATE Quote
Quote
UPDATE: James Abrahamson and Lachlan MacLeay are unable to participate in the event.

I hope these two gentlemen are ok.

There is also mention of this gentleman as a speaker with the four astronauts:
Quote
Dr. Michael Yarymovych held several prominent leadership positions in the government, including assistant administrator of the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, chief scientist of the U.S. Air Force, director of NATO AGARD in Paris, France, deputy assistant secretary of the USAF for R&D, and technical director of the USAF Manned Orbital Laboratory. Before that, Yarymovych had several responsible positions with the NASA Headquarters Manned Space Flight Program involved with the Apollo lunar landing effort and initial definition studies of the Space Station and the Space Shuttle.

Also, will there be a web cast?  I only see mention of audio podcasts available post-lectures:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/TourPodcasts/Lecture.aspx (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/TourPodcasts/Lecture.aspx)

Are any forum members attending this lecture?

Zubenelgenubi
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/19/2015 08:04 pm
I wonder if (true/false?) not having high-performance jets at hand made the travel, of which I assume was extensive, more difficult?

Apparently the jets available to the MOL astronauts were rather poor quality. I believe they had T-33s, which were slow compared to T-38s.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/19/2015 08:05 pm

1-Was there a selection process similar to that for NASA astronauts?

2-Also, did the MOL astronauts have cover stories for use when on travel, etc.?


1-No. In fact, at least one of the MOL astronauts was told he had been selected and he had not even applied. Didn't mind that, but it was not like the NASA process--a number of the MOL guys were simply told that they were it.

2-Yes, according to an interview that Peterson did they had cover stories.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/19/2015 08:08 pm
Dr. Michael Yarymovych held several prominent leadership positions in the government, including assistant administrator of the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, chief scientist of the U.S. Air Force, director of NATO AGARD in Paris, France, deputy assistant secretary of the USAF for R&D, and technical director of the USAF Manned Orbital Laboratory. Before that, Yarymovych had several responsible positions with the NASA Headquarters Manned Space Flight Program involved with the Apollo lunar landing effort and initial definition studies of the Space Station and the Space Shuttle.

I interviewed Yarymovych many years ago. He was giving a closed-door briefing about MOL on Capitol Hill when he was handed a note that the program had been canceled. He told the members of Congress, who were very annoyed. He'll probably tell that story again.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/19/2015 09:03 pm
I interviewed Yarymovych many years ago. He was giving a closed-door briefing about MOL on Capitol Hill when he was handed a note that the program had been canceled. He told the members of Congress, who were very annoyed. He'll probably tell that story again.

A constitutional question:
Can Congress, via the power of the purse--to tax and spend, override an executive decision on whether and how much to spend on a classified or "black" program?

Or, to somewhat restate for a particular: How did the legislative branch make its collective will known on a national security issue as the funding or cancellation of MOL?

I assume closed hearings are one such method.

I know there are no budget line-items to make amendments to, because they are black programs.

Or is the answer that Congress is a rubber-stamp on these matters, annoyed or not?

Blackstar, thank you for answering my previous questions.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/19/2015 10:13 pm
A constitutional question:
Can Congress, via the power of the purse--to tax and spend, override an executive decision on whether and how much to spend on a classified or "black" program?

Or, to somewhat restate for a particular: How did the legislative branch make its collective will known on a national security issue as the funding or cancellation of MOL?

I assume closed hearings are one such method.

I know there are no budget line-items to make amendments to, because they are black programs.

Or is the answer that Congress is a rubber-stamp on these matters, annoyed or not?

Congress has kept alive defense programs that the executive branch has sought to kill. The V-22 is a great example. There are a number of others.

But as for classified programs, I suspect that it doesn't happen. First, not as many people are going to know about the program, so the constituency will not really be there. Second, Congress defers to the executive branch on classified matters. They assume that the president knows this stuff better.

MOL is an odd case. There was at least one member of Congress (I forget who) from Florida who was really annoyed that it was not launching out of Florida. Why was California getting the launch site when they had perfectly good infrastructure in his state? He held hearings and was a real pain about it. What I don't understand is why nobody was able to shut him down on the issue. Apparently nobody wanted to say "We need to fly in polar orbit to look down on the Soviet Union," although that seemed to be really obvious. Perhaps the guy understood exactly what was going on, but he was using the issue to extract concessions or engage in some kind of power play or something. I dunno. But it was a weird situation.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michael Cassutt on 10/19/2015 10:53 pm

1-Was there a selection process similar to that for NASA astronauts?

2-Also, did the MOL astronauts have cover stories for use when on travel, etc.?


1-No. In fact, at least one of the MOL astronauts was told he had been selected and he had not even applied. Didn't mind that, but it was not like the NASA process--a number of the MOL guys were simply told that they were it.

2-Yes, according to an interview that Peterson did they had cover stories.

To the first, this is actually a no and yes.  In the fall of 1964, Chuck Yeager and Robert Buchanan, commandant and deputy commandant of the Aerospace Research Pilot School, were authorized (by AF Systems Command) to identify pilots for MOL.  They limited the pool to graduates or those about to graduate from ARPS, which gave them about fifty potential candidates.  They narrowed the list to 15 who were qualified, not too tall, available, and these fifteen were sent to Brooks AFB in late October 1964 for medicals.  A smaller number, on the order of ten, then faced a selection board at Andrews AFB.

Nine were assigned to the MOL program on a contingency basis, since the program had yet to receive formal approval.  The nine were the eight pilots eventually announced in November 1965, plus at least one other I have yet to identify with certainty.  (The candidates include Alexander Rupp, killed in a plane crash in the summer of 1965, Robert Beale, and Pete Knight, who was assigned to X-15 in early 1965.)

In August 1965, however, NASA began searching for more astronauts at the same time the Air Force was ramping up MOL.  (The program office wanted at least a dozen crew members.)  A joint solicitation was issued for pilots who had the option of applying for A) NASA or B) MOL or C) both.

Air Force and Navy test pilots who checked B and C wound up on the MOL path; 25 of them went through medical tests at Brooks in February 1966.  (According to their oral histories, Mattingly and Mitchell were in this group but were advised by a colleague at ARPS to shift there applications to the NASA track.)  In June the Systems Command board interviewed the finalists and selected 12 -- five ARPS graduates for immediate selection (MOL Group 2: Bobko, Crippen, Fullerton, Harstfield, Overmyer) and seven "contingency selects" who would attend ARPS beginning fall 1966.  This was MOL Group 3 and eventually produced Abrahamson, Herres, Lawrence, and Peterson.

Michael Cassutt
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 10/20/2015 06:19 am
About the T-38: one of the MOL astronaut, James Taylor, was killed in a T-38 crash in 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Taylor
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 10/20/2015 10:08 am
Really great article -- thanks!

Among other things, it is very interesting to read that astronauts' job was principally to look ahead along the ground track and ascertain which targets were free of cloud cover.  Presumably robotic spysats of the era lacked that capability and wasted much film on clouds.  Did film-return spysats develop the capability to avoid clouds at some point?  If so, was this a factor in MOL's cancelation?  Or were MOL's critics arguing that even if the robots snapped a lot of clouds, their much lower cost meant that, cloud-free image for cloud-free image, they were still cheaper than MOL?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Dalhousie on 10/20/2015 10:26 am
I wonder if (true/false?) not having high-performance jets at hand made the travel, of which I assume was extensive, more difficult?

Apparently the jets available to the MOL astronauts were rather poor quality. I believe they had T-33s, which were slow compared to T-38s.

Why was this the case?  The T-38 was a standard air force trainer at this time, presumably in some numbers, and the T-33 was getting rather long in the tooth by the standards of the day.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/20/2015 01:21 pm

Why was this the case?  The T-38 was a standard air force trainer at this time, presumably in some numbers, and the T-33 was getting rather long in the tooth by the standards of the day.


Availability and cost would be the likely reasons.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Dalhousie on 10/21/2015 05:18 am

Why was this the case?  The T-38 was a standard air force trainer at this time, presumably in some numbers, and the T-33 was getting rather long in the tooth by the standards of the day.


Availability and cost would be the likely reasons.

So NASA could afford T-38 trainers for its astronauts and the USAF could not, even though the T-38 was the standard advanced trainer at the time?  How many would they have needed? 
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/21/2015 12:33 pm
I think the Ai
So NASA could afford T-38 trainers for its astronauts and the USAF could not, even though the T-38 was the standard advanced trainer at the time?  How many would they have needed? 


I think the Air Force had other priorities. Remember they started buying them in 1961 as a much needed advanced trainer. Add in the needs of training new pilots for Vietnam and I think you have your answer. By the late 1960s Vietnam was chewing up pilots. To give you a personal example, my Grandfather flew in Korea and WWII was asked to reenlist. Sadly the physical flagged something that turned out to be cancer, but for that he would have gone.

T-38 production did not end until 1972, meaning the US Air Force had more demand than T-38s. NASA didn't have similar demands and had the budget to buy them.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/21/2015 03:13 pm
I think the Ai
So NASA could afford T-38 trainers for its astronauts and the USAF could not, even though the T-38 was the standard advanced trainer at the time?  How many would they have needed? 


I think the Air Force had other priorities. Remember they started buying them in 1961 as a much needed advanced trainer. Add in the needs of training new pilots for Vietnam and I think you have your answer. By the late 1960s Vietnam was chewing up pilots. To give you a personal example, my Grandfather flew in Korea and WWII was asked to reenlist. Sadly the physical flagged something that turned out to be cancer, but for that he would have gone.

T-38 production did not end until 1972, meaning the US Air Force had more demand than T-38s. NASA didn't have similar demands and had the budget to buy them.

Yeah. It's not a case of affording them, but of prioritizing them for MOL, which they didn't do. Remember that there was a war on.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/21/2015 03:14 pm
1-Also, will there be a web cast?  I only see mention of audio podcasts available post-lectures:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/TourPodcasts/Lecture.aspx (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/TourPodcasts/Lecture.aspx)

2-Are any forum members attending this lecture?


1-No.

2-Yes.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Dalhousie on 10/21/2015 10:57 pm
I think the Ai
So NASA could afford T-38 trainers for its astronauts and the USAF could not, even though the T-38 was the standard advanced trainer at the time?  How many would they have needed? 


I think the Air Force had other priorities. Remember they started buying them in 1961 as a much needed advanced trainer. Add in the needs of training new pilots for Vietnam and I think you have your answer. By the late 1960s Vietnam was chewing up pilots. To give you a personal example, my Grandfather flew in Korea and WWII was asked to reenlist. Sadly the physical flagged something that turned out to be cancer, but for that he would have gone.

T-38 production did not end until 1972, meaning the US Air Force had more demand than T-38s. NASA didn't have similar demands and had the budget to buy them.

Thanks.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/22/2015 12:44 pm
Lots of new MOL documents are up:

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html

And photos too:

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL_Pics.html


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/22/2015 01:30 pm
As proven before but confirmed by these documents, no MOL structural hardware was used on Skylab and that may be expanded to include all hardware upon further reading.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/22/2015 02:16 pm
As proven before but confirmed by these documents, no MOL structural hardware was used on Skylab and that may be expanded to include all hardware upon further reading.

I assume you mean documents like these. Looks like NASA got an IBM 360 out of it... Seems like many of the ground computers where in demand within both the Air Force and NASA

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/807.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/809.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/810.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/811.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/813.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/814.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/820.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/822.pdf


This one seems to list everything transferred to NASA. Notice included is waste management hardware and technology.
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/823.pdf
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/22/2015 04:52 pm
As proven before but confirmed by these documents, no MOL structural hardware was used on Skylab and that may be expanded to include all hardware upon further reading.

I assume you mean documents like these. Looks like NASA got an IBM 360 out of it... Seems like many of the ground computers where in demand within both the Air Force and NASA

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/807.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/809.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/810.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/811.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/813.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/814.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/820.pdf
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/822.pdf


This one seems to list everything transferred to NASA. Notice included is waste management hardware and technology.
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/823.pdf

Should have added flight hardware
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Ronpur50 on 10/23/2015 12:49 am
Lots of new MOL documents are up:

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html

And photos too:

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL_Pics.html

20,681 pages.  Wow.  I have some light reading to do.

The photos are easier to digest.  Are most of the shots of the test vehicle that flew, or do we know?
I really love this photo.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Ronpur50 on 10/23/2015 01:16 am
Is this artwork of a later design?

And the wind tunnel model has a lot of "bumps"!
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/23/2015 02:57 am
I thought that second photo was the rocket assisted plumger used to get stuck astronauts through the tunnel ;)

Gawd, I wish I had time to really dig through this data dump, really, really wish.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/23/2015 02:59 am
btw. That first photo looks like the "telescope" is pointed up. Maybe a proposed astronomy derivative?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/23/2015 03:09 am
Is this artwork of a later design?


No. That is for a civilian proposal. The contractor really tried to pitch a MOL derivative to NASA. NASA was already working on the Apollo Applications Program, so I don't know why the contractor thought they might be interested.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/23/2015 03:13 am
Apparently over 200 of the photos came from the Aerospace Corp.

Are there any good images of the camera system or the schematics released over a year ago? I have not had a chance to go through the material.

Re the Dayton discussion: Lots of people in attendance. Audio was lousy for the first half, improved for the second half. Abrahamson showed up, was not expected to make it here. Some good discussion. They gave out a MOL document collection book at the end. That is supposed to be available by pdf on the NRO website Friday in the morning.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kking on 10/23/2015 05:36 am
I hope somebody recorded video. But I did find this news report

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL7tKEe50q4

Kyle
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 10/23/2015 08:54 am
Do people in the know say "em-oh-ell" or "mol"?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/23/2015 10:07 am
Do people in the know say "em-oh-ell" or "mol"?

They said "mole."
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: DatUser14 on 10/23/2015 12:44 pm
I went to the lecture. It was fascinating, but it seemed that the panelists Didn't answer much in the way of questions. Dr Yarymovych seemed to be the best speaker of the group. I think I saw a few NSFer's in the audience.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Ronpur50 on 10/23/2015 12:50 pm
Do people in the know say "em-oh-ell" or "mol"?

They said "mole."

Oh, OK, so I have been doing it wrong.....lol

This is a serious amount of documents to browse through.  I will be glad when I have some time off to read a few.  I am very excited. 
 
Was there any word on Gemini Spacecraft that may have been started before the cancellation?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Ronpur50 on 10/23/2015 12:59 pm

Are there any good images of the camera system or the schematics released over a year ago? I have not had a chance to go through the material.



I did not see any at that link.  They are mainly construction photos, crew cabin mockups, some training in a pool, and spacesuits.  There are some really great photos of old computers to enjoy as well.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 10/23/2015 06:47 pm
Do people in the know say "em-oh-ell" or "mol"?

They said "mole."

Oh, OK, so I have been doing it wrong.....lol

Me, too.  I've always pronounced it "moll," as in a "gun moll."  Pronounced roughly the same as "mall," maybe a little rounder sound to the "o"...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: catdlr on 10/23/2015 11:58 pm
1960s Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory Development | Declassified Video

Published on Oct 23, 2015
In this silent films from the records of the United States Air Force, parts of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) spacecraft are showcased by men in white coats. According to the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the mission was "to place military personnel in orbit to conduct scientific experiments to determine the 'military usefulness' of placing man into space."

Source:
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL/molm.wmv (http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL/molm.wmv)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy-PtX6HxFU
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/25/2015 11:27 am
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: simonbp on 10/25/2015 02:41 pm
Slightly cleaned up versions of the geosync command post from document #794, "General Electric Company Briefing Charts, Advanced MOL Planning; Missions and Systems". Note the use of laser comms!
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/25/2015 04:09 pm
Note that the advanced MOL planning document was actually completed after the program had already been canceled.

I've done a preliminary pass through the documents and when you do that you get a sense of how the program evolved. When it started out, the reconnaissance mission was more along the lines of "see what astronauts can do for reconnaissance." It then evolved into an operational mission in clear support of strategic reconnaissance requirements. But the number of qualification, manned, and unmanned flights was always shifting. It was not until around 1968 that they decided to go straight for manned flights with no qualification flights (I cannot remember if they also did away with the unmanned option, I'd have to check my notes). That delayed the program even more. In remarks on Thursday night, Abrahamson said that it immediately added a year onto their schedule (probably because they could not have all the operational equipment ready until later).

A number of things have impressed me from the documents. The document collection is quite comprehensive and covers a lot of material. What really comes through is just how complex MOL was. It was human spaceflight, SIGINT, radar, and high-performance optics, plus a near-real-time option. They seem to have bitten off more than they could chew, and they started eliminating some of those missions. The radar and SIGINT missions were eliminated. But the unmanned mission option in some ways added complexity to the overall program, because they now had to design for two different spacecraft, and consider retaining operability between the two (in other words, the ability to fly either manned or unmanned).

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: simonbp on 10/25/2015 04:09 pm
As proven before but confirmed by these documents, no MOL structural hardware was used on Skylab and that may be expanded to include all hardware upon further reading.

I'm kind of surprised they didn't use the MOL airlock; that would have seemed to a logical transplant.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/25/2015 04:34 pm
The panel discussion. From left, Abrahamson, Bobko, Crews, NASA official Michael Yarymovych, Truly, Crippen. The two men on the right are from NRO.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/25/2015 04:55 pm
Note that the advanced MOL planning document was actually completed after the program had already been canceled.

Often things are left dangling like this to allow ambiguity and "plausible deniability" adaption. Once you know which way the script's doing to go, then you can articulate and fix for all time.

Quote
I've done a preliminary pass through the documents and when you do that you get a sense of how the program evolved. When it started out, the reconnaissance mission was more along the lines of "see what astronauts can do for reconnaissance." It then evolved into an operational mission in clear support of strategic reconnaissance requirements.

Not the way I read the documents.  Suggest "mission/scope creep" to an always operational program, where too many things might be changing in different related areas (technology, capability, need, means to address).

Quote
A number of things have impressed me from the documents. The document collection is quite comprehensive and covers a lot of material. What really comes through is just how complex MOL was. It was human spaceflight, SIGINT, radar, and high-performance optics, plus a near-real-time option. They seem to have bitten off more than they could chew, and they started eliminating some of those missions. The radar and SIGINT missions were eliminated.

Suggest that early in the program, all of this seemed to be of whole cloth, building upon the same platform with minor variation. But perhaps as the above mentioned creep occured, the cost and execution necessary to close the combined mission exploded on them. Complexity grew too fast. Like with following, overly ambitious programs as well?

Quote
But the unmanned mission option in some ways added complexity to the overall program, because they now had to design for two different spacecraft, and consider retaining operability between the two (in other words, the ability to fly either manned or unmanned).

Agree with this. Suggest once the two programs intersected, the manned program was on a short leash/life. Because the unmanned then need only mature and establish a believable timeline for improvement, with the manned program only serving to act as a budgetary reserve for the unmanned program to consume following cancellation.

Perhaps the better choice for AF was to fly the same hardware as a unmanned, docked with Gemini, much much earlier in the program, as a means of advancing systems check out, intelligence quality and assessment, with the longer term goal operations. However McNamara was skeptical of AF getting returns off of "non operational assets" like this might suggest. Also, the unmanned and manned sides, not to mention NASA, would likely still have fought the turf through not agreeing on scope/mission details, even though the needed experience might have advanced all programs equally for minimal near term investment in actual missions, instead of the bloated studies and erratic overdevelopment that did apparently occur - out too far in front of the headlights.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/26/2015 04:25 pm
Note that the document compendium that I mentioned earlier is here:

http://www.nro.gov/history/csnr/programs/docs/MOL_Compendium_August_2015.pdf

This is a 36-megabyte file, so be forewarned.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michael Cassutt on 10/26/2015 06:00 pm
I think the Ai
So NASA could afford T-38 trainers for its astronauts and the USAF could not, even though the T-38 was the standard advanced trainer at the time?  How many would they have needed? 


I think the Air Force had other priorities. Remember they started buying them in 1961 as a much needed advanced trainer. Add in the needs of training new pilots for Vietnam and I think you have your answer. By the late 1960s Vietnam was chewing up pilots. To give you a personal example, my Grandfather flew in Korea and WWII was asked to reenlist. Sadly the physical flagged something that turned out to be cancer, but for that he would have gone.

T-38 production did not end until 1972, meaning the US Air Force had more demand than T-38s. NASA didn't have similar demands and had the budget to buy them.

Thanks.

The fascinating document dump from NRO on MOL turns up a few pages that address this question, Monthly Status Reports for 10/66, 11/66 and 01/67.  The MOL office originally wanted two F-104s and two T-38s based at Edwards, two T-39s at LAX, and five T-38s at NAS Los Alamitos.

HQ USAF and, based on a handwritten note, NRO Director Flax, thought this excessive or premature.  (At this time there were only seven MOL aerospace research pilots on station in Los Angeles, with five more then at Edwards.)

When finally approved, aircraft support for MOL was two T-38s at Edwards, one T-39 at LAX, and three T-33s eventually to be based at LAX.

Michael Cassutt
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/27/2015 02:28 am
When finally approved, aircraft support for MOL was two T-38s at Edwards, one T-39 at LAX, and three T-33s eventually to be based at LAX.


It would not surprise me if the LAX-based planes were already at LAX. Los Angeles Air Force Base didn't/doesn't have a runway. Many major airports, even if they lack an Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard facility, often have a government hangar to support government planes. I would not be surprised if there was an LAAFB hangar at LAX that had a few planes for use by the generals and senior officers. The T-33s might have already been there and were simply given to the astronauts.

I think Truly told me that he thought the T-33s were crappy. Surely going from test pilot school to a slow T-33 must have seemed like a demotion.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michael Cassutt on 10/28/2015 02:03 pm
Digging through last week's NRO releases I found this statement regarding MOL astronauts and their possible return to earth in hostile territory:

"MOL astronauts will be provided with no instructions, devices or equipments for purposes of bringing about their personal destruction in the event of incident. Any equipments provided to astronauts for purposes of survival, will undergo careful screening against a standard of practical application, to insure that the purpose of such equipments can logically be defended as not intended to bring about the death or injury of other-individuals, or to induce such individuals to act in a manner contrary to their allegiance."

So, no "suicide pill" for MOL astronauts -- and no "survival pistol".  (Use of plural is sic, btw.)

The statement (and entire policy) originated in the office of Alexander Flax, DNRO, on 28 December 1966, and was reproduced in an official AF policy statement dated January 1967.

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/321.pdf

Michael Cassutt
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/30/2015 02:51 am
Audio of the panel discussion is now up:
 
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Portals/7/av/mol_panel.mp3?ver=2015-10-28-121530-427
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/01/2015 06:12 pm
I'll have another MOL article in TSR on Monday. This is not part 2 of my MOL astronauts article (I still need to write that). Instead, this article looks at the program goals, costs, and schedule over its four-year duration. How much was it estimated to cost when it started? What was it estimated to cost when it ended? And how many manned MOL flights were planned at the start and by the cancellation?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 11/02/2015 08:20 pm
I certainly can't find any support for the structures being transferred next door to Skylab, and the photography shows structural components very different from known Skylab hardware. However, those very same photos of hardware beg the question of what happened to them? So far, there is no mention of disposition of partially complete modules in any of the PDFs that I have read.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were absorbed by an unmanned program.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 11/02/2015 09:40 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if they were absorbed by an unmanned program.

No again.  There is no need for pressurized volumes  (especially 10' diameter) for unmanned programs.  There is nothing similar on Hexagon and the only other 10' diameter program, KH-11, would be more likely have hardware from it.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/03/2015 12:36 am
Looking at the diagram of the telescope, can I ask a question?

Without numbers, it looks like the folding mirror is a much smaller diameter than the primary (which we know was 72"). Anyone know the size?

Also, f5/f6?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/03/2015 12:39 am

I wouldn't be surprised if they were absorbed by an unmanned program.

No again.  There is no need for pressurized volumes  (especially 10' diameter) for unmanned programs.  There is nothing similar on Hexagon and the only other 10' diameter program, KH-11, would be more likely have hardware from it.

Ascension mini series on SciFi? Or would Capricorn One be more of Jim's time period ;)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/03/2015 12:42 am
I certainly can't find any support for the structures being transferred next door to Skylab, and the photography shows structural components very different from known Skylab hardware. However, those very same photos of hardware beg the question of what happened to them? So far, there is no mention of disposition of partially complete modules in any of the PDFs that I have read.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were absorbed by an unmanned program.

Let's be honest, guys -- once the program was canceled, the workshop hardware that was under construction was almost definitely scrapped.  Optics may have been recycled into other surveillance satellites, and installed electronic components and wiring may have been salvaged, but the pressure vessels, structural members, etc., probably went the same way as the LMs for Apollos 19 and 20 that had been started and not completed, i.e., into the scrap bins.

I know that a heck of a lot of the razor blades sold in the U.S. in the late 1940s were made from the recycled steel hulls of scrapped WWII naval destroyers; who knows, if you purchased lawn furniture in the 1970s, maybe it had a bit of the aluminum from the MOL structures in it... ;)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/03/2015 12:42 am
New article is up:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2858/1

Blue suits and red ink
Budget overruns and schedule slips of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program

by Dwayne Day
Monday, November 2, 2015


In the late 1960s, Dr. John McLucas served as undersecretary of the Air Force and wore a dual hat as Director of the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). McLucas had been involved in numerous air and space programs over many years, and he headed the NRO when the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) had run into major funding and schedule problems, resulting in Richard Nixon canceling it in summer 1969. MOL had been a big project officially approved by Lyndon Johnson in 1965. According to his 2006 memoir Reflections of a Technocrat (written with Kenneth J. Alnwick and Lawrence R. Benson), McLucas was not in favor of MOL and did not fight its cancellation. In the mid-1990s, in response to a question, McLucas remarked that his problem with MOL was that “It was always one year and one billion dollars from being ready.”
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/03/2015 01:00 am
Let's be honest, guys -- once the program was canceled, the workshop hardware that was under construction was almost definitely scrapped.  Optics may have been recycled into other surveillance satellites, and installed electronic components and wiring may have been salvaged, but the pressure vessels, structural members, etc., probably went the same way as the LMs for Apollos 19 and 20 that had been started and not completed, i.e., into the scrap bins.

We do know the 72" primary mirrors where donated to NSF(?) and used for the MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona. They where removed in 1998 when a 6.5 meter spin cast mirror was made available by Roger Angel's team at UofA.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/03/2015 01:58 am
We do know the 72" primary mirrors where donated to NSF(?) and used for the MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona. They where removed in 1998 when a 6.5 meter spin cast mirror was made available by Roger Angel's team at UofA.

Last I had heard the mirrors were still in storage at the base of the mountain. I asked somebody to photograph them for me (they're in crates, so not much to see), but they never came through.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Ronpur50 on 11/03/2015 04:33 am
New article is up:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2858/1

I don't know what you wrote in this article, but for some reason, I can't get it to open.  I hope you didn't put something still classified!  LOL.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kch on 11/03/2015 05:50 am
New article is up:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2858/1

I don't know what you wrote in this article, but for some reason, I can't get it to open.  I hope you didn't put something still classified!  LOL.

I'm having the same trouble ...

EDIT:  just tried going to the main page via search engine -- still won't open.  Wonder if the site's down?  Anybody else tried the article link?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 11/03/2015 06:34 am

New article is up:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2858/1

I don't know what you wrote in this article, but for some reason, I can't get it to open.  I hope you didn't put something still classified!  LOL.

I'm having the same trouble ...

EDIT:  just tried going to the main page via search engine -- still won't open.  Wonder if the site's down?  Anybody else tried the article link?

Same here can't get the link to open.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/03/2015 10:00 am
Working for me... wonder if it was a temporary glitch.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 11/03/2015 02:56 pm
Let's be honest, guys -- once the program was canceled, the workshop hardware that was under construction was almost definitely scrapped.  Optics may have been recycled into other surveillance satellites, and installed electronic components and wiring may have been salvaged, but the pressure vessels, structural members, etc., probably went the same way as the LMs for Apollos 19 and 20 that had been started and not completed, i.e., into the scrap bins.

We do know the 72" primary mirrors where donated to NSF(?) and used for the MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona. They where removed in 1998 when a 6.5 meter spin cast mirror was made available by Roger Angel's team at UofA.
Let's be honest, guys -- once the program was canceled, the workshop hardware that was under construction was almost definitely scrapped.  Optics may have been recycled into other surveillance satellites, and installed electronic components and wiring may have been salvaged, but the pressure vessels, structural members, etc., probably went the same way as the LMs for Apollos 19 and 20 that had been started and not completed, i.e., into the scrap bins.

We do know the 72" primary mirrors where donated to NSF(?) and used for the MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona. They where removed in 1998 when a 6.5 meter spin cast mirror was made available by Roger Angel's team at UofA.

Not only on the MMT: looks like someone else was given one of the MOL mirrors and build his own private telescope around it
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg1090815#msg1090815
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Ronpur50 on 11/04/2015 09:47 pm
Working for me... wonder if it was a temporary glitch.

It is working here now.

Edit: and a great article as well!
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 11/04/2015 10:36 pm
My point concerning the remaining hardware is really just to note that so far, I have not found a document describing the disposition of the completed primary structures, although there are many that concern various computers.

I also saw in the photos that a large machine that produced a corregated  material for primary structures was being used - I think such material was used on later Titan flights for interstages, so perhaps the machinery lived on.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 11/05/2015 01:03 am

I also saw in the photos that a large machine that produced a corregated  material for primary structures was being used - I think such material was used on later Titan flights for interstages, so perhaps the machinery lived on.

Titan was made by Martin, so no.  Additionally, there is no corrugated material on Titan.  And further more, it would not be able to be used in the role as an interstage.  The loads are completely different.

Just because the hardware existed at one time, doesn't mean it was reused or saved.  It all could have been scrapped
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/05/2015 01:07 am
The building that McDonnell built for MOL assembly later got used for (I think) Delta II. So the facilities lived on.

If you look at the comments in my article, one anonymous poster who may know some stuff says that the contract termination costs were pretty high, so a lot of money went to that.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Danderman on 11/05/2015 02:03 pm
MOL was constructed in Huntington Beach in a building with at least 2 bays, one was used for MOL, the other for Skylab. The MOL bay was later used for DC-X.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: simonbp on 11/05/2015 02:31 pm
Let's be honest, guys -- once the program was canceled, the workshop hardware that was under construction was almost definitely scrapped.  Optics may have been recycled into other surveillance satellites, and installed electronic components and wiring may have been salvaged, but the pressure vessels, structural members, etc., probably went the same way as the LMs for Apollos 19 and 20 that had been started and not completed, i.e., into the scrap bins.

We do know the 72" primary mirrors where donated to NSF(?) and used for the MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona. They where removed in 1998 when a 6.5 meter spin cast mirror was made available by Roger Angel's team at UofA.

No, they were donated to the Smithsonian, which transferred them to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO). SAO had already been looking at multi-mirror telescopes, and so when the MOL optics became available in 1970, they started discussions with the University of Arizona about building what became the original MMT.

https://www.mmto.org/node/288
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/05/2015 02:53 pm
Thanks for the correction.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 11/05/2015 04:10 pm
So only four Gemini-B ? The last NASA Gemini mission was late 1966, so the four ships must have followed them closely in order not to interrupt McDonnell Gemini production line. Perhaps those four Gemini-B were build in 1967, then placed into storage, waiting for the other half of MOL that was never build
(first flight was planned for 1971, so that would be four years spent in storage ? is that reasonnable ?)

The unmanned MOL is somewhat bizarre - better to spent the money on KH-8s that are already operational since 1966 and provide equal resolution of some inches.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/05/2015 05:51 pm
So only four Gemini-B ? The last NASA Gemini mission was late 1966, so the four ships must have followed them closely in order not to interrupt McDonnell Gemini production line. Perhaps those four Gemini-B were build in 1967, then placed into storage, waiting for the other half of MOL that was never build
(first flight was planned for 1971, so that would be four years spent in storage ? is that reasonnable ?)


There is no indication of any flight Gemini Bs built other than the mockups.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: jcm on 11/05/2015 06:25 pm
Let's be honest, guys -- once the program was canceled, the workshop hardware that was under construction was almost definitely scrapped.  Optics may have been recycled into other surveillance satellites, and installed electronic components and wiring may have been salvaged, but the pressure vessels, structural members, etc., probably went the same way as the LMs for Apollos 19 and 20 that had been started and not completed, i.e., into the scrap bins.

We do know the 72" primary mirrors where donated to NSF(?) and used for the MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona. They where removed in 1998 when a 6.5 meter spin cast mirror was made available by Roger Angel's team at UofA.

No, they were donated to the Smithsonian, which transferred them to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO). SAO had already been looking at multi-mirror telescopes, and so when the MOL optics became available in 1970, they started discussions with the University of Arizona about building what became the original MMT.

https://www.mmto.org/node/288


I used the6-MOL-mirror MMT several times in the 1990s for spectroscopic observations of quasars. It was very
cool to watch the telescope operator sync up the mirrors every hour or so - on the video screen the six superimposed images
would whiz away from each other into a ring, then reconverge to a single point.

 We heard the scuttlebutt that the mirrors were from a USAF space program, but no-one here now seems to have been aware that it was MOL.
Probably Fred Whipple (director at the time) knew, he had connections with the DoD space folks dating back to his involvement
in the White Sands V-2 program. And Baker (of the Baker-Nunn) had CORONA connections so it's possiblehe was involved.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kking on 11/05/2015 11:32 pm
I am wondering about something. I just watched Astrospies again, I wonder how come we didn't training films on the NRO site along with the 3 minute film that is there. Plus I would love to see film or video of the November 1966 launch. If the NRO has it, I hope they put it online someday. The films would have to be declassified or it wouldn't be in Astrospies.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/06/2015 03:00 am
I am wondering about something. I just watched Astrospies again, I wonder how come we didn't training films on the NRO site along with the 3 minute film that is there. Plus I would love to see film or video of the November 1966 launch. If the NRO has it, I hope they put it online someday. The films would have to be declassified or it wouldn't be in Astrospies.

There's more material available than what the NRO put out. But what they released is primarily new stuff, not things that were previously available.

I've got a ton of stuff that they didn't access and release. For instance, I've got several thousand pages of early documentation on the program that does not mention the optical system. Also a lot of photos of underwater stuff. And I don't think they released photos of the astronaut class. Los Angeles AFB should have some of that stuff and I don't think it made it into the NRO release.

What they released is great stuff. It's a really good and extensive collection. But there's other stuff that is out there to find. (Personally, I think one area deserving more attention is the work that went into the construction of SLC-6, including the land seizures. There's a story to be told there.)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 11/06/2015 01:41 pm
From the MOL compendium document

Quote
Subsequently, at Hubbard’s suggestion, NASA awarded a study contract to Eastman Kodak (20 January 1970) to undertake a rigorous analysis of what astronomical use could be made of MOL hardware.
The equipment, meanwhile, was stored at the Eastman facility pending NASA’s review of the study and its decision about a future approach.11

The mind wonder... what influence did the MOL (for example, the 72 inch mirrors) had on the Large Space Telescope (not Hubble yet) ?
Early on Hubble mirror was to be 120 inch (3 m) in diameter. Then it was downsized to 94 inch (2. 4 m)

Perhaps NASA briefly considered a "Hubble demonstrator" with a 72 inch mirror borrowed from the MOL ? (this echoes the 2012 FIA satellites to be turned into WFIRST)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Hoonte on 11/09/2015 10:11 am
Where there any experiments done on one of the Gemini flights concerning MOL?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/09/2015 11:53 am
Where there any experiments done on one of the Gemini flights concerning MOL?

At least some of the experiments that were originally planned for MOL, such as the maneuvering unit, were transferred over to Gemini. I don't know when or why all that happened, but it may be in the documents that were released.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Hoonte on 11/09/2015 01:40 pm
Where there any experiments done on one of the Gemini flights concerning MOL?

At least some of the experiments that were originally planned for MOL, such as the maneuvering unit, were transferred over to Gemini. I don't know when or why all that happened, but it may be in the documents that were released.

Aah. I had always wondered why the AMU flew on 9a. Was this already a long known fact that it was linked to MOL or did this just came public on the recent release of MOL documents?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/09/2015 01:45 pm
Where there any experiments done on one of the Gemini flights concerning MOL?

At least some of the experiments that were originally planned for MOL, such as the maneuvering unit, were transferred over to Gemini. I don't know when or why all that happened, but it may be in the documents that were released.

Aah. I had always wondered why the AMU flew on 9a. Was this already a long known fact that it was linked to MOL or did this just came public on the recent release of MOL documents?

Known for a long time. I have a list of original MOL experiments that I think I posted up-thread. It was one of the original ones on there.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/10/2015 05:45 am
Well... I will just add that the AMU, as the major Air Force engineering experiment planned as part of mainline Gemini, was also a legacy of a pre-MOL attempt by DoD to engineer Gemini into a half-NASA, half-Air Force program.  With alternating flights being manned by NASA and Air Force crews, no less.  This trial balloon was quickly shot down pretty thoroughly, but it left as a legacy a joint NASA/Air Force Experiments Planning Board (downgraded from the original board that was supposed to jointly manage the entire program), which primarily worked on getting AMU and a few more minor Air Force/DoD experiments onto the Gemini flight program.

So, even had MOL never been approved and funded as a program, I'm thinking that AMU would have been included in the Gemini program anyway.  Hard to say, though, how hard the Air Force would have pushed for it had they known that MOL would never fly.

Other DoD experiments during Gemini likely were in direct support of MOL development and planning, though.  I recall one experiment, that was flown on at least two flights, in which one of the crew would try and locate ground features by naked eye, and the other would try to locate the same features through a video camera/monitor system.  That sounds like a pretty well-directed experiment to determine whether or not a planned MOL video monitoring (or perhaps sighting) system would give fine enough resolution for the MOL crews to find it useful, as opposed to needing to develop some kind of purely optical sighting system.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 11/10/2015 09:47 am
I believe the Titan 34D was based on components developed for MOL's Titan 3M.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Antilope7724 on 12/09/2015 12:01 am
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co (MDAC) was a major contractor for
the Manned Orbiting Laboratory and also for the Apollo Applications Program (AAP)
which became Skylab.

On November 5, 1969 there were Congressional hearings where MDAC was questioned
about the cancellation of MOL and the transfer of MOL hardware to the AAP program.

Here's a link to a printed copy of those congressional hearings. I have also
included a a graphic slide and testimony text concerning the transfer of
MOL hardware to the AAP program (pages 330 and 331).

Google scanned the document and it is available at the Hathi Trust website.
This may only be viewable from within the U.S. due to copyright issues.

Link to congressional hearing testimony about MDAC transfer of MOL hardware to AAP - page 325 to 331
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112104054538;view=1up;seq=335
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 12/09/2015 07:26 am
Quote
Hathi Trust website

Looks like a treasure trove, I have to do some extended research through it
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Antilope7724 on 12/11/2015 12:37 am
Manned Orbiting Laboratory Launch facilities...

Hearing, Eighty-ninth Congress, second session, February 24, 1966,

"Launch facilities for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program." 81 pages

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b642824;view=1up;seq=5 (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b642824;view=1up;seq=5)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/11/2016 07:44 pm
Does anybody remember seeing any mention of the "DONKEY" payload in the MOL documents? D ONKEY was a comint payload that was started as part of MOL, but then removed from MOL and flown on an Agena signals intelligence satellite instead. I have some material on it, but I'm trying to remember if any of the 800-plus MOL documents refer to DONKEY. Any tips?


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Antilope7724 on 05/12/2016 02:31 am
Does anybody remember seeing any mention of the "D ONKEY" payload in the MOL documents? D ONKEY was a comint payload that was started as part of MOL, but then removed from MOL and flown on an Agena signals intelligence satellite instead. I have some material on it, but I'm trying to remember if any of the 800-plus MOL documents refer to D ONKEY. Any tips?



A Google search brought up this PDF document that mentions DONKEY AND DORIAN  on the same page of an intelligence report, but in this document, they appear to be separate projects.

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/aftrack/51.pdf (http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/aftrack/51.pdf)

Here is a PDF document that mentions DONKEY and MOL.

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/aftrack/49.pdf (http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/aftrack/49.pdf)

Mention of DONKEY and MOL on PDF page 18 (document page 136):

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/aftrack/56.pdf (http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/aftrack/56.pdf)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/12/2016 03:52 am
Thanks. I've got those. They are from the AFTRACK collection. I'm wondering if there is something in the MOL document collection that I've missed.

DONKEY is a bit confusing based upon those sources. The history indicates that it started as a MOL program and was then spun off. But document 49 above implies that it may have been parallel or augmenting the MOL sigint program. I think it was the former, and that the document is simply badly worded.

Note that DONKEY had a 6-foot parabolic dish and the SQUARE TWENTY comint payload had a 10-foot parabolic dish.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Ronpur50 on 07/22/2016 10:02 pm
Mike Jenne, author of the Blue Gemini novels took a trip to Huntsville and photographed the adapter for the Gemini-B mockup.  It is sitting in the grass with a bunch of weeds growing inside of it.  He is hoping to organize a restoration, and perhaps it can be reunited with it's capsule mockup in Dayton. 

http://mikejennebooks.com/gemini_b_pics.htm
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/23/2016 09:09 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3049/1

Through the looking glass
by Dwayne Day
Monday, August 22, 2016

The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) was expensive, especially for a military space program that was already expanding rapidly in the 1960s while the Vietnam War was ramping up. Although nowhere near as pricey as Apollo, MOL was still a substantial expenditure, involving the procurement of a major optical system, human spaceflight systems—including Gemini spacecraft—and new large rockets to boost MOL into orbit. By the time it was canceled in summer 1969, MOL’s price tag had doubled to more than $3 billion, and its schedule had repeatedly slipped.

When it was canceled, program officials sought out potential customers of the MOL hardware that had already been built. MOL officials within the secret National Reconnaissance Office that was responsible for it made inquiries to NASA offering their hardware and large optics technology, trying to make lemonade out of the lemons of the cancellation decision. Among the most expensive and unique pieces of MOL hardware were more than half a dozen large mirrors that were a key component in MOL’s large KH-10 DORIAN camera system.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/23/2016 09:58 pm
I should add that a little bird gave me the idea to write that article. I wrote an article about MOL and the MMT back in 2009:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1371/1

That was long before the October 2015 MOL declassification. When the NRO declassified a bunch of MOL documents, among them were a bunch about what to do with MOL hardware. There was also a document about Project COLT, which was the proposal to use the MOL mirrors in a ground-based telescope. I saw those documents at the time and thought they were interesting, but somebody reminded me of them and so I decided to write an article.

The connection between reconnaissance programs and astronomy is worth further attention.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 08/24/2016 11:20 am
The key person that connected MOL to MMT was Aden Meinel. I wonder how he handled all that highly classified secrecy surrounding the NRO, an agency which was known to exist since the 70's but was only revealed by the U.S government in 1992.

It would be interesting to known what legal punishment would have happened to someone revealing the NRO existence and details to the outside world (I don't mean a Soviet spy, rather a poor shmo telling too much to his family or friends by mistake)
National trahison ?

(by the way, was disclosure of the NRO allowed by the end of Cold War ? I mean, had Cold War not stopped, would the NRO very existence remained classified ?)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/24/2016 12:20 pm
It would be interesting to known what legal punishment would have happened to someone revealing the NRO existence and details to the outside world (I don't mean a Soviet spy, rather a poor shmo telling too much to his family or friends by mistake)
National trahison ?

(by the way, was disclosure of the NRO allowed by the end of Cold War ? I mean, had Cold War not stopped, would the NRO very existence remained classified ?)

Several things:

-If a contractor who had access to the NRO revealed the existence of the NRO publicly during the Cold War, the most likely punishment would have been revoking security clearances and firing the employee. Only if they revealed a lot of information would they have been arrested. There is always the desire of the government to minimize how much information gets revealed and how public everything is. Usually they wanted to bury the issue, not draw attention to it. With rare exceptions.

-Like many of these issues (Area 51 is a great case) people don't realize that with declassification it is rarely like night and day, off and on--it is almost never the case that nothing is known or public, and then suddenly the government declassifies something. So in the case of the NRO, the existence of satellite reconnaissance had been publicly revealed by the U.S. government in the later 1970s. I think that the name of the organization was also publicly revealed then as well. So there was government confirmation of this stuff (not just leaks) long before 1992. Same was true of the KH-11, which was mentioned in publicly released documents long before it started showing up in NRO brochures. (Area 51 is the same way--there were actually press releases about the Groom Lake base in the 1950s. It was not a complete dark secret.)

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: gosnold on 08/24/2016 06:12 pm
Interesting, as said in the article the NRO may have been using this as a proof of concept for segmented apertures, as a precursor to the segmented mirror space telescope demonstrator:
http://www.nps.edu/About/News/NPS-New-Home-for-Giant-Segmented-Mirror-Space-Telescope-.html (http://www.nps.edu/About/News/NPS-New-Home-for-Giant-Segmented-Mirror-Space-Telescope-.html)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Hoonte on 10/14/2016 10:11 am
Maybe a bit side tracking but is this a mol suit? From a 1991 documentary at 27:40



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcVUXhefYvc
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/20/2018 04:34 pm
The measure of a man: Evaluating the role of astronauts in the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program (part 1)
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, March 19, 2018

http://thespacereview.com/article/3456/1


The Manned Orbiting Laboratory program was formally initiated by President Lyndon Johnson in August 1965, although MOL had been under low-key development since early 1964. Johnson publicly announced the program, justifying it in rather generic terms. According to Johnson, MOL was intended to determine if astronauts could perform militarily useful missions in space, without specifying what military missions the Air Force was interested in. The first group of MOL astronauts was announced in November 1965, and they quickly disappeared from public view. But what has never been fully answered is exactly what the MOL astronauts would do in orbit. Until now, their specific tasks—and the reason for putting them into space in the first place—have been shrouded in secrecy.

While the public justification for MOL was vague, and publicly it was an Air Force program, MOL had a secret but clearly defined mission, and a secret sponsor: the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). MOL would carry a powerful reconnaissance camera, code-named DORIAN, bigger than any optical system yet developed for space. The two astronauts onboard would point the camera at specific targets with higher precision than automatic systems could then accomplish. They would adjust the system and decide if the target was of sufficient interest to photograph, and they would also report what they saw to the ground. The astronauts would fly into orbit inside a modified Gemini spacecraft mounted atop the MOL laboratory, which featured a pressurized living compartment and a large unpressurized “equipment” compartment that housed the optical system.

A few months after MOL entered development, program managers decided to also develop an unmanned version of MOL, replacing the pressurized laboratory and Gemini spacecraft with a forward section carrying several smaller reentry vehicles that would be filled with exposed film. The purpose of the unmanned system would be a sort of insurance policy in case political considerations made a manned reconnaissance platform unacceptable. This decision naturally raised the question of why astronauts were needed at all if MOL could operate without them.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/27/2018 12:48 am
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3461/1

The measure of a man: Evaluating the role of astronauts in the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program (part 2)

by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, March 26, 2018


In May 1966, the MOL program office produced a fast-track study evaluating the value of astronauts aboard the Manned Orbiting Laboratory in low Earth orbit. MOL was started in August 1965 and by the end of that year had evolved into both manned and unmanned spacecraft equipped with the same powerful camera system known as DORIAN. A group of Air Force officers in the program office had sought to determine and explain why astronauts were needed at all if it was possible to build the spacecraft to operate without them. They concluded that astronauts still had important roles to play in various aspects of MOL operations, particularly achieving full mission success early in the program compared to the unmanned MOL, which would require multiple missions before achieving mission success and reliability (see “The measure of a man (part 1)”, The Space Review, March 19, 2018).

Throughout 1966 and 1967 the MOL spacecraft design began to take shape. Engineers at Douglas, which was designing the spacecraft; Eastman Kodak, which was designing the DORIAN optical system; and numerous other contractors responsible for various subsystems were refining their designs and determining how astronauts would operate the spacecraft. McDonnell was working on the Gemini-B, a modified version of NASA’s Gemini spacecraft, and they merged with Douglas in April 1967. The companies were building increasingly higher-fidelity mockups of the major systems to work out how the astronauts would operate the spacecraft and its many subsystems.

One of the primary recommendations of the May 1966 report was that the program office should undertake formal studies to quantify the value of man in the MOL program and stop making vague guesses: prove it, rather than assert it. By summer 1967, numerous studies were underway or completed and the program office produced another, significantly updated report on the value of astronauts for the MOL reconnaissance mission. The report, “Contributions of Man in the MOL Program,” provides substantial insight into exactly what the Air Force, and the secretive National Reconnaissance Office, expected military astronauts to do aboard the orbiting space station.

After all the simulation and modeling and hardware development, the role of the astronauts on MOL was much better defined. Their tasks fell into two main categories: optimizing and maintaining the camera system and operating it to maximize the intelligence that could be collected. One of the most important responsibilities for the astronauts was focusing the powerful DORIAN camera that was at the heart of the spacecraft and its mission.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 03/27/2018 07:26 am
Ok, so that's the main difference between KH-8 and KH-10. Same resolution (4 inch) but KH-10 has the astronauts with some real role to play in the system, albeit limited and at a very high cost.

This article is interesting because it shows the Air Force tackling that very old question: is man-in-space useful in any way ? what astronauts can do a Gambit can't ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/27/2018 12:42 pm
Ok, so that's the main difference between KH-8 and KH-10. Same resolution (4 inch) but KH-10 has the astronauts with some real role to play in the system, albeit limited and at a very high cost.


Yes and no. In 1967, it was expected that KH-8 GAMBIT-3 would probably have about 1-foot resolution. DORIAN was planned to have 4-6 inch resolution. GAMBIT-3 eventually got down to about 2.5 inches, but that was with fine-tuning.

There is an accidentally-declassified document that states that GAMBIT-3 got to 4 inches, but I know somebody whose job at one point included doing ground-truth measurements for GAMBIT-3 late in the program, meaning that he looked at the photos and then looked at the actual test objects on the ground that appeared in the photos. He said that's how they determined the ~2.5-inch maximum.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 03/27/2018 01:44 pm
(all hail the metric system !)

1 foot: 30 cm
...
6 inch: 15 cm
4 inch: 10 cm
2 inch: 5 cm
...

What kind of extremelly small details was the NRO interested about ? Reading car identification plates ? For something as big and massive as a T-72 tank, does 30 cm or 10 cm makes a difference ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: nacnud on 03/27/2018 02:42 pm
For something as big and massive as a T-72 tank, does 30 cm or 10 cm makes a difference ?

Probably.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/27/2018 02:43 pm
(all hail the metric system !)

I work in Washington DC as a space policy analyst and wear a cowboy hat to work. Screw the metric system.


What kind of extremelly small details was the NRO interested about ? Reading car identification plates ? For something as big and massive as a T-72 tank, does 30 cm or 10 cm makes a difference ?

I guess you'll have to wait for part 3 of my article to find out...

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/27/2018 06:49 pm
I guess you'll have to wait for part 3 of my article to find out...
The 51-year-old, newly-declassified suspense is killing me! :)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/29/2018 01:01 pm
I guess you'll have to wait for part 3 of my article to find out...
The 51-year-old, newly-declassified suspense is killing me! :)

Okay, I won't be a tease, especially because I'm probably going to delay part 3 by at least a week because I want to run a different article instead.

It is not entirely clear what targets were driving the high-resolution imagery requirement that was the justification for MOL/DORIAN. So far I have only found references to two examples: Soviet ABM missiles and another one that was deleted from the document. Of course, the deleted one is intriguing. One of my guesses is that it might have been the propellers of Soviet submarines, because that was specifically mentioned to me as a high value target by a photo-interpreter many years ago. Of course, they could only be spotted when they were outside during submarine construction, either being taken to the submarine yard, or when they were on a submarine that was about to be launched. Get a photo of that at high-resolution and maybe you could model the propeller's characteristics.

But to get an idea, you should look up the NIIRS list:

NIIRS 8 [0.10 - 0.20 m Ground Resolved Distance]


Visible
Identify the rivet lines on bomber aircraft.

Detect horn-shaped and W-shaped antennas mounted atop BACKTRAP and BACKNET radars.

Identify a hand-held SAM (e.g., SA-7/14, REDEYE, STINGER).

Identify joints and welds on a TEL or TELAR.

Detect winch cables on deck-mounted cranes.

Identify windshield wipers on a vehicle.



NIIRS 9 [ less than 0.10 m Ground Resolved Distance]


Visible
Differentiate cross-slot from single slot heads on aircraft skin panel fasteners.

Identify small light-toned ceramic insulators that connect wires of an antenna canopy.

Identify vehicle registration numbers (VRN) on trucks.

Identify screws and bolts on missile components.

Identify braid of ropes (I to 3 inches in diameter).

Detect individual spikes in railroad ties.

https://fas.org/irp/imint/niirs.htm


Now that's from 1994, and the equivalent list from 1965 (when MOL was officially started) or 1969 (when it was canceled) might be a bit different. But you get the gist of it.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/29/2018 02:37 pm
Not to throw us off topic, but your link also has table entries for Radar and IR. While it seems like such resolution would be achievable from airborne assets, is better than 4" from orbit achievable with Radar and IR?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/29/2018 03:40 pm
Not to throw us off topic, but your link also has table entries for Radar and IR. While it seems like such resolution would be achievable from airborne assets, is better than 4" from orbit achievable with Radar and IR?

I assume no.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/29/2018 03:45 pm
And I'll confess that I don't know the history of the NIIRS scale. I assume somebody has written about this in a photogrammetry journal, and I assume that before there was a NIIRS scale there was something else.

The history of US reconnaissance satellites has an interesting side-story around 1963-1965 when the CIA (under Bud Wheelon) sought to codify the relationship between resolution and what you could learn from it. There are actually quite a few documents about this, but I have not looked at them closely. Wheelon told me way back in the mid-1990s that when he started battling with NRO, one of the things he wanted to find out what what photo-interpreters could see at different resolutions, so he started a study project to assess that. Some of those documents have been declassified. But what I don't know is the broader context of that. For example, I assume that since there were photo-interpreters during WWII, they had already established some scales/tables on this subject back then, and I don't know why Wheelon needed to do it in 1963. Maybe he simply was unhappy with the quality of the approach to the subject. He was a really smart guy and probably wanted some rigor applied to it.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: gosnold on 03/29/2018 06:49 pm
And I'll confess that I don't know the history of the NIIRS scale. I assume somebody has written about this in a photogrammetry journal, and I assume that before there was a NIIRS scale there was something else.

The history of US reconnaissance satellites has an interesting side-story around 1963-1965 when the CIA (under Bud Wheelon) sought to codify the relationship between resolution and what you could learn from it. There are actually quite a few documents about this, but I have not looked at them closely. Wheelon told me way back in the mid-1990s that when he started battling with NRO, one of the things he wanted to find out what what photo-interpreters could see at different resolutions, so he started a study project to assess that. Some of those documents have been declassified. But what I don't know is the broader context of that. For example, I assume that since there were photo-interpreters during WWII, they had already established some scales/tables on this subject back then, and I don't know why Wheelon needed to do it in 1963. Maybe he simply was unhappy with the quality of the approach to the subject. He was a really smart guy and probably wanted some rigor applied to it.

WWII experience probably needed some updates for recent weapon systems, such as radars, SAMs, ballistic missiles... Plus nuclear power plants and launch complexes.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim Davis on 03/29/2018 07:32 pm
Changing the subject slightly...

You mentioned in the comments of your Space Review articles that you had interviewed Albert Crews who was selected to fly both X-20 and MOL. Do you know if he ever applied to be a NASA astronaut? He was judged too old to be included in the MOL transfer group in 1969 (Group 7) but did he ever apply for earlier NASA groups?

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/29/2018 07:34 pm
Changing the subject slightly...

You mentioned in the comments of your Space Review articles that you had interviewed Albert Crews who was selected to fly both X-20 and MOL. Do you know if he ever applied to be a NASA astronaut? He was judged too old to be included in the MOL transfer group in 1969 (Group 7) but did he ever apply for earlier NASA groups?


I'd rather not divert this into the "let's all speculate about astronauts" thread, but I believe he did apply and was turned down. He later became a NASA pilot.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/29/2018 07:35 pm
WWII experience probably needed some updates for recent weapon systems, such as radars, SAMs, ballistic missiles... Plus nuclear power plants and launch complexes.

That's true, but I would have expected that NPIC would have kept up with this and updated their standards along the way.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michael Cassutt on 03/29/2018 10:45 pm
Changing the subject slightly...

You mentioned in the comments of your Space Review articles that you had interviewed Albert Crews who was selected to fly both X-20 and MOL. Do you know if he ever applied to be a NASA astronaut? He was judged too old to be included in the MOL transfer group in 1969 (Group 7) but did he ever apply for earlier NASA groups?


I'd rather not divert this into the "let's all speculate about astronauts" thread, but I believe he did apply and was turned down. He later became a NASA pilot.

But I can't resist, though this should end it: Crews did not apply to NASA in 1962/1963 because he was already involved in Dyna Soar. He had been assigned to MOL prior to the 1966 NASA selection, so no application there. Was too old for the 1969 MOL to NASA transfer... went to JSC with some hope that he might qualify for Shuttle, but never formally applied.

Michael Cassutt
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 03/30/2018 06:31 am
I think he flew NASA RB-57F research aircraft in the end. He really had a quite unfortunate career path when you think about it. Kind of Most Unlucky Wannabee Astronaut Ever.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/08/2018 01:08 am
I went back and talked to Dick Truly for this one.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3490/1

The measure of a man: Evaluating the role of astronauts in the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program (part 3)

by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, May 7, 2018


In July 1967, Vice President Hubert Humphrey paid an unusual visit to a classified facility in Washington, DC. Humphrey was there to meet astronauts working on the Manned Orbiting Laboratory and get briefed about the program. One of the people assigned to brief him was MOL astronaut Richard Truly. “It was quite a deal,” Truly said in a recent interview, remembering the events of five decades ago.

A lot was happening with MOL in 1967. In June, the US Air Force selected its third group of MOL astronauts, adding four more pilots to the thirteen who had previously been selected. This third group included Robert H. Lawrence, an Air Force officer who would have been the first African American to fly in space but died only a few months later in an airplane crash. The hardware was being designed and long-lead items, like the large mirrors for MOL’s DORIAN optics system, were beginning construction. But MOL had also come under increasing pressure over its cost, its schedule, and the vexing issue of whether or not astronauts were required for the mission at all (see part 1 and part 2.) The role of the MOL astronauts while on the ground was to oversee the development of the various spacecraft systems. Their role in orbit was to operate a sophisticated camera system, a task that was highly classified.

In July, several of the MOL astronauts were scheduled to visit the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC, pronounced “enpic”) located at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC, for several days of “photographic intelligence indoctrination training.” Humphrey wanted to meet them. Those present included Majors Karol Bobko, Henry Hartsfield, and Robert Overmyer; Captain Gordon Fullerton; and Lieutenant Robert Crippen. Also attending were Major Lach Macleay and Truly, who were scheduled to brief Humphrey. “He was the Vice President of the United States and I was a Navy lieutenant,” Truly said. “It was a scary deal.”
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 05/10/2018 07:06 am
Another question (related to part 2). I often wonder what resolution would it take for a spysat to photograph a human being on the ground ?
I mean, for example MOL had a resolution of four inch, KH-8 did even better.

A human head is more or less one foot in diameter (30 cm, damn it, some people heads are smaller  ;D ) and a lot of NRO spysat had better resolution than that.

 I wonder if the NRO pictures showed Soviet citizens walking in the streets, things like that.

Could you see human beings through a 1 m resolution camera ? The MOL telescope had such resolution, and the crew was to peer at the Soviet Union through it, searching for opportunity targets, and then requesting the KH-10 camera to make pictures.

So in a way, the astronauts would have been looking at the Soviet Union, from above, through a big looking glass. A bit like a kid watching ants living their daily lives in a colony.
Somebody should really write a novel about this.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: gosnold on 05/10/2018 09:28 am
Could you see human beings through a 1 m resolution camera ? The MOL telescope had such resolution, and the crew was to peer at the Soviet Union through it, searching for opportunity targets, and then requesting the KH-10 camera to make pictures.

You can see people's shadows, it takes much less resolution than seeing their heads: it is larger and the contrast is better.
I read in The Wizards of Langley that for the KH-11, Carter got pictures of his inauguration and was impressed by the details in the crowd.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: zhangmdev on 05/10/2018 09:57 am
<snip>Could you see human beings through a 1 m resolution camera ? <snip>

Remember the satellite photo of Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony? Sub-meter resolution is enough to see human beings. If a person walks on the beach during sunset, it is far more easier to detect him/her by look at the shadows. But a blob of a few pixels isn't going to tell who he/she is or what he/she is doing. The "reading license plate number or newpaper headline" stuff is a myth.

To find a hidden property, say a well-camouflaged missile silo, you don't need to find humans, you search for bigger features like paved road ended in nowhere, security parameters surrounding nothing, support vehicles, etc.

The bigger and harder problem, I think, is too much information. The target is very small comparing to the possible area it is supposed to locate at. Before computer algoritms and maching learning programs, finding targets means a lot of people staring at a lot of stereoscopic pairs of photos for a very long time. That is a hard and tedious task. When you have better resolution and coverage, you have more information to process.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 05/10/2018 11:51 am
You folks are great. Thank you. Didn't knew about Obama (nor Carter, for that matter). Did he got a spysat snapping pictures from above ?  :o

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/10/2018 01:57 pm
Don't know about heads being a foot, I've seen people fit through a squeeze box set to 5 3/4".... (my best long ago was 7 1/2").
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 05/10/2018 03:45 pm
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/769.pdf

Looks like NASA was interested in the ATS- Acquisition and Tracking Scope - for Apollo, lunar and Earth missions. Resolution would have been 9 ft in Earth orbit, and 2.5 ft around the Moon. That was in 1969, after MOL cancellation.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michel Van on 05/12/2018 12:23 pm
Around same time
McDonnell-Douglas try to sell MOL to NASA as Civilian Space craft

As NASA orbital laboratory for 30-60-90 days  mission
proposed were Astronomy instruments or Earth resources scanning
or as Resupplied Vehicle for space station

source:

PSAC Briefing
NASA-MOL
T.J.Gordon
July 20,1968
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Archibald on 05/12/2018 02:55 pm
Those unfortunates NRO generals must have grown ulcers and got many sleepness nights, with Lockheed, General Electric, McDonnell douglas and NASA activism.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/12/2018 03:44 pm
Around same time
McDonnell-Douglas try to sell MOL to NASA as Civilian Space craft

As NASA orbital laboratory for 30-60-90 days  mission
proposed were Astronomy instruments or Earth resources scanning
or as Resupplied Vehicle for space station

source:

PSAC Briefing
NASA-MOL
T.J.Gordon
July 20,1968

I've got the presentation slides. Need to dig them out of my files. I suspect that NASA was not too happy about that--they were focused on Apollo and AAP, and they didn't need another contractor coming in and pitching an entirely different system and spacecraft.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/16/2018 04:04 pm
And I'll confess that I don't know the history of the NIIRS scale. I assume somebody has written about this in a photogrammetry journal, and I assume that before there was a NIIRS scale there was something else.

The history of US reconnaissance satellites has an interesting side-story around 1963-1965 when the CIA (under Bud Wheelon) sought to codify the relationship between resolution and what you could learn from it. There are actually quite a few documents about this, but I have not looked at them closely. Wheelon told me way back in the mid-1990s that when he started battling with NRO, one of the things he wanted to find out what what photo-interpreters could see at different resolutions, so he started a study project to assess that. Some of those documents have been declassified. But what I don't know is the broader context of that. For example, I assume that since there were photo-interpreters during WWII, they had already established some scales/tables on this subject back then, and I don't know why Wheelon needed to do it in 1963. Maybe he simply was unhappy with the quality of the approach to the subject. He was a really smart guy and probably wanted some rigor applied to it.

Here is a timeline that shows some key developments in reconnaissance resolution. The CIA study involving photo-interpreters was convened by Bud Wheelon (Wheelon told me this himself many years ago). The results of their study may have been declassified. That material could be at NARA in College Park (I might even have a copy).


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/17/2018 04:21 pm
Here is a document that delves into that issue of investigating what kind of resolution was required. That process led to the FULCRUM development, which then became HEXAGON.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 06/05/2018 02:29 pm
So how can I find these documents?

VAFB Activation Requirements For Manned Orbiting Laboratory Program, Department of the Air Force, MOL Systems Program Office, SAFSL Exhibit 20011, 28 August 1968

VAFB Facility Requirements General Specification For The Manned Orbiting Laboratory Program, Department of the Air Force, MOL Systems Program Office, SAFSL Exhibit 10025, 7 June 1968

Anybody have any ideas?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: catdlr on 07/13/2018 08:30 pm
The Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL)


National Reconnaissance Office
Published on Jul 13, 2018

This video provides an overview of the historical Manned Orbital Laboratory, or MOL, program, and its impact on early national reconnaissance efforts.

https://youtu.be/SZVyHL6_gxQ?t=001

https://youtu.be/SZVyHL6_gxQ
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/14/2018 02:47 am
This was released several years ago. But this version appears to be much better quality than the previous one. They must have cleaned it up.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michel Van on 07/15/2018 09:18 am
in june 2014, some one uploaded Video about the Gemini B mock up on vimeo
in a week the Video was remove "Do Copyright Issue"
guess what its back, this time with audio !

https://vimeo.com/102422452
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: TripleSeven on 07/15/2018 09:53 am
in june 2014, some one uploaded Video about the Gemini B mock up on vimeo
in a week the Video was remove "Do Copyright Issue"
guess what its back, this time with audio !

https://vimeo.com/102422452

thanks  well done
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/11/2019 07:53 pm
New MOL book:

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/Spies_In_Space-Reflections_on_MOL_web.pdf?ver=2019-07-11-135535-820&timestamp=1562867746595

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Ronpur50 on 07/12/2019 11:29 pm
New MOL book:

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/Spies_In_Space-Reflections_on_MOL_web.pdf?ver=2019-07-11-135535-820&timestamp=1562867746595

Very nice, although a footnote on page 19 says the tested Gemini B from the test launch is on display at Wright Patterson.  The one that flew is at Cape Canaveral.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Dalhousie on 07/14/2019 07:02 am
I've been looking for a justification of the Heliox atmosphere.  Any pointers?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 07/15/2019 05:11 pm
Apparently there was another potential motivation/application for a "military" space station (according to F-2019-00053 X-20 Dyna-soar Briefing):

----
...
+ Jan 1963 Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara directed the Air Force to determine whether Dyna-Soar or Gemini was a more feasible approach to a space-based weapon system
...
+ In November 1963 a "satellite-interceptor" design was proposed that could be used in both low and high orbits and was capable of remaining in the air for fourteen 24-hour days with a crew of two men and of intercepting satellites at altitudes of up to 1,850 km.
...
+ However, in the mid 1960s the USA Department of Defense was dominated by the opinion that a permanently operating military space station for servicing "Gemini" modified space ships would be much more effective than the X-20. On 10 October 1963 Defense Secretary McNamara ended financing for the "Dyna-Soar" program in favor of the program to create the MOL (Manned Orbiting Laboratory) orbiting station.

---
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/051719/F-2019-00053_C05118816.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/051719/F-2019-00053_C05118816.pdf)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 08/27/2019 06:31 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3780/1

Review: Spies in Space
by Dwayne Day
Monday, August 26, 2019

In late 1963, the United States Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office began work on the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program. MOL quickly evolved into a reconnaissance satellite with a large camera system, soon named DORIAN, that would operate for approximately one month in orbit. Two astronauts would ride inside a Gemini spacecraft at the front of the MOL atop a powerful Titan IIIM rocket launched from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base into a polar orbit. The astronauts would look through spotting scopes at targets on the ground that MOL was about to pass over and feed instructions into a computer that would direct the DORIAN camera to take high-resolution photographs. As MOL progressed, the Air Force selected 17 astronauts to fly aboard it during multiple missions. By mid-1969, however, MOL was behind schedule and over budget and President Richard Nixon canceled it. Although parts of MOL were public, its mission and most of its technology was highly classified. It was not until October 2015 that the NRO declassified a large number of documents about MOL and allowed the surviving MOL astronauts to talk about the program.

This summer the National Reconnaissance Office produced a book by historian Courtney V.K. Homer about the MOL program. Titled Spies in Space, the book is based upon the trove of documents released by the NRO four years ago, and interviews Ms. Homer conducted with six of the MOL astronauts: Richard Truly, Bob Crippen, Al Crews, Karol Bobko, Lachlan Macleay, and James Abrahamson. It can be downloaded as a free PDF from the NRO’s website, or purchased from the US Government Publishing Office.

Spies in Space is the most comprehensive account of the MOL program published to date. At 104 pages long (albeit in rather small print), it is not a lengthy book and could be consumed by an avid reader in a day. Few people are going to plow through the hundreds of declassified MOL documents, so a book based upon them is valuable. But the most important material in the book is based upon the recollections of the MOL astronauts, primarily contained in chapters 3 and 4.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: tyrred on 08/31/2019 09:38 am
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3780/1

Review: Spies in Space
by Dwayne Day
Monday, August 26, 2019

In late 1963, the United States Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office began work on the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program. MOL quickly evolved into a reconnaissance satellite with a large camera system, soon named DORIAN, that would operate for approximately one month in orbit. Two astronauts would ride inside a Gemini spacecraft at the front of the MOL atop a powerful Titan IIIM rocket launched from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base into a polar orbit. The astronauts would look through spotting scopes at targets on the ground that MOL was about to pass over and feed instructions into a computer that would direct the DORIAN camera to take high-resolution photographs. As MOL progressed, the Air Force selected 17 astronauts to fly aboard it during multiple missions. By mid-1969, however, MOL was behind schedule and over budget and President Richard Nixon canceled it. Although parts of MOL were public, its mission and most of its technology was highly classified. It was not until October 2015 that the NRO declassified a large number of documents about MOL and allowed the surviving MOL astronauts to talk about the program.

This summer the National Reconnaissance Office produced a book by historian Courtney V.K. Homer about the MOL program. Titled Spies in Space, the book is based upon the trove of documents released by the NRO four years ago, and interviews Ms. Homer conducted with six of the MOL astronauts: Richard Truly, Bob Crippen, Al Crews, Karol Bobko, Lachlan Macleay, and James Abrahamson. It can be downloaded as a free PDF from the NRO’s website, or purchased from the US Government Publishing Office.

Spies in Space is the most comprehensive account of the MOL program published to date. At 104 pages long (albeit in rather small print), it is not a lengthy book and could be consumed by an avid reader in a day. Few people are going to plow through the hundreds of declassified MOL documents, so a book based upon them is valuable. But the most important material in the book is based upon the recollections of the MOL astronauts, primarily contained in chapters 3 and 4.

Obvious question: What does the 2nd image have to do with MOL?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 09/01/2019 04:55 pm
The kind of target of opportunities MOL astronauts would snap photos off ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: TripleSeven on 09/01/2019 05:16 pm
The kind of target of opportunities MOL astronauts would snap photos off ?

or X37 :)
Title: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2019 09:04 am
A paperback and Kindle version of the above named book can be found on the Amazon website.

Mind you I just downloaded the free version and imported it into my Kindle app.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 09/02/2019 04:08 pm
The kind of target of opportunities MOL astronauts would snap photos off ?

or X37 :)

They should really put one of these old KA-80A camera into a X-37.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Bar_Camera

It blows my mind, the numbers of very different platforms that carried it

- U2 / TR-1 (still carrying it nowadays, even in the digital era !)
- SR-71
- KH-4 or KH-9 (can't remember which one, but it was on spy sat AFAIK)
- the first ever stealth drone, in 1969 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_AQM-91_Firefly
- Apollo SIM Bay
- It also derived from an earlier camera mounted on a spying balloon (can't remember the exact story)

The versatility of that camera is pretty amazing. Particularly when one consider the extremely varied speeds of all these different platforms...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: mlorrey on 10/14/2019 04:22 pm
The kind of target of opportunities MOL astronauts would snap photos off ?

or X37 :)

They should really put one of these old KA-80A camera into a X-37.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Bar_Camera

It blows my mind, the numbers of very different platforms that carried it

- U2 / TR-1 (still carrying it nowadays, even in the digital era !)
- SR-71
- KH-4 or KH-9 (can't remember which one, but it was on spy sat AFAIK)
- the first ever stealth drone, in 1969 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_AQM-91_Firefly
- Apollo SIM Bay
- It also derived from an earlier camera mounted on a spying balloon (can't remember the exact story)

The versatility of that camera is pretty amazing. Particularly when one consider the extremely varied speeds of all these different platforms...

My Father Norman designed and built the camera that was to go on the MOL when he was employed at ITEK. He's now 80 years old and in his twilight.  One day he went into work and the camera and all the rigs were taken away with the project cancellation notice. Things were very compartmentalized then. The camera later wound up on Skylab.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/14/2019 06:02 pm
Itek made the spotting scopes for MOL. The big DORIAN camera system was made by Eastman Kodak. Itek may have also had some of the subcomponent work for MOL's camera system.



https://www.nro.gov/FOIA/MOL/MOL-Pics/


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/22/2019 02:48 pm

My Father Norman designed and built the camera that was to go on the MOL when he was employed at ITEK. He's now 80 years old and in his twilight.  One day he went into work and the camera and all the rigs were taken away with the project cancellation notice. Things were very compartmentalized then. The camera later wound up on Skylab.

Again, there was no such camera on Skylab
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/22/2019 05:15 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3818/1

Blacker than blue: the US Navy and the Manned Orbiting Laboratory
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, October 21, 2019


One of the enduring mysteries of the National Reconnaissance Office’s Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), an ambitious space station program that started in late 1963 and was rather abruptly canceled in summer 1969, is to what degree it was ever a “laboratory.” There is information indicating that about a dozen different experiments were considered for the space station. And yet, the remaining astronauts who worked on the project, and substantial documentation, indicate that the laboratory name was primarily a public cover story for the project’s real mission: taking high resolution reconnaissance photographs of the Soviet Union. The experiments were all, or mostly, eliminated.

In early 1964, as MOL was first being defined, an Air Force officer, whose name remains unknown, warned that it was becoming an operational reconnaissance platform when it should be a laboratory. (See “Doomed from the start: The Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the search for a military role for astronauts,” The Space Review, June 17, 2019.) A laboratory, the officer argued, could take advantage of an astronauts’ ability to think, reason, and adapt, and explore the military potential for space. Reducing astronauts to the role of taking photographs and adjusting a camera was not using them to their fullest potential. But the US Navy decided to take advantage of the laboratory nature of the program, not realizing that at least some in the Air Force already knew that was a sham. Navy officials would, over the next several years, come to regret their involvement.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: mlorrey on 10/25/2019 06:55 pm
Itek made the spotting scopes for MOL. The big DORIAN camera system was made by Eastman Kodak. Itek may have also had some of the subcomponent work for MOL's camera system.
Itek's work was a bit more extensive than that, and did the heavy lifting for Kodak. The key thing that Dad did was the slewing mechanism, which not only required the camera slew back and forth to cover each strip of ground across the path of the satellite, but to account for the satellites forward movement while slewing and at the same time, feeding the film across the aperture at the same rate that the camera slewed crossrange. That was all Itek, not Kodak. Kodak made the "camera" at the center of the system. Dad built the system to make it work. He should get a medal for his contributions to national security.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: mlorrey on 10/25/2019 07:02 pm

My Father Norman designed and built the camera that was to go on the MOL when he was employed at ITEK. He's now 80 years old and in his twilight.  One day he went into work and the camera and all the rigs were taken away with the project cancellation notice. Things were very compartmentalized then. The camera later wound up on Skylab.

Again, there was no such camera on Skylab

That you know of.  The only thing lacking on Skylab was the large reflective telescope that was planned for MOL that provided most of the magnification (about a meter or so diameter). The MOL's camera and slewing rig was mounted in the Apollo Telescope Mount along with the public astronomy instruments.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/25/2019 10:23 pm
Itek made the spotting scopes for MOL. The big DORIAN camera system was made by Eastman Kodak. Itek may have also had some of the subcomponent work for MOL's camera system.
Itek's work was a bit more extensive than that, and did the heavy lifting for Kodak. The key thing that Dad did was the slewing mechanism, which not only required the camera slew back and forth to cover each strip of ground across the path of the satellite, but to account for the satellites forward movement while slewing and at the same time, feeding the film across the aperture at the same rate that the camera slewed crossrange. That was all Itek, not Kodak. Kodak made the "camera" at the center of the system. Dad built the system to make it work. He should get a medal for his contributions to national security.

That may all be true, but is any of it written down? How do we know?

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/27/2019 03:42 pm

That you know of.  The only thing lacking on Skylab was the large reflective telescope that was planned for MOL that provided most of the magnification (about a meter or so diameter). The MOL's camera and slewing rig was mounted in the Apollo Telescope Mount along with the public astronomy instruments.


Wrong, that is nothing but BS.
1.  It is not possible to hide such a camera on the ATM. 
2.  A camera still needs a lens or mirror
3.  Such a camera would be useless for astronomy
4.  The film size difference is proof that your claim is false.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/27/2019 03:44 pm
That was all Itek, not Kodak. Kodak made the "camera" at the center of the system. Dad built the system to make it work. He should get a medal for his contributions to national security.

The camera is the film slew system.  There is nothing else to a camera other than the lens.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/27/2019 04:34 pm
The MOL should have had a kind of "periscope" with a resolution of 9 ft. Astronauts would have peered through it to track targets of opportunity and then send signal to the computer for it to snap pictures. Because the computer was too dumb to anticipate things like clouds, really, wasting film for nothing.

It was called the ATS - Advanced Tracking Scope.

See document 769, NRO MOL declassification

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/769.pdf

Yes, NASA got very interested in getting their hands on the ATS technology in 1969, when in June MOL was cancelled and on July 23 Skylab officially started.

But AFAIK, MOL ATS never found its way into Skylab. Waaaay too sensitive and advanced for a civilian space agency, at least around Earth where the Soviets stood.

Around the Moon, NRO didn't gave a rat. There were plans to put an ATS into a CSM and for the astronauts to peer through that "periscope" snapping pictures watching the Moon unfold before their eyes. Hell of a terrific experience, it would have been: the thrill of a lifetime.

Around Earth, they told NASA - FORGET IT, THIS IS OUR CLASSIFIED JOB and OUR CLASSIFIED TECHNOLOGY.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/28/2019 03:55 pm
The MOL should have had a kind of "periscope" with a resolution of 9 ft. Astronauts would have peered through it to track targets of opportunity and then send signal to the computer for it to snap pictures. Because the computer was too dumb to anticipate things like clouds, really, wasting film for nothing.

It was called the ATS - Advanced Tracking Scope.

See document 769 on top of that page.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.440


The link is dead. We'll have to find the document and attach it here. NRO has moved around their collections. Despite the fact that they have placed many thousands of pdfs on their website, they tend to move the pages and then all the links to them go dead, and it is hard to find the collections themselves.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/28/2019 05:34 pm
Pretty annoying, indeed. Well we know since 2012 and Frank Wolf quixotic crusade that even the NTRS is not safe...

https://www.nro.gov/FOIA/MOL/

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/769.pdf

And voila !

Best regards,

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/17/2019 12:57 pm
Some more about this in The Space Review on Monday.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/17/2019 06:00 pm
So MOL had film return capsules ? surely enough the Gemini had no room whatsoever to bring back any film, except if one astronauts give his seat and stays behind... not good;
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michel Van on 11/18/2019 09:42 pm
So MOL had film return capsules ? surely enough the Gemini had no room whatsoever to bring back any film, except if one astronauts give his seat and stays behind... not good;

It make sense, because the gather information has brought so fast as possible to Pentagon
means the Film is drop in return capsule, who is recover during fight by airplane

Still there is still a mystery
USAF eyed launch a chimpanzee on MOL, the question is how would Chimp return to Earth in Gemini ?     
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/19/2019 03:50 am
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3833/1

My years working on black programs
by Robert E. Andrews
Monday, November 18, 2019


Hello, my name is Robert E Andrews and I had the good fortune of working in the aerospace business from its early stage in the ’50s through the end of the century.

I attended Drexel University in Philadelphia after high school, matriculating into the mechanical engineering major. I didn’t like this field, lost interest, and dropped out after two years. However, during these years, I did learn a skill that gave me employment. I got a job with the helicopter pioneer Frank Piasecki as a draftsman. I also applied for work with General Electric’s new Missiles and Space Department in Philadelphia, which was located just across the street from Drexel.

In June of 1958, I got a letter from GE asking that I come in for an interview. My supervisor at Piasecki encouraged me to go. He realized working for a big company like GE would offer me many career opportunities. I got the GE job working in the Navigation and Control Engineering drafting room.

I found out that all employed in engineering here required a Secret clearance. So, I was placed in a small room by myself with a drafting table and remained isolated for about six weeks. After my clearance was granted, I moved into the main drafting room with about sixty other draftsmen, designers, and lofts men. (A loftsman develops full scale patterns, or drawings, of complex shapes.)

One of my early assignments was to lay out a printed circuit board. My electrical engineer gave me a schematic and identified each part type, be it a TO5 transistor, carbon resistor, tantalum foil capacitor, et cetera. My task was to fit all the components on a fixed size board and connect them according to the schematic with copper circuit runs on the back of the board. These were the days of single sided boards and jumper wires were not allowed. I took to this like a duck to water. I was given more boards to layout and did well.

My supervisor observed that I was anxious to learn new things. He assigned me to the Discoverer project to develop system schematics, interconnection diagrams, and wire harness definition. I was working for the Electrical Systems engineer. His was a very responsible and highly visible position. And like most engineers working in this new field, he was in his early 20’s, just three years older than me. There were senior engineers in management positions, but there were no senior spacecraft engineers. Everyone was learning on the job.

I was going to be briefed on a highly classified program called CORONA. He told me that what I was about to learn, I could not discuss with anyone who was not also cleared for this information. I could not talk about this with family, friends, or other GE employees forever.
Discoverer was started in early 1958. Officially, it was a US Air Force program to launch payloads into space and recover them. The Discoverer spacecraft included the Agena upper stage, manufactured by Lockheed, atop a Thor rocket. General Electric was responsible for the satellite recovery vehicle, or SRV, mounted on the nose of the spacecraft. Discoverer was scheduled for its first launch in early 1959 from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central California coast.

As part of my introduction to the Discoverer program, I was taken to the monkey lab. The Discoverer cover story was that it was a biological experiment to see how monkeys would perform under the conditions of spaceflight. So there were technicians and medical employees in this room full of screaming caged monkeys trying to train them to do simple tasks like hitting a switch when a light came on so they would get a piece of apple. What a terrible place that stunk to high heaven. I hoped I never had to interface with this group again.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/20/2019 05:10 pm
Somebody really has to write "The definitive book about space monkeys" - including the Spacelab ones.

 There were many programs running in parallel: those G.E chimps, the Mercury chimps, the Jupiter nosecone chimps, the Skylab for chimps Primate Orbiting Facility project, the Biosatellite monkeys, the spacelab rhesus monkeys...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeys_and_apes_in_space

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/20/2019 09:21 pm
Somebody really has to write "The definitive book about space monkeys" - including the Spacelab ones.

Very few monkeys have written memoirs, so a history would be difficult.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Wicky on 11/20/2019 10:07 pm
Somebody really has to write "The definitive book about space monkeys" - including the Spacelab ones.

Very few monkeys have written memoirs, so a history would be difficult.

Give one infinite time...

(https://cl.ly/bff9d72335b9/Unknown.jpeg)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 11/23/2019 08:48 am
Somebody really has to write "The definitive book about space monkeys" - including the Spacelab ones.

Very few monkeys have written memoirs, so a history would be difficult.

But according to you they have been to the Moon.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 02/28/2020 08:05 pm
https://www.space.com/manned-orbiting-laboratory-dyna-soar-astronaut-al-crews.html

Lost space dreams: How Al Crews missed out on becoming an astronaut — twice

By Roger Guillemette

A half-century ago, on a warm July evening, Albert Crews was sitting in front of a television set in his California home, sharing a communal experience with millions of others around the globe: watching Neil Armstrong take humanity's first steps on the moon.

As Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin explored the lunar surface, Crews was left to ponder: What if?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 04/17/2020 02:13 am
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/obituaries/richard-passman-dead-coronavirus.html?referringSource=articleShare

"He also helped lead efforts to create heat shielding technology for intercontinental ballistic missiles and multiple-warhead missiles. He continued to work on projects for the space program; he was G.E.’s general manager for space activities and was developing the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, an Air Force project that would have put a manned spy satellite into orbit, when it was canceled during the Nixon administration."
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/05/2020 02:30 am
https://thespacereview.com/article/3937/1

Working in the shadow space program
A General Electric engineer’s work on MOL and other space programs

by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, May 4, 2020

Richard Passman, an engineer for General Electric, spent over a decade working on many missile and space programs, including as a senior manager of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program. Passman passed away April 1 at the age of 94 due to complications from the coronavirus. This article is based on an interview conducted with him by the author in January. We had planned to do a follow-up interview, but did not get the chance.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 05/18/2020 10:39 pm

My Father Norman designed and built the camera that was to go on the MOL when he was employed at ITEK. He's now 80 years old and in his twilight.  One day he went into work and the camera and all the rigs were taken away with the project cancellation notice. Things were very compartmentalized then. The camera later wound up on Skylab.

Again, there was no such camera on Skylab

There were considerations to use existing MOL hardware with the second "dry workshop" (Skylab B, which can be visited at NASM):
" ... examine existing MOL hardware at Eastman Kodak (...), and the probable compatibility of the systems with the Apollo Telescope Mount and dry workshop." (letter by AA NASA Homer E. Newell to  SecAF Robert C. Seamans in Sep 1969).

In Dec 1969 NASA offered funding "to initiate a limited technical feasibility study with Eastman Kodak" and to postpone the "MOL termination schedule" by 90 days" (letter by Newell to USECAF John L. McLucas).

NASA officials were also visiting PE and Itek in Dec 1969 "(...) to discuss technology and facilities applicable to the development of a large astronomical telescope."

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/Archive/NARP/1969%20NARPs/SC-2018-00033_C05114741.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/Archive/NARP/1969%20NARPs/SC-2018-00033_C05114741.pdf)
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/Archive/NARP/1969%20NARPs/SC-2018-00033_C05112139.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/Archive/NARP/1969%20NARPs/SC-2018-00033_C05112139.pdf)
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/Archive/NARP/1969%20NARPs/SC-2018-00033_C05112124.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/Archive/NARP/1969%20NARPs/SC-2018-00033_C05112124.pdf)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/19/2020 02:18 am

My Father Norman designed and built the camera that was to go on the MOL when he was employed at ITEK. He's now 80 years old and in his twilight.  One day he went into work and the camera and all the rigs were taken away with the project cancellation notice. Things were very compartmentalized then. The camera later wound up on Skylab.

Again, there was no such camera on Skylab

There were considerations to use existing MOL hardware with the second "dry workshop"

Before Jim jumps in with a terse reply, "considerations" is not the same as flying something.

Back in the 1990s, long before MOL was declassified, I interviewed a guy who was involved with it. He could not tell me how he was involved or what he did, but he worked at that time for GE. When the MOL program was canceled, he told me that he and his GE supervisor went over to NASA to see somebody to try and pitch a MOL camera--he did not say anything more than that--for use on Skylab. He said that it was totally unsuited for NASA's purposes. They got about five minutes into their pitch when he stopped the briefing and told the NASA guy that NASA didn't need it for Skylab and they were just wasting the guy's time. He said the NASA guy got a smile on his face, said no contractor had ever been that honest before, thanked him, and walked out. His supervisor, however, was livid, and they got into an argument where he said that it was stupid to try and sell something to NASA that the agency was never going to buy. They got back to GE and he quit his job, then went to work for a university research department on weather satellite systems.

I honestly don't know what MOL system he was discussing. The big main camera or some subsystem? Dunno.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 05/19/2020 07:03 am
The ATS maybe ? MOL Advanced Tracking Scope. I've seen it mentionned in NRO memos and the date is around September 1969.

Interestingly enough, Aden Meinel was part of the discussion. The very man that got six MOL 72-inch mirrors for his MMT telescope.

From memory, the NRO declassified memos mentionned MOL mirrors and the ATS.

ATS role in MOL was kind of submarine periscope - the crew would peer through the ATS to pick a target and then order the big camera with the 72 inch mirror to take pictures of what's interesting.

I will check the memos - they were part of the 900 documents declassified in 2014 or so.

https://www.nro.gov/FOIA/MOL/

Document 759 relates to MOL cancellation late June 1969.

Immediately threafter, half of the documents up to 800 (January 1970) are concerned with NASA reviewing MOL hardware for their own use.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 05/19/2020 01:27 pm
The ATS maybe ? MOL Advanced Tracking Scope. I've seen it mentionned in NRO memos and the date is around September 1969.


Yeah, probably that, although I have been able to figure out if it was the ATS or the main camera or a subsystem (i.e. something inside the spacecraft that would have used one of those other systems--like an image capture device). I think the guy who told me this was Tom Haig, who had developed the NRO's weather satellite (DMSP Block 1). Anyway, he said it was obvious that NASA couldn't use it.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 06/14/2020 10:14 am
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/656.pdf

Seems they wanted to use a film-readout system on DORIAN. FROG, Bimat or another one, I don't know.

What is really remarquable is that the MOL would have kind of four different ways / options of transmitting reconnaissance data they gathered, to the NRO HQ and interpreters on the ground. That thing would be a photographic laboratory in orbit, kind off.

Option 1 the MOL crew gets the picture on polaroids and analyze them from orbit.

Option 2
the MOL crew take the film with them in their Gemini-B and everybody returns Earth

Option 3
the MOL crew dumps the film into the return capsules (since MOL was to have some of them, aparently)

Option 4
the MOL crew put the film into the readout system and beam that to a ground station.

Of course not these options are equal but having all four of them brings some remarquable flexibility to the system.

Add to that, the crew looking trough the Advanced Tracking Scope for targets of opportunity - and taking control of the main camera from the automatic system if they see something interesting.

Overall, while I understand why the MOL was canned by 1969, it is still remarquable how they tried to get the best of the crew and also of the Titan III-M lifting capability to get the system as versatile and flexible as possible.

Or maybe it was actually some desperate effort to save the program... plus adding all these goodies (FROG laser scan readout) just added cost and complexity to the whole thing, dooming it even further.  ;D
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 06/14/2020 09:26 pm
The most effective impact the MOL program ended up having was that it pushed the Soviets into spending a few billion rubles to sort-of duplicate it in their Almaz program.

At least Almaz flew a couple of times...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 06/15/2020 02:08 pm
Plus the TKS piloted cargo ship. A far, far more expensive development that plain old Gemini-B.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 06/15/2020 03:12 pm
Plus the TKS piloted cargo ship. A far, far more expensive development that plain old Gemini-B.
But at least the TKS FGB is still being used today. More than we can say about anything Gemini related.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 06/15/2020 06:21 pm
Plus the TKS piloted cargo ship. A far, far more expensive development that plain old Gemini-B.
But at least the TKS FGB is still being used today. More than we can say about anything Gemini related.

And that's a good thing... That we don't rely on Gemini-era hardware.

But to be fair it looks like TKS/FGB hardware was more robust and future proof than MOL/Gemini hardware. But I certainly don't think that the original designers of that hardware hoped or expected it to be still in use today.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 06/18/2020 03:10 pm
What is really remarquable is that the MOL would have kind of four different ways / options of transmitting reconnaissance data they gathered, to the NRO HQ and interpreters on the ground. That thing would be a photographic laboratory in orbit, kind off.

MOL doesn't seem to show up in the discussions of the development of near-real-time reconnaissance. That could be for several reasons:
-it was not going to operate very long in orbit, so would not provide year-round coverage
-it just was not going to provide the kind of coverage necessary (similar to the above point, but capability as opposed to lifetime)
-it got canceled before the debates about near-real-time reconnaissance heated up
-we just don't have the documents that did discuss it

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 06/23/2020 12:03 pm
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/656.pdf

Seems they wanted to use a film-readout system on DORIAN. FROG, Bimat or another one, I don't know.

What is really remarkable is that the MOL would have kind of four different ways / options of transmitting reconnaissance data they gathered, to the NRO HQ and interpreters on the ground. That thing would be a photographic laboratory in orbit, kind off.

Option 1 the MOL crew gets the picture on polaroids and analyze them from orbit.

Option 2
the MOL crew take the film with them in their Gemini-B and everybody returns Earth

Option 3
the MOL crew dumps the film into the return capsules (since MOL was to have some of them, apparently)

Option 4
the MOL crew put the film into the readout system and beam that to a ground station.

Of course not these options are equal but having all four of them brings some remarquable flexibility to the system.

Not all of these options were being considered at the same time. One of the problems with understanding MOL is that we do not have a full description of what MOL was when it was canceled. For example, the option 3 that you list, the recoverable capsule, may have been deleted by 1969. I interviewed the guy who was responsible for it (Dick Passman) and he said that it was always under cancellation review. It might still have technically existed by summer 1969 when MOL was canceled, but may have been deleted soon anyway.

It seems to me that the big problem with considering MOL as a real-time reconnaissance platform is that it would only operate for a month, and I think they were only considering about two missions per year. So that equates to about two months of coverage every year--the Soviet Union could just undertake activities when MOL was not flying. For a high-resolution system intended to aid with technical assessments of Soviet weapons systems the shorter coverage time is less of an issue, because getting a good photo of a plane or missile is valuable and you don't need to be flying year round for that to happen.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Steve G on 07/26/2020 06:36 pm
Deviating a bit back to MOL systems on Skylab, here is a good article. Apologies if already posted.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3860/1

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/26/2020 07:14 pm
Deviating a bit back to MOL systems on Skylab, here is a good article. Apologies if already posted.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3860/1



I wrote that. It's actually about GAMBIT-derived hardware (not MOL) being used on Skylab.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 07/27/2020 07:03 am
What were the risks of leaks on the NASA side ? Asking differently - do we have any clue whether the Soviets ever tried to spy on LMSS ?

(...and in The Americans TV series they had a SDI subplot where they used Skylab as Zenit Star laser battlestation. Shame the series happens in 1981: had it been set in 1967, they could have had an UPWARD subplot. How awesome that would be !!)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/27/2020 12:24 pm
What were the risks of leaks on the NASA side ? Asking differently - do we have any clue whether the Soviets ever tried to spy on LMSS ?


There is no indication that the Soviets tried to spy on LMSS. But most of LMSS was handled by the NRO and its contractors, so it was within their security system.

Also, one of the things I find remarkable about LMSS/UPWARD is that even though parts of it were in the open (little parts), no journalists or historians seem to have taken notice of it for decades. Phillip Klass, who wrote for Aviation Week and in the early 1970s wrote a book about satellite reconnaissance, missed it. He was looking for these things and missed it, as did everybody else. So I doubt that the Soviets were any more aware of it either. (Note: the KGB was not ten feet tall. They were often not very good at their jobs. There is a mythology that people in the West have built up around them, but they were not as professional and insightful as you'd think or expect from a big spy service.)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 07/27/2020 05:19 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Klass

Never heard about him before. The guy had interesting credentials, to say the least - UFO, NRO, and Aviation leak...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/27/2020 05:38 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Klass

Never heard about him before. The guy had interesting credentials, to say the least - UFO, NRO, and Aviation leak...

I think I have a copy of Klass' book. He did a good job with what was available to him at that time. But he still had limitations. Curtis Peebles later did a similar good job with open sources. It was not until William Broad and Jeffrey Richelson that people started going beyond the publicly available sources.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 07/27/2020 05:52 pm
Interestingly enough, first mention of spysats in the press was N.Y Times circa 1971 - just as the same time the book got published.
There is a list (a scrapbook ?) somewhere, of the NRO worrying that their job (not their existence) had leaked in the press. Between 1971 and 1975 there were half a dozen of mentions here and there.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 07/28/2020 12:21 am
Interestingly enough, first mention of spysats in the press was N.Y Times circa 1971 - just as the same time the book got published.
There is a list (a scrapbook ?) somewhere, of the NRO worrying that their job (not their existence) had leaked in the press. Between 1971 and 1975 there were half a dozen of mentions here and there.


No, that's not the first mention. It goes way back to the 1950s. Remember that Samos was not a covert program. It's mission was publicly acknowledged. And when Discoverer first started flying, it did not take reporters long to figure out that there was other stuff that the military wanted to return from space. And the Discoverer designation system was ended (with Discoverer 31?) because the people involved knew that nobody would believe that the Air Force had launched 30+ "experimental" payloads into space. The jig was up, as they say.

In fact, I have seen fairly public discussion even of film return ca 1958. I'm trying to remember, but I think that there was congressional testimony after Sputnik where they discussed using space for reconnaissance. I'm sure I have it in my paper files somewhere, but I remember stumbling across it in the 1990s and being shocked--I thought that CORONA was covert right from the start, but there was actual some discussion by the military in congressional testimony. It was proof that Eisenhower was exactly right and that if this stuff was left in the hands of the Air Force they would talk about it. So he wanted the CIA in charge to keep it quiet. But they were talking about it openly.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 09/20/2020 07:20 pm
From Logsdon "After Apollo"

Quote

The DOD/NASA report also mentioned launches of “self-contained
mission modules which possessed their own crews to operate specific mission
equipment
.”

 Might these “mission modules” have carried the humanoperated
KH-10 very high-resolution camera system, code named Dorian,
developed during the 1960s for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL)
program? That program was canceled on June 10, 1969, just as the DOD/
NASA shuttle report was being prepared. The MOL combined a capsule
based on NASA’s Gemini spacecraft, to be used during launch and reentry,
and a two-segment module containing the Dorian camera system and crew
quarters.

The 1971 NASA draft letter said, “the shuttle could be equipped
to perform the MOL mission for seven days on station . . . Alternatively, the
shuttle could transport MOL-like equipment in a self-supporting module to
the desired orbit for operation over a longer period of time.” Such missions
would most likely have been launched into polar orbit so they would overfly
all areas of the world, and would return to Vandenberg at their completion,
thus requiring cross-range capability.21

Page 193 of the attached Pdf

Now, the date of that document (page 187 of the pdf) - 16 JUNE 1969

That is, less than a week after the MOL cancellation.

What is really interesting is that an unmanned variant of the MOL had long been considered. Also, a lot of hardware had been already build, including seven 72-inch mirrors. Most of them went later to the MMT ground-telescope.

One can wonder if there was some program to build a "KH-10 pallet" to go into the Shuttle payload bay.

Would make sense: they tried that with the KH-9 (ZEUS, WASP). So why not the KH-10, after all ?

Dang, a Shuttle with a 72-inch mirror / camera in the payload bay, would have been something to be seen... !
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 09/20/2020 07:41 pm

One can wonder if there was some program to build a "KH-10 pallet" to go into the Shuttle payload bay.


Doubtful. There was no complete optical system for the DORIAN. The mirrors were nearly finished because they were a long-lead-time item and had to be started first. But I've seen no indication that Kodak got anywhere near assembling the optical system for MOL.

The more probable question is building a pallet for a GAMBIT-3 optical system for the shuttle. Was that ever evaluated? We don't know.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/27/2020 06:47 pm
I found some interesting stuff related to the MOL mirrors. I will post documents and links tomorrow.
So Aden Meinel got the MOL mirror for the MMT telescope. Six of them.
We also know that in september 1969 NASA asked the NRO about these mirrors and MOL residuals. Meinel was involved, his name features in the compendium declassified documents.
Now I know why NASA inquired about these mirrors.
They wanted one of them for an alternate payload for Skylab B ATM. Instead of the well known solar telescope they wanted a 72 inch mirror for stellar UV astronomy.

More on this tomorrow. 
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/27/2020 10:17 pm
Looking forward to it.

I'm trying to start an article on unmanned MOL, very high resolution, and the cancellation of HEXAGON, then MOL.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/28/2020 06:48 am
NASA hearings  January & February 1970

https://books.google.fr/books?id=Hr4bAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA612&lpg=RA1-PA612&dq=%22stellar%22%22ATM-B%2272&source=bl&ots=kYNkh73pd5&sig=ACfU3U2yqhLXr6vz9HtO3YnbcWHJh6MxVA&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHr__T26TtAhWOxIUKHVyGBncQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=%22stellar%22%22ATM-B%2272&f=false

Quote


SWS NO . 2 CAN SUPPORT MAJOR SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS SUCH AS :

• STELLAR TELESCOPE - 72''

• EXPANDED EARTH RESOURCES

• ADVANCED SOLAR ATM - B


The date matches with documents 770 to 775, September 1969 after MOL cancellation.

https://www.nro.gov/FOIA/MOL/

Before that in 1968, ATM-B was to have a 38-inch UV telescope similar to OAO-C (lost in November 1970 when it Atlas Centaur shroud did not opened). 

Page 19 of that pdf (also attached, just in case...)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710011005/downloads/19710011005.pdf

Quote
- This experiment package contains
a large aperture non-defraction limited UV telescope, which is a
modification of the OAO Goddard Instrument Package. It is a one meter
aperture system capable of conducting stellar observations of exteIl.ded
and point sources, Using spectrographiC, photometric and imaging
techniques.

Modification to the OAO instrument include deSigning
critical subsystems for maintenance and servicing by the astronaut
and adding the imagery and spectrographic capability taking advantage
of man's presence for changing film.

I've checked internal diameter of the ATM "experiment canister". It was 7 feet, that is: 84 inch. And thus at 72-inch a MOL mirror could fit inside !
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/28/2020 08:21 am
(Spliting my post after the two previous atempts fell into a FILE 403 black hole: the documents busted the forum attachment limit !)

The dates matches, and the chronology seems to be as per follow

1968
NASA considers ATM-B with stellar UV astronomy. They settle on OAO-B 38 inch telescope

1969

June MOL cancelled

September Newell requires an examination of MOL 72 inch mirrors for ATM-B UV stellar astronomy. By Aden Meinel and a Marshall team.

October Meeting at Marshall over the stellar ATM

1970

January & February - ATM-B stellar ATM mentionned, 72 inch mirror

March 7
Stellar ATM dropped

December
OAO-B is lost to a launch failure, when its Atlas-Centaur forget to drop its shroud during ascent...

My gut feeling is that NASA started with the OAO 38-inch telescope and then wanted to DOUBLE its mirror size, through the MOL mirrors...

Also, seems that Aden Meinel went his own, separate way after NASA dropped the stellar ATM in March 1970... the MMT got not one, but 6 MOL mirrors.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1371/1
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3049/1

At the end of the day, it is pretty amazing to think that Skylab B nearly "robbed" a MOL mirror - for stellar astronomy, not for spying.   :)

Some links related to the story dates

https://books.google.fr/books?id=y1I7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=%22OWS%22%22workshop%22%22stellar+telescope%22&source=bl&ots=KbCe1WaeTF&sig=ACfU3U1_xYlL33_AMVHFlXgiz_YHiv79Cg&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir4N3NqqPtAhWJA2MBHYKuBCMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22stellar%20telescope%22&f=false


https://books.google.fr/books?id=X4WaYqQDVKwC&pg=PA301&dq=%22OWS%22%22workshop%22%22stellar+telescope%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwid3N7r9qTtAhWj3OAKHVWFCyAQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22OWS%22%22workshop%22%22stellar%20telescope%22&f=false

October 31, 1969 and March 7, 1970 - dates that closely match with Newell request for the MOL mirrors and the hearings.

Also that tidbit from "Exploring the unknown" which shows how "stellar / UV astronomy" become linked to ATM-B circa 1968.
Note that it mentions "more OAO telescopes" as a possibility to fly Leo Goldberg instruments.
 
https://books.google.fr/books?id=o2hxO9HET-cC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=%22stellar%22%22ATM-B%22%22UV%22&source=bl&ots=M5JDdsjPHm&sig=ACfU3U2po9FwcSfxY1buIVtQ10qfIV9dTQ&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4uJ6DrqPtAhUyz4UKHRNRB6sQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22stellar%22%22ATM-B%22%22UV%22&f=false

NRO - MOL document 771 gives an interesting glimpse at future OAOs that never were, circa 1968

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/771.pdf

(Aden Meinel once again - except they call him Mienel)

Quote

ASA Astronomy Program Considerations of DORIAN Technology The NASA Orbiting Astronomy activities center prin-cipally on the 0A0 Program. This program which has been underway since 1965 is approaching completion of a highly successful and scientifically useful year of astronomical observations by OAO-II. A description of the instrument package in this spacecraft is in the attachment.

OAO-B is currently scheduled for launch in the 4th quarter of this year, but may be delayed if OAO-II continues to perform satisfactorily. OAO-B will fly a Goddard scanning spectro-meter that has a high quality 38 inch diameter cassegrain telescope.

 This spacecraft is to be followed in 12 months by OAO-C which will include the Princeton Experiment Package with a high resolution 32 inch cassegrain telescope. OAO-D is planned two years later and while its experiment package has not been firmly identified, it will probably carry a single large telescope based on the OAO-B instrument.

The Agency's plans call for an evolutionary continuation of the OAO series featuring instrument improvements in both performance and capability. By OAO-G, in the early 1980's, the plan calls for a man tended 120 inch diameter diffraction limited telescope in orbit for a much extended duration.

At Col Allen's suggestion, I discussed this matter with Dr. A. Mienel who along with others has just recently completed a review of the status of competence and capabilities of our major optical manufacturer for Dr. Land under his PSAC responsibilities

I am aware of some discussion of a two meter stellar telescope, a derivative of the Apollo Telescope Mount, as a primary element of the second dry workshop in AAP. This mission is currently scheduled for mid calendar 1974.

In order to meet such a schedule, the telescope work should be initiated at once--especially if it is to be done by a supplier other than Eastman. Perhaps if a sufficient transfer of technology could be arranged, NASA could begin a two meter program with either Itek or Perkin Elmer and a more lengthy three meter program with the other. Mienel feels either could do either job.


Note "OAO-G with a 120 inch mirror" - heck, isn't that Hubble ? before it shrunk to 94 inch in 1975 ? Amusing to see that Hubble once was to be the last, ultimate OAO...

Also Lew Allen and Aden Mienel (sic). Lew Allen has an interesting profile. By 1982 he replaced Bruce Murray at JPL.

-------------

That ATM-B with a 72-inch MOL mirror is seemingly only the tip of a larger iceberg.

 Between 1964 and 1980 -approximatively - NASA repeatedly tried to link very large telescopes - UV, visible light, and IR - with manned spaceflight.  With very little success except Hubble servicing missions.

First, through AAP / wet workshop / Skylab, until 1969. LTEP was part of that. So was ATM-B with OAO or MOL mirror.

http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Future_Expansion#Large_Telescope_Experiment_Program_.28LTEP.29


Later (1970 and beyond) they shifted to "Research and Applications Modules" - better known as Spacelab.

Look at page 87 of the link below - LIRTS: an enormous IR telescope attached to Spacelab and the Shuttle. It was considered by ESA (Spacelab > Germany) but rejected for good reasons in hindsight. 

https://books.google.fr/books?id=JNjsCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=%22LIRTS%22%22shuttle%22%22telescope%22&source=bl&ots=vgKaSosJ4B&sig=ACfU3U2UeTJdM4v5flPvEXRjQJQJ-QwUYg&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHqrSS-KTtAhUj4YUKHYklBD4Q6AEwBHoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=%22LIRTS%22%22shuttle%22%22telescope%22&f=false
Title: MOL discussion
Post by: Star One on 11/28/2020 11:06 am
I keep hoping David Baker will do a book on MOL as he’s already covered it as part of one of his other books. Though it was another David, David Woods who authored the book I read on Gemini.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/28/2020 11:22 am
From his (too few) posts here, David Baker seemingly would have tons of interesting stories to tell.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/28/2020 11:43 am
It might be a good idea to actually attach the NRO pdfs to your post. The NRO changes around their pdf links and stuff even from a couple of years ago has disappeared.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/28/2020 02:30 pm
They are attached to this message. Also the 1968 document from the NTRS (if the attachment system don't go crazy)
And another one related to Meinel's MMT.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/29/2020 09:47 pm
(Spliting my post after the two previous atempts fell into a FILE 403 black hole: the documents busted the forum attachment limit !)


Some of those links were not loading properly for me. (For instance, you reference a page 87 in a document, but when I went there, there is no page 87.) And trying to follow your narrative is a bit difficult.

Why don't you turn this into an article and explain the whole thing? You could run it in The Space Review.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/30/2020 06:39 am
I will consider that. I already written, once, for TSR (suborbital refueling). And Jeff Foust is a true gentleman.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/30/2020 04:16 pm
First draft done. 3 hours spent today. Will start polishing it.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/09/2021 02:47 pm
I'm moving my MOL posts to the relevant thread. So here's one:

Quote from: libra on 10/08/2021 04:56 pm
    We tend to forget indeed that, at least between 1963 and 1965, "USAF MOL" =/= "NRO KH-10".
    Was the story that the Air Force couldn't found any use to a military space station in 1963-64 - and then NRO said "how about a manned spysat ?" and Johnson got the program running for real in 1965 ?





Warning: I'm going to ramble a bit here and not actually provide useful information.

I am not convinced that what was released by the NRO on MOL provides the full story about its origins. I have--somewhere--a ton of memos dating from the first year of the MOL program. They include regular (weekly?) progress reports. They were declassified in the 1990s and I obtained them around 2001 or so. I don't remember the details, but I think I visited the Air Force Historical Research Agency's library with a NASA historian and we looked at all their declassified material on space and came across that MOL stuff and copied the whole lot (pumping a million quarters into their photocopier). But we didn't go through it carefully afterwards, just skimmed it.

All the material was at most only at the secret level and had been downgraded. But it seemed to present the story that MOL had indeed started out as a more generic program that did not include reconnaissance from the start. When the NRO released all their MOL stuff in 2015 (which did NOT include this early material), it implied that reconnaissance had been part of MOL from the start.

I'm just not sure. I think that it's possible that MOL was rather amorphous for at least a good part of 1964 and the reconnaissance mission did not get formally included in it until maybe late that year. And I think that's an important subject worth tracking down.

But... man, I'm having a hard time writing the stuff that I'm already writing* without chasing down further leads. I actually have two piles of declassified documents sitting in the trunk of my car because I haven't gotten around to going through the other stuff I have in order to bring those ones in and look at them. So answering that MOL/DORIAN origins question is going to have to wait, unless somebody else can figure it out.





*Next published article from me will probably be about satellite vulnerability issues. But I've also got some other stuff in the works that I'm trying to polish up, like something on STRAWMAN and something on the KH-4B CORONA.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/09/2021 02:48 pm
Also moving this one over:


Quote from: hoku on 10/08/2021 10:32 pm
    Quote from: Blackstar on 10/08/2021 09:15 pm
        Quote from: libra on 10/08/2021 04:56 pm
            We tend to forget indeed that, at least between 1963 and 1965, "USAF MOL" =/= "NRO KH-10".
            Was the story that the Air Force couldn't found any use to a military space station in 1963-64 - and then NRO said "how about a manned spysat ?" and Johnson got the program running for real in 1965 ?
        <snip>
        I'm just not sure. I think that it's possible that MOL was rather amorphous for at least a good part of 1964 and the reconnaissance mission did not get formally included in it until maybe late that year. And I think that's an important subject worth tracking down.
        <snip>

    This is supported by Lew Allen's comment (page 2 in the PDF):
    "For instance, MOL was decided upon when DYNASOAR was cancelled, because it was felt one shouldn't cancel something without allowing some alternate program; and many felt it was essential that DOD have some kind of man-in-space effort if the national commitment to Apollo was really going to generate a new era of manned space flight. Having decided on MOL, it took some time to decide what to do with it; and when nothing else made sense, the DORIAN mission was, in some sense, forced.
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/MAJOR%20NRO%20PROGRAMS%20&%20PROJECTS/NRO%20EOI/SC-2016-00001_C05096266.pdf






Thanks for reminding me of that. I saw that document. I think the relevant issue is when did it become official that reconnaissance would become the primary mission, and how?

I do remember seeing a document in that big trove of stuff I mentioned that we found at AFHRA that was one MOL officer writing to another MOL officer about how for the past year (so this would have been late 1964) they had been "unable to get MOL off dead center." It wasn't progressing anywhere in this guy's view. When I saw that memo it indicated to me that the reconnaissance mission was not incorporated until 1965.

But I don't know that. I'm just going from memory here.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Redclaws on 10/09/2021 02:55 pm
I'm just not sure. I think that it's possible that MOL was rather amorphous for at least a good part of 1964 and the reconnaissance mission did not get formally included in it until maybe late that year. And I think that's an important subject worth tracking down.

This certainly meshes well with the general impression I’ve picked up from public histories of the MOL program - that it was at some level an excuse to get military personnel in space because of course they had to be there.  And that it really painfully meandered because it didn’t truly have a good reason to exist beyond Air Force desperation that it must.  And like most programs without a practical purpose, it meandered and then finally failed.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/09/2021 03:14 pm
I'm just not sure. I think that it's possible that MOL was rather amorphous for at least a good part of 1964 and the reconnaissance mission did not get formally included in it until maybe late that year. And I think that's an important subject worth tracking down.

This certainly meshes well with the general impression I’ve picked up from public histories of the MOL program - that it was at some level an excuse to get military personnel in space because of course they had to be there.  And that it really painfully meandered because it didn’t truly have a good reason to exist beyond Air Force desperation that it must.  And like most programs without a practical purpose, it meandered and then finally failed.


I find it rather rather fun and interesting ("fun" requires being a research-inclined academic like me) to read through multiple documents and get a sense of what was actually happening even though a) I was not there, and b) I have not talked to anybody who was. For instance, years ago when I researched Blue Gemini, even though there was very little information, it became clear that the Air Force did not really know what it wanted to do with military astronauts, but wanted to have them. You could see that with their work on various experiments for manned space flight--we want this thing because it might be useful... we want this other thing because it might be useful... But never: we need this thing to do X. Nothing definitive.

That sense of wandering in search of a purpose is very obvious with the Dyna-Soar program. When I researched the DAMON reconnaissance payload for the space shuttle I saw that there were about five different documents that had lists of things that it could do, all produced within a short period of time. The fact that they had so many lists was an indication that there was no clear requirement for it. (This despite the fact that I think in retrospect the case for DAMON was stronger than they thought at the time.)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/09/2021 03:17 pm
At @Blackstar's suggestion I am also moving my MOL posts out of the big telescope thread. Apologies for diverting it.

Quote
It's clear what NASA had to gain from the NRO's technology, be it off the shelf mirrors, or innovations like the CMG. It's not so clear to me what the NRO would gain, but I'm sure it's contractors saw it as win-win, as per other discussions/articles here.

It would be interesting to know if the NRO, as opposed to the white AF, had any people sympathetic to manned spaceflight pre Hans Mark.

Well, the people who pushed for the MOL circa 1963 - for a start. But they quickly lost that battle: by 1966-69, were discussions about an unmanned MOL perhaps for the VHR mission.

Not sure. Hopefully a MOL expert can enlighten me but its not clear to me whether

1. [NRO] "pushed for the MOL circa 1963"

or

2. The white AF started MOL when Dynasoar was cancelled, and then it needed a raison d'etre, which the NRO provided via KH-10 DORIAN. Was DORIAN actually needed in order to bring MOL into being, or was it added post hoc ? The released docs should say so by now, I'd hope.

[Edit: On looking up the excellent CSNR "MOL Compendium", attached, I see it is much more #2 than #1. Read pp 36ff.]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/09/2021 03:24 pm
Second transplanted posting, on whether NRO played a role in starting MOL:


2. The white AF started MOL when Dynasoar was cancelled, and then it needed a raison d'etre, which the NRO provided via KH-10 DORIAN. Was DORIAN actually needed in order to bring MOL into being, or was it added post hoc ? The released docs should say so by now, I'd hope.

No DORIAN, no MOL

Once it had started, yes. But history as written seems to say it was started by rest of USAF and McMillan not entirely keen for all the reasons described in the compendium. [Edit: I don't doubt DORIAN was needed to sustain funding for MOL, and that the existence of better alternatives was enough to kill it. I was just talking about how it got started, and whether the NRO was an instigator of it, or, as the record seems to state, rather ambivalent.

Edit 2: I can see it's more subtle than I thought though, and MOL was starting in parallel with the end of Dynasoar, in second half of 1963. I'll be happy to be educated.]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/09/2021 03:30 pm
Third transplanted post, about timing of MOL milestones:

We tend to forget indeed that, at least between 1963 and 1965, "USAF MOL" =/= "NRO KH-10".

Was the story that the Air Force couldn't found any use to a military space station in 1963-64 - and then NRO said "how about a manned spysat ?" and Johnson got the program running for real in 1965 ?
<snip>
I'm just not sure. I think that it's possible that MOL was rather amorphous for at least a good part of 1964 and the reconnaissance mission did not get formally included in it until maybe late that year. And I think that's an important subject worth tracking down.
<snip>
This is supported by Lew Allen's comment (page 2 in the PDF):
"For instance, MOL was decided upon when DYNASOAR was cancelled, because it was felt one shouldn't cancel something without allowing some alternate program; and many felt it was essential that DOD have some kind of man-in-space effort if the national commitment to Apollo was really going to generate a new era of manned space flight. Having decided on MOL, it took some time to decide what to do with it; and when nothing else made sense, the DORIAN mission was, in some sense, forced.
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/MAJOR%20NRO%20PROGRAMS%20&%20PROJECTS/NRO%20EOI/SC-2016-00001_C05096266.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/MAJOR%20NRO%20PROGRAMS%20&%20PROJECTS/NRO%20EOI/SC-2016-00001_C05096266.pdf)



Thanks for reminding me of that. I saw that document. I think the relevant issue is when did it become official that reconnaissance would become the primary mission, and how?

I do remember seeing a document in that big trove of stuff I mentioned that we found at AFHRA that was one MOL officer writing to another MOL officer about how for the past year (so this would have been late 1964) they had been "unable to get MOL off dead center." It wasn't progressing anywhere in this guy's view. When I saw that memo it indicated to me that the reconnaissance mission was not incorporated until 1965.

But I don't know that. I'm just going from memory here.

I have to say I find it reassuring that you don't know, I'd wondered if I had failed to detect some clarity in the history that should have been obvious. And as you say  one key point is when highly classified research gave way to an operational primary mission.

Looking back at the first few of the 825 (!) documents that accompany the 2015 NRO produced MOL Compendium, I noted three that help a bit with the timing, attached below.

First one officially authorises the MOL programme, earlier than I'd thought, in August 62, with Douglas and GE as contractors.

Public announcement comes much later, in autumn 1963.

Second one is the prophetic  memo from within Program A/SAFSP on 10th Feb 64 which the compendium describes as "early critical comments" ;-) ... they are not wrong about that, as you blogged at TSR https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3736/1

and the third is the DORIAN security briefing which the compendium dates to 5th March 1964. The significance of this at  that stage seems to me to be that such a BYEMAN category was needed to protect research that could lead to an operational capability. It's not so clear to me that very many NRO people yet thought that it would, just that they were very anxious to keep the rest of NRO's existence and role secret, and were concerned that even the existence of and discussion of MOL was causing problems. 


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/09/2021 03:34 pm
And final of transplanted posts

 
Very interesting stuff. Well by the name only "manned orbiting laboratory" clearly the mission was ill-defined. A laboratory for WHAT ?


No, not really ... by that logic both Discoverer and the Defense Support Program would have ill-defined missions ... "What's in a name ? A rose by any other name ..." etc.

There is at least one  case, Discoverer, where the open name is more informative than the BYEMAN name.

Quote

Quote
Once  DORIAN was  essentially  a fact, it was  judged
by  some  ( Land  Panel)  that if one  were to have  such a  high-quality,
manned  system one must have  an  automated version for  operation,
in the  event that man proved difficult. This  led to unmanned MOL,
a  contradiction in terms  and  I  think, in this  case,  the  Land  Panel
led the Govermnent down  ~ atrocious,  illogical path based on
irrefutable,  scientific  logic  and no  practical judgment.

I have this feeling that Lew Allen and Din Land were not best friends in the entire world (Carthage quote, too).

Could be. His contrast of irrefutable logic and practical judgement is very interesting and typically pithy, as is the insight that irrefutable logic can lead one down an illogical path ...

 However I concur with @hoku that  the Allen-Land Panel relationship and wider turf wars, fit best in the ongoing KH-11 thread.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/09/2021 03:51 pm
And one new post. I hadn't realised until I read Joe Page's TSR article on doing planetary astronomy with MOL 
(where would that topic fit by the way?) that the main history reproduced in the MOL compendium is Carl Berger's 1970 one, which was document #800 in the set released by NRO at the same time as the compendium. I attach this because it may be easier to read and excerpt for some people, it has been for me in some ways.

This seems to clearly locate the focusing of MOL around reconnaissance to Feb-March 1964. See pp 69-73 of attached pdf [edit 2 : This is the section labelled "Reconnaissance-the main emphasis"]. Whether it's the whole story I'll leave to the experts.

[Edit: And the 3 grabs are from those pages, I think they have the key parts of the story.]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/09/2021 04:29 pm
If anybody is interested, I've found a couple of interesting and free tools on-line to a) OCR pdfs and b) clean pdfs.

No idea why the NRO documents are so dirty, but they are, really. Sometimes an automated tool helps.

https://avepdf.com/fr/cleanup-pdf

https://document.online-convert.com/fr/convertir-en-pdf

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/09/2021 04:32 pm
Quote
And one new post. I hadn't realised until I read Joe Page's TSR article on doing planetary astronomy with MOL
(where would that topic fit by the way?)

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3290/1

An excellent reading, really. A pity astronomy couldn't be a valuable mission for a military space station. Would have rescued the MOL and we would have had pictures of Pluto and Charon separated decades before Hubble (or maybe not: maybe 72 inch mirror wasn't enough to separate them...) Half-joking of course.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/10/2021 07:16 am
Also moving this one over:


Quote from: hoku on 10/08/2021 10:32 pm
    Quote from: Blackstar on 10/08/2021 09:15 pm
        Quote from: libra on 10/08/2021 04:56 pm
            We tend to forget indeed that, at least between 1963 and 1965, "USAF MOL" =/= "NRO KH-10".
            Was the story that the Air Force couldn't found any use to a military space station in 1963-64 - and then NRO said "how about a manned spysat ?" and Johnson got the program running for real in 1965 ?
        <snip>
        I'm just not sure. I think that it's possible that MOL was rather amorphous for at least a good part of 1964 and the reconnaissance mission did not get formally included in it until maybe late that year. And I think that's an important subject worth tracking down.
        <snip>

    This is supported by Lew Allen's comment (page 2 in the PDF):
    "For instance, MOL was decided upon when DYNASOAR was cancelled, because it was felt one shouldn't cancel something without allowing some alternate program; and many felt it was essential that DOD have some kind of man-in-space effort if the national commitment to Apollo was really going to generate a new era of manned space flight. Having decided on MOL, it took some time to decide what to do with it; and when nothing else made sense, the DORIAN mission was, in some sense, forced.
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/MAJOR%20NRO%20PROGRAMS%20&%20PROJECTS/NRO%20EOI/SC-2016-00001_C05096266.pdf


Thanks for reminding me of that. I saw that document. I think the relevant issue is when did it become official that reconnaissance would become the primary mission, and how?

I do remember seeing a document in that big trove of stuff I mentioned that we found at AFHRA that was one MOL officer writing to another MOL officer about how for the past year (so this would have been late 1964) they had been "unable to get MOL off dead center." It wasn't progressing anywhere in this guy's view. When I saw that memo it indicated to me that the reconnaissance mission was not incorporated until 1965.

But I don't know that. I'm just going from memory here.

Boldfacing in above is mine.

I've been skimming at speed through Berger's MOL history. One thing that has struck me is that it was slightly hobbled when incorporated into the 2015 compendium by removing some of its useful original subsection headings, e.g. "Reconnaissance - the Main Emphasis" on page 66 of the original 1970 version, which I think would have helped you (and indeed me) ;-)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/10/2021 07:38 am
Quote
And one new post. I hadn't realised until I read Joe Page's TSR article on doing planetary astronomy with MOL
(where would that topic fit by the way?)

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3290/1

An excellent reading, really. A pity astronomy couldn't be a valuable mission for a military space station. Would have rescued the MOL and we would have had pictures of Pluto and Charon separated decades before Hubble (or maybe not: maybe 72 inch mirror wasn't enough to separate them...) Half-joking of course.

The other report Joe mentioned but didn't afaik link to was the attached.  [Edit: Here are the couple of pages where it mentions planetary astronomy, plus the cover page].
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/12/2021 02:55 pm
Was struck by @Blackstar's reference to the monthly reports here:

<snip>
I have--somewhere--a ton of memos dating from the first year of the MOL program. They include regular (weekly?) progress reports. They were declassified in the 1990s and I obtained them around 2001 or so. I don't remember the details, but I think I visited the Air Force Historical Research Agency's library with a NASA historian and we looked at all their declassified material on space and came across that MOL stuff and copied the whole lot (pumping a million quarters into their photocopier). But we didn't go through it carefully afterwards, just skimmed it.

All the material was at most only at the secret level and had been downgraded.
<snip>


Browsing through the NRO's major MOL document release from 2015 I was surprised to find that some  later monthly reports from "the DORIAN era" are there as well.  Attached is an example, #652 in that release, covering work from 26th Oct 68 to 25th Nov. As you'd expect these were originally BYEMAN/TK classified.

This particular month's activity ranged from consideration of wiring, noting that Rockwell were doing a better job with the Minuteman's wiring harness, below, via the user handbook, which sounds interesting to say the least, to a meeting about waste management in space ...

Possibly a useful set, though they are ordered by date with other released docs rather than grouped together.

Without a proper look I don't know if they had white or secret level counterparts.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/12/2021 03:21 pm
One of the few things MOL got right, and useful: the toilet. It ended on Skylab, and would have been extremely useful on Apollo.
I often think this is how they solved the "women peeing in zero G" urgent problem in the "For all mankind" timeline.

After all the Soviets managed to squeeze  a toilet in their cramped Soyuz...

Quote
The forepart of the spacecraft is the orbital module (Russian: бытовой отсек, romanized: bytovoi otsek), also known as habitation section. It houses all the equipment that will not be needed for reentry, such as experiments, cameras or cargo. The module also contains a toilet, docking avionics and communications gear. Internal volume is 6 m3 (210 cu ft), living space 5 m3 (180 cu ft).

Quote
LM cabin
Crew: 2
Crew cabin volume: 235 cu ft (6.7 m3)
Habitable volume: 160 cu ft (4.5 m3)

Probably a little too small and already cramped. CSM, on the other hand...

Quote
CSM
The central pressure vessel of the command module was its sole habitable compartment. It had an interior volume of 210 cubic feet (5.9 m3) and housed the main control panels, crew seats, guidance and navigation systems, food and equipment lockers, the waste management system, and the docking tunnel.

On paper at least (lame pun absolutely involuntary), a Soyuz toilet could fit inside an Apollo Command Module...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/12/2021 05:10 pm
Re  the MOL monthly reports again


<snip>
 
Without a proper look I don't know if they had white or secret level counterparts.

<snip>


at a slightly more thorough look it seems as if the first in the set is Sept 65, attached, and marks an important breakpoint because it includes reports on BYEMAN events which had been handeled separately before then. So presumably there were other DORIAN reports of some kind between March 64 and late 65.  What isn't clear is whether there were also sanitised versions of the report after this break point, or how else that could have been handled, unless the audience was so limited it was all cleared anyway.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/13/2021 06:27 am
Also moving this one over:


Quote from: hoku on 10/08/2021 10:32 pm
    Quote from: Blackstar on 10/08/2021 09:15 pm
        Quote from: libra on 10/08/2021 04:56 pm
            We tend to forget indeed that, at least between 1963 and 1965, "USAF MOL" =/= "NRO KH-10".
            Was the story that the Air Force couldn't found any use to a military space station in 1963-64 - and then NRO said "how about a manned spysat ?" and Johnson got the program running for real in 1965 ?
        <snip>
        I'm just not sure. I think that it's possible that MOL was rather amorphous for at least a good part of 1964 and the reconnaissance mission did not get formally included in it until maybe late that year. And I think that's an important subject worth tracking down.
        <snip>

    This is supported by Lew Allen's comment (page 2 in the PDF):
    "For instance, MOL was decided upon when DYNASOAR was cancelled, because it was felt one shouldn't cancel something without allowing some alternate program; and many felt it was essential that DOD have some kind of man-in-space effort if the national commitment to Apollo was really going to generate a new era of manned space flight. Having decided on MOL, it took some time to decide what to do with it; and when nothing else made sense, the DORIAN mission was, in some sense, forced.
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/MAJOR%20NRO%20PROGRAMS%20&%20PROJECTS/NRO%20EOI/SC-2016-00001_C05096266.pdf


Thanks for reminding me of that. I saw that document. I think the relevant issue is when did it become official that reconnaissance would become the primary mission, and how?

I do remember seeing a document in that big trove of stuff I mentioned that we found at AFHRA that was one MOL officer writing to another MOL officer about how for the past year (so this would have been late 1964) they had been "unable to get MOL off dead center." It wasn't progressing anywhere in this guy's view. When I saw that memo it indicated to me that the reconnaissance mission was not incorporated until 1965.

But I don't know that. I'm just going from memory here.

I think I can see now more or less what happened. Thanks to you, @Libra, @Hoku, @Redclaws and others for the stimulus to look. Seems  have two key milestones:

1. Focusing of the research    to covert imaging, which as we saw in Carl Berger's 1970 history was done in Feb March1964 and which resulted in part from/required discussions between DNRO McMillan and Schriever. In the pdf of Berger, doc #800 in MOL 2015 release, it is  pp 69-73. It needed the DORIAN keyword which I think was created at that time. The internal SAFSP scepticism/dissent was thus about a report they had done as part of this process.

"Focusing" doesn't mean that no other BYEMAN research was done, e.g. SIGINT.

2. Focusing of that research further to create the primary mission. This would seem to have happened by May 1965, see attached from McMillan to Greer, "Direction of MOL Program Resulting from Presentations and Discussions from May
17-19, 1965", document #92 in the 2015 release.

So it was about 3 years from first authorisation of MOL  in 1962 to this.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/13/2021 12:53 pm
2. Focusing of that research further to create the primary mission. This would seem to have happened by May 1965, see attached from McMillan to Greer, "Direction of MOL Program Resulting from Presentations and Discussions from May
17-19, 1965", document #92 in the 2015 release.

So it was about 3 years from first authorisation of MOL  in 1962 to this.

This is consistent with my overall impression (without deliberately going through the documents systematically). It seemed to me from a number of different documents that I encountered long before the program declassification in 2015 that they were evaluating a bunch of different missions. Reconnaissance was kind of the big pole in the tent, but they were discussing other stuff too. I have a 1964 document that even provides a listing of all the experiments under consideration and it has a footnote mentioning that photo reconnaissance was also one of them. (From memory, without digging up that document, the interesting thing I remember was that neither SIGINT nor radar were treated like they were super secret, they were discussed more than photo-reconnaissance.)

There was also the corroborating fact that there were a bunch of MOL documents from 1964 and then everything dried up by 1965, implying that the security got much tighter at that point and for some reason--most likely the transition from research to an "operational" program.

That transition point I think is a key thing to understand, because I have long wondered about opposition within NRO at that time. Were there people who thought that this was a bad idea? Did they worry that getting hitched to a manned spaceflight program was going to restrict them and slow things down? Did the "unmanned MOL" get imposed on the program by outside advisors, or did it bubble up from within SAFSP (the NRO's Los Angeles office) from people who thought that they could do the mission without astronauts?

And a key question in all of this is what did the CIA think of MOL/DORIAN? I have anecdotal evidence indicating that they thought it was dumb, that very high resolution was unnecessary from an intelligence standpoint. Perhaps some of this was based upon their 1963 Purcell Report, which indicated that the "ideal" system had GAMBIT-1's resolution and CORONA's area coverage. Of course, you can parse that out a lot, because just because that was what they wanted for strategic assessment of the USSR does not mean that high resolution did not have any value.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/13/2021 03:25 pm
Quote
And a key question in all of this is what did the CIA think of MOL/DORIAN? I have anecdotal evidence indicating that they thought it was dumb, that very high resolution was unnecessary from an intelligence standpoint. Perhaps some of this was based upon their 1963 Purcell Report, which indicated that the "ideal" system had GAMBIT-1's resolution and CORONA's area coverage. Of course, you can parse that out a lot, because just because that was what they wanted for strategic assessment of the USSR does not mean that high resolution did not have any value.

And Bud Wheelon probably let Program A / Air Force dig their own grave with MOL, with a certain delectation... before Din Land, he was the "CIA side" most feared man.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/13/2021 04:22 pm
And Bud Wheelon probably let Program A / Air Force dig their own grave with MOL, with a certain delectation... before Din Land, he was the "CIA side" most feared man.

I interviewed Wheelon a couple of times and he flat out said to me that he wasn't impressed with anything the Air Force had done with space reconnaissance. Dunno if I recorded that comment. Wheelon had a reputation for being arrogant. But I don't know if he was wrong.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/13/2021 05:23 pm

<snip>

 It seemed to me from a number of different documents that I encountered long before the program declassification in 2015 that they were evaluating a bunch of different missions. Reconnaissance was kind of the big pole in the tent, but they were discussing other stuff too. I have a 1964 document that even provides a listing of all the experiments under consideration and it has a footnote mentioning that photo reconnaissance was also one of them. (From memory, without digging up that document, the interesting thing I remember was that neither SIGINT nor radar were treated like they were super secret, they were discussed more than photo-reconnaissance.)


<snip>
 

Intriguingly, and to me inexplicably, that remains true even in mid '66, in the attached slide set, document #259, "Leonard Briefing"  where Elint is being discussed even at Special Handling level. I think this   the  same classification that  266/949, later known as DSP was at, rather than a BYEMAN level ? [Edit: sorry, forgot to add slides pdf]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/13/2021 07:28 pm
Intriguingly, and to me inexplicably, that remains true even in mid '66, in the attached slide set, document #259, "Leonard Briefing"  where Elint is being discussed even at Special Handling level. I think this   the  same classification that  266/949, later known as DSP was at, rather than a BYEMAN level ? [Edit: sorry, forgot to add slides pdf]

The newly released version of chapter 4 of "The SIGINT Satellite Story" has a bit more about the classification levels for signals intelligence. I've read it, but I don't quite understand it. I think that the information was taken into the BYEMAN security control system in 1963 (they changed the overall SIGINT compartment name from EARDROP to EARPOP). That precedes this stuff on MOL. I'll check my notes, but I still don't understand why this stuff would be at lower level than that. Of course, ELINT/SIGINT got dropped off of MOL along with everything else. They put all the focus on the optical payload.

I think I just saw something in one of the EOI documents that mentioned MOL and implies that they were considering linking the optical system to the ELINT sensors. The idea was that if they detected a signal, they could use that to point the telescope and take a photo of the emitter. The problem with that is that the ELINT sensors on satellites were not that accurate. They could geolocate targets to something like 17 square nautical miles. And the DORIAN camera system had a really small field of view. So it strikes me that they would pick up a target and when they pointed the camera, they were unlikely to photograph the actual emitter. Like shooting at sounds in the dark.



Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: saturnapollo on 10/13/2021 07:38 pm
Quote
After all the Soviets managed to squeeze  a toilet in their cramped Soyuz...

It is in the Orbital Module which is extra space Apollo didn't have. Samantha Cristoforetti mentions using it in her book.

Keith
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/13/2021 07:42 pm
Intriguingly, and to me inexplicably, that remains true even in mid '66, in the attached slide set, document #259, "Leonard Briefing"  where Elint is being discussed even at Special Handling level. I think this   the  same classification that  266/949, later known as DSP was at, rather than a BYEMAN level ? [Edit: sorry, forgot to add slides pdf]

The newly released version of chapter 4 of "The SIGINT Satellite Story" has a bit more about the classification levels for signals intelligence. I've read it, but I don't quite understand it. I think that the information was taken into the BYEMAN security control system in 1963 (they changed the overall SIGINT compartment name from EARDROP to EARPOP). That precedes this stuff on MOL. I'll check my notes, but I still don't understand why this stuff would be at lower level than that. Of course, ELINT/SIGINT got dropped off of MOL along with everything else. They put all the focus on the optical payload.

I think I just saw something in one of the EOI documents that mentioned MOL and implies that they were considering linking the optical system to the ELINT sensors. The idea was that if they detected a signal, they could use that to point the telescope and take a photo of the emitter. The problem with that is that the ELINT sensors on satellites were not that accurate. They could geolocate targets to something like 17 square nautical miles. And the DORIAN camera system had a really small field of view. So it strikes me that they would pick up a target and when they pointed the camera, they were unlikely to photograph the actual emitter. Like shooting at sounds in the dark.

You beat me to posting there but there was indeed an initiative in first half of 66 at least for an Electromagnetic Pointing System. See the two attached monthly reports for examples.

What era of EOI doc ? Does the doc itself say that was the accuracy limit ? I ask because MOL could carry a much larger antenna if desired than a P-11 or even a 770.

What fascinates me is that this is so similar in spirit (not in detail of IR vs optical, operating altitude etc etc) to the mysterious dual payload of JUMPSEAT, as per https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4096/1 --- was it perhaps part of the inspiration for the latter ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/13/2021 08:12 pm
Dunno where I saw it or even if I saw it. I'm reading so much now that I forget what I've read. Here's something, from December 1966:

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/MAJOR%20NRO%20PROGRAMS%20&%20PROJECTS/CIA%20EOE/SC-2017-00012_C05104508.pdf

I've included two pages that show the security level of things and what they thought MOL was good for.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/14/2021 05:02 am
And Bud Wheelon probably let Program A / Air Force dig their own grave with MOL, with a certain delectation... before Din Land, he was the "CIA side" most feared man.

I interviewed Wheelon a couple of times and he flat out said to me that he wasn't impressed with anything the Air Force had done with space reconnaissance. Dunno if I recorded that comment. Wheelon had a reputation for being arrogant. But I don't know if he was wrong.

GAMBIT wasn't too bad no ?  ;)  But otherwise... SAMOS and MOL were no successes, indeed...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/14/2021 06:33 am
Dunno where I saw it or even if I saw it. I'm reading so much now that I forget what I've read. Here's something, from December 1966:

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/MAJOR%20NRO%20PROGRAMS%20&%20PROJECTS/CIA%20EOE/SC-2017-00012_C05104508.pdf

I've included two pages that show the security level of things and what they thought MOL was good for.

Thanks. I was confusing "Special Access Required" here, with "Special Handling" (as per the slides I was excerpting, and as occasionally stamped on other docs). It's S.A.R. not S.H. that applied to the Ssatellite Data System and DSP at some points in those programmes histories. It seems to have been more restrictive than secret but less so than BYEMAN/TK etc.  I thus don't have any idea about  what S.H. meant .
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/14/2021 10:52 am
Re my misplaced certainty, having just read the 1970 Berger history in its 2015 form:

2. Focusing of that research further to create the primary mission. This would seem to have happened by May 1965, see attached from McMillan to Greer, "Direction of MOL Program Resulting from Presentations and Discussions from May
17-19, 1965", document #92 in the 2015 release.

So it was about 3 years from first authorisation of MOL  in 1962 to this.

This is consistent with my overall impression (without deliberately going through the documents systematically). It seemed to me from a number of different documents that I encountered long before the program declassification in 2015 that they were evaluating a bunch of different missions. Reconnaissance was kind of the big pole in the tent, but they were discussing other stuff too. I have a 1964 document that even provides a listing of all the experiments under consideration and it has a footnote mentioning that photo reconnaissance was also one of them. (From memory, without digging up that document, the interesting thing I remember was that neither SIGINT nor radar were treated like they were super secret, they were discussed more than photo-reconnaissance.)

There was also the corroborating fact that there were a bunch of MOL documents from 1964 and then everything dried up by 1965, implying that the security got much tighter at that point and for some reason--most likely the transition from research to an "operational" program.

That transition point I think is a key thing to understand, because I have long wondered about opposition within NRO at that time. Were there people who thought that this was a bad idea? Did they worry that getting hitched to a manned spaceflight program was going to restrict them and slow things down? Did the "unmanned MOL" get imposed on the program by outside advisors, or did it bubble up from within SAFSP (the NRO's Los Angeles office) from people who thought that they could do the mission without astronauts?

 

and re your well-justified uncertainty about MOL's origin story


Quote
I am not convinced that what was released by the NRO on MOL provides the full story about its origins. I have--somewhere--a ton of memos dating from the first year of the MOL program. They include regular (weekly?) progress reports. They were declassified in the 1990s and I obtained them around 2001 or so. I don't remember the details, but I think I visited the Air Force Historical Research Agency's library with a NASA historian and we looked at all their declassified material on space and came across that MOL stuff and copied the whole lot (pumping a million quarters into their photocopier). But we didn't go through it carefully afterwards, just skimmed it.

All the material was at most only at the secret level and had been downgraded. But it seemed to present the story that MOL had indeed started out as a more generic program that did not include reconnaissance from the start. When the NRO released all their MOL stuff in 2015 (which did NOT include this early material), it implied that reconnaissance had been part of MOL from the start.

I'm just not sure. I think that it's possible that MOL was rather amorphous for at least a good part of 1964 and the reconnaissance mission did not get formally included in it until maybe late that year. And I think that's an important subject worth tracking down.
 

It seems that the 2015 document release does in fact tell us rather more than I'd ever realised. While it's true that the single history "book" i.e. Berger doesn't really go before 1962, and describes a programme where reconnaissance doesn't become the prime focus until 64 and doesn't become the operational mission until 65, there is a short history document included as #426 in the 2015 release (attached) that does go further back and adds to the picture. It's from Aerospace in August 67 and describes their work from 1960. Not sure I can summarise it quickly right now, but it suggests that the 63-64 period was a temporary loss of focus in an effort that was slowly ramping up but was arguably recon-centred from the start, from their perspective.  And it started before the NRO existed.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/14/2021 12:53 pm
GAMBIT wasn't too bad no ?  ;)  But otherwise... SAMOS and MOL were no successes, indeed...

I think that from the CIA's perspective, GAMBIT was not very useful. I can only speculate why. High resolution reconnaissance could be used to inform what was spotted on the search imagery, but it may not have provided definitive technological intelligence on its own. For example, a high-res image could allow an analyst to measure the size of a missile and then estimate how much fuel it carried. But that would have big error bars. However, if they could intercept the telemetry from the missile during a test, that would provide much more accurate information on performance.

But I'm really speculating here. There are reports on the value of high-res imagery, but they remain classified.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/16/2021 09:30 am
Further to my note about the intriguing role of Aerospace Corp in MOL during the pre NRO (60 to late 61) and early NRO (61 to 63) eras:


It seems that the 2015 document release does in fact tell us rather more than I'd ever realised. While it's true that the single history "book" i.e. Berger doesn't really go before 1962, and describes a programme where reconnaissance doesn't become the prime focus until 64 and doesn't become the operational mission until 65, there is a short history document included as #426 in the 2015 release (attached) that does go further back and adds to the picture. It's from Aerospace in August 67 and describes their work from 1960. Not sure I can summarise it quickly right now, but it suggests that the 63-64 period was a temporary loss of focus in an effort that was slowly ramping up but was arguably recon-centred from the start, from their perspective.  And it started before the NRO existed.

apparently they did a history article about MOL in the Summer 2004 issue of their magazine Crosslink. Paulo Ulivi posted about it at the time on the FPSPACE board, at which time the link was  http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2004/02.html

This is now a dead link, and  from the comments in FPSPACE  at the time the article may not really have gone into the history pre Dynasoar cancellation in 1963 but it might be worth revisiting.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: leovinus on 10/16/2021 11:30 am
Further to my note about the intriguing role of Aerospace Corp in MOL during the pre NRO (60 to late 61) and early NRO (61 to 63) eras:


It seems that the 2015 document release does in fact tell us rather more than I'd ever realised. While it's true that the single history "book" i.e. Berger doesn't really go before 1962, and describes a programme where reconnaissance doesn't become the prime focus until 64 and doesn't become the operational mission until 65, there is a short history document included as #426 in the 2015 release (attached) that does go further back and adds to the picture. It's from Aerospace in August 67 and describes their work from 1960. Not sure I can summarise it quickly right now, but it suggests that the 63-64 period was a temporary loss of focus in an effort that was slowly ramping up but was arguably recon-centred from the start, from their perspective.  And it started before the NRO existed.

apparently they did a history article about MOL in the Summer 2004 issue of their magazine Crosslink. Paulo Ulivi posted about it at the time on the FPSPACE board, at which time the link was  http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2004/02.html

This is now a dead link, and  from the comments in FPSPACE  at the time the article may not really have gone into the history pre Dynasoar cancellation in 1963 but it might be worth revisiting.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070305205226/http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2004/02.html
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/21/2021 10:54 am
I would like to ask a question. MOL / KH-10 "codename" of course was DORIAN. How was that picked ? The official story (AFAIK) was that a computer picked codenames at random.

But there is also a rumour that the said codenames were picked by spooks, and had "inside jokes". GAMBIT, for example, was called GAMBIT because back in 1962 it was a huge technological... gambit.

As such I was wondering if DORIAN could be related to this famous novel ?
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray

Whatif it was an "inside joke" related to mirrors ? and narcissism, and voyeurism ? Remember the spysats were cynically called "Key holes", for all too obvious reasons (it always baffles me, such blatant cynicism).

 And Oscar Wilde was the living incarnation of cynicism.

https://freebooksummary.com/the-picture-of-dorian-gray-use-of-mirrors-23185
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/21/2021 12:03 pm
I would like to ask a question. MOL / KH-10 "codename" of course was DORIAN. How was that picked ? The official story (AFAIK) was that a computer picked codenames at random.

But there is also a rumour that the said codenames were picked by spooks, and had "inside jokes". GAMBIT, for example, was called GAMBIT because back in 1962 it was a huge technological... gambit.

I don't know where DORIAN came from. However, the names were not picked by a computer. CORONA was named after the Smith Corona typewriter they were using to type up the original work plan. (There's an alternative story that it was named after a cigar, but I don't accept that one.) STRAWMAN was named that because the satellite configuration was considered the basic design, and other missions/designs could be adapted from that one. A lot of the AFTRACK and P-11 satellites got their names from their designers, like LONG JOHN (the designer was a tall guy named John). Some were even inside jokes. STEP-13 was named after the fact that there were 13 radar signals that the CIA had detected but could not identify, and the satellite was supposed to do that. KENNEN was named after the old English word (also German) meaning "to know."

The one relevant story I heard from Dick Truly was that the secretary for the general who ran MOL in Los Angeles was named Dorian. The system was not named after her, but Truly said that every time he heard the general call for his secretary, Truly stiffened up because they were told never to use that word.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: leovinus on 10/21/2021 02:58 pm
I would like to ask a question. MOL / KH-10 "codename" of course was DORIAN. How was that picked ? The official story (AFAIK) was that a computer picked codenames at random.

But there is also a rumour that the said codenames were picked by spooks, and had "inside jokes". GAMBIT, for example, was called GAMBIT because back in 1962 it was a huge technological... gambit.

[snip] KENNEN was named after the old English word (also German) meaning "to know." [snip]


Fascinating piece of info. Thank you. To this day, same in Dutch actually, as they are all in the same language family via Saxon, Anglo-Saxon, Old English, Old German etc

While this tells us is that someone knew European language families, this makes me wonder why they would choose an Old English name (instead of e.g. a typewriter name) ? Do you have more info on the "why" by any chance? Just because they could? An obscure reference to what the system was doing and they did not want to use Latin? And who was the project manager or engineer who would have known about Old English?

Reminds me of the Vandenberg name of the Space Force base in California. Obvious Dutch roots "van den berg" but changed on immigration supposedly.

PS: With respect to DORIAN, am always thinking of Dorian fruit in south east Asia.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: edzieba on 10/21/2021 03:48 pm
PS: With respect to DORIAN, am always thinking of Dorian fruit in south east Asia.
That would be the MOL's more pungent cousin, DURIAN.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/21/2021 04:52 pm
It seems that the 2015 document release does in fact tell us rather more than I'd ever realised. While it's true that the single history "book" i.e. Berger doesn't really go before 1962, and describes a programme where reconnaissance doesn't become the prime focus until 64 and doesn't become the operational mission until 65, there is a short history document included as #426 in the 2015 release (attached) that does go further back and adds to the picture. It's from Aerospace in August 67 and describes their work from 1960. Not sure I can summarise it quickly right now, but it suggests that the 63-64 period was a temporary loss of focus in an effort that was slowly ramping up but was arguably recon-centred from the start, from their perspective.  And it started before the NRO existed.


That short history document is really pretty good as a concise overview of the issues they faced and how they changed over time. For instance, Aerospace doing space station studies from 1960-1963 and identifying reconnaissance as the most promising mission.

"It soon became clear that field-of-view limitations, precise image-motion-compensation requirements, and across-the-format (geometric) smears associated with optical systems designed to achieve very high resolution [deleted, but probably said "6-12 inches"] prented technological limitations which could be circumvented by using man to perform acquisition, target centering and tracking functions."

Late 1963, Washington says do an experimental system first instead of an operational system. There's a good overall discussion of this, and it is reminiscent of what happened with Dyna-Soar. If you're spending all that money, you want something of value, not just an experimental system.

Then they added the ability to operate MOL unmanned. "Aerospace personnel therefore initiated a complete review of all aspects of the photographic reconnaissance operation to determine if there were primary mission functions other than acquisition and tracking, [which were] now automatable, that the man could perform which would result in a significant effectiveness advantage over the unmanned approach. Questions of increased total take due to man's performance of weather avoidance and target verification functions were subjected to rigorous statistical analyses, and while they could improve the mission effectiveness, the improvement was disappointingly low. The basic field-of-view limitation, it was then realized, had implications other than just a severe navigation and pointing requirement." It limits you to only looking at a single target instead of a bunch of them.


I've written about all this before in a bunch of TSR articles. Simply put, they wanted the astronauts to do a bunch of things in 1964 and by 1966, many of those things could be done automatically. So the question became what could the astronauts do that an automatic system could not do? And the answer was very little, and those things were not really valuable.





Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/21/2021 06:29 pm
On the naming issue I forgot to mention URSALA, RAQUEL and FARRAH. It's obvious where those names came from. And as I noted in one of my articles, there was a proposal for a Direct Readout URUSALA, which was abbreviated as DRACULA. But the general nixed that name. Too bad, because DRACULA would have been one of the best satellite names ever.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 10/21/2021 10:27 pm
It's durian fruit.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: leovinus on 10/21/2021 11:35 pm
It's durian fruit.

Oops, my bad :( You are correct. Sorry for the red herring. Back to the scheduled MOL discussion.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/22/2021 08:54 am
It seems that the 2015 document release does in fact tell us rather more than I'd ever realised. While it's true that the single history "book" i.e. Berger doesn't really go before 1962, and describes a programme where reconnaissance doesn't become the prime focus until 64 and doesn't become the operational mission until 65, there is a short history document included as #426 in the 2015 release (attached) that does go further back and adds to the picture. It's from Aerospace in August 67 and describes their work from 1960. Not sure I can summarise it quickly right now, but it suggests that the 63-64 period was a temporary loss of focus in an effort that was slowly ramping up but was arguably recon-centred from the start, from their perspective.  And it started before the NRO existed.


That short history document is really pretty good as a concise overview of the issues they faced and how they changed over time. For instance, Aerospace doing space station studies from 1960-1963 and identifying reconnaissance as the most promising mission.


<snip>


Glad you liked it. To me it seems to raise a number of fairly obvious questions

1. Who was it written for in 67 and why ?

2. Why is the pre 63 history ignored in Berger ?

3. Who was the sponsor(s) of Aerospace's work between its creation in 1960 and the creation of the NRO in 61 ?

4. What happened between 61 and the formal authorisation in 62 ? Was NRO involved as yet ?

And then what happened between 62 and the end of Dynasoar in 63 ?

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/01/2021 03:24 pm
I would like to ask a question. MOL / KH-10 "codename" of course was DORIAN. How was that picked ? The official story (AFAIK) was that a computer picked codenames at random.

But there is also a rumour that the said codenames were picked by spooks, and had "inside jokes". GAMBIT, for example, was called GAMBIT because back in 1962 it was a huge technological... gambit.

I don't know where DORIAN came from. However, the names were not picked by a computer. CORONA was named after the Smith Corona typewriter they were using to type up the original work plan. (There's an alternative story that it was named after a cigar, but I don't accept that one.) STRAWMAN was named that because the satellite configuration was considered the basic design, and other missions/designs could be adapted from that one. A lot of the AFTRACK and P-11 satellites got their names from their designers, like LONG JOHN (the designer was a tall guy named John). Some were even inside jokes. STEP-13 was named after the fact that there were 13 radar signals that the CIA had detected but could not identify, and the satellite was supposed to do that. KENNEN was named after the old English word (also German) meaning "to know."

The one relevant story I heard from Dick Truly was that the secretary for the general who ran MOL in Los Angeles was named Dorian. The system was not named after her, but Truly said that every time he heard the general call for his secretary, Truly stiffened up because they were told never to use that word.

I remember that when I first took an interest in this stuff there was a belief that names were random, and yet I have to say that almost every one I know of seems to have at least one backstory, and some have several-I get the feeling the intel community is fond of puns/double meanings etc, perhaps unsurprsingly.

Was interested to come across this reminiscence from Flax about why he had FULCRUM changed to HEXAGON (it's from the attached CSNR journal article), whole isssue is at https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/articles/docs/gh%20journal_web.pdf



Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/01/2021 05:48 pm
With regards to FULCRUM/HEXAGON, there was a logic to changing the name. There was a FULCRUM program that was producing hardware. When Itek dropped out, that hardware was no longer going to be built. So the new hardware, being developed by Perkin-Elmer, logically could use a new name. It seems like something similar happened with the change from ZAMAN to KENNEN--ZAMAN was the general technology development program, but when they decided on a satellite design, they changed it to KENNEN.

It seems to me that pretty much every one of the names that we know about has a story behind it and was not simply random. We don't know a lot of the stories, but somebody thought up the name rather than picking it off a list, and sometimes there was some meaning to the name as well.

As an example, the QUILL radar satellite got its name from "the Quill List" at West Point. If a cadet screwed up and got in trouble, they were put on the list. So being "on Quill" was considered a bad thing. It seems (not totally clear) that the person who picked the name was implying that QUILL was not a desirable program to be assigned to. But in reality, it turned out to be a small, focused project where the people involved could stand out and be recognized. So QUILL turned out to be a good assignment, not a bad one.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/01/2021 07:02 pm
Fulcrum later was the Mig-29 so we nearly got a FULCRUM spying a FULCRUM...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 11/02/2021 07:30 pm

3. Who was the sponsor(s) of Aerospace's work between its creation in 1960 and the creation of the NRO in 61 ?


The USAF has been Aerospace's sponsor since its inception, for both BMD/SSD/SAMSO/SD/SSD/SMC and SAFSP.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/02/2021 08:24 pm

3. Who was the sponsor(s) of Aerospace's work between its creation in 1960 and the creation of the NRO in 61 ?


The USAF has been Aerospace's sponsor since its inception, for both BMD/SSD/SAMSO/SD/SSD/SMC and SAFSP.

Remember that Aerospace Corp. is descended from Ramo-Wooldridge Corporation, so they started out doing USAF missile work, then added space work, then added NRO.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRW_Inc.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/02/2021 09:12 pm

3. Who was the sponsor(s) of Aerospace's work between its creation in 1960 and the creation of the NRO in 61 ?


The USAF has been Aerospace's sponsor since its inception, for both BMD/SSD/SAMSO/SD/SSD/SMC and SAFSP.

Remember that Aerospace Corp. is descended from Ramo-Wooldridge Corporation, so they started out doing USAF missile work, then added space work, then added NRO.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRW_Inc.

Thanks both. I realise I phrased that question poorly, should have been which bit of USAF sponsored just the Aerospace work on space stations. ?

But while we are here, I guess I am also curious about what came before 1960, and about what Charles Vick described as: "The initial study for MOL in 1960, designated SR-178 and titled "Global Surveillance System" [which] was considerably larger than the implemented test system. The satellites would have three to six astronauts, and four platforms would be in orbit simultaneously. Sensors considered included a high resolution camera with a 3 foot resolution, an infrared camera with a 75 foot resolution, a side looking radar with a 25 foot resolution, and an electronic intelligence SIGINT antenna." (https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kh-10.htm)

I realise the details may not be correct but am curious whether it was Aerospace or before them, and what is now known about SR-178. 
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/03/2021 01:18 am
Considering that most of Vick's citations were my work, he probably got that from me. If he did, I don't remember where I got it.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/03/2021 05:47 am
Considering that most of Vick's citations were my work, he probably got that from me. If he did, I don't remember where I got it.

Seems to have involved a dozen or so of contractor studies, reporting to ARDC at Wright Patterson, with Phase II concluding in Spring 1961. All I can see of it online are  the abstracts contained in the attached page pdfs which are from another mammoth (160 Mb) pdf, via Google books, see cover page below. I have also attached a couple of grabs to give the flavour. [Edit: Duplicate file removed]

I guess these would be relatives of the many SR series studies you wrote about in a TSR piece in 2007,  part of a burst of activity that was reined in by the Macnamara era.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/03/2021 08:12 am
I remember those ones. There were indeed a big amount of "S R" with numbers.

SR-183 and 192 were for lunar bases and even  solar system "conquest" by the Air Force, perhaps with Orion nuclear pulse "spaceborne battleships".

SR-89774 wanted to put wings on Atlas and Titan first stages to make them "flyback" for reuse. It led to Aerospaceplane "runaway to orbit" project, with air distillation. Dynasoar also got a SR- and also early spysats.

And plenty others of the same kind.

Together they made an enormous, sprawling "blueprint" of the Air Force long range plans for "space domination". NASA, Ike, JFK, ARPA and McNamara (among others players) put an end to that madness.

Its amazing the number of "pitched battles" the Air Force picked between 1948 and 1962.
- airpower and carriers with the Navy, IRBM and ABM with the Army, spysats with the CIA, "military space" with ARPA, manned spaceflight with NASA... sometimes they won, most of the time they lost. 
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/03/2021 12:58 pm

<snip>

Note that the only thing on the lunar base study that I think is public is the declassified NASA memo that I have attached here. It includes a pencil sketch that I have also attached.

<snip>


I think you're underselling that rather wonderful memo, and let's not forget the other brilliant sketch it contains:

[Edit: I should say I intend no disrespect, most of the things that have inspired me started out as a pic on napkin somewhere looking very much like that.]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/04/2021 04:25 pm
Re @Blackstar's comment about the organisation of the reports:

Quote
The two that interest me are the SR-192 Lunar Strategic System study, and SR-181 the Strategic Earth System Study.

I am trying to get them declassified. One thing I've discovered is that in Air Force records there were a bunch of contractor reports and they may have all been rolled up into a single "study." In other words, what is listed as a study is really a collection of contractor reports and not necessarily a final report by the Air Force or a single contractor. It's a bit confusing.

it looks so far to me if SR-178 had two (competing?) prime contractors, one was Boeing and the other North American. Without a systematic reading I'm not sure but it looked as if all the other documents listed were attached to one or other team-a lot of the "usual suspects"  like RW, GE, HRB-Singer et al popped up but also names that were new to me like Melpar, of whom I'd never heard and clearly should have, they were an "American government contractor in the 20th century Cold War period. At a time when most employment in Washington, DC was directly by the US federal government, Melpar became an early private sector contracting company training a high technology workforce in the area.

In 1945, after the conclusion of World War II, the founders of Melpar Inc (Thomas Meloy and Joseph Parks), at the suggestion of the United States Navy, moved from New York City to the Washington, DC area to obtain government contracts. Meloy had served as an assistant to Henry Stimson during the war. The company name was derived from the first syllable of their last names. In late 1945 Parks accidentally killed himself in a hunting accident; nevertheless Meloy continued promote developing Melpar as an engineering and production company doing business with the Armed forces. He acquired the Carl Miller Engineering Company, a small firm that designed and produced electro-mechanical products. The new company took over a contract for airborne radar systems, and expanded. In the next few years Melpar moved to Alexandria, Virginia, added a second plant in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a third plant in Alexandria. Within 15 years the company grew to more than 6,000 employees, and occupied ten facilities of more than 1,000,000 square feet (93,000 m2) throughout Northern Virginia.

Events such as the Berlin Airlift, the detonation of the nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union, and the outbreak of the Korean War helped Melpar's business. In addition to military applications, technology began to play a role in nonmilitary areas. The US government had a pool of technical talent in its laboratories, and assumed an expanded role. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 further intensified competition with the Soviet Union."
--- Wikipedia.

and re the relevance and status of SR-178


If we did not have Hartman's sketches, we would have nothing at all--that study remains classified. So I'm happy that I found his memo.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that the absence of these studies (which remain classified, not public) seriously harms our understanding of the history of the US Air Force in space. This was one small moment in the history of Air Force space [...] But I also think that they could provide important context for what people were thinking about during this period (1958-1960) and maybe also context about what happened later.
 

I think even for cultural historians, in the mould of this book https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/welcome-mars or this film https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146261/reviews  it would be interesting enough, but as @libra was also saying the saga of the AF and its relation to ARPA, NASA, CIA etc in 1958-62 was so important in  creating the space world that we now inhabit that I am sure there is still more to be understood (or maybe just stuff I don't know, which is good enough for me ;-).

I had wondered about the status of those abstracts but the info in the volume clarifies it a bit, the whole thing was a public document, and for example some of those on the Google books site are from U Texas Library, but there were white pages and buff pages which helped explain what they could send out and who they could send it to, see grab below. Not sure this colour coding has fully survived the scanning process ;-)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/06/2021 10:16 am
Grabs popcorn
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/08/2021 09:22 pm
On the naming issue I forgot to mention URSALA, RAQUEL and FARRAH. It's obvious where those names came from. And as I noted in one of my articles, there was a proposal for a Direct Readout URUSALA, which was abbreviated as DRACULA. But the general nixed that name. Too bad, because DRACULA would have been one of the best satellite names ever.

I thought that I mentioned QUILL somewhere on this board recently, but cannot find it. QUILL was a one-off radar satellite launched in December 1964. QUILL was suggested as a name from West Point, where being on the "Quill List" or more simply "on Quill" meant that a cadet was in trouble. Apparently the name was suggested because somebody thought that the QUILL program was not a desirable assignment because it was so small. The opposite was true, because the guy who ran QUILL got credit for running a successful program, and was later promoted to brigadier general.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/16/2021 03:20 pm
Modified rather than quoted a previous post by accident so redoing it.
Grabs popcorn

Thanks. I've left the SR-178 specific posts as I think they remind one that the beginning and end of DORIAN were not entirely tidy. There is a genuinely interesting question about which of the many AF studies in the late 50s and early 60s would have fed into the genesis of MOL, and how they would have done so. 


The moonbase thread has had all sorts of serendipity for me at least, and I wanted to share the couple of items that may be relevant to MOL.  They show AW&ST in both its moods. In this case, for SR 178 I'd call it the "add two and two and make 5" mood, whereas the next posting, from July 63 and for SR 17527 Military Test Space Station feels a bit more like it deserves the "Aviation Leak" name, though in truth I have no idea.

Anyway the first is interesting, being from only a few months before what the abstracts I posted earlier show to have been the end of Part II of SR 178.  It is notable for describing a short-lived mission,  rather like the pop-down stealthy unmanned spysat designs referred to in some of the recently declassified EOI docs that were related to ZOSTER. It may well be an instance of AW&ST connecting a known SR number to something they'd heard, and getting it wrong-but it is intriguing. [Edit: The later articles suggest that SR 178 did indeed envisage some sort of swooping space station ...]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/16/2021 03:41 pm
And here's the other article from July '63 i.e. a few months before the cancellation of Dynasoar. To me it feels more like Aviation Week is being briefed this time, but whether its image of Titan 3  "canister + Gemini" design is based on its sources is not terribly clear. It refers back to several previous SR studies, and shows a pic from one of them (MTSS).

As with the other piece  it may not be of much factual use but it is a nice snapshot of the Zeitgeist. And I love those vintage corporate ads, of the type so well collected in the book "Another Science Fiction".
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: JoeFromRIUSA on 11/17/2021 02:59 pm
Nice page grabs from AW& ST, Littlebird. How did you "grab" them?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/17/2021 03:11 pm
I'm a Aviation Week online subscriber, which I reckon is a bargain at around 100ish £/$/euro per year. So I   will take them down if a DMCA or similar comes my way, and would urge anyone who likes them to consider suscribing.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: JoeFromRIUSA on 11/17/2021 04:22 pm
I assume you got the articles from the 100 year anniversary collection. So, a subscriber can pull invidual pages from those issues for his or her use?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/17/2021 04:23 pm
I assume you got the articles from the 100 year anniversary collection. So, a subscriber can pull invidual pages from those issues for his or her use?

Yes.

I should add that the browsing of issues works much better than the search function. But it's also, frankly, much more fun ...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/17/2021 05:29 pm
And here's the other article from July '63 i.e. a few months before the cancellation of Dynasoar. To me it feels more like Aviation Week is being briefed this time, but whether its image of Titan 3  "canister + Gemini" design is based on its sources is not terribly clear. It refers back to several previous SR studies, and shows a pic from one of them (MTSS).

As with the other piece  it may not be of much factual use but it is a nice snapshot of the Zeitgeist. And I love those vintage corporate ads, of the type so well collected in the book "Another Science Fiction".

Interesting to see the missions that AW&ST thought the military space station would perform. I particularly like the space patrol, while the "command post to control strategic strikes" was echoed by those remarkable GE advanced concepts slides from 1969 that have been mentioned and shown upthread and in a TSR article.

Just makes me more curious as to where Aerospace's role (if any) in all this would have been, granted that at least one of the SR series was run out of Wright-Patterson.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/20/2021 11:22 am

it looks so far to me if SR-178 had two (competing?) prime contractors, one was Boeing and the other North American. Without a systematic reading I'm not sure but it looked as if all the other documents listed were attached to one or other team


A bit more clarity added about the study teams on SR-178, the Global Surveillance System, from AW&ST [Sep 18, 1961, p. 28]. Turns out there were 4 teams, GE, Martin, North American and Boeing.  Not totally clear which were USAF-funded and which were company-funded, as this article and the following posting's lists don't seem to agree.

Anyway, looks as if the presentations were made in August 1961, and then further studies were made.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/20/2021 11:33 am
Just makes me more curious as to where Aerospace's role (if any) in all this would have been, granted that at least one of the SR series was run out of Wright-Patterson.

This, meanwhile, from January 1962  explains that Aerospace were involved in 1961 in the evaluation of the SR 178 studies, which makes sense in that the compnay's origin had been as a source of expertise for the USAF that would be detached from other competing aerospace companies.

It also describes how the SR series was giving way to Air Force Planning Studies whereby all studies were funded, there was no cost sharing, and there would be two parallel studies.



[Edit: It reports that North American was lobbying for a military space station, and later notes drily that the recent award of the Apollo contract to NAA has "apparently ... not dampened its interest in global surveillance". It is interesting though that when  in  August 1962, in the oldest declassified MOL memo, the first contractors are directed to begin work, they are one of the SR 178 team leaders, GE,  and a company with less work on Apollo, Douglas.]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/22/2021 12:15 pm
And here's the other article from July '63 i.e. a few months before the cancellation of Dynasoar. To me it feels more like Aviation Week is being briefed this time, but whether its image of Titan 3  "canister + Gemini" design is based on its sources is not terribly clear. It refers back to several previous SR studies, and shows a pic from one of them (MTSS).

A

Looks like the military test space station (MTSS) studies as early as 1961 may have been crucial to the evolution of MOL, and they are much better documented than SR 178. This will be old news to many on thius board, I know, but I hadn't seen them before.

Of the many sources out there I thought David Portree's Wired piece was particularly nice: https://www.wired.com/2012/10/modular-space-station-evolving-from-gemini-1962/

"In the first half of 1961, McDonnell submitted a proposal for a Gemini-based military spacecraft as part of the USAF's Military Test Space Station (MTSS) study. In McDonnell's design, Air Force astronauts would reach a pressurized module attached behind their Gemini spacecraft by opening a hatch above and behind their ejection seats. The hatch would lead through the Gemini Reentry Module heatshield to a bent tunnel passing through the Adapter Module. The military spacecraft would include surveillance cameras and a powerful transtage rocket motor for large orbit changes and fast satellite inspection missions.

High-level uncertainty about the USAF role in manned spaceflight led McDonnell in December 1962 to peddle its Gemini station plans to NASA. The company proposed that the U.S. civilian space agency carry out a low-cost Gemini-based space station program that would include design features it had developed for MTSS."

Boldfacing is mine. Has some great pics of the civilian spin off study version.


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 11/22/2021 12:33 pm
Quote
The military spacecraft would include surveillance cameras and a powerful transtage rocket motor for large orbit changes and fast satellite inspection missions.

Make some sense, and I wonder why such capability was never considered for the MOL. I mean, even a Transtage (with modest specific impulse and mass fraction) could provide a MOL with 1 to 2 km/s of delta-v; enough to climb pretty high or make plane changes of some degrees (less than 10 degrees for sure).

Basically : 9.81*315*ln((14+15)/(2.8+15) = 1508 m/s   
(a 15 mt MOL, and a Transtage of 14 mt, mass fraction 0.80 and modest specific impulse typical of storables. Launched separately, each one on a Titan III-M, 38000 pounds to orbit is a bit more than 17 mt)

For the sake of comparison, Gemini 10 & 11 "high rides" took 280 m/s, one-way... the orbits were not circularized, however - only the apogee was raised, then lowered.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/23/2021 10:30 am
Quote
The military spacecraft would include surveillance cameras and a powerful transtage rocket motor for large orbit changes and fast satellite inspection missions.

Make some sense, and I wonder why such capability was never considered for the MOL. I mean, even a Transtage (with modest specific impulse and mass fraction) could provide a MOL with 1 to 2 km/s of delta-v; enough to climb pretty high or make plane changes of some degrees (less than 10 degrees for sure).

Basically : 9.81*315*ln((14+15)/(2.8+15) = 1508 m/s   
(a 15 mt MOL, and a Transtage of 14 mt, mass fraction 0.80 and modest specific impulse typical of storables. Launched separately, each one on a Titan III-M, 38000 pounds to orbit is a bit more than 17 mt)

For the sake of comparison, Gemini 10 & 11 "high rides" took 280 m/s, one-way... the orbits were not circularized, however - only the apogee was raised, then lowered.

It might have been considered. Some artwork of the time showed a Transtage, see example at Drew Ex Machina https://www.drewexmachina.com/2016/11/03/the-usaf-manned-orbiting-laboratory-test-flight/ though the connection of some artists' impressions to reality is known to be a bit tenuous for MOL. [Edit: John Charles did a great article for Spaceflight a few years ago on some of the MOL paintings, by the way.]

Same site also has a nice pic of the boilerplate MOL that was launched on a Titan IIIC. This included a Transtage though  that may just have been because the IIIC was less powerful than the IIIM ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 11/23/2021 11:55 am
though the connection of some artists' impressions to reality is known to be a bit tenuous for MOL.

This is something that I've always found rather odd. MOL had a clearly defined mission by 1965-66. And yet there was this artwork depicting other somewhat fantastical concepts. Why? Possible explanations:

-they were disinformation intended to hide the intelligence mission
-the artists and contractors who produced them were not cleared and had no idea what MOL actually was
-they were produced to accompany proposals for other missions and hardware
-they were aspirational, produced by companies that wanted bigger parts of MOL
-they were entirely for public consumption, as a way of depicting a program without giving any clue to its actual purpose (similar to the first one, but less malevolent/intentional--more along the lines of a manager telling an artist "draw a spaceship for our advertisement for our valves")

I sort of lean toward the last explanation. I've talked to a few space artists over the years and sometimes they were given very good info and explicit instructions, and sometimes they were just told to go draw a cool spaceplane.


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 11/23/2021 03:01 pm
though the connection of some artists' impressions to reality is known to be a bit tenuous for MOL.

This is something that I've always found rather odd. MOL had a clearly defined mission by 1965-66. And yet there was this artwork depicting other somewhat fantastical concepts. Why? Possible explanations:

-they were disinformation intended to hide the intelligence mission
-the artists and contractors who produced them were not cleared and had no idea what MOL actually was
-they were produced to accompany proposals for other missions and hardware
-they were aspirational, produced by companies that wanted bigger parts of MOL
-they were entirely for public consumption, as a way of depicting a program without giving any clue to its actual purpose (similar to the first one, but less malevolent/intentional--more along the lines of a manager telling an artist "draw a spaceship for our advertisement for our valves")

I sort of lean toward the last explanation. I've talked to a few space artists over the years and sometimes they were given very good info and explicit instructions, and sometimes they were just told to go draw a cool spaceplane.

I can imagine all might have applied at one time or another.

In the case of the one I was talking about a comparison of the image (top) with the reality of DORIAN (bottom two images from the Courtney  Homer NRO/CSNR book) suggests that it doesn't bear much resemblance to the real MOL, and so probably doesn't tell us anything about Transtage after all.

However it might have suited the NRO if people thought the space below the living module was occupied by the Transtage  as it would have distracted from asking what else might be there.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 12/17/2021 04:38 pm
Just wanted to mention I checked Skylab ATM internal diameter - the so called Experiment canister.

It was 84 inch in diameter: plenty enough for an OAO UV telescope of 38 inch; and also for a MOL 72 inch mirror.

I didn't thought the Apollo Telescope Mount would be wide enough a MOL mirror could fit inside... and I was wrong. The ATM was one huge piece of hardware, when you think about it.

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/770.pdf

Quote
One step along the way that we are con-
sidering is a large stellar telescope (ATM-B) for operation with the
second "dry workshop", planned for flight in 1974. We have, with the
assistance of the MOL team, taken steps to have Dr. Aden Meinel of the
University of Arizona and Messrs. Olivier and Waite from the Marshall
Space Flight Center examine the existing MOL hardware at Eastman Kodak.
Their purpose is to make a preliminary evaluation as to the suitability
of this equipment for stellar astronomy, the steps that might be
required to so modify it, and the probable compatibility of the system
with the Apollo Telescope Mount and dry workshop. We expect to have
their preliminary findings within several weeks [September 12, 1969]

Even if the mirror inside the ATM could NOT be used for spying the Soviets (not as a telescope) it's pretty fun to think a Skylab nearly got a MOL reflector... could be the basis of a technothriller where NASA Skylab performs a "dual mission": ATM officially, spying the Soviets unofficially.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 12/22/2021 05:54 am
Just wanted to mention I checked Skylab ATM internal diameter - the so called Experiment canister.

It was 84 inch in diameter: plenty enough for an OAO UV telescope of 38 inch; and also for a MOL 72 inch mirror.

I didn't thought the Apollo Telescope Mount would be wide enough a MOL mirror could fit inside... and I was wrong. The ATM was one huge piece of hardware, when you think about it.

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/770.pdf

Quote
One step along the way that we are con-
sidering is a large stellar telescope (ATM-B) for operation with the
second "dry workshop", planned for flight in 1974. We have, with the
assistance of the MOL team, taken steps to have Dr. Aden Meinel of the
University of Arizona and Messrs. Olivier and Waite from the Marshall
Space Flight Center examine the existing MOL hardware at Eastman Kodak.
Their purpose is to make a preliminary evaluation as to the suitability
of this equipment for stellar astronomy, the steps that might be
required to so modify it, and the probable compatibility of the system
with the Apollo Telescope Mount and dry workshop. We expect to have
their preliminary findings within several weeks [September 12, 1969]

Even if the mirror inside the ATM could NOT be used for spying the Soviets (not as a telescope) it's pretty fun to think a Skylab nearly got a MOL reflector... could be the basis of a technothriller where NASA Skylab performs a "dual mission": ATM officially, spying the Soviets unofficially.

I'm sure that as well as a Clancy/Crichton-esque technothriller there's a whole thread's worth on the fictional lives of Skylab.
But staying sort of on topic, wouldn't the dual mission require rolling the spacecraft all the time ? Or would your covert version use a souped-up EREP ? 
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 12/22/2021 06:30 am
You are speaking straight to my heart here, but that's not the right place to go "fiction / alt-history".

Quote
I'm sure that as well as a Clancy/Crichton-esque technothriller there's a whole thread's worth on the fictional lives of Skylab.

English not my native language and I don't understand the meaning of this sentence, sorry.

Quote
But staying sort of on topic, wouldn't the dual mission require rolling the spacecraft all the time ? Or would your covert version use a souped-up EREP ?

Probably incompatible with Skylab basic mission for sure. ATM looked... UPWARDs (ha ha, what a lame joke !) when a spysat needs to look downwards - so yes I suppose Skylab would have to do all kind of bizarre orbital manoeuvering. And since it lacked thrusters, as seen when trying to desorbit the thing properly...

Geez, now that's an idea.

The year is 1969. On June 10 MOL has been canned. Less than six weeks later on July 22, dry workshop Skylab is a go for NASA.

The civilian space program seemingly has won the "battle of space stations".

But USAF has a "Plan B"...

Since 1965 Congress has pestered them requesting MOL and AAP space stations to be merged.

Since 1963 NASA has asked spysat after spysat, for many different missions. Including putting a MOL mirror into Skylab-B ATM for stellar astronomy.

Enough is enough... USAF rams into NASA, a cover mission for Skylab B's ATM: spying the Soviets...


Ain't that a terrific pitch ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 12/22/2021 06:51 am
You are speaking straight to my heart here, but that's not the right place to go "fiction / alt-history".

Quote
I'm sure that as well as a Clancy/Crichton-esque technothriller there's a whole thread's worth on the fictional lives of Skylab.

English not my native language and I don't understand the meaning of this sentence, sorry.



Quote
But staying sort of on topic, wouldn't the dual mission require rolling the spacecraft all the time ? Or would your covert version use a souped-up EREP ?

Probably incompatible with Skylab basic mission for sure. ATM looked... UPWARDs (ha ha, what a lame joke !) when a spysat needs to look downwards - so yes I suppose Skylab would have to do all kind of bizarre orbital manoeuvering. And since it lacked thrusters, as seen when trying to desorbit the thing properly...

Geez, now that's an idea.

The year is 1969. On June 10 MOL has been canned. Less than six weeks later on July 22, dry workshop Skylab is a go for NASA.

The civilian space program seemingly has won the "battle of space stations".

But USAF has a "Plan B"...

Since 1965 Congress has pestered them requesting MOL and AAP space stations to be merged.

Since 1963 NASA has asked spysat after spysat, for many different missions. Including putting a MOL mirror into Skylab-B ATM for stellar astronomy.

Enough is enough... USAF rams into NASA, a cover mission for Skylab B's ATM: spying the Soviets...


Ain't that a terrific pitch ?

I fear some of my long suffering friends and colleagues would question if English is *my* native language :-; ... but what I meant is that there is a whole other thread to be done on the fictional lives of Skylab and the Skylab-like stations such as Iron Man 1 in Marooned iirc. I think Dwayne and Emily Carney wrote in TSR about Skylab's appearance in FAM, for example.

Re pitches though, as William Gibson has  remarked, it's hard to pitch something that is as strange as reality, these days. But maybe that's why we read fiction, sometimes ?

Re ATM etc, you don't need thrusters to keep changing the pointing direction-just beefy control moment gyros as per another earlier discussion. However I think people would notice after a while :-)

[Edit: and there's an interesting question as to when you'd still find thusters handy even if you have CMGs, especially for the largest LEO and GEO spacecraft.]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 12/22/2021 07:43 am
Quote
Re pitches though, as William Gibson has  remarked, it's hard to pitch something that is as strange as reality, these days. But maybe that's why we read fiction, sometimes ?

no idea who he is, but I will note two things

a) He nailed it perfectly

b) Is he related to the Gibson who flew to Skylab ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 12/22/2021 09:19 am
Quote
Re pitches though, as William Gibson has  remarked, it's hard to pitch something that is as strange as reality, these days. But maybe that's why we read fiction, sometimes ?

no idea who he is, but I will note two things

a) He nailed it perfectly

b) Is he related to the Gibson who flew to Skylab ?

I should say I was paraphrasing an interview, not quoting. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gibson  for his bio. He is endlessly  quotable though, and indeed quoted.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 12/22/2021 12:09 pm
Quote
Re pitches though, as William Gibson has  remarked, it's hard to pitch something that is as strange as reality, these days. But maybe that's why we read fiction, sometimes ?

no idea who he is, but I will note two things

Science fiction writer. Started writing cyberpunk. Hit it big in the 1980s with "Neuromancer," one of my favorite books. It is about an artificial intelligence manipulating various people so that it can be set free upon the world. He was very influential. Most of his early books were set about 100-150 years in the future. But eventually he concluded that "the future is already here, it just isn't evenly distributed yet," by which he meant that we are surrounded by things that we would have considered futuristic only a few years earlier. So increasingly his books were set in the present, but with technological aspects that seem futuristic but in many ways are just variations of what already exists. Interviews with him are often highly insightful.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 12/22/2021 04:25 pm
Quote
Re pitches though, as William Gibson has  remarked, it's hard to pitch something that is as strange as reality, these days. But maybe that's why we read fiction, sometimes ?

no idea who he is, but I will note two things

Science fiction writer. Started writing cyberpunk. Hit it big in the 1980s with "Neuromancer," one of my favorite books. It is about an artificial intelligence manipulating various people so that it can be set free upon the world. He was very influential. Most of his early books were set about 100-150 years in the future. But eventually he concluded that "the future is already here, it just isn't evenly distributed yet,"


Being pedantic, because I can, I note that the yet wasn't in the original quote. This is more than pedantry, because I don't think he expects it ever to settle down, any more than it ever did. I was forcefully struck by this when standing in a street in Shanghai about 10 years ago that contained both a horse drawn cart and a Mercedes.

Quote
by which he meant that we are surrounded by things that we would have considered futuristic only a few years earlier. So increasingly his books were set in the present, but with technological aspects that seem futuristic but in many ways are just variations of what already exists. Interviews with him are often highly insightful.

There's also the film "No maps for these territories" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Maps_for_These_Territories
and his superb essay collection "Distrust that particular flavor".
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 12/23/2021 03:42 pm
Not exactly the MOL, but another example of Skylab (and NASA) flirting with the NRO and the limit they had fixed for remote sensing back in 1966: 0.1 milliradian from 150 miles high, which translated as: 18 meters to 20 meters ground resolution.

My understanding is that NASA was kind of forbidden to get BELOW that limit for cameras in Earth orbit
- to not irritate the Soviets with "civilian spying" of their military secrets
- same for the NRO and US military secrets
- also spysats were highly classified and the NRO did not wanted NASA to attract the public spotlight on their business.

Ok, so Apollo 13 & 14 flew a large camera around the Moon that was neither from a KH-7 (UPWARD) nor from the SR-71 (PanCam) but from the Navy P-3C Orion. Still it was quite powerful.

That was called: the Large Topographic Camera.

Well a third camera was to fly on Apollo 15 and the last H-class mission, except it morphed into a reborn Apollo 18 J-class, thus with a PanCam - making the LTC redundant.

What happened was that third LTC was transferred to Skylab A and flown as part of the EREP package and rebranded Earth Terrain Camera.

Yet that camera was seemingly just powerful enough to "sneak" below the 1966 NRO lower ground resolution limit: 18 m to 20 m, that milliradian thing.

And guess what a NRO documents search brings ? Memos related to that ETC...

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22skylab%22%22earth%22%22terrain+camera%22+site%3Awww.nro.gov&client=firefox-b-d&ei=MKbEYcmdL8aIaa_8k2A&ved=0ahUKEwjJ9faGrvr0AhVGRBoKHS_-BAwQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22skylab%22%22earth%22%22terrain+camera%22+site%3Awww.nro.gov&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EANKBAhBGAFKBAhGGABQkAVY_RtglR9oAXAAeACAAZkBiAG-BZIBBDEwLjGYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

Quote
SKYLAB Earth Terrain Camera approved as an exception to 20 meter guideline set in 1966

Quote
At that time, it was mentioned that NASA did not yet have final approval to employ the camera

Another Google search says
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22earth+terrain+camera%22%22resolution%22

Quote
[Skylab] Earth Terrain Camera had a ground resolution of 15 to 30 meters

Wham. Just below the 1966 NRO lower resolution limit of 18-20 m.

- What is interesting is that story echoes an earlier one from 1967: AAP wet workshops (Skylab ancestor) or AAP-1A getting a repurposed UPWARD camera... in low Earth orbit. Now that was far more serious as it was KH-7 camera with 3 ft or less ground resolution; and it wasn't allowed to happen.

-I'm also wondering about this incident.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/531/1

I know Area 51 / Groom lake is sensitive, but it still wonder why the spooks made such a fuss if the Skylab crew took these pictures with hand held cameras and thus a ground resolution of 100 meters or probably more.

I wonder instead if the said pictures weren't taken with the Earth Terrain Camera ? I know 15 m is perhaps a "best case" but imagine
- ETC was already below the 1966 treshold
- and now they have taken pictures of Area 51 with the damn thing !

I wonder if, besides "UPWARD on wet workshops, 1967" and "LTC on Skylab, 1973" NASA ever tried to use in Earth orbit a PanCam leftover by Apollo 18 / 19 / 20.

Indirectly it nearly happened... https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1380/1

At the end of the day, all three powerful Apollo cameras (nearly) ended in low Earth orbit, at some point or another.
No surprise the NRO was a little nervous about this business.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/08/2022 03:00 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2339062#msg2339062

Cross posting

MOL was so big it was managed from AFSC HQ in DC vs SSD/SAMSO in LA

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 02/08/2022 03:10 pm
RE MOL costs

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2339062#msg2339062

Cross posting

MOL was so big it was managed from AFSC HQ in DC vs SSD/SAMSO in LA

and re: Blackstar here:


https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2339062#msg2339062

Quote

I never paid much attention to that, but it seems rather important (and we should take any discussion of that to the MOL thread). But for MOL there was:

-launch vehicle procurement (and ground infrastructure like SLC-6)
-Gemini procurement
-the pressurized lab module and its associated equipment like life support, etc.
-ancillary stuff, like spacesuits. etc.

That's a LOT of stuff to pay for. If that was all loaded on USAF, and NRO only had the optical system (admittedly, that was a big "only"), that put a lot of MOL's costs outside of the NRO and onto the USAF space program. Now there were legitimate reasons to do that, including security (for instance, you can buy the Gemini spacecraft with an unclassified contract), but it still had the effect of keeping NRO's budget a lot lower than it actually was, considering that MOL was an NRO mission.

Something that came up in the Hans Mark NRO interview is that as long as the NRO budget was below a magic amount ($1 billion), there was almost no congressional oversight. But the people in charge were keeping it below that number by pushing lots of costs, including launch vehicles, onto the USAF. Similarly, when SDS came along, the plan was to procure it as a classified USAF program and the NRO part would only be a communications payload. Now this happened to be the primary payload and ultimately the only convincing justification for building SDS, but once again they were being sneaky. Of course, they're the intelligence community, so sneaky is part of the job description.


There is also the experimental work on readout that we also discussed a little bit upthread. Was that funded by NRO or USAF ?

[Edit: Perhaps worth saying that when SDS was first evolving the idea of using it as a relay for DSP to avoid use of Nurrungar and/or save money was also apparently considered quite seriously. So not totally sneaky.]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/08/2022 03:16 pm

There is also the experimental work on readout that we also discussed a little bit upthread. Was that funded by NRO or USAF ?


USAF did no such work
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 02/08/2022 03:44 pm
One might also speculate that McMillan's support for/acquiescence to in making DORIAN the main R&D payload and then the main payload, period, for MOL might have been bought in part by the deal that the only cost to NRO was DORIAN itself ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 02/23/2022 04:36 pm
Just because it doesn't seem to have popped up in this thread, a meet the MOL astronauts NRO event from 2019 that was added to YouTube in 2021, via https://www.nro.gov/History-and-Studies/Center-for-the-Study-of-National-Reconnaissance/Organizational-and-Program-Histories/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eHHR_elxXw
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 02/26/2022 01:55 pm
A bunch of MOL documents. Most of these are related to the Gemini spacecraft and subsystems. There's nothing here that will knock your socks off. It's mostly technical.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 02/26/2022 01:58 pm
Some more. Again, there's nothing amazing here.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 03/08/2022 06:35 am
This is a series of posts on the infrastructure required for the production, assembly, and testing of the MOL/DORIAN camera optical system. The facilities include chambers for the characterisation of individual optics and assembled optical systems, as well as chambers for environmental testing (thermal, "weather" at launch side, acoustic, ...).

The first set of slides is from the Dec 1965 "DORIAN PROGRAM Review", and defines the top level requirements. The main difference compared to previous projects (KH7) - and already being implemented for the at that time ongoing KH-8 development (see Dwayne's contemporary post in the GAMBIT thread) - was the specification for testing large mirrors in a "gravity neutral" horizontal position. This led to tall vertical testing stands.

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/195.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/195.pdf)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 03/08/2022 06:48 am
EK in late 1965 presented a "crash schedule" to get the "major technical equipment" and large mirror manufacturing operational within about 2 years.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 03/08/2022 07:23 am
By the end of 1968, the majority of the "major equipment" facilities, and the full assembly line for the DORIAN cameras were up and running.

Letters and Roman numerals were used at EK to label test "Chambers" according to their main purpose:
Chamber A, B, C: thermal vacuum testing of optics
Chamber D: "ambient" 5 psi pressure OxHe testing
Chamber F: weather box for ground-conditioning tests
Chamber X: vacuum testing of equipment

Chambers I: vacuum testing of curved optics
Chambers II: vacuum testing of flat (Plano) optics
Chamber IIIab: vacuum testing of complete optical assembly

Chambers I and II came in three variants:
i) w/o subscript: DORIAN testing
ii) "g" for "growth", i.e. chambers capable of handling optics larger than required for the (initial) DORIAN design with its 72 inch primary mirror
iii) "em" for testing engineering models

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/643.pdf

More later...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/08/2022 12:12 pm
A number of years ago I interviewed MOL astronaut Al Crews. He was a great contrast to Crippen and Truly, who were very positive and loved MOL. Crews thought that MOL had a lot of problems and he said he was not surprised when it was canceled. One of the things he said bothered him on MOL was that the contractors were building a lot of new, expensive facilities. He thought this was an indication that the program was gold-plated and wasting money.

He may have been right. But it's also true that MOL was a major increase in capability, both in terms of the optics system and the human systems. USAF had not developed a human spacecraft before, so this was new and required new capabilities and facilities. Naturally, that was all going to cost a lot of money simply for infrastructure. Plus there was that big rocket and launch site.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 03/08/2022 02:09 pm
Boeing is selling the former Douglas Huntington Beach facility

https://goo.gl/maps/QD4jceqPfLQ8ieXs7
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/08/2022 04:14 pm
Boeing is selling the former Douglas Huntington Beach facility

https://goo.gl/maps/QD4jceqPfLQ8ieXs7

There is some original art showing the cutaway of that building. It shows how they stacked the various components inside there. MOL was a long vehicle, so a lot of components had to be stacked on top of each other vertically.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: edzieba on 03/08/2022 09:30 pm
A number of years ago I interviewed MOL astronaut Al Crews. He was a great contrast to Crippen and Truly, who were very positive and loved MOL. Crews thought that MOL had a lot of problems and he said he was not surprised when it was canceled. One of the things he said bothered him on MOL was that the contractors were building a lot of new, expensive facilities. He thought this was an indication that the program was gold-plated and wasting money.

He may have been right. But it's also true that MOL was a major increase in capability, both in terms of the optics system and the human systems. USAF had not developed a human spacecraft before, so this was new and required new capabilities and facilities. Naturally, that was all going to cost a lot of money simply for infrastructure. Plus there was that big rocket and launch site.
How much of that infrastructure ended up benefitting other programmes? Presumably the tooling for grinding and inspecting ultra large diameter mirrors at Kodak went on to be a big help in getting KH-11 optics done quicker (and cheaper) than if those had to be built from scratch.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/09/2022 12:51 am
How much of that infrastructure ended up benefitting other programmes? Presumably the tooling for grinding and inspecting ultra large diameter mirrors at Kodak went on to be a big help in getting KH-11 optics done quicker (and cheaper) than if those had to be built from scratch.

Probably lots of it got used for other programs. But there was also probably some excess as well, like facilities and capabilities that were not fully utilized because they were unneeded, or because what was built for MOL was too big for what followed. I think (Jim probably knows) that the big assembly building built for MOL was eventually used for Delta II.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 03/09/2022 01:53 am

Probably lots of it got used for other programs. But there was also probably some excess as well, like facilities and capabilities that were not fully utilized because they were unneeded, or because what was built for MOL was too big for what followed. I think (Jim probably knows) that the big assembly building built for MOL was eventually used for Delta II.

Titan IV fairings
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 03/09/2022 11:54 am
The Titan III I-T-L launch area at CCAFS (VIB + SMAB+ LC-40 /41) was over-sized for very high flight rates that never materialized. A mistake somewhat similar to the Shuttle's 10 years later.
They got the planned flight rates way out in the blue.

In the words of Niels Bohr "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future". It could easily be adapted to rocket flight rates

"Prediction of rocket launch rates is very difficult, especially if it's about future launch rates."
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/09/2022 12:55 pm
The Titan III I-T-L launch area at CCAFS (VIB + SMAB+ LC-40 /41) was over-sized for very high flight rates that never materialized. A mistake somewhat similar to the Shuttle's 10 years later.
They got the planned flight rates way out in the blue.


But that's a different thing. The big ULA facility in Georgia was also built based upon high flight rates that never materialized.

In the case of MOL, they built some big new facilities and then the program was canceled. As I mentioned up-thread, one of the MOL astronauts thought that too much money was being wasted, and he started to believe that the program would get canceled. (He also told me that when he saw the photos from the KH-8 GAMBIT-3, which were very good, he realized MOL was in trouble.)

Richard Truly told me a different story. He thought the problem with MOL was one that was common to many space programs, which is that they are not fully funded from the start. This then leads to delays, which increase the overall cost, and the underfunding continues the delays and the cost increases in a vicious cycle.

I would add that both things could have been true--they could have been wasting money on MOL on unnecessary things and it also could have been underfunded. I don't think there's any good way to come to a definitive conclusion on that now. Two people could look at the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. Here's some more:

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2858/1

"A big shift in the program’s goals had occurred in the first part of 1966 when the program office added a requirement to operate in an unmanned mode at the recommendation of a group of prestigious scientists. This entailed adding a different front end with reentry capsules that would take the place of the pressurized module and the Gemini spacecraft. It also required that the spacecraft be designed to operate on its own. That added significant complexity to the overall system design and to the program, which now had to manage not only the systems to support astronauts in space, but also all the robotic systems as well. The requirement for operating in unmanned or “automatic” mode remained, but it also changed over time. By late 1967 the plan was to launch only three manned missions out of a total of seven.

By the fall of 1967, it was clear to the program managers that the program was spending money far above its appropriated rate and they would either have to get more money, or readjust their schedule and goals."
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/09/2022 03:10 pm
The Titan III I-T-L launch area at CCAFS (VIB + SMAB+ LC-40 /41) was over-sized for very high flight rates that never materialized. A mistake somewhat similar to the Shuttle's 10 years later.
They got the planned flight rates way out in the blue.


I can see that without MOL the launch rates were low, and that Ed Kyle notes that it barely needed two pads:  " The site has, as a result, never supported more than four launches in a single year, even when both pads were active.  LC 40 remained active, except for rebuilding periods, from 1965 until the end of the program in 2005.  LC41 was mothballed in 1969, was reactivated for seven NASA Titan 3E/Centaur launches during 1974-1977, then was mothballed again until it was rebuilt to support Titan 4 beginning in 1989.  The pad was finally demolished in 1999 to make way for a new Atlas 5 launch facility. " https://spacelaunchreport.com/titan4.html

But what were the higher rates initially expected to be i.e. what was the hypothetical MOL rate ? And even further back what was the Dynasoar rate ? 

And on a related question, was the NRO actually reluctant to use the ITL and the Titan IIIC for uncrewed payloads ? I was always surprised that CANYON and RHYOLITE were limited to Atlas Agena and afaik the NRO didn't use the Titan IIIC until as late as the first CHALET launch in, iirc, 1979.

Quote
In the words of Niels Bohr "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future". It could easily be adapted to rocket flight rates

"Prediction of rocket launch rates is very difficult, especially if it's about future launch rates."

I must admit I like the quote that Tony Blair was allegedly fond of: "I never make predictions ... and I never will".
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/09/2022 03:34 pm
The Titan III I-T-L launch area at CCAFS (VIB + SMAB+ LC-40 /41) was over-sized for very high flight rates that never materialized. A mistake somewhat similar to the Shuttle's 10 years later.
They got the planned flight rates way out in the blue.


I can see that without MOL the launch rates were low, and that Ed Kyle notes that it barely needed two pads:  " The site has, as a result, never supported more than four launches in a single year, even when both pads were active.  LC 40 remained active, except for rebuilding periods, from 1965 until the end of the program in 2005.  LC41 was mothballed in 1969, was reactivated for seven NASA Titan 3E/Centaur launches during 1974-1977, then was mothballed again until it was rebuilt to support Titan 4 beginning in 1989.  The pad was finally demolished in 1999 to make way for a new Atlas 5 launch facility. " https://spacelaunchreport.com/titan4.html


We've strayed off MOL here. libra mentioned CCAFS, which was never going to handle MOL.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/09/2022 03:41 pm
But what were the higher rates initially expected to be i.e. what was the hypothetical MOL rate ?

I don't have a direct answer to the MOL flight rate question. It may be buried in the MOL documents somewhere. However, you can get an indirect answer from looking at the planned launches:

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2858/1

They were usually budgeting for seven flights (dropping to six flights a couple of times). Of these, the first two were "qualification" flights, not operational. Those two were always supposed to happen within 8 months before the first operational flight. That leaves 5 operational flights, 3 manned, 2 unmanned. I don't know the rate for those five flights, but I would assume no more than 2 per year, for a 3-year program.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/09/2022 03:46 pm
The Titan III I-T-L launch area at CCAFS (VIB + SMAB+ LC-40 /41) was over-sized for very high flight rates that never materialized. A mistake somewhat similar to the Shuttle's 10 years later.
They got the planned flight rates way out in the blue.


I can see that without MOL the launch rates were low, and that Ed Kyle notes that it barely needed two pads:  " The site has, as a result, never supported more than four launches in a single year, even when both pads were active.  LC 40 remained active, except for rebuilding periods, from 1965 until the end of the program in 2005.  LC41 was mothballed in 1969, was reactivated for seven NASA Titan 3E/Centaur launches during 1974-1977, then was mothballed again until it was rebuilt to support Titan 4 beginning in 1989.  The pad was finally demolished in 1999 to make way for a new Atlas 5 launch facility. " https://spacelaunchreport.com/titan4.html


We've strayed off MOL here. libra mentioned CCAFS, which was never going to handle MOL.

Interesting. So why was the one-off IIIC launch of a dummy MOL done at the East coast ? Was it that no similar launch could be done at west coast until SLC-6 and the IIIM was available for MOL proper ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 03/09/2022 03:59 pm
Quote
They were usually budgeting for seven flights (dropping to six flights a couple of times). Of these, the first two were "qualification" flights, not operational. Those two were always supposed to happen within 8 months before the first operational flight. That leaves 5 operational flights, 3 manned, 2 unmanned. I don't know the rate for those five flights, but I would assume no more than 2 per year, for a 3-year program.

And considering the big expense of the MOL program, only six (or four) flights ain't much of a return.

KH-9 got 20 missions, and KH-11 is (kind of) still running as of today, also 20 missions and counting (lost the count a while back). And they operated across many decades.

Why only 4 MOL missions ?

About the "distraction": sure, CCAFS would never launch MOL because of the well-known launch azimuth issues with Florida. 57 degree or 62 degrees at best, but never, ever 90 degrees.
Nobody wanted flaming bits of Titan III packed with nasty storable compounds, falling from Cuba to the Carolinas, Canada, the East coast.
The Russians had no such qualms about littering the Altai and Tuva "Republics" with Proton stages, but that's another story.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/09/2022 04:30 pm
And considering the big expense of the MOL program, only six (or four) flights ain't much of a return.

KH-9 got 20 missions, and KH-11 is (kind of) still running as of today, also 20 missions and counting (lost the count a while back). And they operated across many decades.

Why only 4 MOL missions ?


Five missions--3 manned, 2 unmanned.

Presumably, if it was successful and useful, they would have funded more. The other programs were funded in blocks. I don't know what the initial block buy for HEXAGON was, but they did not decide on 20 missions at the start, they planned for something like 6.



[I just noticed something funny, which is that the August 24, 1965 listing says "1 unmanned" right next to "First manned flight." This is because the margin is off. Obviously the unmanned flight would be unmanned.]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/09/2022 04:34 pm


About the "distraction": sure, CCAFS would never launch MOL because of the well-known launch azimuth issues with Florida. 57 degree or 62 degrees at best, but never, ever 90 degrees.
 

Presumably that was true when MOL's mission had firmed up to be DORIAN/KH-10.

Is it obvious that was true right from the start, when it notionally had a much wider mission ? And also wouldn't flying it only from the WTR have been a rather obvious-but I guess unavoidable-tipoff as to what its actual mission was ?

[Edit: I'd forgotten that there was a political row when Florida's congressmen first realised MOL was going to fly from the WTR, see "The Florida Uprising", pp 215 ff of Berger history attached.

I see from this history (grab below) that at one point "a number" of unmanned ETR Titan IIIC launches in support of MOL were allegedly going to occur, perhaps these plans really did exist and shrank to the one that finally did occur, which iirc was largely to test the heat shield mods on the Gemini, and presumably get some aerodynamic info on the MOL boilerplate on a Titan that was at least partly like a IIIM ? ]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 03/10/2022 06:34 am
As commented up-thread, the facilities and infrastructure developed for MOL/DORIAN was massive both in terms of size and mass. Eastman Kodak put in place 12 test chambers, more than half of which had inside heights between 52 and 86 ft (about 16 to 26 m). The g (growth) chambers for the optical testing had inside dimensions larger than 30 ft (9 m), and could be evacuated down to 1/760 of the standard atmospheric pressure (i.e. 1 Torr). Chambers for thermal vacuum testing could be evacuated to pressures of 10-7 to 10-8 Torr.

One big concern for the precision testing of the optics were vibrations and flexures of the test equipment. Engineering studies for the chambers included for its time quite advanced finite element analysis to map bending modes and flexures.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 03/10/2022 07:02 am
All of the this came seemingly crashing down in early June of 1969, when the Nixon administration announced the cancellation of the Manned Orbital Laboratory. While the public announcement stated that the whole program was being cancelled, the (initial) internal guidance was to continue the work on the covert contract for the camera payload. A four-stage plan was devised, which included as Stage II "(...) a competition between MOL and HEXAGON contractors, to select best configuration/performance/cost (...)".

I'll post more on the "conclusion" of the story later ...

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/737.pdf
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/739.pdf
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/10/2022 11:25 am
We've strayed off MOL here. libra mentioned CCAFS, which was never going to handle MOL.

Interesting. So why was the one-off IIIC launch of a dummy MOL done at the East coast ? Was it that no similar launch could be done at west coast until SLC-6 and the IIIM was available for MOL proper ?

Mark Cleary's USAF history of ETR and the 6555th test group (preserved here https://spp.fas.org/military/program/6555th/6555c4-4.htm  , I think it may be online elsewhere as well) says that for about 6 months there was a MOL branch at the ETR in the Titan III division, between December 1964, and last half of '65:

Quote
As ITL construction got underway in the summer of 1963, officers and men poured into the TITAN III/X-20 Division to oversee the work. [...]. Following cancellation of the DYNA SOAR project in 1963, the Division was renamed the TITAN III Division, and it was reorganized into three branches in 1964 to provide more efficient supervision of the contractors' efforts. [...] Rounding out the year [1964] in December, the TITAN III Division gained a new agency -- the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Branch -- with Major Joseph R. Henry as its chief. The MOL Branch became the Payloads Branch in the last half of 1965, and it assumed responsibility for all TITAN IIIC payloads.26

It also says that

Quote
Since the Air Force intended to use Complex 40 for its Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) flights, Complex 41 eventually supported all the TITAN IIIC missions launched from the Cape between the beginning of 1967 and the end of the decade.

I appreciate that this dates from before declassification of KH10/DORIAN but could it perhaps be that MOL was originally intended to have two launch sites, and it only moved entirely to the WTR when its role became recon only-which would indeed have been in 1965 iirc ?

Or was the MOL branch purely for the ETR test flights, of which several appear originally to have been anticipated https://www.drewexmachina.com/2016/11/03/the-usaf-manned-orbiting-laboratory-test-flight/  but of which only one actually happened ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/10/2022 11:44 am
All of the this came seemingly crashing down in early June of 1969, when the Nixon administration announced the cancellation of the Manned Orbital Laboratory. While the public announcement stated that the whole program was being cancelled, the (initial) internal guidance was to continue the work on the covert contract for the camera payload. A four-stage plan was devised, which included as Stage II "(...) a competition between MOL and HEXAGON contractors, to select best configuration/performance/cost (...)".

I'll post more on the "conclusion" of the story later ...


This is interesting stuff. From around 1969-1971 there was discussion of a Very High Resolution (VHR) satellite, possibly using MOL/DORIAN optics and the HEXAGON return capsules. This was apparently unofficially referred to as HEXADOR, although that appears to have been one option and there may have been others. Certainly, even after MOL was canceled, there was an expectation that future systems would have larger optics, so large optics production and testing facilities were going to be needed at some point.

NRO probably also had industrial base concerns as well. They wanted healthy contractors that could compete with each other. So keeping the contractors funded at some level even without a big program underway was in their interests.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/10/2022 04:07 pm
Boeing is selling the former Douglas Huntington Beach facility

https://goo.gl/maps/QD4jceqPfLQ8ieXs7

There is some original art showing the cutaway of that building. It shows how they stacked the various components inside there. MOL was a long vehicle, so a lot of components had to be stacked on top of each other vertically.

I think NRO like the artwork so much it was reused as part of the collage used as a section divider in the MOL compendium document.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/10/2022 04:14 pm
I think NRO like the artwork so much it was reused as part of the collage used as a section divider in the MOL compendium document.

I think that cutaway is in color. They had some nice artwork of that building.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/10/2022 04:22 pm
I think NRO like the artwork so much it was reused as part of the collage used as a section divider in the MOL compendium document.

I think that cutaway is in color. They had some nice artwork of that building.

I'm afraid that's only place I've seen it, don't know where colour version is.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/10/2022 04:28 pm
I think NRO like the artwork so much it was reused as part of the collage used as a section divider in the MOL compendium document.

I think that cutaway is in color. They had some nice artwork of that building.

I'm afraid that's only place I've seen it, don't know where colour version is.

Found it.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/10/2022 04:30 pm


About the "distraction": sure, CCAFS would never launch MOL because of the well-known launch azimuth issues with Florida. 57 degree or 62 degrees at best, but never, ever 90 degrees.
 

Presumably that was true when MOL's mission had firmed up to be DORIAN/KH-10.

Is it obvious that was true right from the start, when it notionally had a much wider mission ? And also wouldn't flying it only from the WTR have been a rather obvious-but I guess unavoidable-tipoff as to what its actual mission was ?


Turns out that people were in fact worried about precisely this issue, and that in early '64 some urged that MOL should be launched from the Cape. See below from Berger history in MOL compendium version.

I'm wondering if the final choice of WTR only was in fact not made until mid-1965.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/10/2022 07:38 pm
Turns out that people were in fact worried about precisely this issue, and that in early '64 some urged that MOL should be launched from the Cape. See below from Berger history in MOL compendium version.

I'm wondering if the final choice of WTR only was in fact not made until mid-1965.

Martin's comment there is really a bit of a mind-bender: if they launch from Vandenberg, people would conclude it was a reconnaissance satellite because that's the only reason to launch from there. So instead they should launch from the Cape. Er... but shouldn't the mission requirements drive the launch site decision? They were never going to launch a photo-reconnaissance satellite from the Cape, because it could not go into polar orbit that way. (And by extension, if they did put it into polar orbit from the Cape--at a major hit to the payload capability--people would still conclude that it was a reconnaissance satellite because of the orbit itself, not the launch site.)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/11/2022 11:23 am
Turns out that people were in fact worried about precisely this issue, and that in early '64 some urged that MOL should be launched from the Cape. See below from Berger history in MOL compendium version.

I'm wondering if the final choice of WTR only was in fact not made until mid-1965.

Martin's comment there is really a bit of a mind-bender: if they launch from Vandenberg, people would conclude it was a reconnaissance satellite because that's the only reason to launch from there. So instead they should launch from the Cape. Er... but shouldn't the mission requirements drive the launch site decision? They were never going to launch a photo-reconnaissance satellite from the Cape, because it could not go into polar orbit that way. (And by extension, if they did put it into polar orbit from the Cape--at a major hit to the payload capability--people would still conclude that it was a reconnaissance satellite because of the orbit itself, not the launch site.)

... So one solution is to launch from WTR but do a few launches from ETR as well ... that'll fool 'em ;-) [see grabs below, and attached doc, #59 in the NRO MOL set.].

Not quite sure when this dates from but it suggests there was definite interest for a while in having some real East Coast crewed launches, not just the boilerplate one.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 03/11/2022 12:00 pm
Turns out that people were in fact worried about precisely this issue, and that in early '64 some urged that MOL should be launched from the Cape. See below from Berger history in MOL compendium version.

I'm wondering if the final choice of WTR only was in fact not made until mid-1965.

Martin's comment there is really a bit of a mind-bender: if they launch from Vandenberg, people would conclude it was a reconnaissance satellite because that's the only reason to launch from there. So instead they should launch from the Cape. Er... but shouldn't the mission requirements drive the launch site decision? They were never going to launch a photo-reconnaissance satellite from the Cape, because it could not go into polar orbit that way. (And by extension, if they did put it into polar orbit from the Cape--at a major hit to the payload capability--people would still conclude that it was a reconnaissance satellite because of the orbit itself, not the launch site.)

Such "logic" made my brain bleed in pain...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/11/2022 12:14 pm
Turns out that people were in fact worried about precisely this issue, and that in early '64 some urged that MOL should be launched from the Cape. See below from Berger history in MOL compendium version.

I'm wondering if the final choice of WTR only was in fact not made until mid-1965.

Martin's comment there is really a bit of a mind-bender: if they launch from Vandenberg, people would conclude it was a reconnaissance satellite because that's the only reason to launch from there. So instead they should launch from the Cape. Er... but shouldn't the mission requirements drive the launch site decision? They were never going to launch a photo-reconnaissance satellite from the Cape, because it could not go into polar orbit that way. (And by extension, if they did put it into polar orbit from the Cape--at a major hit to the payload capability--people would still conclude that it was a reconnaissance satellite because of the orbit itself, not the launch site.)

Such "logic" made my brain bleed in pain...

My impression is that while thought was being given to launching at least the odd mission from the ETR in Doc #59, which is 1st Jan 1965, by October of that year it was clear that MOL launches would be from  WTR only, see grab below and attached doc, #174, the October 1965 monthly report.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/11/2022 01:25 pm
OK ... looks as if it is as I thought ... i.e. both Atlantic and Pacific Missile Ranges (AMR and PMR) were initially considered. Here's an Aerospace Corp presentation on MOL from 17th Jan 1964 which  explicitly considers AMR and PMR launches, and notes "use of AMR launch facilities with minimum modification" as part of the programme philosophy.  Doc is #9 in the NRO MOL set.

So I guess it was indeed the case that the relevance of ETR disappeared as the mission solidified around KH10/DORIAN to the eventual exclusion of everything else.

[Edit: Intriguingly, wrt another topic from upthread, they were also planning to use Transtage at that point.]

[Edit 2: There's a longer version of the same briefing in document #7, also now attached, this has the speaker notes for the first slide which makes  it clear that the AMR launches were at that stage seen as R&D.]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/11/2022 03:56 pm
OK ... looks as if it is as I thought ... i.e. both Atlantic and Pacific Missile Ranges (AMR and PMR) were initially considered. Here's an Aerospace Corp presentation on MOL from 17th Jan 1964 which  explicitly considers AMR and PMR launches, and notes "use of AMR launch facilities with minimum modification" as part of the programme philosophy.  Doc is #9 in the NRO MOL set.

So I guess it was indeed the case that the relevance of ETR disappeared as the mission solidified around KH10/DORIAN to the eventual exclusion of everything else.

[Edit: Intriguingly, wrt another topic from upthread, they were also planning to use Transtage at that point.]

[Edit 2: There's a longer version of the same briefing in document #7, also now attached, this has the speaker notes for the first slide which makes  it clear that the AMR launches were at that stage seen as R&D.]

It's probably the kind of thing that is buried in the documents, but I wonder to what extent they thought about test flights to test the human spaceflight systems, as opposed to carrying operational equipment? If in 1964 they thought that they might do a test flight or two that would primarily test the life support and other systems needed to support the astronauts, there's no reason to do that in polar orbit. But as the program moved more towards being operational almost from the first flight, they pushed this stuff together. Test the stuff on the ground extensively and expect it to work right on orbit.

They probably experienced some pressure from the robotic side--although CORONA did a few test flights before carrying a camera, GAMBIT flew with an operational camera from the start (although that crumpled Atlas that folded on the pad was apparently a GAMBIT flight without a camera).

My point is that the MOL program probably felt the need to get operational quickly, without doing many test flights. And that meant polar orbits and Vandenberg.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/11/2022 04:35 pm
OK ... looks as if it is as I thought ... i.e. both Atlantic and Pacific Missile Ranges (AMR and PMR) were initially considered. Here's an Aerospace Corp presentation on MOL from 17th Jan 1964 which  explicitly considers AMR and PMR launches, and notes "use of AMR launch facilities with minimum modification" as part of the programme philosophy.  Doc is #9 in the NRO MOL set.

So I guess it was indeed the case that the relevance of ETR disappeared as the mission solidified around KH10/DORIAN to the eventual exclusion of everything else.

[Edit: Intriguingly, wrt another topic from upthread, they were also planning to use Transtage at that point.]

[Edit 2: There's a longer version of the same briefing in document #7, also now attached, this has the speaker notes for the first slide which makes  it clear that the AMR launches were at that stage seen as R&D.]

It's probably the kind of thing that is buried in the documents, but I wonder to what extent they thought about test flights to test the human spaceflight systems, as opposed to carrying operational equipment? If in 1964 they thought that they might do a test flight or two that would primarily test the life support and other systems needed to support the astronauts, there's no reason to do that in polar orbit. But as the program moved more towards being operational almost from the first flight, they pushed this stuff together. Test the stuff on the ground extensively and expect it to work right on orbit.

[...]

My point is that the MOL program probably felt the need to get operational quickly, without doing many test flights. And that meant polar orbits and Vandenberg.



Yes. In the first grab below the briefers from Aerospace are in early '64 and assuming that a series of ETR-launched R&D flights occur, and following the party line that MOL is a multipurpose mission and only if  these demonstrate a need for an operational mission will the WTR ones occur. Incidentally they are describing the 2 pressure vessel and Transtage MOL that sounds very much like the concept that appeared in some of the most widely shown artwork, explaining why it looked like that (second grab). [Edit: I have added a couple of grabs from doc #7 in the NRO MOL set that show the Transtage quite clearly]

By late '65, as you say, it had all, er, telescoped and DORIAN was going to have to work on orbit essentially without an R&D phase.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 03/11/2022 05:04 pm
Or maybe - maybe - the ETR flights were for non-NRO, non-spysat missions BEFORE the spooks were brought into an USAF program.
We know MOL started in the vaning days of DynaSoar (December 1963) or even earlier, perhaps mid-1962 (from memory); and yet the "familiar" mission of a manned / spysat / NRO only came later.

Early on MOL was to be "USAF space station, period" - but struggled to find a valuable role. And then at some point the NRO & reconnaissance mission kind of wiped out all the others.

In the days BEFORE the NRO and its reconnaissance missions, it made some sense to have MOL flying outside polar orbit: and thus ETR might have been an option for 28.5 or 51 or 57 or 63 degree inclination missions (picking familiar orbital inclinations but could have been any number below 63 degrees).
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/11/2022 05:47 pm
Or maybe - maybe - the ETR flights were for non-NRO, non-spysat missions BEFORE the spooks were brought into an USAF program.
We know MOL started in the vaning days of DynaSoar (December 1963) or even earlier, perhaps mid-1962 (from memory); and yet the "familiar" mission of a manned / spysat / NRO only came later.

Early on MOL was to be "USAF space station, period" - but struggled to find a valuable role. And then at some point the NRO & reconnaissance mission kind of wiped out all the others.

In the days BEFORE the NRO and its reconnaissance missions, it made some sense to have MOL flying outside polar orbit: and thus ETR might have been an option for 28.5 or 51 or 57 or 63 degree inclination missions (picking familiar orbital inclinations but could have been any number below 63 degrees).

Yes in the sense that in 1964 the slides I've attached above were Aerospace briefing on a more general white USAF programme-they are well worth reading through to get a flavour, I'd suggest the more comprehensive version, doc #7.

But nonetheless NRO was involved from the outset, the spooks as you put it didn't just show up in 1965, and if you read the Berger history in either its original or Compendium version you'll see that photo recon was being considered early on as  *a* mission, just not *the* mission. There are several memos from McMillan for example in his NRO capacity. And it may be that NRO's role was always more central in reality.

What I do think is that flying even some MOL missions from the ITL would have helped to justify a very expensive facility that as you noted earlier was destined to be underused.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/11/2022 07:01 pm

But nonetheless NRO was involved from the outset, the spooks as you put it didn't just show up in 1965, and if you read the Berger history in either its original or Compendium version you'll see that photo recon was being considered early on as  *a* mission, just not *the* mission. There are several memos from McMillan for example in his NRO capacity. And it may be that NRO's role was always more central in reality.

I have not read through all that material, but an interesting question would be why all the other experiments were deleted from MOL and the focus became solely the high-resolution mission. Was it:

-there just is not enough room/time/expendables to do anything else
or
-they did not want to mix anything else with the high-priority operational reconnaissance mission

Something that would be neat to model (and I don't have the ability to do it) is just how busy the astronauts would be with the operational reconnaissance mission. They would be able to sleep when the Soviet Union was mostly in darkness. But I get the sense that they would be really busy in general. There may simply have been no ability to do anything else during the mission.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/12/2022 04:03 pm

But nonetheless NRO was involved from the outset, the spooks as you put it didn't just show up in 1965, and if you read the Berger history in either its original or Compendium version you'll see that photo recon was being considered early on as  *a* mission, just not *the* mission. There are several memos from McMillan for example in his NRO capacity. And it may be that NRO's role was always more central in reality.

I have not read through all that material,

I shouldn't have given the impression that I have, as all I've done is skim Berger and browse the large collection of pdfs that accompanied its rereleased version - the MOL Compendium. I think that the recent short history by Courtney Homer of NRO's CSNR adds something though, attached below, although I'm sure it appeared upthread, see especially chapter 1.

I've attached a few grabs below, first is further to my comment that NRO were involved from the outset, at least from late 1963 if not before, it shows  McMillan's concerns about  programme's emphasis, but also notes that NRO had been sponsoring Eastman Kodak research on manned vs unmanned imagery from December 1963.


 

Quote

but an interesting question would be why all the other experiments were deleted from MOL and the focus became solely the high-resolution mission. Was it:

-there just is not enough room/time/expendables to do anything else
or
-they did not want to mix anything else with the high-priority operational reconnaissance mission

Something that would be neat to model (and I don't have the ability to do it) is just how busy the astronauts would be with the operational reconnaissance mission. They would be able to sleep when the Soviet Union was mostly in darkness. But I get the sense that they would be really busy in general. There may simply have been no ability to do anything else during the mission.

Other two grabs from Homer history don't really explain how this narrowing down occurred but do give some idea of time scale over which it happened.

I was very interested to see McMillan alerting MOL people to relevance of large antennas in space though, in mid 64, when RHYOLITE was in its infancy and CANYON not yet approved as far as I know.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/12/2022 04:29 pm
I shouldn't have given the impression that I have, as all I've done is skim Berger and browse the large collection of pdfs that accompanied its rereleased version - the MOL Compendium. I think that the recent short history by Courtney Homer of NRO's CSNR adds something though, attached below, although I'm sure it appeared upthread, see especially chapter 1.

I've attached a few grabs below, first is further to my comment that NRO were involved from the outset, at least from late 1963 if not before, it shows  McMillan's concerns about  programme's emphasis, but also notes that NRO had been sponsoring Eastman Kodak research on manned vs unmanned imagery from December 1963.

It is possible that one issue was the size of any reconnaissance camera that was carried. Once they settled on such a large system, it limited all the other resources like mass, power, etc. They probably could have only kept the reconnaissance mission in their trade space for a limited time before they had to make a decision yes or no.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/12/2022 04:43 pm
I shouldn't have given the impression that I have, as all I've done is skim Berger and browse the large collection of pdfs that accompanied its rereleased version - the MOL Compendium. I think that the recent short history by Courtney Homer of NRO's CSNR adds something though, attached below, although I'm sure it appeared upthread, see especially chapter 1.

I've attached a few grabs below, first is further to my comment that NRO were involved from the outset, at least from late 1963 if not before, it shows  McMillan's concerns about  programme's emphasis, but also notes that NRO had been sponsoring Eastman Kodak research on manned vs unmanned imagery from December 1963.

It is possible that one issue was the size of any reconnaissance camera that was carried. Once they settled on such a large system, it limited all the other resources like mass, power, etc. They probably could have only kept the reconnaissance mission in their trade space for a limited time before they had to make a decision yes or no.

I think that must be true. If you look at the early 1964 Aerospace briefing charts, document 7 in the MOL set, uploaded above, the camera is still quite small and part of a collection of recon experiments.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/12/2022 07:21 pm
I think that must be true. If you look at the early 1964 Aerospace briefing charts, document 7 in the MOL set, uploaded above, the camera is still quite small and part of a collection of recon experiments.

Thanks for reminding me of that one. I have a vague memory of seeing it before.

Looking at it now, it looks like a combination of a CORONA camera and then a long focal length IR camera. If you assume that the IR camera runs much of the diameter of the Titan core stage, that's a long focal length. But at that time, IR was still rather primitive. I doubt that a long focal length is what you'd want for IR. Probably better to start out with something more modest. Plus, it's IR, so there would be issues with keeping it cold.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 03/13/2022 06:52 am
Some kind of supercold / superfluid helium dewar: not really astronaut-friendly onboard a cramped space station...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/13/2022 08:34 am
I think that must be true. If you look at the early 1964 Aerospace briefing charts, document 7 in the MOL set, uploaded above, the camera is still quite small and part of a collection of recon experiments.

Thanks for reminding me of that one. I have a vague memory of seeing it before.

Looking at it now, it looks like a combination of a CORONA camera and then a long focal length IR camera. If you assume that the IR camera runs much of the diameter of the Titan core stage, that's a long focal length. But at that time, IR was still rather primitive. I doubt that a long focal length is what you'd want for IR. Probably better to start out with something more modest. Plus, it's IR, so there would be issues with keeping it cold.

To me, see extra grabs below from same briefing, it looks as if high res camera is shared between visible and IR. But cooling is indeed one reason it is in the unpressurised part of the spacecraft:

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/13/2022 08:38 am
Some kind of supercold / superfluid helium dewar: not really astronaut-friendly onboard a cramped space station...

Not all space  borne IR is actively cooled. My impression is that rule of thumb is that astronomy typically needs it (cf IRAS) and missile detection typically doesn't  (cf DSP), but there have been counter examples in both cases (JWST is afaik all passive, there were studies of actively cooled IR missile trackers in late 70s). In this case the target would be different again, and I don't know what the technology of the day would have required, but it was definitely intended to go in the unpressurised module.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/13/2022 08:40 am
One thing that does strike me about the Jan 1964 Aerospace briefing is that it was delivered to  v high level audiences, so I guess that unless a completely different recon space station was already  being designed we can take it as a fair reflection of what the thinking really was at that stage.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: edzieba on 03/13/2022 04:18 pm
Probably better to start out with something more modest. Plus, it's IR, so there would be issues with keeping it cold.
Depends on the kind of IR they were looking for. Cooling is needed for LWIR (long-wave) and low-brightness MWIR (mid-wave), but neither of those are readily capture don film. nIR (near-infra-red), and particularly multispectral nIR, is very useful for surface composition classification, and is something that can be done with film - like the much-vaunted Aerochrome 'colour infra-red'. That gives you the capability to image thigs that are optically similar in colour with much higher discrimination, such as mapping vegetation types and archaeological sites, or potentially identifying camouflaged objects (that mimic optical wavelengths but not nIR). SO-130 (later sold as first gen Aerochrome) 'colour infra-red' was definitely used at least on Gambit and Hexagon.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/14/2022 07:54 am

It is possible that one issue was the size of any reconnaissance camera that was carried. Once they settled on such a large system, it limited all the other resources like mass, power, etc. They probably could have only kept the reconnaissance mission in their trade space for a limited time before they had to make a decision yes or no.

Another interesting milestone in this process of shrinking down to essentially one payload is a memo from 4th Jan 1966, #199 in the MOL collection. This quotes an earlier memo from McNamara giving a list of the four main roles that MOL was seen as playing when programme approval was given in 24th August 1965, see grabs below. It is interesting because at that stage it is still combining i) semi-operational imaging, at better than G3 resolution, ii) development of even higher res imaging, iii) a facility for development, test and use of radar, SIGINT, and ocean surveillance, and iv) experiments on large structure assembly and in space data processing.

The memo is *not* arguing against these extra missions, I think rather it is asking how they will be accomodated but I'd be interested to know how it reads to others.

[Edit: Conversely, on 20th May 1965, well before approval and McNamara's list of August, you have DNRO McMillan saying that MOL essentially  has only one priority, see last grab below and attached memo, doc #92 from MOL set. I'm not sure if these are contradictory really, though. The DNRO ran DORIAN, but did he run MOL ?]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/14/2022 12:28 pm
Somewhere in those documents (I just recently saw it) is a document about joint use of imagery and SIGINT on MOL. In other words, being able to detect any signals coming from the area where the camera was pointed. And then there was the DONKEY payload that was scheduled for MOL and then pulled off and flown as an attached payload on a dedicated SIGINT mission.

But yeah, MOL started out as experimental, with many possible payloads, then it was made less experimental and more "operational" (meaning serving some clearly defined requirements). And then it became solely photo-reconnaissance. The narrowing happened for a bunch of different reasons (I think DONKEY was eliminated because of schedule--it could fly sooner on another satellite).
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/15/2022 05:34 pm
If I'm learning anything about MOL, it's that its history was complex, so all my thoughts should be flagged as inexpert and taken with a pinch of salt.

Somewhere in those documents (I just recently saw it) is a document about joint use of imagery and SIGINT on MOL. In other words, being able to detect any signals coming from the area where the camera was pointed.
We talked briefly about that upthread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2299879#msg2299879

Timing is interesting because quite late on, '66 or so, and may have been a precursor/inspiration for the combined SIGINT/IR sensor on JUMPSEAT ?

Quote

 And then there was the DONKEY payload that was scheduled for MOL and then pulled off and flown as an attached payload on a dedicated SIGINT mission.

But yeah, MOL started out as experimental, with many possible payloads, then it was made less experimental and more "operational" (meaning serving some clearly defined requirements). And then it became solely photo-reconnaissance. The narrowing happened for a bunch of different reasons (I think DONKEY was eliminated because of schedule--it could fly sooner on another satellite).

Also interesting that the earlier discussions of SIGINT on MOL seem sometimes to have been in a multi-sensor context, c.f this interesting summary of its roles from a 15th April 65 cable summarising McMillan's views, especially A(3) and A(4), and the note that they should be combined if practicable. This is Doc #87 in MOL set.

I'm also struck by reference to crisis reconnaissance, which seems to have been a part of the MOL story somehow-see e.g. comments of NRO historian James Outzen in the preface to Courtney Homer's book, last grab below.  Is there a good source on crisis reconnaisance and MOL or is it scattered all over the MOL and EOI doc sets ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/15/2022 09:32 pm
If I'm learning anything about MOL, it's that its history was complex, so all my thoughts should be flagged as inexpert and taken with a pinch of salt.

Somewhere in those documents (I just recently saw it) is a document about joint use of imagery and SIGINT on MOL. In other words, being able to detect any signals coming from the area where the camera was pointed.
We talked briefly about that upthread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2299879#msg2299879

Timing is interesting because quite late on, '66 or so, and may have been a precursor/inspiration for the combined SIGINT/IR sensor on JUMPSEAT ?

That was around the time of the special review on ABM signals intelligence collection (I could look it up in one of my articles, but I believe it was around November 1966?). I'm guessing that they were thinking of pointing MOL in the direction of known or suspected ABM sites and seeing (listening) if they could detect any signals from there.

Ultimately, part of the solution was to fly more P-11 satellites, as well as some other efforts, such as JUMPSEAT.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 03/15/2022 10:43 pm
.. and now the conclusion of my series of posts on the production, assembly, and testing infrastructure of the MOL/DORIAN camera optical system.

Following the cancellation of MOL in early June 1969, the workforce at all contractors was rapidly reduced.  McDonnell Douglas's workforce shrank by more than 5800, from 6200 in June to 369 in October. Eastman Kodak saw a less steep workforce reduction in the first couple of months. Subsequent numbers are not revealed. By September the contract for the work on the unmanned DORIAN camera system had been transferred to Special Projects. A security report indicates, though, that by November 1969, still almost 2000 employees at EK had a DORIAN security status.

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/777.pdf
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 03/15/2022 10:52 pm
The Air Force and DOD aimed to manage the politics of the program cancellation pro-actively. This included letters “to congressmen”, informing them about companies affected in their resective state or district. The AF also sought to repurpose MOL inventory, while keeping track of its disposition, in order to provide accountability for future budget debates and inquiries by congress.

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/780.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/780.pdf)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 03/15/2022 11:22 pm
Astronomy was one of the additional applications considered during MOL development. Consequently, after the public cancellation, there were attempts to get NASA and the astronomical community interested. Potential astronomical applications included the re-use of the optics in one of the NASA series of OAO satellites, or the re-use of the EK facilities to produce a 2m primary mirror for a stellar telescope for the Apollo Telescope Mount for AAP's “workshop #2”. Lew Allen stated that ultimately the efforts to repurpose DORIAN optics for an unmanned astrophysical observatory failed due to their long focal length, which were optimized for manned operations.

By Feb 1970, the Air Force got concerned about annual costs of around $80,000 charged by Eastman Kodak for the storage of residual MOL hardware with an “estimated value of (…)  $12.5 million”. In early 1971, based on a proposal by Dr. A. Meinel, “six surplus 72 inch DORIAN blanks” were transferred from Special Project 6 to Project COLT, and ultimately became the primary mirrors of the Multi Mirror Telescope.

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/735.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/735.pdf)
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/763.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/763.pdf)
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/771.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/771.pdf)
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/HOSR/SC-2017-00006f.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/HOSR/SC-2017-00006f.pdf)
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/801.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/801.pdf)
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/816.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/816.pdf)


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: EE Scott on 03/15/2022 11:34 pm
This is really good stuff, thanks everybody.

 :)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 03/15/2022 11:53 pm
This leaves the question of what happened to the equipment and facilities at Eastman Kodak?

A comparison of two photographs, taken half a century apart, is quite telling. The chambers put in place in the late 1960s for the production and testing of the DORIAN camera system were still in place and maintained 50 years later.

The 2019 photograph is included in John H. Shafer’s recent book Gambit, Gambit Cubed & Dorian. Shafer writes “When the MOL Program was cancelled in 1969, it was felt that larger optics would be possible in the near future. Any programs with larger optics would still be classified, with the exception of the backup mirror for the Hubble Space Telescope, which was successfully fabricated in these facilities.”

Other views of the EK/L3HARRIS facilities were released by NASA in 2016. One photo shows one of the AFTA/WFIRST/Roman Space Telescope primary mirrors in front of Chamber 1g. Other views show the optical assembly still with its original two-part shutter, and the primary mirror in one of the vertical test stands.

MOL/DORIAN - despite its cancellation - thus created a long-lasting legacy over many decades, which quite likely still continues today.

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/779.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/779.pdf)
https://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery-photos-primary_mirror.html (https://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery-photos-primary_mirror.html)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/16/2022 06:21 am
If I'm learning anything about MOL, it's that its history was complex, so all my thoughts should be flagged as inexpert and taken with a pinch of salt.

Somewhere in those documents (I just recently saw it) is a document about joint use of imagery and SIGINT on MOL. In other words, being able to detect any signals coming from the area where the camera was pointed.
We talked briefly about that upthread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2299879#msg2299879

Timing is interesting because quite late on, '66 or so, and may have been a precursor/inspiration for the combined SIGINT/IR sensor on JUMPSEAT ?

That was around the time of the special review on ABM signals intelligence collection (I could look it up in one of my articles, but I believe it was around November 1966?). I'm guessing that they were thinking of pointing MOL in the direction of known or suspected ABM sites and seeing (listening) if they could detect any signals from there.

Ultimately, part of the solution was to fly more P-11 satellites, as well as some other efforts, such as JUMPSEAT.

Purcell panel was December 1966, you wrote about it here: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3066/1 By December 1966, a group of senior scientific intelligence advisors to the government met to discuss SIGINT issues. According to a letter by the two senior advisors, Edwin Land and Edward Purcell, “the Panel spent considerable time discussing systems which might meet the urgent requirement to determine the characteristics of the Soviet ABM systems. We believe that the Panel in general would agree that the decisions that would be influenced by the information gathered about these defenses are of such magnitude that we ought not be satisfied with any collection system [deleted more than 25 lines of text].” Land and Purcell were both highly-respected advisers to the government, and although their recommendations remain classified to this day, they would have been taken seriously at the time.

There is a memo from Carter of NSA to Flax at NRO dated 27th October 1966 [#308 in MOL set] that replies in a positive way about the  Electromagnetic Pointing System that NRO has just been studying. NSA  then spells out why they are interested, seems to me less as a "spotter" for the photo system than as a "corroboration". Because the odds of detection are low they favour use in an automatic mode, which may not have been exactly helpful to MOL's cause.

Intriguingly Carter listed as an appendix a bunch of radars "for which few or no signals have been intercepted", see beginnning of list here:



Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/16/2022 11:14 pm
This leaves the question of what happened to the equipment and facilities at Eastman Kodak?

A comparison of two photographs, taken half a century apart, is quite telling. The chambers put in place in the late 1960s for the production and testing of the DORIAN camera system were still in place and maintained 50 years later.

The 2019 photograph is included in John H. Shafer’s recent book Gambit, Gambit Cubed & Dorian. Shafer writes “When the MOL Program was cancelled in 1969, it was felt that larger optics would be possible in the near future. Any programs with larger optics would still be classified, with the exception of the backup mirror for the Hubble Space Telescope, which was successfully fabricated in these facilities.”

Other views of the EK/L3HARRIS facilities were released by NASA in 2016. One photo shows one of the AFTA/WFIRST/Roman Space Telescope primary mirrors in front of Chamber 1g. Other views show the optical assembly still with its original two-part shutter, and the primary mirror in one of the vertical test stands.

Thanks for posting that stuff. Very interesting.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/17/2022 12:18 am
Purcell panel was December 1966, you wrote about it here: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3066/1 By December 1966, a group of senior scientific intelligence advisors to the government met to discuss SIGINT issues. According to a letter by the two senior advisors, Edwin Land and Edward Purcell, “the Panel spent considerable time discussing systems which might meet the urgent requirement to determine the characteristics of the Soviet ABM systems. We believe that the Panel in general would agree that the decisions that would be influenced by the information gathered about these defenses are of such magnitude that we ought not be satisfied with any collection system [deleted more than 25 lines of text].” Land and Purcell were both highly-respected advisers to the government, and although their recommendations remain classified to this day, they would have been taken seriously at the time.

There is a memo from Carter of NSA to Flax at NRO dated 27th October 1966 [#308 in MOL set] that replies in a positive way about the  Electromagnetic Pointing System that NRO has just been studying. NSA  then spells out why they are interested, seems to me less as a "spotter" for the photo system than as a "corroboration". Because the odds of detection are low they favour use in an automatic mode, which may not have been exactly helpful to MOL's cause.

Intriguingly Carter listed as an appendix a bunch of radars "for which few or no signals have been intercepted", see beginnning of list here:


I need to go look at my notes, but I thought that a guy named Harry Davis ran a special committee on SIGINT. (Purcell, by the way, did a very important 1963 study that I should post here. It was on photo-reconnaissance.)

I have a hard time understanding how a linked, automatic system would work. SIGINT geolocation accuracy was low, on the order of many miles. So the system detects a signal, but the camera really has a very large area to capture. A high-resolution camera like MOL/DORIAN has a small field of view (I think I wrote about the MOL field of view somewhere, but cannot remember it offhand. It was smaller than even the GAMBIT-1--and I think--the GAMBIT-3 field of view.) So it strikes me that most of the time the camera is not going to be pointed at the emitter location.




Update from my notes:

"There was increasing concern in the summer of 1966 that ABM installation emissions were not being detected by the SIGINT satellites. The President’s Scientific Advisory Committee (PSAC) asked DNRO Alexander Flax to create a committee to investigate. Flax appointed a member of his staff, Harry Davis, who had previously been director of the Rome Air Development Center (RADC) in Rome, New York, to chair the committee. In December 1966 the committee was briefed by Charlie Jarrett and Daymond Speece of The Aerospace Corporation, who showed the committee data that indicated that if the ABM radars were active and radiating, a combination of P-11 satellites would intercept the signals. Based upon the committee’s conclusions, DNRO Flax approved and expedited the P-11 program with a first launch of a new ABM satellite known as FAÇADE in only nine months time. More satellites followed, and by 1970 these satellites along with the POPPY and STRAWMAN satellites “had identified all of the ABM radar installations.”
---“The SIGINT Satellite Story,” pp. 152-153.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/17/2022 07:45 am
Purcell panel was December 1966, you wrote about it here: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3066/1 By December 1966, a group of senior scientific intelligence advisors to the government met to discuss SIGINT issues. According to a letter by the two senior advisors, Edwin Land and Edward Purcell, “the Panel spent considerable time discussing systems which might meet the urgent requirement to determine the characteristics of the Soviet ABM systems. We believe that the Panel in general would agree that the decisions that would be influenced by the information gathered about these defenses are of such magnitude that we ought not be satisfied with any collection system [deleted more than 25 lines of text].” Land and Purcell were both highly-respected advisers to the government, and although their recommendations remain classified to this day, they would have been taken seriously at the time.

There is a memo from Carter of NSA to Flax at NRO dated 27th October 1966 [#308 in MOL set] that replies in a positive way about the  Electromagnetic Pointing System that NRO has just been studying. NSA  then spells out why they are interested, seems to me less as a "spotter" for the photo system than as a "corroboration". Because the odds of detection are low they favour use in an automatic mode, which may not have been exactly helpful to MOL's cause.

Intriguingly Carter listed as an appendix a bunch of radars "for which few or no signals have been intercepted", see beginnning of list here:


I need to go look at my notes, but I thought that a guy named Harry Davis ran a special committee on SIGINT.

[...]

Update from my notes:

"There was increasing concern in the summer of 1966 that ABM installation emissions were not being detected by the SIGINT satellites. The President’s Scientific Advisory Committee (PSAC) asked DNRO Alexander Flax to create a committee to investigate. Flax appointed a member of his staff, Harry Davis, who had previously been director of the Rome Air Development Center (RADC) in Rome, New York, to chair the committee. In December 1966 the committee was briefed by Charlie Jarrett and Daymond Speece of The Aerospace Corporation, who showed the committee data that indicated that if the ABM radars were active and radiating, a combination of P-11 satellites would intercept the signals. Based upon the committee’s conclusions, DNRO Flax approved and expedited the P-11 program with a first launch of a new ABM satellite known as FAÇADE in only nine months time. More satellites followed, and by 1970 these satellites along with the POPPY and STRAWMAN satellites “had identified all of the ABM radar installations.”
---“The SIGINT Satellite Story,” pp. 152-153.




Sorry, yes, I'd forgotten about the Davis commitee, which reported in about July 67 [Edit: It must have reported in spring 1967ish, report existed by July]. It looks as if the specific Purcell-Land committee/panel/team was importanty though, and I find the conjunction in late 66 of a great optics expert/inventor with a great electromagnetism expert/Nobel prize winning physicist  fascinating in terms of the possible timing of the origination of the JUMPSEAT combined payload.

 
Quote
I have a hard time understanding how a linked, automatic system would work. SIGINT geolocation accuracy was low, on the order of many miles. So the system detects a signal, but the camera really has a very large area to capture. A high-resolution camera like MOL/DORIAN has a small field of view (I think I wrote about the MOL field of view somewhere, but cannot remember it offhand. It was smaller than even the GAMBIT-1--and I think--the GAMBIT-3 field of view.) So it strikes me that most of the time the camera is not going to be pointed at the emitter location.

But I don't think the Electromagnetic Pointing System (EPS) worked that way. I think it was a proposal to have a SIGINT antenna pointing roughly wherever the camera pointed, and running  at the same time. It's difficult to point to a specfic part of the Marshall Carter memo that says this but reread it with that  possibility in mind and see what you think. [Edit: I accept that the name sounds like it should be using EM sigals to point the camera, I wonder if that was origianl intent and the system evolved based on the realities you mention ?]

The memo does refer to the narrow effective swath width of the EPS on MOL as only ~100 miles (and here or somewhere I've seen the actual camera field of view as of order a mile), see last grab, and does say the probability of joint intercept is very low, which is why NSA would be happy with a completely automatic system, but it nonetheless thinks it would be worthwhile . A SIGINT antenna which simply covered the swath width would surely be better than nothing, if the current situation was that they had essentially no signals from v high priority suspected ABM radars at Sary Shagan, which is stated somewhere in Carter's memo.

More broadly the EPS seems to have been a kind of last gasp of SIGINT within the main MOL programme, because in MOL document #318 from December 1966 on follow-on options "SIGINT and ocean surveillance" are explicitly listed as missions that are "independent" and outside the baseline, whereas the EPS is to be costed and still included, but as a separate item, see first grab and attachment.

The DONKEY COMINT antenna payload, which you mentioned upthread,  and wrote about in TSR, flew in mid '67 so was probably removed from MOL in about this time frame-there's a cable that mentions it which I will have to look up for the timings.

By Jan '67 the engineering baseline of MOL seems to be entirely photint, though the briefing on it, also attached, doc #336,  still had a readout system as well as the main DORIAN camera (see 4 grabs). 

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 03/17/2022 12:23 pm
Quote
I have a hard time understanding how a linked, automatic system would work. SIGINT geolocation accuracy was low, on the order of many miles. So the system detects a signal, but the camera really has a very large area to capture. A high-resolution camera like MOL/DORIAN has a small field of view (I think I wrote about the MOL field of view somewhere, but cannot remember it offhand. It was smaller than even the GAMBIT-1--and I think--the GAMBIT-3 field of view.) So it strikes me that most of the time the camera is not going to be pointed at the emitter location.


Right here.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3461/1

Quote
The main DORIAN camera had a field of view of a 9,000-foot (2,740-meter) diameter circle on the ground from 80 nautical miles (148 kilometers) altitude. This 9,000-foot diameter circle was not very big compared to the size of some of the targets the intelligence community was interested in, such as airfields, missile ranges, and shipyards, and objects would move in and out of the circle relatively quickly as the spacecraft traveled overhead. Decades later, it was common for intelligence analysts and military commanders to compare using high-resolution reconnaissance satellites to peering at the world through a soda straw. The MOL astronauts would do most of their searching for targets of opportunity using the tracking and acquisition telescopes—sort of like looking at the world through a paper towel tube in order to point the soda straw at the correct target. In the lower magnification setting, the tracking and acquisition scopes had a circular field of view on the ground of about 6.5 nautical miles (12 kilometers) in diameter with a resolution of about 30 feet (9.1 meters). In the upper magnification range, the scope field of view would be approximately 4,200 feet (1,280 meters), about half the MOL camera’s field of view, and the resolution would be about 3.5 feet (1.1 meters).

Quote
The GAMBIT-1 had a 10-nautical-mile (18.5-kilometer) swath width, whereas the GAMBIT-3’s more powerful camera was half that.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/17/2022 12:55 pm
Thanks for the reminder. This is the image I used in that article. Note the big blue rectangle shows a swath of imaging by a KH-7 GAMBIT-1. It could take in several launch pads at once. The KH-8 GAMBIT-3 was half as wide, so it could take in fewer targets in a single pass.

And by contrast, that powerful MOL/DORIAN camera took in little spots. It could photograph a single launch pad at a time, not several. Now they would move it around to take multiple shots, but there would be limits to how fast it could move from target to target. Very limiting.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/17/2022 01:49 pm
Quote
A high-resolution camera like MOL/DORIAN has a small field of view (I think I wrote about the MOL field of view somewhere, but cannot remember it offhand. It was smaller than even the GAMBIT-1--and I think--the GAMBIT-3 field of view.) .


Right here.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3461/1

Quote
The main DORIAN camera had a field of view of a 9,000-foot (2,740-meter) diameter circle on the ground from 80 nautical miles (148 kilometers) altitude. This 9,000-foot diameter circle was not very big compared to the size of some of the targets the intelligence community was interested in, such as airfields, missile ranges, and shipyards, and objects would move in and out of the circle relatively quickly as the spacecraft traveled overhead. Decades later, it was common for intelligence analysts and military commanders to compare using high-resolution reconnaissance satellites to peering at the world through a soda straw. The MOL astronauts would do most of their searching for targets of opportunity using the tracking and acquisition telescopes—sort of like looking at the world through a paper towel tube in order to point the soda straw at the correct target. In the lower magnification setting, the tracking and acquisition scopes had a circular field of view on the ground of about 6.5 nautical miles (12 kilometers) in diameter with a resolution of about 30 feet (9.1 meters). In the upper magnification range, the scope field of view would be approximately 4,200 feet (1,280 meters), about half the MOL camera’s field of view, and the resolution would be about 3.5 feet (1.1 meters).

 

Those slides of the baseline design from Jan '67 had a nice image of the tracking and acquisition telescope-one for the optics buffs here.

I also noted that the Titan IIIM had been named by that point if not before, and the Transtage had been dropped from the design, also if not before.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/17/2022 04:50 pm


Right here.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3461/1

 

Was interested to see that the  TSR piece that Libra reminded us of above has an intriguing comment:

Quote
One aspect of the MOL system that remains classified is its ability to photograph other spacecraft in orbit. Almost two pages of the report are deleted and presumably discussed this capability. This was a capability that the intelligence community euphemistically began referring to as “sat-squared,” or “S2,” and was later developed for GAMBIT and used to photograph targets such as the damaged Skylab and the Soviet equivalent to MOL, known as Almaz and operated in the 1970s.

This ability was apparently mentioned in the cable summarising McMillan's views from 1965 that I uploaded upthread, document #87 in MOL set,  and from which grab below appears. I assume that is what "in space photographic inspection system" must mean ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/18/2022 01:05 am
A bunch of MOL illustrations, including the spotting scope.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/18/2022 08:24 am
A bunch of MOL illustrations, including the spotting scope.

Great stuff. What era are the last two from ? I like the "exploratory bug", which sounds like something Major Matt Mason might use ...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/18/2022 11:03 am
A bunch of MOL illustrations, including the spotting scope.

Great stuff. What era are the last two from ? I like the "exploratory bug", which sounds like something Major Matt Mason might use ...

Those were all part of a release of MOL graphics that were separate from documents. They were released in 2014, before the major declassification. I assume that they are spread throughout the 2015 document collection. I also assume that those two are from around 1965, before MOL became mostly the photo-reconnaissance mission.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/18/2022 03:15 pm
A bunch of MOL illustrations, including the spotting scope.

Great stuff. What era are the last two from ? I like the "exploratory bug", which sounds like something Major Matt Mason might use ...

Those were all part of a release of MOL graphics that were separate from documents. They were released in 2014, before the major declassification. I assume that they are spread throughout the 2015 document collection. I also assume that those two are from around 1965, before MOL became mostly the photo-reconnaissance mission.

Turns out P-4 is  listed in the attached, Doc #86 in MOL release, "Primary Experiments Data" from March 1965, though in fact pretty much all info is deleted from what was released except a list of figures related to P-4 and the basic description of it, so good to have that figure released independently.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/20/2022 06:00 pm

I have a hard time understanding how a linked, automatic system would work. SIGINT geolocation accuracy was low, on the order of many miles. So the system detects a signal, but the camera really has a very large area to capture. A high-resolution camera like MOL/DORIAN has a small field of view... So it strikes me that most of the time the camera is not going to be pointed at the emitter location.


I understand your doubts here, and I'm not sure I have an answer really, but I thought the wording of the discussion of the EPS in attached, doc #228 in MOL set, from April 1966,  was interesting, especially the claim that the EPS "will be capable of identifying and locating emitters with sufficient accuracy to assure that they fall within the field-of-view of the  High Resolution Optics".

 [Edit: See grabs. However it was supposed to work, it sounds fairly ingenious, especially wrt size. 

Actually, reading second grab again, I wonder if point of EPS was mainly to say "go look at something else" ?]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/22/2022 02:27 am
Reading that, I still don't understand it. But it got removed, which may indicate that they concluded it would not work, or would not be useful.

I can also imagine that this might have been too complicated even if it had worked. The astronauts were going to be busy pointing and shooting. Having to manage a second system while doing that might have over-extended the astronauts.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/22/2022 07:01 am
Reading that, I still don't understand it. But it got removed, which may indicate that they concluded it would not work, or would not be useful.

Indeed, but it was still "first reserve" in the late 1966 doc on future options, i.e. was the only SIGINT option to be costed, though included separately. I think it was seen as useful but not a priority. Had after all had fairly positive NSA endorsement just a few months before, at director to director level.

Quote
I can also imagine that this might have been too complicated even if it had worked. The astronauts were going to be busy pointing and shooting. Having to manage a second system while doing that might have over-extended the astronauts.

An interesting insight into the planning at that time is in the briefing "manned system performance analysis" written by Schriever and given by Leonard, doc # 264. See first 2 grabs for a typical day, rest for what it says about SIGINT. I think this must either be the EPS, or includes the EPS, but that name is not used. I think the 5 cubic feet mentioned before must have been what it stowed into. [Edit: I think that well separated antennae may be in the boxes on the ends of the A-frame and may be used for direction finding, and I note that one slide mentions pre-pass interferometer calibration as a task for humans. I also see one slide gives +/- 1/2 a degree accuracy as a target for transfer to large optics.]

I think system was sold as one that would reduce their net effort, or optimise it, otherwise it wouldn't have been considered at all, for the reasons you give. Though it does sound as if one thing they might be asked to do was take pictures of the oscilloscope ...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 03/23/2022 04:58 am
Catching up with the above posts. Ok, so the plan was to quite literally connect ELINT / SIGINT and optical reconnaissance.

- SIGINT sensor hears an interesting Soviet radar signal
- the camera is "slaved" to the SIGINT sensor
- so it pivots and try snatching some pictures of the said radar

Smart thinking, really. If optical cameras are "eyes" then SIGINT is "ears": makes some limited sense to try and articulate the two.
But I can see how hard it would be to implement. Could also drive the crew and camera system crazy. Could brought some mayhem inside the cramped MOL quarters...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/23/2022 10:45 am
Catching up with the above posts. Ok, so the plan was to quite literally connect ELINT / SIGINT and optical reconnaissance.

- SIGINT sensor hears an interesting Soviet radar signal
- the camera is "slaved" to the SIGINT sensor
- so it pivots and try snatching some pictures of the said radar

That sounds like a great scene from a film ... but it doesn't seem to have been quite as direct as that. This is part of something I posted upthread [doc #228, "capabilities of the MOL system", from Spring 1966].
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/24/2022 12:14 am
Catching up with the above posts. Ok, so the plan was to quite literally connect ELINT / SIGINT and optical reconnaissance.

- SIGINT sensor hears an interesting Soviet radar signal
- the camera is "slaved" to the SIGINT sensor
- so it pivots and try snatching some pictures of the said radar

That sounds like a great scene from a film ... but it doesn't seem to have been quite as direct as that. This is part of something I posted upthread [doc #228, "capabilities of the MOL system", from Spring 1966].


If you start to think out the operations, you can start to imagine how there could be failure modes that might scare some people. You don't want that important optics system connected to something that might hijack it at important times. They only have a few seconds to get a photograph, and if the SIGINT system is glitching, like detecting noise, it could waste some perfectly good shots. I can just imagine people being wary of such a setup.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 03/24/2022 07:26 am
Wikipedia has this to say about Baikonur size and shape

Quote
The shape of the area leased is an ellipse, measuring 90 kilometres (56 mi) east–west by 85 kilometres (53 mi) north–south, with the cosmodrome at the centre.

At a speed of 8 km per 1 second, very best case is 11 seconds spent over the target. Except of course the cosmodrome is not spread over the entire ellipse but concentrated in a big single spot right in the middle, so perhaps 1 or 2 seconds at best.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/24/2022 01:36 pm
Wikipedia has this to say about Baikonur size and shape

Quote
The shape of the area leased is an ellipse, measuring 90 kilometres (56 mi) east–west by 85 kilometres (53 mi) north–south, with the cosmodrome at the centre.

At a speed of 8 km per 1 second, very best case is 11 seconds spent over the target. Except of course the cosmodrome is not spread over the entire ellipse but concentrated in a big single spot right in the middle, so perhaps 1 or 2 seconds at best.




And this graphic gives you an idea of the MOL field of view. It could really only photograph one launch pad at a time. Given that it took some time to move the camera, they were probably only going to be able to photograph a handful of launch pads during a pass. I would say that would require choosing wisely, but I'm not sure that would be the case--you'd have to get lucky to photograph a pad where something was happening.


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/24/2022 02:26 pm
Wikipedia has this to say about Baikonur size and shape

Quote
The shape of the area leased is an ellipse, measuring 90 kilometres (56 mi) east–west by 85 kilometres (53 mi) north–south, with the cosmodrome at the centre.

At a speed of 8 km per 1 second, very best case is 11 seconds spent over the target. Except of course the cosmodrome is not spread over the entire ellipse but concentrated in a big single spot right in the middle, so perhaps 1 or 2 seconds at best.




And this graphic gives you an idea of the MOL field of view. It could really only photograph one launch pad at a time. Given that it took some time to move the camera, they were probably only going to be able to photograph a handful of launch pads during a pass. I would say that would require choosing wisely, but I'm not sure that would be the case--you'd have to get lucky to photograph a pad where something was happening.

I wonder how they read to you, but to me these grabs from Doc # 264  seem to suggest that MOL would snap away automatically, but the crew would be looking ahead to see if something more interesting turned up ...

... rather like those people who are always looking over your head at cocktail parties (or is that just me ;-)).
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/24/2022 02:33 pm
I wonder how they read to you, but to me these grabs from Doc # 264  seem to suggest that MOL would snap away automatically, but the crew would be looking ahead to see if something more interesting turned up ...

Yeah, that's how it would work. I interviewed Crippen and Truly who said that they would be prioritizing targets, giving each one a ranking while looking ahead with the spotter scope. The big telescope would then move automatically based on their rankings.

But there would still be limits to how much it could photograph in a single pass, so they might pick out 7 targets but there was only enough time to photograph 5.

I think further up this thread there was discussion of the simulator system that they built to determine how well this would work. Naturally, in high-density target areas like Moscow, they would get only a fraction of the targets they wanted to photograph.

So I still think that luck would have been a key factor. Just not a quantifiable one.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 03/24/2022 02:39 pm
Yeah, in a Michael Bay movie (here we go again, down that rabbit hole) you would see the MOL camera underneath the spaceship with a big lense - panning and zooming crazily while snapping plenty of pictures, BAM BAM BAM BAM, you get the point. With pretty excited astronauts shouting at each others across the ship "hey, look at that" and making stupid crass jokes.

But, in the real world (which, luckily for us, doesn't look like a Michael Bay movie, God mercy) - I would suggest it must take some time to move a 72-inch mirror (and the camera assembly around it), back and forth, left and right, rinse, repeat.

Maybe not as slow as Mount Palomar telescope, but not exactly fast either...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 03/24/2022 02:52 pm
More seriously
Did the MOL had kind of two separate imaging systems ?

a) the main big camera working as described above thread: pre-programed targets with the automated system - with a crew watching it

b) the ATS tracking scope own capabilities

That one always confuses me. I've red somewhere it had its own ground resolution - "good enough" but a far cry from 4-inch. More like 10 feet (from memory).

So,
- one crew would manages the main big camera just in case "Otto" goes nuts,
- the other would hunt targets with the ATS ?

I also wonder if the ATS could be "slaved" to the main camera and thus - one crew see a target of opportunity but feels the ATS 10 ft is too low, he wants the main camera 4-inch: and thus he overrides the automatics, slaves the main camera to the ATS, and gets his high-res pictures ?

Could they do that ?  Any time to do that ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 03/24/2022 04:36 pm
More seriously
Did the MOL had kind of two separate imaging systems ?

a) the main big camera working as described above thread: pre-programed targets with the automated system - with a crew watching it

b) the ATS tracking scope own capabilities

That one always confuses me. I've red somewhere it had its own ground resolution - "good enough" but a far cry from 4-inch. More like 10 feet (from memory).

So,
- one crew would manages the main big camera just in case "Otto" goes nuts,
- the other would hunt targets with the ATS ?

I also wonder if the ATS could be "slaved" to the main camera and thus - one crew see a target of opportunity but feels the ATS 10 ft is too low, he wants the main camera 4-inch: and thus he overrides the automatics, slaves the main camera to the ATS, and gets his high-res pictures ?

Could they do that ?  Any time to do that ?

I think you need a MOL/optics expert rather than me for this, but that sounds a bit like what is being described below, again from
Doc #264. [Edit: I should have said that last bit I've boldfaced sounds a bit like how the ATS was used, but Blackstar is much more familiar with this than I am.]
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 03/24/2022 05:25 pm
More seriously
Did the MOL had kind of two separate imaging systems ?

a) the main big camera working as described above thread: pre-programed targets with the automated system - with a crew watching it

b) the ATS tracking scope own capabilities

That one always confuses me. I've red somewhere it had its own ground resolution - "good enough" but a far cry from 4-inch. More like 10 feet (from memory).


The astronauts could look through the ATS scope, or they could look through a scope that showed what the main camera saw. But my understanding is that only the main camera took photos, so what that saw is what mattered.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Steve G on 06/17/2022 12:32 pm
What mitigations would have the Air Force done to the Gemini capsule following the fire of Apollo 1? According to Tom Stafford's Oral History -

https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/oral_histories/StaffordTP/StaffordTP_10-15-97.htm

- he stated that ejecting during the Gemini 6 launch abort would have been fatal.

(Edited Quote) We would have been two Roman candles going out, because we were 15 or 16 psi, pure oxygen, soaking in that for an hour and a half. Jesus, with that fire going off and that, it would have burned the suits. Everything was soaked in oxygen. So thank God. That was another thing: NASA never tested it under the conditions that they would have had if they would have had to eject. They did have some tests at China Lake where they had a simulated mock-up of Gemini capsule, but what they did is fill it full of nitrogen. They didn't have it filled full of oxygen in the sled test they had.

I know they were planning an Oxygen-helium atmosphere, but would have they still used ejection seats or moved to a LES?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michel Van on 06/17/2022 02:54 pm
What mitigations would have the Air Force done to the Gemini capsule following the fire of Apollo 1?
...
I know they were planning an Oxygen-helium atmosphere, but would have they still used ejection seats or moved to a LES?

no much information sadly
MOL had low pressure atmosphere 30% Helium and 70% Oxygen in orbit.
the LES was first a escape tower on top of Gemini B, what replace two additional solid rocket motor in Return Module
that now has dual role LES and Return from Orbit.

I guess that Gemini cabin is filled with helium during launch, while crew in space suits on Lifesupport
Note that MOL spacesuits helmet had no visor to open !
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: bkellysky on 07/21/2022 02:35 pm
What mitigations would have the Air Force done to the Gemini capsule following the fire of Apollo 1? According to Tom Stafford's Oral History -

https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/oral_histories/StaffordTP/StaffordTP_10-15-97.htm

- he stated that ejecting during the Gemini 6 launch abort would have been fatal.

(Edited Quote) We would have been two Roman candles going out, because we were 15 or 16 psi, pure oxygen, soaking in that for an hour and a half. Jesus, with that fire going off and that, it would have burned the suits. Everything was soaked in oxygen. So thank God. That was another thing: NASA never tested it under the conditions that they would have had if they would have had to eject. They did have some tests at China Lake where they had a simulated mock-up of Gemini capsule, but what they did is fill it full of nitrogen. They didn't have it filled full of oxygen in the sled test they had.

I know they were planning an Oxygen-helium atmosphere, but would have they still used ejection seats or moved to a LES?

The engineers that designed the ejection seat for Gemini don't agree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IRdZjjq1Ik
See Gordon Cress' pinned comment.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: bkellysky on 07/21/2022 02:46 pm
The same response was discussed at:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51129.msg2093000#msg2093000
and
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28474.msg2057746#msg2057746
And noted  at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26652.20
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/21/2022 04:41 pm

- he stated that ejecting during the Gemini 6 launch abort would have been fatal.


That is a feeling and not a given.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 09/11/2022 07:03 pm
My next article is on Blue Gemini and some related things. Appears on Monday.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 09/13/2022 12:54 pm
https://thespacereview.com/article/4448/1

A darker shade of blue: The unknown Air Force manned space program
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, September 12, 2022

In 1958, before the creation of NASA and the start of the Mercury program, the Air Force sponsored a project named Man-In-Space-Soonest, or MISS. As part of MISS, aerospace contractor Lockheed proposed a spacecraft five feet (1.5 meters) diameter to carry a single astronaut into orbit. The proposed spacecraft was the same diameter as the Agena upper stage spacecraft. Lockheed’s manned spacecraft would have been smaller than Mercury and would have ridden atop an Atlas-Agena launch vehicle.

The Air Force canceled MISS when manned spaceflight was turned over to NASA at the orders of President Eisenhower, but the Air Force still contracted Lockheed to build its pressurized MISS spacecraft. The Air Force hired the Itek Corporation to build a high-powered camera system for the spacecraft, which it designated the Samos E-5. The large pressurized container was not ideal for a camera system, and it puzzled Jack Herther, the camera designer. Herther was unaware of the spacecraft’s origins and wondered why his company was being forced to design a compromised camera system to fit inside a spacecraft, rather than having Lockheed build the spacecraft around the best possible camera system.[1]

What Herther and his fellow Itek engineers did not realize was that reconnaissance was not the driving factor in the development of this new spacecraft. General Bernard Schriever, the legendary head of the Ballistic Missiles Division, had approved the Samos E-5 in order to have a pressurized Air Force spacecraft that was large enough to carry a human, (albeit a small human). If the senior political leadership lifted the restriction on the Air Force man-in-space program, Schriever would be ready.

Samos E-5 flew five times starting in spring 1961 and it failed every single time. But the Air Force had developed a pressurized spacecraft big enough to hold a man. By the second half of 1960, the Air Force had also contracted Lockheed to build a chimpanzee “life cell” for the Samos E-5 spacecraft and was evaluating chimpanzee flights of up to 14 days, including travel through the Van Allen radiation belts. This was part of the Bioastronautical Orbital Space System, or BOSS program. An Air Force officer explained that after they had proved that the life cell worked, it would be relatively easy to develop a manned version of the spacecraft.[2]
SAMOS

While Schriever and his officers were evaluating BOSS, they were also involved in another primate program. As part of the cover story for the CORONA reconnaissance satellite program, the Air Force had undertaken a project to launch up to three rhesus monkeys aboard recoverable Discoverer spacecraft. The initial launch had originally been planned for 1959, but the plans slipped to 1960 and then to 1962 before the program was completely canceled. Another proposed Air Force primate program was called “Space Canary” and would have involved flying a rhesus monkey along with a human astronaut in a spacecraft. This plan was based upon the theory that the monkey would show ill effects of spaceflight and serve as a warning to the human—instead of the other way around.

BOSS was also never approved, although the Air Force apparently tried to obtain funding for it at least twice, in 1961 and then again in 1962. But its existence demonstrates that the US Air Force had an active manned spaceflight program during the time period when the military was officially banned from having its own manned spaceflight projects because they would duplicate the civilian Mercury program. Although histories of the Air Force space program have discussed the service’s development of the Dyna-Soar spaceplane during this time, Dyna-Soar was an advanced program that was not expected to fly until the mid-1960s. What the Samos E-5 and BOSS documentation indicates is that the Air Force also had a less ambitious shadow manned space program, one that was apparently not officially sanctioned by the White House. The existence of this program also helps explain the Air Force’s next steps in acquiring its own manned space program, Blue Gemini.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: hoku on 09/13/2022 05:59 pm
https://thespacereview.com/article/4448/1

A darker shade of blue: The unknown Air Force manned space program
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, September 12, 2022

<snip>
McNamara’s actions remain puzzling. (...)  At the time the entire Department of Defense space budget was $1.55 billion, and the Air Force had asked for a substantial increase of $420 million, including $75 million for MODS and $102 million for Blue Gemini. That was a lot of money.
<snip>
In the early 1960s, the US was building up the "Nuclear Navy". McNamara might have seen the AF space flight proposals as an attempt by Schriever (and possibly LeMay, who wasn't all in favor of the Nuclear triad) to channel funds away from the the other two "legs" of the triad to the AF.

Also, McNamara's relation to the AF leadership became "strained" during the Cuban missile crisis.

Quote from his Oral History Interview with Schlesinger on 4/4/1964: "At the same time, the Polaris program was speeded up. The original fiscal 1962 budget proposed by the Eisenhower Administration had provided for only five Polaris submarines. President Kennedy doubled the number of Polaris submarines in both the 1961 and 1962 budgets from a total of ten to a total of twenty. And, furthermore, the Minuteman program was accelerated by President Kennedy's supplements to the fiscal 1962 budget and was expanded from a total of four hundred missiles to a total of six hundred missiles – this number to be in place by the summer of 1964. And, by the way, we will actually exceed that schedule."
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 09/13/2022 06:16 pm
https://thespacereview.com/article/4448/1

A darker shade of blue: The unknown Air Force manned space program
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, September 12, 2022

<snip>
McNamara’s actions remain puzzling. (...)  At the time the entire Department of Defense space budget was $1.55 billion, and the Air Force had asked for a substantial increase of $420 million, including $75 million for MODS and $102 million for Blue Gemini. That was a lot of money.
<snip>
In the early 1960s, the US was building up the "Nuclear Navy".

[Edit: Useful collection of docs on the inter-service politics of that process here https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2021-10-14/how-much-enough-us-navy-and-finite-deterrence ]

Quote
McNamara might have seen the AF space flight proposals as an attempt by Schriever (and possibly LeMay, who wasn't all in favor of the Nuclear triad) to channel funds away from the the other two "legs" of the triad to the AF.

Also, McNamara's relation to the AF leadership became "strained" during the Cuban missile crisis.

Quote from his Oral History Interview with Schlesinger on 4/4/1964: "At the same time, the Polaris program was speeded up. The original fiscal 1962 budget proposed by the Eisenhower Administration had provided for only five Polaris submarines. President Kennedy doubled the number of Polaris submarines in both the 1961 and 1962 budgets from a total of ten to a total of twenty. And, furthermore, the Minuteman program was accelerated by President Kennedy's supplements to the fiscal 1962 budget and was expanded from a total of four hundred missiles to a total of six hundred missiles – this number to be in place by the summer of 1964. And, by the way, we will actually exceed that schedule."

There is also McNamara's reminiscence in the 1980s BBC radio documentary "the Star Wars History", of some aspirations which had to be cut down by an order of magnitude-here published in Michael Charlton's book version on archive.org https://archive.org/details/fromdeterrenceto0000char/page/8/mode/2up

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: leovinus on 09/13/2022 10:15 pm
https://thespacereview.com/article/4448/1

A darker shade of blue: The unknown Air Force manned space program
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, September 12, 2022

In 1958, [snip]

Nice work. In case it is useful, two more references below. I did not see these mentioned in your references on TSR. I have not read them in person yet.

1) Bernard Schriever and Early US Military Spaceflight
Wing Commander Gerry Doyle RAF
Oct 2016 https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/71366/

Quote
p123, f[339] For a description of the Blue Gemini programme, see Barton C. Grimwood James M. Hacker, On the Shoulders of Titans: a History of Project Gemini (NASA SP-4203) (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Division, Office of Technology Utilization, 1978) Ch6-2

2) Struggling towards space doctrine: U.S. military space plans, programs, and perspectives during the cold war
Hays, Peter Lang, Ph.D.
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts University), 1994
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/struggling-towards-space-doctrine-u-s-military-space-plans-programs-and-perspectives-during-the-cold-war-may-1994/

Quote
p158 [163] Stares, Militarization of Space.115-16. SeealsoGeraldM.Steinberg,Satellite Reconnaissance: The Role of Informal Bargaining (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1983), 83-85. The reoriented SAINT program (program 706) was a study program only. The Air Force, noting that ASAT requirements were increasing, planned to use the Blue Gemini and the Manned Orbital Development Station (MODS) programs to test manned ASAT techniques. Steinberg’s interviews with former Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, former Air Force Secretary Eugene M. Zuckert, and retired General Schriever indicate that McNamara personally canceled the SAINT program, primarily due to his fears of an action-reaction space-based ASAT race.

p219 as well as  [274] Stares, Militarization of Space. 79. DoD eliminated the Blue Gemini and Military Orbital Development System (MODS) programs from the Air Force budget in January 1963. The NASA-DoD experiment program was officially titled Program 631A, "DOD Gemini Experiments Program," and called for 18 experiments to be run on Gemini flights between October 1964 and April 1967 for a cost of $16 million. The experiments were programmed for areas such as satellite inspection, reconnaissance, satellite defense, and astronaut extravehicular activity. Colonel Daniel D. McKee, "The Gemini Program," Air University Review 16 (May-June 1965): 6-15; and Cantwell, "AF in Space, FY 64,"
31-36; microfiche document 00330 in Military Uses of Space.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 09/14/2022 01:13 pm
https://thespacereview.com/article/4448/1

A darker shade of blue: The unknown Air Force manned space program
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, September 12, 2022

In 1958, [snip]

Nice work. In case it is useful, two more references below. I did not see these mentioned in your references on TSR. I have not read them in person yet.

1) Bernard Schriever and Early US Military Spaceflight
Wing Commander Gerry Doyle RAF
Oct 2016 https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/71366/

Quote
p123, f[339] For a description of the Blue Gemini programme, see Barton C. Grimwood James M. Hacker, On the Shoulders of Titans: a History of Project Gemini (NASA SP-4203) (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Division, Office of Technology Utilization, 1978) Ch6-2

 


As per this post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55159.msg2317781#msg2317781 I'd concur re the interest of the Doyle thesis which really looks worthy of  a proper read.  I scanned it briefly in hope that he'd found a Schriever equivalent of the Kamanin diaries but I don't think so.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: leovinus on 09/14/2022 01:48 pm
https://thespacereview.com/article/4448/1

A darker shade of blue: The unknown Air Force manned space program
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, September 12, 2022

In 1958, [snip]

Nice work. In case it is useful, two more references below. I did not see these mentioned in your references on TSR. I have not read them in person yet.

1) Bernard Schriever and Early US Military Spaceflight
Wing Commander Gerry Doyle RAF
Oct 2016 https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/71366/

Quote
p123, f[339] For a description of the Blue Gemini programme, see Barton C. Grimwood James M. Hacker, On the Shoulders of Titans: a History of Project Gemini (NASA SP-4203) (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Division, Office of Technology Utilization, 1978) Ch6-2

 


As per this post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55159.msg2317781#msg2317781 I'd concur re the interest of the Doyle thesis which really looks worthy of  a proper read.  I scanned it briefly in hope that he'd found a Schriever equivalent of the Kamanin diaries but I don't think so.

Yep, the "Moonbase" thread where you mentioned Doyle's thesis lead to me reading the whole thesis during the holidays. Thank you for that reference.

While I am not aware of a Schriever version of "diaries", there is a lot of material on him at the Library of Congress which is used by Doyle as well. With some MOL links as well. Happy reading.

The Schriever Archive at the Library of Congress, Bernard A Schriever papers, 1931-2005
https://lccn.loc.gov/mm2005085217
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 09/14/2022 05:10 pm

Yep, the "Moonbase" thread where you mentioned Doyle's thesis lead to me reading the whole thesis during the holidays. Thank you for that reference.

While I am not aware of a Schriever version of "diaries", there is a lot of material on him at the Library of Congress which is used by Doyle as well. With some MOL links as well. Happy reading.

The Schriever Archive at the Library of Congress, Bernard A Schriever papers, 1931-2005
https://lccn.loc.gov/mm2005085217

Thanks, and for that link that I don't think I've seen. I think I came across Doyle looking for Schriever diaries but I found in the end that it was appointment diaries that he used rather than what I'd hoped for ;-)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Michel Van on 10/21/2022 10:24 am
Some Aspect of Gemini program, i wonder if McDonnell would also proposed to USAF

In the NASA Gemini were original planned 15 mission.
On July 30, 1964 they canceld the order on last three Titan II GLV.
According this info McDonnell wanted to refurbish used Gemini capsule for mission 13 to 15
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ffk-WLWWIAAy_HT?format=jpg&name=small)

Would McDonnell do same for MOL or Blue Gemini ?
I think that make allot sense for Blue Gemini with spy camera installed next astronaut.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/21/2022 10:51 am
They were probably too few MOL missions planned (2 unmanned, 4 manned, and then some were cut - so even less) to think about refurbishing capsules.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/21/2022 05:01 pm
They were probably too few MOL missions planned (2 unmanned, 4 manned, and then some were cut - so even less) to think about refurbishing capsules.

True, but granted that the first crewed MOL missions were never very prompt after Gemini, and soon stretched out quite a long way, when were the MOL capsules expected to be built ? And when in fact did the production line close i.e. when was last time you could "order" a new Gemini ?

Only ones I ever bought came from Revell ;-)
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/22/2022 06:27 am
Somewhere upthread The Jim and Blackstar answered  that question.

Well it was in a different thread. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26906.60

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26906.msg812764#msg812764
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/22/2022 01:00 pm
Somewhere upthread The Jim and Blackstar answered  that question.


Funny: this past week, "The Jim" and Blackstar were hanging out at Vandenberg Space Force Base. Except that there, he is known only as "Jim."

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/22/2022 04:08 pm
Somewhere upthread The Jim and Blackstar answered  that question.

Well it was in a different thread. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26906.60

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26906.msg812764#msg812764

Thanks for looking those up.

Made me wonder what the actual record is for a manned s/c being in store before flight. The ASTP Apollo "18"  CSM ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/22/2022 06:44 pm
Somewhere upthread The Jim and Blackstar answered  that question.


Funny: this past week, "The Jim" and Blackstar were hanging out at Vandenberg Space Force Base. Except that there, he is known only as "Jim."

You are speaking of you in third person, like Julius Cesar or Alain Delon ?  :o
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/22/2022 06:48 pm
Somewhere upthread The Jim and Blackstar answered  that question.


Funny: this past week, "The Jim" and Blackstar were hanging out at Vandenberg Space Force Base. Except that there, he is known only as "Jim."

You are speaking of you in third person, like Julius Cesar or Alain Delon ?  :o

No, "Blackstar" is one of my many secret identities. I'm actually Batman.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Targeteer on 10/23/2022 03:14 am
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=426060826378947&set=a.164921892492843

National Reconnaissance Office
  ·
#OTD in 2015, NRO declassified its connection to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL).  While the public knew MOL as a USAF project to test the military usefulness of putting someone in space, its real mission was to launch a manned surveillance satellite into orbit.
Coming soon, #MOLMonday! Mark your calendars every Monday to learn more about this once highly-classified program.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/23/2022 04:04 am
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=426060826378947&set=a.164921892492843

National Reconnaissance Office
  ·
#OTD in 2015, NRO declassified its connection to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL).  While the public knew MOL as a USAF project to test the military usefulness of putting someone in space, its real mission was to launch a manned surveillance satellite into orbit.
Coming soon, #MOLMonday! Mark your calendars every Monday to learn more about this once highly-classified program.

Great stuff. Does that make today #SIGINTSunday or am I just wishful thinking ;-)

Love your pic ... the MOL astro seems to be on the way to sort out HAL once and for all ...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/23/2022 04:44 am
Quote from: libra link=topic=23864.msg24221
13#msg2422113 date=1666420073
Somewhere upthread The Jim and Blackstar answered  that question.

Well it was in a different thread. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26906.60

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26906.msg812764#msg812764

Was interested that, if I've inferred correctly  and as per Blackstar in that thread:

Quote

CDR happens before a spacecraft is built. So they held a meeting to discuss hardware that was not built, and then a few months later the program was canceled.

The MOL document collection includes documents listing leftover hardware that might be used by NASA. There are no Gemini spacecraft listed there. They were not built.


that as late as 1969 the plan was indeed to build some  Gemini Bs as needed. And so, if I understand correctly, no new flight-model Gemini Bs were ever built, as the one flown in 66 was a conversion ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/23/2022 06:08 am
Somewhere upthread The Jim and Blackstar answered  that question.


Funny: this past week, "The Jim" and Blackstar were hanging out at Vandenberg Space Force Base. Except that there, he is known only as "Jim."

You are speaking of you in third person, like Julius Cesar or Alain Delon ?  :o

No, "Blackstar" is one of my many secret identities. I'm actually Batman.

I've always thought of you as the Hatted Hero rather than the Caped Crusader ...
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: libra on 10/23/2022 08:02 am
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=426060826378947&set=a.164921892492843

National Reconnaissance Office
  ·
#OTD in 2015, NRO declassified its connection to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL).  While the public knew MOL as a USAF project to test the military usefulness of putting someone in space, its real mission was to launch a manned surveillance satellite into orbit.
Coming soon, #MOLMonday! Mark your calendars every Monday to learn more about this once highly-classified program.

Great stuff. Does that make today #SIGINTSunday or am I just wishful thinking ;-)

Love your pic ... the MOL astro seems to be on the way to sort out HAL once and for all ...

"Open the MOL door, HAL.

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm affraid I can't do that.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/23/2022 05:36 pm
National Reconnaissance Office
#OTD in 2015, NRO declassified its connection to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). 

I know that NRO's public affairs stuff is supposed to be general and lightweight, but they distort these things. NRO revealed their connection to MOL before they did the full release. I think they declassified portions of a history that referred to it, as well as some documents, at least a year or two earlier.

Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 10/24/2022 01:16 am
And so, if I understand correctly, no new flight-model Gemini Bs were ever built, as the one flown in 66 was a conversion ?

Yes: it had previously flown as Gemini 2 (http://heroicrelics.org/ksc/gemini-2-mol/).

I believe I have seen it referred to as the first American spacecraft to fly twice, but I would guess that honor might actually belong to one of the Apollo boilerplates, if those count as spacecraft. Gemini 2 might still have been the first to fly twice above the von Kármán Line.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/24/2022 08:25 am
And so, if I understand correctly, no new flight-model Gemini Bs were ever built, as the one flown in 66 was a conversion ?

Yes: it had previously flown as Gemini 2 (http://heroicrelics.org/ksc/gemini-2-mol/).

I believe I have seen it referred to as the first American spacecraft to fly twice, but I would guess that honor might actually belong to one of the Apollo boilerplates, if those count as spacecraft. Gemini 2 might still have been the first to fly twice above the von Kármán Line.

Interesting, a pretty significant milestone now you mention it.

And remarkable to think of a Gemini production capability being retained to about 1969, even as things like Saturn V line were shutting down.


Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/24/2022 07:23 pm
And so, if I understand correctly, no new flight-model Gemini Bs were ever built, as the one flown in 66 was a conversion ?

Yes: it had previously flown as Gemini 2 (http://heroicrelics.org/ksc/gemini-2-mol/).

I believe I have seen it referred to as the first American spacecraft to fly twice, but I would guess that honor might actually belong to one of the Apollo boilerplates, if those count as spacecraft. Gemini 2 might still have been the first to fly twice above the von Kármán Line.

No, X-15 was
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: edzieba on 10/25/2022 11:08 am
And so, if I understand correctly, no new flight-model Gemini Bs were ever built, as the one flown in 66 was a conversion ?

Yes: it had previously flown as Gemini 2 (http://heroicrelics.org/ksc/gemini-2-mol/).

I believe I have seen it referred to as the first American spacecraft to fly twice, but I would guess that honor might actually belong to one of the Apollo boilerplates, if those count as spacecraft. Gemini 2 might still have been the first to fly twice above the von Kármán Line.

No, X-15 was
Also in contention would be the Zenit (and later Yantar) photoreconnaissance satellites, which were recovered wholesale for reuse. Not manned vehicles, though they were internally pressurised and environmentally controlled to support the camera hardware and electronics.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Bob Shaw on 10/25/2022 11:18 am
Wasn’t the first US spacecraft to fly twice a Mercury capsule? A recovered unmanned test flight of one of the early non-manrated test vehicles? Granted, the first flight was quite brief!
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: JoeFromRIUSA on 10/25/2022 12:04 pm
That would be the MA-3 mission that failed to pitch properly and was destroyed by the RSO
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 10/25/2022 12:39 pm
I believe I have seen it referred to as the first American spacecraft to fly twice, but I would guess that honor might actually belong to one of the Apollo boilerplates, if those count as spacecraft. Gemini 2 might still have been the first to fly twice above the von Kármán Line.

No, X-15 was

A few X-15 flights exceeded 50 miles' altitude, but did any exceed 100 km?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: edzieba on 10/25/2022 12:53 pm
I believe I have seen it referred to as the first American spacecraft to fly twice, but I would guess that honor might actually belong to one of the Apollo boilerplates, if those count as spacecraft. Gemini 2 might still have been the first to fly twice above the von Kármán Line.

No, X-15 was

A few X-15 flights exceeded 50 miles' altitude, but did any exceed 100 km?
Flights 90 and 91.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Blackstar on 10/25/2022 02:15 pm
Also in contention would be the Zenit (and later Yantar) photoreconnaissance satellites, which were recovered wholesale for reuse. Not manned vehicles, though they were internally pressurised and environmentally controlled to support the camera hardware and electronics.

Camera systems were recovered, but the satellite buses were discarded. It would be interesting to know how often the cameras were reflown. You can only shake precision optics around so much before they fail to be precision anymore.

Back to the earlier question, I have seen no evidence of proposed Gemini reuse, and don't know why it would be desirable. I vaguely remember that one of the MOL documents lists the procurement dates for Gemini capsules. I think that there were 4 in the initial batch, although it might have been as many as 6.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/25/2022 03:37 pm
Also in contention would be the Zenit (and later Yantar) photoreconnaissance satellites, which were recovered wholesale for reuse. Not manned vehicles, though they were internally pressurised and environmentally controlled to support the camera hardware and electronics.

Camera systems were recovered, but the satellite buses were discarded. It would be interesting to know how often the cameras were reflown. You can only shake precision optics around so much before they fail to be precision anymore.


I seem to remember reading the lenses were built by Karl Zeiss Jena http://www.legacylens.eu/lens-database/german-lenses/carl-zeiss-jena/ . I wonder if this was true, and if so what they were charging the USSR for them ;-)

Quote
Back to the earlier question, I have seen no evidence of proposed Gemini reuse, and don't know why it would be desirable. I vaguely remember that one of the MOL documents lists the procurement dates for Gemini capsules. I think that there were 4 in the initial batch, although it might have been as many as 6.

I don't either, but equally it fascinates me that NRO and USAF were happy to pay to reactivate a somnolent production line several years after last NASA Gemini was done. Puts the Big Gemini enthusiasm in a slightly different light.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/25/2022 05:08 pm


I believe I have seen it referred to as the first American spacecraft to fly twice, but I would guess that honor might actually belong to one of the Apollo boilerplates, if those count as spacecraft. Gemini 2 might still have been the first to fly twice above the von Kármán Line.

No, X-15 was

You are reminding me that this is where the criteria for winning the X prize came from.
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: LittleBird on 10/26/2022 12:16 pm
Just bumping an earlier query of mine:

I'm also struck by reference to crisis reconnaissance, which seems to have been a part of the MOL story somehow-see e.g. comments of NRO historian James Outzen in the preface to Courtney Homer's book, [grab attached].  Is there a good source on crisis reconnaisance and MOL or is it scattered all over the MOL and EOI doc sets ?

because it still seems to me as if there is a distinction between real time and crisis observation. I wonder if progress towards KH-11 type real time observation forced people to sharpen definition of what MOL was good for towards the crisis use. Once tested this would not require frequent launches ?
Title: Re: MOL discussion
Post by: Proponent on 10/26/2022 01:29 pm
OK, so the problems with the spysats of the day were that:

  •     1. They wasted a lot of film on clouds, and
  •     2. It took while to get exposed film down to the ground, developed and in front of analysts.

  • Might not a much cheaper solution than MOL have been to develop an unmanned spysat that carried:

  •     1. A real-time video camera with resolution just good enough to see clouds, and
  •     2. An improved Lunar Orbiter-style on-board darkroom and high-resolution read-out system.
  • Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 10/26/2022 01:53 pm
    OK, so the problems with the spysats of the day were that:

  •     1. They wasted a lot of film on clouds, and
  •     2. It took while to get exposed film down to the ground, developed and in front of analysts.

  • Might not a much cheaper solution than MOL have been to develop an unmanned spysat that carried:

  •     1. A real-time video camera with resolution just good enough to see clouds, and
  •     2. An improved Lunar Orbiter-style on-board darkroom and high-resolution read-out system.

  • If computers and mechanisms of the day had permitted that might have been a solution to real time. One reason I am intrigued by crisis recon is that it is something they might not have wanted to entrust to a robot. Or that their funders might be sympathetic to paying for because everyday experience was that computers etc broke down ...
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Proponent on 10/26/2022 02:02 pm
    Why would it have been a challenge to the computers of the era?  Just beam the low-res video to the ground and let a person decide whether the skies were clear enough to make photography worthwhile.  And if reliability is a problem (but why would it be, when all 5 Lunar Orbiters worked perfectly?), launch more spysats.  In fact, you'd probably want to do that anyway, so as to be able to image the target area more frequently.  A single MOL, in contrast, would pass over the target only once every 12 hours.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: libra on 10/26/2022 02:10 pm
    OK, so the problems with the spysats of the day were that:

  •     1. They wasted a lot of film on clouds, and
  •     2. It took while to get exposed film down to the ground, developed and in front of analysts.

  • Might not a much cheaper solution than MOL have been to develop an unmanned spysat that carried:

  •     1. A real-time video camera with resolution just good enough to see clouds, and
  •     2. An improved Lunar Orbiter-style on-board darkroom and high-resolution read-out system.

  • 1. the NRO and the US military (plus NASA) all had weather satellites, including optical ones 
    2. That was Film ReadOut GAMBIT - FROG - with a laser scan replacing the analog flying spot scanner.
    A ground prototype was ready early 1967 but they lost too much time and it became too different from GAMBIT-3 - until, in 1971, Din Land future KH-11 - with CCDs - ate it for lunch.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: apollolanding on 10/26/2022 02:18 pm
    OK, so the problems with the spysats of the day were that:

  •     1. They wasted a lot of film on clouds, and
  •     2. It took while to get exposed film down to the ground, developed and in front of analysts.

  • Might not a much cheaper solution than MOL have been to develop an unmanned spysat that carried:

  •     1. A real-time video camera with resolution just good enough to see clouds, and
  •     2. An improved Lunar Orbiter-style on-board darkroom and high-resolution read-out system.

  • 1. the NRO and the US military (plus NASA) all had weather satellites, including optical ones 
    2. That was Film ReadOut GAMBIT - FROG - with a laser scan replacing the analog flying spot scanner.
    A ground prototype was ready early 1967 but they lost too much time and it became too different from GAMBIT-3 - until, in 1971, Din Land future KH-11 - with CCDs - ate it for lunch.

    OK, so the problems with the spysats of the day were that:

  •     1. They wasted a lot of film on clouds, and
  •     2. It took while to get exposed film down to the ground, developed and in front of analysts.

  • Might not a much cheaper solution than MOL have been to develop an unmanned spysat that carried:

  •     1. A real-time video camera with resolution just good enough to see clouds, and
  •     2. An improved Lunar Orbiter-style on-board darkroom and high-resolution read-out system.

  • Just a thought, the film developer/scanner/transmitter for Lunar Orbiter was intended for resolutions of 100 meters, perhaps the tech wasn't developed enough to resolve down to the 4 inches that MOL was designed for?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: edzieba on 10/26/2022 02:34 pm
    Might not a much cheaper solution than MOL have been to develop an unmanned spysat that carried:

  •     1. A real-time video camera with resolution just good enough to see clouds, and
  •     2. An improved Lunar Orbiter-style on-board darkroom and high-resolution read-out system.
  • Welcome to a many decades old argument over read-out satellites, dating back to before film-return satellites were first launched.

    1) Was already implemented with DMSP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Meteorological_Satellite_Program).

    2) Was argued back and forth for decades with SAMOS/FROG/etc (along with other options like 'once around' film satellites and cameras on hypersonic aircraft). In that time, direct EO sensing went from theoretical to a practical system, so film readout was effectively leapfrogged.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: libra on 10/26/2022 03:31 pm
    OK, so the problems with the spysats of the day were that:

  •     1. They wasted a lot of film on clouds, and
  •     2. It took while to get exposed film down to the ground, developed and in front of analysts.

  • Might not a much cheaper solution than MOL have been to develop an unmanned spysat that carried:

  •     1. A real-time video camera with resolution just good enough to see clouds, and
  •     2. An improved Lunar Orbiter-style on-board darkroom and high-resolution read-out system.

  • 1. the NRO and the US military (plus NASA) all had weather satellites, including optical ones 
    2. That was Film ReadOut GAMBIT - FROG - with a laser scan replacing the analog flying spot scanner.
    A ground prototype was ready early 1967 but they lost too much time and it became too different from GAMBIT-3 - until, in 1971, Din Land future KH-11 - with CCDs - ate it for lunch.

    OK, so the problems with the spysats of the day were that:

  •     1. They wasted a lot of film on clouds, and
  •     2. It took while to get exposed film down to the ground, developed and in front of analysts.

  • Might not a much cheaper solution than MOL have been to develop an unmanned spysat that carried:

  •     1. A real-time video camera with resolution just good enough to see clouds, and
  •     2. An improved Lunar Orbiter-style on-board darkroom and high-resolution read-out system.

  • Just a thought, the film developer/scanner/transmitter for Lunar Orbiter was intended for resolutions of 100 meters, perhaps the tech wasn't developed enough to resolve down to the 4 inches that MOL was designed for?

    They thought about giving SAMOS E1 / E2 a second chance (they had failed dismally back in 1961-62) and of course Lunar Orbiter proved the Bimat system could work at least.
    But the analog system was agonizingly slow, ground stations couldn't keep up with a satellite zooming 100 miles and 8 km/s overhead... those kind of issues.
    I can't remember the source but they did examine a Bimat system after SAMOS and after Lunar Orbiter - and before FROG in 1966-67.
    The numbers are out somewhere on this forum.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 10/26/2022 05:43 pm
    I can't remember the source but they did examine a Bimat system after SAMOS and after Lunar Orbiter - and before FROG in 1966-67.
    The numbers are out somewhere on this forum.

    And film scanning experiments were proposed at one point for DORIAN/MOL, as also discussed somewhere in this thread or the KH-11 one, by me among other people.

    My point though was really about whether there is a qualitative difference between crisis recon specifically and real time recon more generally ? I am prompted by the fact that NRO's own historian was referring this specifically as a motivation for MOL. I wonder if it was orignally a selling point for the "satelloid" X-20, and hung over into MOL even though arguably less plausible for a satellite with as stated above a 12h revisit time.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 10/26/2022 08:36 pm
    Something that I'm still not quite clear on is if later GAMBIT and HEXAGON missions had a light sensor that could indicate if the target was cloud covered and then tell the camera control system not to take a photo. I know that they did have some automatic focus correction. I forget how that worked, but it indicates that there were systems in the cameras to adjust performance in real time.

    I don't want to apply my brain to this too much, but I think that the issue really was about maximizing film use, as opposed to never taking photographs of clouds. They were trying to get as many usable photos as possible, and that meant working on a lot of different things, including weather satellites as well as weather prediction models. See the last of my DMSP articles, which touched on the weather modeling issue a little bit:

    https://thespacereview.com/article/4412/1

    But no matter what, there would be problems unless the sky was totally clear of clouds. The KH-8 had a swath width of 5 km. The weather satellite flew overhead some hours before the reconnaissance satellite, and even if there were only scattered clouds, they could still obscure important targets. You only need a cloud a kilometer or two wide and it could block the target.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 10/27/2022 06:51 am

    My point though was really about whether there is a qualitative difference between crisis recon specifically and real time recon more generally ? I am prompted by the fact that NRO's own historian was referring this specifically as a motivation for MOL. I wonder if it was orignally a selling point for the "satelloid" X-20, and hung over into MOL even though arguably less plausible for a satellite with as stated above a 12h revisit time.

    What I am really wondering is whether there were still those [*] who saw MOL as a kind of "spotter in orbit" in a crisis,  a hangover from the excellent list Parker Temple gives here, https://www.thefreelibrary.com/X-15B%3A+pursuit+of+early+orbital+human+spaceflight-a0176777619  [does anyone have a better link for this ?] taken from a mid 50s [Edit: seems to be later, 1962] document:

    Quote
    What benefits might human presence provide? A contemporary list simultaneously contrasted perceived benefits of human presence versus robotic spacecraft technological shortfalls. Since human presence counteracted robotic spacecraft shortfalls, the list was considered a standard against which to measure military space progress in the 1950s:

    Decision Making Capability

    Robots cannot perform "rapid and accurate decision making ... by 'on the spot' assessment of the situation."

    Command Control Capability

    Humans understand and react faster than robot computational speeds.

    Determination of Vehicle and Payload Status

    Humans monitor the spacecraft's status in situ, whereas robots require relay to the ground for processing.

    Post-Launch Changes in Mission Plan

    Humans perform more flexibly and readily adapt to new missions.

    Payload Redundancy


    Humans can "augment certain payload functions ... in the event of payload subsystem breakdowns."

    Mission Data Redundancy

    Remote, unobserved sensors might not report accurately; human presence can verify or deny sensors' reports.

    Mission Data Augmentation

    Robotic sensors are specialized with limited capacity for recording data. Humans can take inputs from many sources and integrate a complete picture of a situation.

    Recovery of On-Board Payload Data

    For a spaceplane, the ability to choose a landing site is crucial to returning the mission's data. Pilots routinely do this.

    Early Mission Termination and Recovery

    Humans can determine when to return or extend the orbit. Robots might suffer, at any time, "mission termination based on on-board programming."

    Accomplishment of Mission Details

    Humans can adjust sensors to "optimize the gathering of mission data."

    Subsystem Complexity


    Humans are "a general-purpose subsystem with a general-purpose compute capability to store and analyze events." (5)


    These claims about the value of human presence reflected Air Force doctrine drawn from decades of atmospheric flying. Air Force Headquarters personnel, lacking any basis for judgment without actual human spaceflight experience, accepted these claims. Artificial moons might provide important interim capabilities, but as was the case with the robotic aircraft, only human-piloted spaceplanes had operational utility.

    Clearly, the bias towards human presence that also anticipated robotic spacecraft would not be very capable was soon overturned as the U.S. devoted considerable resources and its best minds to the space program. The bias, however, is important to consider when judging the initial push for making the X-15, or any piloted vehicle, into an orbital spacecraft.

    <snip>

    (5.) Murray, Arthur, Man's Role in Dyna-Soar Flight (Seattle, Wash: The Boeing Company, August 1962, declassified 1965), D2-80726; Temple, L. Parker III, Shades of Gray, National Security and the Evolution of the National Reconnaissance Office (Reston, Va: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2005), pp. 135-137. The latter contains a more complete list, explanation and critique of the list.



    [* I'm also curious as to where its remaining allies were by 1969, inside or in fact outside NRO-did NRO itself see DORIAN as an asset or a liability ?]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 10/27/2022 10:57 am

    (5.) Murray, Arthur, Man's Role in Dyna-Soar Flight (Seattle, Wash: The Boeing Company, August 1962, declassified 1965), D2-80726; Temple, L. Parker III, Shades of Gray, National Security and the Evolution of the National Reconnaissance Office (Reston, Va: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2005), pp. 135-137. The latter contains a more complete list, explanation and critique of the list.


    By the way, Shades of Gray seems to easy to borrow here:

    https://archive.org/details/shadesofgraynati0000temp/page/n5/mode/2up

    and evidently had a minor last minute change of subtitle from the version quoted above ...
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: edzieba on 10/27/2022 11:55 am
    Something that I'm still not quite clear on is if later GAMBIT and HEXAGON missions had a light sensor that could indicate if the target was cloud covered and then tell the camera control system not to take a photo. I know that they did have some automatic focus correction. I forget how that worked, but it indicates that there were systems in the cameras to adjust performance in real time.

    I don't want to apply my brain to this too much, but I think that the issue really was about maximizing film use, as opposed to never taking photographs of clouds. They were trying to get as many usable photos as possible, and that meant working on a lot of different things, including weather satellites as well as weather prediction models. See the last of my DMSP articles, which touched on the weather modeling issue a little bit:

    https://thespacereview.com/article/4412/1

    But no matter what, there would be problems unless the sky was totally clear of clouds. The KH-8 had a swath width of 5 km. The weather satellite flew overhead some hours before the reconnaissance satellite, and even if there were only scattered clouds, they could still obscure important targets. You only need a cloud a kilometer or two wide and it could block the target.
    The later GAMBITs and HEXAGONs at least were contemporaneous with early public through-the-lens focal-plane autofocus camera demos (e.g. the Honeywell system, Leica's Correfot), so it's far from impossible that a PDAF sensor was incorporated into the camera system for focus confirmation. The camera's image-circle was larger than the illuminated film slit, so there would be plenty of area to incorporate focus sensors, nIR cloud illumination sensors, etc (IIRC there were already multiple film slits incorporated into some of the cameras already).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 10/29/2022 07:16 am

    My point though was really about whether there is a qualitative difference between crisis recon specifically and real time recon more generally ? I am prompted by the fact that NRO's own historian was referring this specifically as a motivation for MOL.

    What I am really wondering is whether there were still those who saw MOL as a kind of "spotter in orbit" in a crisis. 
     

    To explain, I realise of course that by the 68-69 period, and in fact well before (I must do a chronology at some point) the funded mission for MOL had shrunk to a single one, NRO's DORIAN with its high resolution KH-10 camera, which presumably had some sort of plausible justification even though it seems to be quite hard to pin down-and I know Blackstar has tried.

    However I remain curious as to what, if anything, its supporters still hoped MOL would lead to. After all Apollo was also seen as a bridge for quite a while, and all sorts of AAP and Post-Apollo studies continued quite late in the day (see e.g. the lunar orbit station studies of iirc 1971 or so).

    In this respect the orbital command post study that was included as Doc #794 in the 2015 NRO set, "General Electric Company Briefing Charts, Advanced MOL Planning; Missions and Systems" remains fascinating to me at least, see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg1439233#msg1439233

    As Blackstar has noted it was done after the programme was cancelled, but there are clues-like the reference to 949-that the image may be older than 1969.  Is it the tip of an iceberg - or just a sign of hope springing eternal in the contractor community, or what ? It is by the way also striking that it casually refers to high altitude SIGINT, a very tightly held secret at that point.

    [Edit: Added a couple more of the relevant pages from this GE doc. Has anyone seen any early pics of a "GEO MOL" ?]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 11/14/2022 05:15 pm
    NRO has started a series "The story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory". Part 1 can be found at https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/News-Articles/Article/3208288/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-one/ (https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/News-Articles/Article/3208288/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-one/)

    Story recapitulates (by now) well known facts, though the story being told from the point-of-view of (present-day) NRO staff makes it kind of interesting.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 11/14/2022 05:18 pm
    NRO has started a series "The story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory". Part 1 can be found at https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/News-Articles/Article/3208288/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-one/ (https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/News-Articles/Article/3208288/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-one/)

    Story recapitulates (by now) well known facts, though the story being told from the point-of-view of (present-day) NRO staff makes it kind of interesting.

    Thanks - I'd been meaning to ask if the #MOLMondays had materialised. I'm interested in the statement:

    Quote
    The culminating moment arrived during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The inability to collect timely, reliable, and consistent intelligence in the new nuclear age became apparent. The United States required immediate and on-demand intelligence collection in response to unanticipated events, and MOL was believed to be the answer.

    In 1962, Secretary of the Air Force Eugene Zuckert informed General Bernard Schriever to proceed with studies of the MOL program’s viability. These studies began in earnest and the next 20 months were spent refining its design and goals.

    Is there a post-Cuba memo from Zuckert to Schriever ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 11/15/2022 01:01 am
    https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1592181851363631106

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 11/15/2022 11:34 am
    NRO has started a series "The story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory".  <snip>

    Thanks - I'd been meaning to ask if the #MOLMondays had materialised. I'm interested in the statement:

    Quote
    The culminating moment arrived during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The inability to collect timely, reliable, and consistent intelligence in the new nuclear age became apparent. The United States required immediate and on-demand intelligence collection in response to unanticipated events, and MOL was believed to be the answer.

    In 1962, Secretary of the Air Force Eugene Zuckert informed General Bernard Schriever to proceed with studies of the MOL program’s viability. These studies began in earnest and the next 20 months were spent refining its design and goals.

    Is there a post-Cuba memo from Zuckert to Schriever ?

    Quoting myself, I know, but I thought I should go and look.

    Only three docs in the NRO CD ROM release that preceded the Cuba crisis of 16th Oct to 20th Nov 1962 are 2 versions of what appears to be one memo, from Zuckert to the director of MOL, authorising the beginning of the programme, and a memo from Mueller to Flax about NASA's MORL studies (1 to 3 below).

    Then there is only one more doc, Michigan marketing its capability for MORL etc (#4 below) before we get to the public announcement in late 1963 (#5 below).

    So on the face of it there's an interesting as yet unreleased paper trail here ? [Edit: Looks like I misunderstood-Schriever was the first MOL director and thus Aug 62 memo is to him. Leaves the question of how Cuban crisis affected the story though, and whether we have any info about this.]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 11/25/2022 05:23 am

    <snip>
     
    In this respect the orbital command post study that was included as Doc #794 in the 2015 NRO set, "General Electric Company Briefing Charts, Advanced MOL Planning; Missions and Systems" remains fascinating to me at least, see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg1439233#msg1439233

    As Blackstar has noted it was done after the programme was cancelled, but there are clues-like the reference to 949-that the image may be older than 1969.  Is it the tip of an iceberg - or just a sign of hope springing eternal in the contractor community, or what ? It is by the way also striking that it casually refers to high altitude SIGINT, a very tightly held secret at that point.

    [Edit: Added a couple more of the relevant pages from this GE doc. Has anyone seen any early pics of a "GEO MOL" ?]

    Just noticed an an interesting thing in those extra slides, for the plane buffs among you ... the analogues for the  small and large versions of the "super-MOL" are not the 707 and 747-derived Looking Glass and Kneecap  planes but the 707 and C5A. I was intrigued to see that the C5A had been proposed in the Looking Glass role in late 80s, see pic below and story here
    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8509/lockheed-once-pitched-the-massive-c-5-as-a-flying-command-center
    , perhaps it was a competitor in  60s as well [Edit: when Kneecap tenders were occurring maybe] ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 11/27/2022 06:55 am

    My point though was really about whether there is a qualitative difference between crisis recon specifically and real time recon more generally ? I am prompted by the fact that NRO's own historian was referring this specifically as a motivation for MOL.

    What I am really wondering is whether there were still those who saw MOL as a kind of "spotter in orbit" in a crisis. 
     

    To explain, I realise of course that by the 68-69 period, and in fact well before (I must do a chronology at some point) the funded mission for MOL had shrunk to a single one, NRO's DORIAN with its high resolution KH-10 camera, which presumably had some sort of plausible justification even though it seems to be quite hard to pin down-and I know Blackstar has tried.

    However I remain curious as to what, if anything, its supporters still hoped MOL would lead to. After all Apollo was also seen as a bridge for quite a while, and all sorts of AAP and Post-Apollo studies continued quite late in the day (see e.g. the lunar orbit station studies of iirc 1971 or so).

    In this respect the orbital command post study that was included as Doc #794 in the 2015 NRO set, "General Electric Company Briefing Charts, Advanced MOL Planning; Missions and Systems" remains fascinating to me at least, see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg1439233#msg1439233



    Continuing to bang on about the command and control aspirations for a post-MOL military space station because I've finally found some evidence for them-at least early in MOL's evolution.

    Pure serendipity, via a search for SPAD in Vol 1 of Spires' collection, via Google docs, I see that in 1964 at least (last of 3 grabs below) the 3 roles the AF Project Forecast study by Schriever wanted  MOL to lead to were essentially

    1. Recon (which eventually narrowed to KH-10  DORIAN optical role)

    2. Satellite inspection in situ (which seems to have lasted quite a long time iirc)

    and 3. command and control.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 11/28/2022 10:26 pm
    NRO has started a series "The story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory". Part 1 can be found at https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/News-Articles/Article/3208288/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-one/ (https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/News-Articles/Article/3208288/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-one/)
    <snip>
    Part 2 of the saga is out with some details on MOL contractors and "crews".
    https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/News-Articles/Article/3227331/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-two/ (https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/News-Articles/Article/3227331/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-two/)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 11/29/2022 05:41 am

    News | Nov. 28, 2022
    The story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory – part two

    CHANTILLY, VA  – 

    This is continuation of the story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). For the previous segment click here.

                    President Lyndon Johnson approved the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) in 1965 so development could proceed. MOL was originally planned to have six launches, each with a mission length of 30 days. This was an ambitious goal: 30 days would be the longest any human had spent in space to date. It was only three years earlier in 1962 that John Glenn became the first American to orbit the planet, and when MOL was publicly announced, the NASA Gemini V mission just completed eight days in space.

                    General Bernard Schriever, who would be director of the program until his retirement in 1966, began work on MOL. Before its official approval in 1965, Requests for Proposals were issued and by 1967, MOL’s development was well under way. Instead of selecting one company, multiple companies were awarded different pieces of the program. This was done to best match a company’s capability with a specific requirement for the program. From radios to waste management, launch vehicle to flight suits, many companies were contracted for work on MOL. The primary companies were:

    Aerospace Corporation – handled general systems engineering & technical direction

    Douglas Aircraft Company – developed the MOL laboratory and mission module structure, and systems integration (was the largest contract for the program)

    Eastman Kodak – provide the photographic equipment for MOL’s classified mission

    General Electric Company – provided the mission module equipment and experiment integration

    Hamilton Standard – provided the pressure suits that crewmembers would wear

    Martin Marietta Corporation – provided the Titan IIIM booster that would launch MOL into orbit

    McDonnell Aircraft Corporation – provided the Gemini B capsule for the crewmembers to sit in

    Work on MOL was progressing and the process to find the first MOL crewmembers became the next priority. Due to the strict security requirements of the program, many of the applicants knew little about MOL. A selection board that included Chuck Yeager, the first person to fly faster than the speed of sound and commandant of the test pilot school, selected the first group of eight MOL crewmembers. In total, three groups of MOL crewmembers would be selected by 1967:

    Group One: Michael Adams, Albert Crews Jr., John Finley, Richard Lawyer, Lachlan Macleay, Francis Neubeck, James Taylor, and Richard Truly

    Group Two: Karol Bobko, Robert Crippen, C. Gordon Fullerton, Henry Hartsfield, and Robert Overmyer

    Group Three: James Abrahamson, Robert Herres, Robert Lawrence Jr., and Donald Peterson

    The crewmembers came from the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to be a part of a unique program that guaranteed the adventure of going to space. The MOL program was responsible for a number of firsts that continued with the selection of crewmembers: by being selected for MOL, Major Robert H. Lawrence became the first African American astronaut. From the onset, this elite crew was integrated throughout the development of the program. Some worked on the flight controls and computer programming, and others developed the flight suit.

    In addition to developing the program, these crewmembers would undergo intense mission training. Similar to survival training, MOL requirements would prepare the crewmembers for deorbiting in the event of unexpected emergencies like leaks in the spacecraft. Additional instruction was also required to use NASA facilities, such as NASA’s underwater training and spacecraft simulators. To prepare, all MOL crewmembers attended the Navy dive school in Key West, Florida where playful competition between the Navy and the Air Force ensued. Thanks to then Baltimore Colts head trainer Eddie Brock, MOL crewmembers received professional athletic training to ensure they were at their best physically during visits to the Apollo simulator in Baltimore, Maryland. Occasionally, the crewmembers would even meet some of the Colts players during training sessions and play handball with them. Some of the most important training for MOL crewmembers came from the National Photographic Interpretation Center where they learned more about photographic intelligence and subject recognition.

    While the crew trained for missions in space and MOL development progressed, trouble was brewing. MOL had a number of critics who didn’t fully believe in its concept, including its unclassified and classified missions. From the onset, critics questioned if another satellite photoreconnaissance program was necessary with doubts coming from the President’s administration to NASA.

    Next time, we will jump into concerns and criticism around the MOL program. Come back for part three!
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 11/29/2022 10:52 am

    News | Nov. 28, 2022
    The story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory – part two

    CHANTILLY, VA  – 

    This is continuation of the story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). For the previous segment click here.

                    President Lyndon Johnson approved the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) in 1965 so development could proceed. MOL was originally planned to have six launches, each with a mission length of 30 days. This was an ambitious goal: 30 days would be the longest any human had spent in space to date. It was only three years earlier in 1962 that John Glenn became the first American to orbit the planet, and when MOL was publicly announced, the NASA Gemini V mission just completed eight days in space.

                    General Bernard Schriever, who would be director of the program until his retirement in 1966, began work on MOL. Before its official approval in 1965, Requests for Proposals were issued

    <snip>

     
    While the crew trained for missions in space and MOL development progressed, trouble was brewing. MOL had a number of critics who didn’t fully believe in its concept, including its unclassified and classified missions. From the onset, critics questioned if another satellite photoreconnaissance program was necessary with doubts coming from the President’s administration to NASA.

    Next time, we will jump into concerns and criticism around the MOL program. Come back for part three!

    Thanks hoku and Targeteer for the updates. Love that "fully" in "didn't fully believe". Is it too much to hope that by now they'll discuss the events between the Forecast study I posted about, led by Schriever in 64  and which still had 3 roles for MOL (grabs below), and the final NRO DORIAN payload that (apparently) was solely about high res recon of earth targets with the KH-10 ? [Edit: Presumably the other 2 roles wouldn't have been NRO's anyway, though ?]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 11/29/2022 01:11 pm
    News | Nov. 28, 2022
    The story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory – part two
    CHANTILLY, VA  – 
    This is continuation of the story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). For the previous segment click here.

    SNIP

    Next time, we will jump into concerns and criticism around the MOL program. Come back for part three!


    I'm not expecting any deep insights into the "concerns and criticism around the MOL program," but I think there are some aspects of this that have not been uncovered yet. Many years ago I heard that a well-regarded American physicist and science/technology/intelligence advisor, Richard Garwin, had led or participated in a review of MOL that determined that the presence of astronauts would degrade the optics performance substantially. Only recently did I see a CIA document that mentioned that such a study had been performed. We don't have that study.

    I vaguely remember being told that there had been two such studies--one in 1967 and another in 1968--that had cast doubt on MOL. I found this notable, because a lot of people involved in MOL said that they were totally surprised when it was canceled in summer 1969. But there had been some high-level criticism of it for several years, plus the delays and cost overruns.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/05/2022 03:16 pm

    I'm not expecting any deep insights into the "concerns and criticism around the MOL program," but I think there are some aspects of this that have not been uncovered yet. Many years ago I heard that a well-regarded American physicist and science/technology/intelligence advisor, Richard Garwin, had led or participated in a review of MOL that determined that the presence of astronauts would degrade the optics performance substantially. Only recently did I see a CIA document that mentioned that such a study had been performed. We don't have that study.

    I vaguely remember being told that there had been two such studies--one in 1967 and another in 1968--that had cast doubt on MOL. I found this notable, because a lot of people involved in MOL said that they were totally surprised when it was canceled in summer 1969. But there had been some high-level criticism of it for several years, plus the delays and cost overruns.

    I don't think I'd realised just how unkeen Garwin was on MOL !

    These grabs seem the most indicative quotes I could find, first is  from an AAAS  interview by NPR's David Kastenbaum in 2006, transcript here: https://rlg.fas.org/060110-aaas.pdf while the others are from Garwin's paper, "National Security Space Policy" from the journal International Security ,  Vol. 11, No. 4 (Spring, 1987), pp. 165-173
    published by The MIT Press, Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538846 (paywalled).

    Was also intrigued by the allusion to the use of astronaut "spotters" in the 1987 piece, with reference to Dyna-Soar:
    Quote
    in which Air Force officers would be shot into space ... so that they could guide the delivery of nuclear weapons to their targets, among other purposes. This idiocy was fortunately abandoned.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/05/2022 07:30 pm
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/06/2022 11:02 am
    Thanks for that, I think that answers my question below
    [* I'm also curious as to where its remaining allies were by 1969, inside or in fact outside NRO-did NRO itself see DORIAN as an asset or a liability ?]
    to the extent that it says the incoming DNRO, McLucas was against it, and he remembered its supporters as being Secretary of the Air Force Seamans and the Joint Chiefs, i.e. outside NRO. 

    [Edit: Also interesting that he listed 3 roles for it even at the end of the project, two of which were recon and satellite inspection, and the third as being ocean surveillance.]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Airlocks on 12/06/2022 05:59 pm
    That very ackward moment when you realize you have mistaken two Richard ultra-smart minds - Garwin and Dawkins.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garwin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

    D'oh !


    Must be because of Darwin. Whose name was actually Charles, yet you guess there was a Richard among the family.
    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Keynes

    So Garwin it was. Well, he told harsh truths about the MOL - some said he was harsh, others said he was true.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/06/2022 07:12 pm
    That very ackward moment when you realize you have mistaken two Richard ultra-smart minds - Garwin and Dawkins.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garwin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

    <snip>

    So Garwin it was. Well, he told harsh truths about the MOL - some said he was harsh, others said he was true.

    Author of the MOL delusion perhaps ...

    Meanwhile, interested in the confirmation (second grab at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2437592#msg2437592) of an ocean surveillance role even if experimental for MOL. One wonders what difference the cancellation in June 1969 made to the Navy's (i.e. NRO Program C's) own spysats, see e.g. this history: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/U.S.%20Navy-NRO%20Program%20C%20Electronic%20Intelligence%20Satellites%20(1958-1977).pdf

    We do know it helped with the budget  crisis facing the DSP early warning satellites, it wouldn't be surprising if it made quite a difference  elsewhere in both overt and covert budgets.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/06/2022 07:18 pm
    Meanwhile, interested in the confirmation (second grab at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2437592#msg2437592) of an ocean surveillance role even if experimental for MOL. One

    Not much mention in the official history. (Attached--which I have not read.)

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/07/2022 02:43 pm
    Meanwhile, interested in the confirmation (second grab at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2437592#msg2437592) of an ocean surveillance role even if experimental for MOL. One

    Not much mention in the official history. (Attached--which I have not read.)

    Indeed. Easiest way to read that Berger history seems to be in the formatted version that NRO have as intro to the document "The DORIAN Files Revealed" here https://www.nro.gov/FOIA/MOL/

    Searching for Navy in that produces 3 docs, all interesting, attached-seems to indicate that there was indeed a Navy component at least into 1966 but doesn't say much about it-though appears to be optical not RF. All docs are from the current home of "the MOL CD ROM" again at https://www.nro.gov/FOIA/MOL/

    All I was wondering really was whether cancellation would have alloweed any money to expand what would eventually become PARCAE, or would have given Program C an argument to ask for something they didn't already have. I think any sign of this would probably be fairly indirect.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/07/2022 06:52 pm
    I now see that most interesting looking doc is #307, and seems to say that Navy wanted to test radars for later application in something like the unflown CLIPPER BOW. Not obvious that this made it as far as the 1967 baseline configuration though.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/07/2022 06:58 pm
    Somebody has written about this before:



    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3818/1

    Blacker than blue: the US Navy and the Manned Orbiting Laboratory
    by Dwayne A. Day
    Monday, October 21, 2019

    One of the enduring mysteries of the National Reconnaissance Office’s Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), an ambitious space station program that started in late 1963 and was rather abruptly canceled in summer 1969, is to what degree it was ever a “laboratory.” There is information indicating that about a dozen different experiments were considered for the space station. And yet, the remaining astronauts who worked on the project, and substantial documentation, indicate that the laboratory name was primarily a public cover story for the project’s real mission: taking high resolution reconnaissance photographs of the Soviet Union. The experiments were all, or mostly, eliminated.

    In early 1964, as MOL was first being defined, an Air Force officer, whose name remains unknown, warned that it was becoming an operational reconnaissance platform when it should be a laboratory. (See “Doomed from the start: The Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the search for a military role for astronauts,” The Space Review, June 17, 2019.) A laboratory, the officer argued, could take advantage of an astronauts’ ability to think, reason, and adapt, and explore the military potential for space. Reducing astronauts to the role of taking photographs and adjusting a camera was not using them to their fullest potential. But the US Navy decided to take advantage of the laboratory nature of the program, not realizing that at least some in the Air Force already knew that was a sham. Navy officials would, over the next several years, come to regret their involvement.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/07/2022 09:35 pm
    Somebody has written about this before:

    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3818/1
     

    Thanks, I'd browsed this thread but completely missed that.

    Meanwhile, to retrieve my dignity slightly, here's an intriguing Naval-sounding thing from the last of the MOL Monthly reports in the CD ROM, number https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/728.pdf period ebding 25th April 1969:

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/08/2022 02:18 pm
    Re McLucas' arrival as DNRO: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2437592#msg2437592

    Turns out the briefing he was given on 8th April 1969 on DORIAN is in the CD ROM set at https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/707.pdf and three very early slides in it give a really nice overview of when the AF and NRO activities merged. Hadn't seen these so uploading in hope others haven't either.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 12/14/2022 03:23 am
    https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=464302685888094&set=a.164921892492843

    National Reconnaissance Office

    It's #MOLMonday! Once in orbit, MOL and its crew would complete a 30-day mission. To get there, the crew would be launched in a modified Titan IIIC rocket (dubbed Titan IIIM) built by the Martin Marietta Corporation.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 12/14/2022 03:29 am
    From last week...

    https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=459010053084024&set=a.164921892492843

    National Reconnaissance Office
    December 5 at 2:55 PM  ·
    Today is #MOLMonday! MOL crewmembers planned to use a modified Gemini capsule to enter orbit and return back to Earth. This capsule had a hatch cut into the heat shield so the crew could enter the laboratory module once in orbit.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/14/2022 09:52 am
    Thanks for the updates. Are the #MOLMondays just on Facebook now ? I can't see 3rd installment on th website ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 12/14/2022 05:04 pm
    Thanks for the updates. Are the #MOLMondays just on Facebook now ? I can't see 3rd installment on th website ?
    Website updates with more extensive text and one image each were ~25 days apart. Weekly twitter (and Facebook?) updates have very short text, a different image each time, and link to the most recent "installment" on the website.

    Don't expect a coherent social media outreach strategy from your secret agencies  ;)

    https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1602324653816647680 (https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1602324653816647680)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/14/2022 06:07 pm
    And they're still using that illustration of "MOL" in orbit that is NOT MOL, but instead shows a proposed civil version of MOL. Apparently they have been told of their error, but they don't fix it.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/19/2022 10:54 am
    Thanks for the updates. Are the #MOLMondays just on Facebook now ? I can't see 3rd installment on th website ?
    Website updates with more extensive text and one image each were ~25 days apart. Weekly twitter (and Facebook?) updates have very short text, a different image each time, and link to the most recent "installment" on the website.

    Don't expect a coherent social media outreach strategy from your secret agencies  ;)


    Thanks hoku. In a way I'd feel disappointed if there was one.



    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/19/2022 03:02 pm
    Somebody has written about this before:



    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3818/1

    Blacker than blue: the US Navy and the Manned Orbiting Laboratory
    by Dwayne A. Day
    Monday, October 21, 2019

    This memo sounds interesting, is there a public source for it ?
    Quote
    The Navy had an experiment to test: a space-based radar to perform ocean surveillance detecting ships at sea. Starting in 1962 the Navy conducted “extensive preliminary research and analytic efforts towards selecting the sensor and system best suited for, and with greatest expectation of, supporting requirements for world-wide ocean surveillance,” wrote Under Secretary of the Navy Charles F. Baird in a recently-declassified—and blistering—October 1968 memo.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 12/20/2022 03:14 am
    https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/Article/3249852/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-three/


    News | Dec. 19, 2022
    The story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory – part three

    By Staff

    Part Three of the story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory article

    This is a continuation of the story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). For the previous segment, click here.

    By 1966, after years of planning, the MOL program made major strides to place a man in orbit to collect high-resolution reconnaissance photography. Congress authorized funding to build Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6) at Vandenberg Air Force Base (now Space Force Base) on the West Coast. MOL crewmembers, now integrated into many sectors of MOL’s development, worked tirelessly to improve the program in a number of areas including computer programming and flight suit preparation.

    The MOL program needed innovation to achieve objectives in brand new fields like software.  A primary program objective was using the crew onboard MOL to help select areas to photograph at the optimal time. Crewmembers were expected to evaluate if an area should be photographed and instruct the computer what to do in less than 25 seconds. Thus, a computer program had to be developed to allow inputs on objective priorities and integrate those priorities into the system, in real-time. This would allow the computer to adjust how and when it took images of objectives.

    Developing such a computer program was no easy task, but MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success. As MOL grew closer to becoming a reality, skeptics still questioned the program’s need to exist. From the very beginning, the need to launch a man into orbit for the purpose of space reconnaissance was questioned. The NRO director at the time, Brockway McMillan was concerned that there was too much stress placed on the manned role while not enough emphasis on the experimental aspects of the program at large. The President’s Scientific Advisory Committee (PSAC) compounded these concerns by stating that the increased amount of more accurate images promised by MOL was insufficient to justify a manned system. Finally, Dr. Donald Hornig, the president’s scientific advisor, noted in a memorandum that the Air Force had proved why a manned system was required; however, there would be political questions about the program’s manned nature. Despite all their misgivings, Dr. Horning and other detractors recommended continuing the program’s development as long as a manned and unmanned option were concurrently developed.

    As some concerns eased, others tensions appeared. NASA viewed MOL as a competitor to its own ambitions for placing a space station in orbit and clashed with the Air Force over its development. This began when the Air Force Space Systems Division recommended the MOL program work directly with contractors for its version of the Gemini B pod, a recommendation that went directly against the desires of NASA. NASA and the Air Force continued to clash, but it generally never permeated past leadership levels, although intervention by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was required. McNamara offered a compromise between NASA and the MOL program: NASA would accept MOL as a predecessor to a NASA space station, Air Force would run as operating manager, and NASA would manage the scientific program.

    This compromise resulted in the MOL program welcoming NASA employees in 1966. While NASA employees would be assigned to the MOL program for the life of the program, developing a cooperative relationship was arduous due the differences between NASA and MOL. NASA strived for public attention while MOL was aiming to avoid any and stayed behind high levels of classification. While the relationship was fragile, there proved to be mutual benefits for both agencies. One appeared in 1968 as MOL flight surgeons were assigned to manned Apollo missions. This gave MOL personnel desperately needed experience with manned space operations, and NASA gained much needed personnel in bioastronautics support.

    Since it was established early on that MOL required an alternate public explanation different from its highly classified mission, many in the public did not understand the difference between NASA’s Apollo program and the DOD’s MOL program. The lack of understanding extended to Congress, which was evident in its constant budgetary challenges and a new wave of program skeptics. Ultimately, the end of MOL was on the horizon before man would take its first steps on the moon.

    Next time, we will learn about the end of the MOL program. Come back for part four!
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/20/2022 04:06 pm
    Re:

    https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/Article/3249852/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-three/

    <snip>

    The MOL program needed innovation to achieve objectives in brand new fields like software.  A primary program objective was using the crew onboard MOL to help select areas to photograph at the optimal time. Crewmembers were expected to evaluate if an area should be photographed and instruct the computer what to do in less than 25 seconds. Thus, a computer program had to be developed to allow inputs on objective priorities and integrate those priorities into the system, in real-time. This would allow the computer to adjust how and when it took images of objectives.

    Developing such a computer program was no easy task, but MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success. 

    Thought the bit about the computer program and the astronaut's role in developing it was interesting ... was this discussed before ? If so it hadn't really registered on me.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/20/2022 05:14 pm
    Thought the bit about the computer program and the astronaut's role in developing it was interesting ... was this discussed before ? If so it hadn't really registered on me.

    Yeah, some guy wrote about it for The Space Review.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/20/2022 05:17 pm
    https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/Article/3249852/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-three/

    This compromise resulted in the MOL program welcoming NASA employees in 1966. While NASA employees would be assigned to the MOL program for the life of the program, developing a cooperative relationship was arduous due the differences between NASA and

    I wonder who those employees were? I interviewed Mike Yarymovych many years ago, and he told me that he was the only NASA person sent to work on MOL. Now he could have meant the only one at a managerial level, but I don't remember seeing any other NASA people mentioned in MOL documents.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/20/2022 06:08 pm
    Thought the bit about the computer program and the astronaut's role in developing it was interesting ... was this discussed before ? If so it hadn't really registered on me.

    Yeah, some guy wrote about it for The Space Review.

    I think that should be the title of your book ;-)

    Thanks, I think I'll take that as an axiom in future.

    If you mean this nice article  https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3490/1 , which I may have missed, I see now that it describes the briefing but I don't think I'd drawn the inference from it that Truly and Macleay were instrumental in developing these computer programs and/or the interface to the extent that the NRO are now saying.

    Have you written about their role in that specific aspect of MOL elsewhere? How do you think we should understand their phrasing: "MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success" ?

    Edit: Sorry, I see I didn't read closely enough. Your TSR piece said
    Quote
    Although Truly does not remember much about the actual visit by Vice President Humphrey and the briefing, he said that Humphrey later sent him a signed, personally inscribed photograph. At the time of their visit to NPIC, Macleay and Truly were working on the crew interface for the camera and the small spotting telescopes. “All the switchologies and buttons and such,” he said. They were also developing mission simulators. He had responsibility for Gemini for a while but spent most of his time during the MOL program doing the crew interface task.


    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 12/20/2022 08:51 pm
    Monday's tweet:"The laboratory where MOL crewmembers would be working was 10 feet in diameter, 19 feet long, and 1,000 cubic feet. For comparison, the International Space Station has 13,696 cubic feet of habitable volume."

    I guess everything is relative, in particular when compared to the 90 cu ft pressure vessel of Gemini, or the 140 cu ft volume of the Soyuz descent module.

    https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1604857898638745601?cxt=HHwWgoC9tbDwzMUsAAAA (https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1604857898638745601?cxt=HHwWgoC9tbDwzMUsAAAA)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: leovinus on 12/20/2022 09:07 pm
    Monday's tweet:"The laboratory where MOL crewmembers would be working was 10 feet in diameter, 19 feet long, and 1,000 cubic feet. For comparison, the International Space Station has 13,696 cubic feet of habitable volume."

    Interesting to see how different 1960s space station proposals were. For the EMPIRE space station (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56027.msg2440599#msg2440599) there was a document that had the MOL size also at 1,000 ft^3, but as the smallest of stations, and then up to 38,000 ft^3 for the largest non-MOL EMPIRE proposal. And even the smallest one never materialized.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/21/2022 07:41 am
    Monday's tweet:"The laboratory where MOL crewmembers would be working was 10 feet in diameter, 19 feet long, and 1,000 cubic feet. For comparison, the International Space Station has 13,696 cubic feet of habitable volume."

    I guess everything is relative, in particular when compared to the 90 cu ft pressure vessel of Gemini, or the 140 cu ft volume of the Soyuz descent module.

     

    I think it's the apparently windowless aspect that really strikes me. 
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Airlocks on 12/21/2022 09:18 am
    Skylab / wet workshop were notoriously horrible, with the crews recoiling in horror when they saw the first mockups. After some infighting with Georges Mueller, they finally got him hiring famous designer Raymond Loewy (and his young apprentice John Frassanito) to make the workshop more... liveable.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/21/2022 11:24 pm
    Have you written about their role in that specific aspect of MOL elsewhere? How do you think we should understand their phrasing: "MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success" ?

    Go look up any article I wrote where I quoted Truly. That's what we discussed--him working on the computer program. They finally had a breakthrough (essentially proving it could work) very shortly before program cancellation. He said that a variation of that program continued in later use. I presume he meant on the KH-11. It was essentially a target prioritization program. It said "Photograph target 1 unless X, Y, Z, and A..., in which case, photograph target 2..." It dynamically reprogrammed the camera system as they flew over the targets.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/22/2022 12:47 pm
    Have you written about their role in that specific aspect of MOL elsewhere? How do you think we should understand their phrasing: "MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success" ?

    Go look up any article I wrote where I quoted Truly. That's what we discussed--him working on the computer program. They finally had a breakthrough (essentially proving it could work) very shortly before program cancellation.
    Indeed. I had belatedly added your words re this to my posting, I hadn't realised you'd said: "At the time of their visit to NPIC, Macleay and Truly were working on the crew interface for the camera and the small spotting telescopes. “All the switchologies and buttons and such,” he said. They were also developing mission simulators. He had responsibility for Gemini for a while but spent most of his time during the MOL program doing the crew interface task."

    Quote
    He said that a variation of that program continued in later use. I presume he meant on the KH-11. It was essentially a target prioritization program. It said "Photograph target 1 unless X, Y, Z, and A..., in which case, photograph target 2..." It dynamically reprogrammed the camera system as they flew over the targets.

     I'd not noticed that anywhere-thanks for pointing it out. It would seem best adapted to the KH-11, yes, one imagines it would have kept the Rockwell onboard computer pretty busy.

    Interesting that Rockwell were an early player in single board microcomputers, e.g. the AIM-65 of 1976ish. https://vintagecomputer.com/rockwell-aim-65.html
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/22/2022 12:54 pm
    https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/Article/3249852/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-three/

    This compromise resulted in the MOL program welcoming NASA employees in 1966. While NASA employees would be assigned to the MOL program for the life of the program, developing a cooperative relationship was arduous due the differences between NASA and

    I wonder who those employees were? I interviewed Mike Yarymovych many years ago, and he told me that he was the only NASA person sent to work on MOL. Now he could have meant the only one at a managerial level, but I don't remember seeing any other NASA people mentioned in MOL documents.

    I wondered if there was anything in Vance Mitchell's "Sharing Space", but looking at it can only see this which might imply they'd be involved in the Gemini B management, but doesn't seem to offer any other clues.

    I did think his short account of MOL (pp 42-47) was pretty good though, as an overview.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: edzieba on 12/22/2022 01:31 pm
    Have you written about their role in that specific aspect of MOL elsewhere? How do you think we should understand their phrasing: "MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success" ?

    Go look up any article I wrote where I quoted Truly. That's what we discussed--him working on the computer program. They finally had a breakthrough (essentially proving it could work) very shortly before program cancellation. He said that a variation of that program continued in later use. I presume he meant on the KH-11. It was essentially a target prioritization program. It said "Photograph target 1 unless X, Y, Z, and A..., in which case, photograph target 2..." It dynamically reprogrammed the camera system as they flew over the targets.
    Possibly even earlier than KH-11. Once DMSP was available, there was the opportunity to retarget the GAMBITs and
    HEXAGONs, as long as retargeting could be performed fast enough to close the image-weather>downlink>assess>retarget>uplink>imaging-pass loop in time for the retargeting to be useful. Software and interfaces originally designed to assist real-time retargeting would certainly help speed the process up.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/22/2022 01:36 pm
    I'd not noticed that anywhere-thanks for pointing it out. It would seem best adapted to the KH-11, yes, one imagines it would have kept the Rockwell onboard computer pretty busy.

    I do not know how, but I can hazard a guess. For the KH-7 and 8, the programming was pre-set for each pass over the Soviet Union. So as the satellite came down over the North Pole, it had in its memory a set of commands to point towards X, turn on camera at specific time, turn off camera, point towards Y, and so on.

    I'm guessing with the 11, they may have had some more internal decision making, maybe based upon the reflectivity over the target area. So just before the camera was about to turn on, it may have had a sensor to look and see if the area was brighter than expected, indicating cloud cover, in which case it told the camera to not turn on, and the computer then switched to the secondary target.

    Now the 11 also was connected with real time telemetry to the ground, but I doubt that they had people back on the ground doing the same spotting scope work like they were supposed to do on the MOL. I doubt they had that kind of bandwidth.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Jim on 12/22/2022 01:43 pm
    I'd not noticed that anywhere-thanks for pointing it out. It would seem best adapted to the KH-11, yes, one imagines it would have kept the Rockwell onboard computer pretty busy.

    I do not know how, but I can hazard a guess. For the KH-7 and 8, the programming was pre-set for each pass over the Soviet Union. So as the satellite came down over the North Pole, it had in its memory a set of commands to point towards X, turn on camera at specific time, turn off camera, point towards Y, and so on.

    I'm guessing with the 11, they may have had some more internal decision making, maybe based upon the reflectivity over the target area. So just before the camera was about to turn on, it may have had a sensor to look and see if the area was brighter than expected, indicating cloud cover, in which case it told the camera to not turn on, and the computer then switched to the secondary target.

    Now the 11 also was connected with real time telemetry to the ground, but I doubt that they had people back on the ground doing the same spotting scope work like they were supposed to do on the MOL. I doubt they had that kind of bandwidth.

    Didn't really need to.  It didn't matter much if the target was cloud covered, there was no film to waste.  They would just get it on another overhead pass or an off axis pass.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/22/2022 02:15 pm
    Have you written about their role in that specific aspect of MOL elsewhere? How do you think we should understand their phrasing: "MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success" ?

    Go look up any article I wrote where I quoted Truly. That's what we discussed--him working on the computer program. They finally had a breakthrough (essentially proving it could work) very shortly before program cancellation. He said that a variation of that program continued in later use. I presume he meant on the KH-11. It was essentially a target prioritization program. It said "Photograph target 1 unless X, Y, Z, and A..., in which case, photograph target 2..." It dynamically reprogrammed the camera system as they flew over the targets.
    Possibly even earlier than KH-11. Once DMSP was available, there was the opportunity to retarget the GAMBITs and
    HEXAGONs, as long as retargeting could be performed fast enough to close the image-weather>downlink>assess>retarget>uplink>imaging-pass loop in time for the retargeting to be useful. Software and interfaces originally designed to assist real-time retargeting would certainly help speed the process up.

    I'm agnostic on all of this but have a look at this nice DMSP video from mid 70s  about 12.30 in and see how quickly you think this sort of kit could be used.

    https://youtu.be/ZmHG5pnfrOE
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Jim on 12/22/2022 03:50 pm
    Have you written about their role in that specific aspect of MOL elsewhere? How do you think we should understand their phrasing: "MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success" ?

    Go look up any article I wrote where I quoted Truly. That's what we discussed--him working on the computer program. They finally had a breakthrough (essentially proving it could work) very shortly before program cancellation. He said that a variation of that program continued in later use. I presume he meant on the KH-11. It was essentially a target prioritization program. It said "Photograph target 1 unless X, Y, Z, and A..., in which case, photograph target 2..." It dynamically reprogrammed the camera system as they flew over the targets.
    Possibly even earlier than KH-11. Once DMSP was available, there was the opportunity to retarget the GAMBITs and
    HEXAGONs, as long as retargeting could be performed fast enough to close the image-weather>downlink>assess>retarget>uplink>imaging-pass loop in time for the retargeting to be useful. Software and interfaces originally designed to assist real-time retargeting would certainly help speed the process up.

    The Thule AFSCN station lcoation allowed for updates before every orbit pass.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/22/2022 03:51 pm

    Didn't really need to.  It didn't matter much if the target was cloud covered, there was no film to waste.  They would just get it on another overhead pass or an off axis pass.

    They were still bandwidth-limited.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: leovinus on 12/22/2022 03:59 pm
    Have you written about their role in that specific aspect of MOL elsewhere? How do you think we should understand their phrasing: "MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success" ?

    Go look up any article I wrote where I quoted Truly. That's what we discussed--him working on the computer program. They finally had a breakthrough (essentially proving it could work) very shortly before program cancellation. He said that a variation of that program continued in later use. I presume he meant on the KH-11. It was essentially a target prioritization program. It said "Photograph target 1 unless X, Y, Z, and A..., in which case, photograph target 2..." It dynamically reprogrammed the camera system as they flew over the targets.
    Are there any more details on how they programmed and implemented? Like what type of CPU or hardware? Maybe something like the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) (http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/0-2-Apollo.htm)? Was it done in FORTRAN or Assembler? With punch cards or via a terminal? Was the simulator on the ground different hardware or software compared to the flying system?

    While I think about how you describe the computer program and optimization above, where you use the words "dynamically reprogrammed", I wonder whether the algorithmic design was basically a task list with Dynamic Programming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming) to find the best path? And the transition costs just increase when there are clouds. The similarity between your wording and an existing algorithm is fascinating but probably coincidence. Actually, is there a surviving copy of the computer program? 
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/22/2022 05:37 pm
    Have you written about their role in that specific aspect of MOL elsewhere? How do you think we should understand their phrasing: "MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success" ?

    Go look up any article I wrote where I quoted Truly. That's what we discussed--him working on the computer program. They finally had a breakthrough (essentially proving it could work) very shortly before program cancellation. He said that a variation of that program continued in later use. I presume he meant on the KH-11. It was essentially a target prioritization program. It said "Photograph target 1 unless X, Y, Z, and A..., in which case, photograph target 2..." It dynamically reprogrammed the camera system as they flew over the targets.
    Are there any more details on how they programmed and implemented? Like what type of CPU or hardware? Maybe something like the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) (http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/0-2-Apollo.htm)? Was it done in FORTRAN or Assembler? With punch cards or via a terminal? Was the simulator on the ground different hardware or software compared to the flying system?

    Short answer as far as I know is there are quite a few pics of the onboard instrument panels scattered through the many hundred MOL docs so far released, some of which were collated in a group of pics that came out a little before the big doc release, and there are specific docs like the attached, #671 in the main MOL release, which is about the testing of   TRW's program  TSPOOND (Statistical Program of Onboard Decisions). But I fear you'll need to work through the list at the back of the MOL compendium looking for interesting stuff.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/22/2022 06:22 pm
    Are there any more details on how they programmed and implemented? Like what type of CPU or hardware?

    It was an early version of the same computer used on the shuttle. I cannot remember anything specific.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 12/22/2022 08:31 pm
    Are there any more details on how they programmed and implemented? Like what type of CPU or hardware?

    It was an early version of the same computer used on the shuttle. I cannot remember anything specific.
    NASA has a history on "computers in space flight". Part 1 is on "Manned Spacecraft Computers", part 2 on "Computers On Board Unmanned Spacecraft": https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Part1.html (https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Part1.html)
    https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Part2.html (https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Part2.html)

    More details can be found in the references to the individual chapters. Rockwell and IBM were prominent supplier for manned space flight. Subcontractors for, e.g., the Mariner Mars 1969 "Central Computer and Sequencer" (CC&S) were Motorola’s Government Electronics Division, Data Science Corporation, and Electronic Memories Inc., with Motorola producing most of the welded cordword (WC) and Integrated Circuit (IC) modules.

    MOL might have relied on a similar set of subcontractors as NASA.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: leovinus on 12/23/2022 05:38 pm
    Have you written about their role in that specific aspect of MOL elsewhere? How do you think we should understand their phrasing: "MOL crewmembers Richard Truly and Lachlan Macleay made the concept a reality. Truly and Macleay briefed the Vice President and other officials in 1967 on how they planned to create the program and by 1969, they achieved success" ?

    Go look up any article I wrote where I quoted Truly. That's what we discussed--him working on the computer program. They finally had a breakthrough (essentially proving it could work) very shortly before program cancellation. He said that a variation of that program continued in later use. I presume he meant on the KH-11. It was essentially a target prioritization program. It said "Photograph target 1 unless X, Y, Z, and A..., in which case, photograph target 2..." It dynamically reprogrammed the camera system as they flew over the targets.
    Are there any more details on how they programmed and implemented? Like what type of CPU or hardware? Maybe something like the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) (http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/0-2-Apollo.htm)? Was it done in FORTRAN or Assembler? With punch cards or via a terminal? Was the simulator on the ground different hardware or software compared to the flying system?

    Short answer as far as I know is there are quite a few pics of the onboard instrument panels scattered through the many hundred MOL docs so far released, some of which were collated in a group of pics that came out a little before the big doc release, and there are specific docs like the attached, #671 in the main MOL release, which is about the testing of   TRW's program  TSPOOND (Statistical Program of Onboard Decisions). But I fear you'll need to work through the list at the back of the MOL compendium looking for interesting stuff.
    Thanks for the reminder about the MOL Compendium (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/MOL_Compendium_August_2015.pdf). What a resource. It is a long ago since I read it but I will sift through looking for HW/SW clues.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 12/26/2022 01:49 pm
    https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=475537671431262&set=a.164921892492843

    Let's talk cameras on this #MOLMonday. For MOL's classified mission, the camera-optical system would have a 70-inch aperture to conduct reconnaissance from space, capable of capturing superior resolution imagery from an altitude of 92 miles!
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/26/2022 06:18 pm
    Anybody want to apply the equation and enter in the aperture and the altitude and determine what that resolution was?

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 12/26/2022 10:14 pm
    Anybody want to apply the equation and enter in the aperture and the altitude and determine what that resolution was?
    MOL standard orbit might have been ~1.7x higher than for G3 in order to reduce the effect of atmospheric drag (like, e.g. perigee 125nm vs 75 nm). This should result in an effective ground resolution ~2x better than for G3, i.e. around 15 cm under the best possible conditions with Eastman Kodak Type 3404 film?

    Slightly higher resolution would have been possible with Type 3409 film (320 to 630 line pairs per mm), but it would have hit the atmospheric turbulence limit.

    Observations with infrared film might have benefitted most from the larger aperture and ~2x higher magnification of MOL. Soviet camouflage nets had the flaw that they only did reproduce the optical, but not the infrared signature to foliage, and thus could be easily spotted on combined optical-infrared images.

    edit: graph with comparison of reflectance as a function of wavelength of US/NATO and Soviet camouflage nets added (re-post from way-back-when)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: leovinus on 12/27/2022 05:46 pm
    Are there any more details on how they programmed and implemented? Like what type of CPU or hardware?

    It was an early version of the same computer used on the shuttle. I cannot remember anything specific.
    NASA has a history on "computers in space flight". Part 1 is on "Manned Spacecraft Computers", part 2 on "Computers On Board Unmanned Spacecraft": https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Part1.html (https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Part1.html)
    https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Part2.html (https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Part2.html)

    More details can be found in the references to the individual chapters. Rockwell and IBM were prominent supplier for manned space flight. Subcontractors for, e.g., the Mariner Mars 1969 "Central Computer and Sequencer" (CC&S) were Motorola’s Government Electronics Division, Data Science Corporation, and Electronic Memories Inc., with Motorola producing most of the welded cordword (WC) and Integrated Circuit (IC) modules.

    MOL might have relied on a similar set of subcontractors as NASA.
    As I asked about the hardware and software on MOL, here a few observations.

    Firstly, what flight computer did MOL plan to use? Three MOL docs seem relevant
    768 Review of MOL Residuals-MOL 4Pi Extended Performance Flight Computer 9/8/1969 (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/768.pdf),
    798 MOL 4PY EP Computers   1/9/1970 (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/798.pdf),
    803 MOL 4PI EP Computer 3/31/1970 (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/803.pdf).

    We learn from #768 in September 1969 that MOL planned to use the 4Pi Flight Computer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/4_Pi). Actually, the fancy Extended Performance variant. The 4Pi was based on IBM 360 and used in Skylab (https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch3-2.html) and the Space Shuttle as well. It says in the 768 document
    Quote
    The 4 Pi Extended Performance Flight Computer is also known Data Computation Subsystem Group (DCSG). The DCSG consists of following components:
       Airborne Digital Computer (ADC)
       Laboratory Data,Adapter Unit (LDAU)
       Auxiliary Memory Unit (AMU)
       Printer Unit Display (DU)
       Keyboard Unit (KU)
    The ADC is a general purpose digital computer with a flexible data Processing capability and a 24K word memory. Three DCSG's are man rated and qualified for flight.

    That quote includes the key quote "already man rated". On top of that we have a quote from Computer in Spaceflight: The NASA experience, page 68 (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19880069935) says
    Quote
    To the contrary, Skylab and, later, the Shuttle, used "off-the-shelf" IBM 4Pi series processors, though they both needed the addition of a customized I/O system, a simpler and necessarily idiosyncratic component. By using existing computers, NASA avoided the serious problems associated with man-rating a new system encountered during the Apollo program.

    As the Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/4_Pi) says the about 4Pi "Development began in 1965, deliveries in 1967", we could ask the questions how and where the 4Pi was man-rated. Probably on an airplane project before MOL. In any case, 4Pi seems a conscious decision by MOL management to minimize risk and deliver on schedule.

    Secondly, on the software front, the IBM 360 heritage also clarifies what tools were available to program the system, punch cards, FORTRAN compiler, etc. I enjoyed paging these two:
    671 TSPOOND Mathematical and Subroutine Description   2/3/1969 (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/671.pdf),
    711 Computer Program Contract End Item Detail Specification Performance/Design Requirements, Mission Planning Software for MOL/DORIAN Program 632A 4/22/1969 (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/711.pdf)

    The requirement specifications and flowcharts are in line with software requirements from 1960s and 70s. No program listings as that was frowned upon as documentation at the time IIRC. The interaction and information distillation between TSPOOND and TWONDER based on tapes was nostalgic. I studied in centers with DEC and VAX machines with walls of tape drives, rattling line printers, and card readers.

    It is fascinating to learn how they coded this up in the 60s. As one example, have a look a page 148 in document #671, Section 3.24, the SUBROUTINE RDM1J. This pseudo random number routine for uniformly distributed numbers [0..1] is related to similar code from a similar time I analyzed here in the EMPIRE thread, as reply #61, Section a) The subroutine RANDOM which is called by COMPUT. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56027.msg2431553#msg2431553). GD/A and Krafft Ehricke used a similar PRNG routing even with the same 5^15 multiplier that I wondered about earlier. Per Section 3.24.5 in #671, that particular multiplier and PRNG goes back to National Bureau of Standards Report 3370, "Generation and Testing of Pseudo-random Numbers" by Olga Taussky and John Todd, June 22, 1954 (https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/RPT/nbsreport3370.pdf) and not the later 1962s The Art of Computer Programming, D. Knuth, Vol.2 Seminumerical Algorithms , Chapter 3, Random Numbers (https://archive.org/details/artofcomputerpro0002knut_u2o0). Personally, I love to see how these codes and algorithms evolved.

    Finally, a quote from #671, page 6,
    Quote
    The version of the TSPOOND program currently being used resides on the SOFT 11-05 U flight support tape along with the study program TWONDER and its environment. This tape has been copied and delivered to SAMSO and contains the following programs:
    Unfortunately, the actual FORTRAN listings are not included it seems. However, if one of you has a lead on that tape and actual FORTRAN code that would be cool.

    In the meantime, back to MOL :)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: david-moon on 12/27/2022 06:01 pm
    Not all IBM 4pi models were 360-compatible. Some were 1800-compatible, more or less.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/27/2022 09:24 pm

    We learn from #768 in September 1969 that MOL planned to use the 4Pi Flight Computer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/4_Pi). Actually, the fancy Extended Performance variant. The 4Pi was based on IBM 360 and used in Skylab (https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch3-2.html) and the Space Shuttle as well. It says in the 768 document

    Yeah, now that you found that, it reminded me that Truly told me they used a 4Pi computer.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: sdsds on 01/01/2023 01:41 am
    I stumbled across an interesting assertion
    https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/oral_histories/McGillDC/McGillDC_5-22-15.htm
    Quote
    McGill: So that’s what got me over here in June of ’68. Now actually the first project that I worked on people probably don’t remember. But at that time the United States really had two manned space programs, the one everybody knows about where we were heading to the Moon, but the one they’ve forgotten about that was called Manned Orbiting Lab [MOL]. It was an Air Force program.

    The first thing I got assigned to—mainly because I was the junior guy on the team, so the junior guy always gets to do all the travel—we were integrating together the systems that were to upgrade the Air Force remote tracking stations and also generally building the first version of what we now call the Blue Cube or the Satellite Test Center [Onizuka Air Force Station, California]. Those were certainly going to be used for a variety of things the Air Force wanted to do in space. But the real driver to upgrade those was the Manned Orbiting Lab.

    Am I misreading that? Were the facilities in the Blue Cube upgraded for the MOL effort?  (And BTW is it correct that those facilities are still being used to control TDRS satellites?)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 01/01/2023 01:06 pm
    I stumbled across an interesting assertion
    https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/oral_histories/McGillDC/McGillDC_5-22-15.htm
    Quote
    McGill: So that’s what got me over here in June of ’68. Now actually the first project that I worked on people probably don’t remember. But at that time the United States really had two manned space programs, the one everybody knows about where we were heading to the Moon, but the one they’ve forgotten about that was called Manned Orbiting Lab [MOL]. It was an Air Force program.

    The first thing I got assigned to—mainly because I was the junior guy on the team, so the junior guy always gets to do all the travel—we were integrating together the systems that were to upgrade the Air Force remote tracking stations and also generally building the first version of what we now call the Blue Cube or the Satellite Test Center [Onizuka Air Force Station, California]. Those were certainly going to be used for a variety of things the Air Force wanted to do in space. But the real driver to upgrade those was the Manned Orbiting Lab.

    Am I misreading that? Were the facilities in the Blue Cube upgraded for the MOL effort? 
    I think I've seen that also.

    Quote

    (And BTW is it correct that those facilities are still being used to control TDRS satellites?)

    Not in the case of Blue Cube itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQo7JAjzEYg
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 01/01/2023 01:32 pm
    Am I misreading that? Were the facilities in the Blue Cube upgraded for the MOL effort?  (And BTW is it correct that those facilities are still being used to control TDRS satellites?)

    I think that Joe Page II wrote a book on Onizuka Air Force Base (station?) and would have that info there. I don't have that book. However, I seem to remember that the Blue Cube itself was built for MOL. The satellite tracking and control stuff was there as of the early 1960s, but in other buildings, and then they expanded substantially for MOL. When MOL was canceled, other stuff moved into that building. But I could be wrong in all this. I should check with Joe.

    All that stuff has now (I think) gone to Schriever Space Force Base. It's a subject I really know little about, but there was certainly logic to having that mission up in Sunnyvale for awhile, because it was close to a major population center and close to a major satellite manufacturer. And there's probably logic for moving it to Schriever now. The downside is that Schriever is far from a population center, and I don't think many people want to live there. But the cost of living is certainly much better than Sunnyvale, where often Air Force personnel struggled to find affordable housing.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 01/01/2023 02:00 pm
    Am I misreading that? Were the facilities in the Blue Cube upgraded for the MOL effort?  (And BTW is it correct that those facilities are still being used to control TDRS satellites?)

    I think that Joe Page II wrote a book on Onizuka Air Force Base (station?) and would have that info there. I don't have that book. However, I seem to remember that the Blue Cube itself was built for MOL. The satellite tracking and control stuff was there as of the early 1960s, but in other buildings, and then they expanded substantially for MOL. When MOL was canceled, other stuff moved into that building. But I could be wrong in all this. I should check with Joe.


    This history by David Christopher Arnold from 2005 co-authored with with foreword by Forrest McCartney may have some interesting stuff on CSTC as well.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=9781603440431&i=stripbooks&linkCode=qs

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Jim on 01/02/2023 01:46 am
    the actual Blue Cube was built for MOL.  Sunnyvale has nothing to do with Sunnyvale.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 01/10/2023 02:07 pm
    https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=485308187120877&set=a.164921892492843

    National Reconnaissance Office

    Happy #MOLMonday! @AerospaceCorp provided technical direction and general systems engineering for the MOL program in 1966. More than 50 years later, Aerospace continues to support NRO missions including IMPACT in 2019 and #NROL82 in 2021.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 01/14/2023 11:22 pm
    I stumbled upon this Brugioni book and looked up what he wrote about MOL.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Redclaws on 01/15/2023 01:34 am
    Thank you for that, that’s full of fascinating tidbits.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 01/15/2023 02:02 am
    Thank you for that, that’s full of fascinating tidbits.

    I recommend the book:

    https://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Sky-Eisenhower-Aerial-Espionage-ebook/dp/B004S6UW96/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=eyes+in+the+sky+dino+brugioni&qid=1673751491&sr=8-1

    It dates from 2010, so it predates some program declassifications (QUILL, GAMBIT and HEXAGON, MOL), but it is still good. Brugioni knew a lot, and he was a good researcher. I think he got some things wrong, because they were still classified and he was going from memory. But he provides a lot of context on how things worked. His other books are worth looking at too. He died a number of years ago.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 01/20/2023 11:29 am
    https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1615041215178604560/photo/1
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 01/20/2023 11:34 am
    Found this looking for the previous post.  Not strictly MOL related but this capability worked along side satellite imagery collectors...

    https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1615803044037545984/photo/1
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 01/20/2023 01:14 pm

    Didn't really need to.  It didn't matter much if the target was cloud covered, there was no film to waste.  They would just get it on another overhead pass or an off axis pass.

    They were still bandwidth-limited.

    Replying to my own earlier post, but I just thought of something else. The other issue with a real time system is that its ability to point at multiple targets during a pass was still limited. So they would still want to maximize the number of targets covered and avoid clouded targets. I've written about this with regards to MOL and KH-7/8. There is even a graphic that I've attached that illustrates it. The blue rectangle is the area that could be covered by a KH-7. If it was outside that rectangle, it was not photographed. The KH-8's rectangle (strip) was half as wide. So knowing if there were clouds over some of those targets and knowing the priority of those targets would have been useful for maximizing the number of targets photographed in each pass. Moscow was another high-density target area.

    Yes, not as important as it was for film systems, but for a real-time system the goal is not simply to get the image, but to get the image as quickly as possible, so you wouldn't want to wait for a later pass if you did not have to.

    Note: I'm speculating a bit here.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 01/23/2023 11:42 pm
    https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1617583035087454237
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: edzieba on 01/24/2023 07:26 am
    Gave the scan a bit of a clean.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 01/24/2023 12:08 pm
    Gave the scan a bit of a clean.

    Thank you. I thought that slice through the middle was rather odd.

    They had announced another (final?) segment of their history series on MOL, but that still has not appeared. That one is supposed to address the cancellation. I don't expect much from it (these articles don't appear to have uncovered new source material), but I'm still curious. As mentioned up-thread, there was at least one, maybe two, high-level studies of MOL done in 1967 or 1968 that exposed some serious problems with the system. Those have not been released, but I'm hoping that the final segment mentions them.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 01/30/2023 07:48 pm
    https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1620120942151188480/photo/1
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 02/01/2023 11:55 pm
    https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/Article/3284392/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-four/

    The story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory – part four

    By Staff

    Part Three of the story of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory article

    This is the fourth and final story about the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). For the previous segments, click here.

    The MOL program was stood up so the United States could collect immediate and on-demand intelligence in response to unanticipated events, like the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, while it was approved for development, skeptics sought to end the program before it even began.

                    Developing the program was expensive in a decade full of large expenses. During the 1960s, the United States was fighting the Vietnam War, funding NASA’s goal of reaching the moon by the end of the decade, and supporting President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” efforts. With so many large programs operating at the same time, many in Congress saw MOL as a duplicative effort of the Apollo program, so it came as no surprise that the MOL program budget was cut by 60 percent by the 1967 fiscal year. The result of this budget cut was an immediate six-month delay of the first manned flight, from November to April 1969. This would not be the last delay due to funding issues for MOL and only fueled calls to cancel the program.

    Critics hoping to cancel the MOL program argued that while Very High Resolution (VHR) imagery would potentially fill intelligence gaps, the costs to obtain this capability were not believed to be worth it. Adding to this criticism was a 1967 report examining the potential overlap between the MOL and NASA’s Apollo programs. This report confirmed critics’ beliefs that the programs were complementary instead of competitive, and feared that potentially combining the programs, such as using Apollo as a reconnaissance mission, would damage NASA’s image as a peaceful agency. Despite calls to cancel the program, advocates worked tirelessly to keep it alive.

    While criticism persisted, MOL personnel argued that VHR imagery would have provided comprehensible evidence for decision-makers during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In addition, Director of Defense Research and Engineering John Foster advocated that MOL’s costs were justified by the program’s flexibility and ability to obtain VHR imagery. The Air Force still was not willing to cancel the program altogether but did cut it’s funding in FY 1968 and FY 1969, causing MOL’s launch schedule to slip further and further. Eventually, MOL crewmembers began to leave the program. The first to leave were crewmembers selected in the first group, Michael Adams in 1966 followed by John Finley in 1968. It was taking too long for the program to show its worth, and as a new administration came into office, it would only make it harder to keep it going.

    Once the Nixon Administration entered office in January 1969, the writing was on the wall and renewed calls for the program’s cancellation emerged. This time, the calls came from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director who suggested a review of three large DoD space programs—MOL, Hexagon, and drones—to find areas to save money. This review found MOL to be too expensive and questioned its significance. It was June 10, 1969 when MOL would be officially terminated after four years of development.

    At the time of cancellation, 192 military personnel, 100 civilians, and 13,187 contractors were working on the MOL program. Seven of the MOL crewmembers would go on to become NASA astronauts, all of whom would later fly on the space shuttle. Two crewmembers would transfer to NASA and work on programs such as Skylab and the shuttle program. Two other crewmembers would return to active duty with the Air Force where one, Robert Herres, would eventually become the first Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 1987.

    By late 1973, all MOL offices were closed down, personnel were reassigned, and all equipment was transferred or destroyed. The MOL program was ambitious in its efforts to push the limits of what could be achieved in space. While the program never made it to space, its legacy in the United States space program lives on to this day: from selecting the first black astronaut, to building SLC-6 in California that’s now used to launch other notable missions, such as NROL-91, into orbit. In its entirety, MOL served quietly and secretly as a way to honor President Kennedy’s 1962 call to achieve the impossible. It was decided to undertake the Manned Orbiting Laboratory not because it was easy, but because it was hard.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/02/2023 02:10 am
    https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/Article/3284392/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-four/
    Once the Nixon Administration entered office in January 1969, the writing was on the wall and renewed calls for the program’s cancellation emerged. This time, the calls came from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director who suggested a review of three large DoD space programs—MOL, Hexagon, and drones—to find areas to save money. This review found MOL to be too expensive and questioned its significance. It was June 10, 1969 when MOL would be officially terminated after four years of development.


    Oof. This is overly simplistic and leaves so much out that it's just wrong. Hexagon was canceled first. The Director of Central Intelligence objected. So Hexagon's cancellation was reversed and then MOL got canceled. That's a really important part of the story, because it goes right to the heart of the value of the different systems. Hexagon could cover huge amounts of territory at good resolution, while MOL could cover very small amounts of territory at very high resolution. Hexagon was valuable for counting strategic weapons systems, and was certainly going to be valuable for monitoring arms control treaties. It was unclear what value MOL could provide that was worth the cost.

    It's a shame that NRO did not do an oral history project focused on MOL back in the 1980s when they could have interviewed a lot of the people involved. We would have that material today.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/02/2023 02:16 am
    https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/Article/3284392/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-four/
    Critics hoping to cancel the MOL program argued that while Very High Resolution (VHR) imagery would potentially fill intelligence gaps, the costs to obtain this capability were not believed to be worth it. Adding to this criticism was a 1967 report examining the potential overlap between the MOL and NASA’s Apollo programs. This report confirmed critics’ beliefs that the programs were complementary instead of competitive, and feared that potentially combining the programs, such as using Apollo as a reconnaissance mission, would damage NASA’s image as a peaceful agency. Despite calls to cancel the program, advocates worked tirelessly to keep it alive.

    While criticism persisted, MOL personnel argued that VHR imagery would have provided comprehensible evidence for decision-makers during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In addition, Director of Defense Research and Engineering John Foster advocated that MOL’s costs were justified by the program’s flexibility and ability to obtain VHR imagery. The Air Force still was not willing to cancel the program altogether but did cut it’s funding in FY 1968 and FY 1969, causing MOL’s launch schedule to slip further and further. Eventually, MOL crewmembers began to leave the program. The first to leave were crewmembers selected in the first group, Michael Adams in 1966 followed by John Finley in 1968. It was taking too long for the program to show its worth, and as a new administration came into office, it would only make it harder to keep it going.

    While this is true, it's not detailed enough. What exactly could VHR do that high-resolution could not do? We have some of that, but we don't have all the details. The answer is to look at the high end of the National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scale (NIIRS) and see what the difference is:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIIRS

    VHR seems to have been defined as NIIRS 8-9:

    8    0.10 - 0.20 meters
    9    < 0.10 meters

    So what is the value? What can you see at NIIRS 8 or better? That was the justification for MOL, and the question was if the cost was worth that.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/02/2023 04:02 am
    https://www.nro.gov/News-and-Media/Article/3284392/the-story-of-the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-part-four/
    Once the Nixon Administration entered office in January 1969, the writing was on the wall and renewed calls for the program’s cancellation emerged. This time, the calls came from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director who suggested a review of three large DoD space programs—MOL, Hexagon, and drones—to find areas to save money. This review found MOL to be too expensive and questioned its significance. It was June 10, 1969 when MOL would be officially terminated after four years of development.
    Oof. This is overly simplistic and leaves so much out that it's just wrong.

    I also wince a bit when I read

    Quote
    In its entirety, MOL served quietly and secretly as a way to honor President Kennedy’s 1962 call to achieve the impossible. It was decided to undertake the Manned Orbiting Laboratory not because it was easy, but because it was hard.

    It's a pity that we can still not know much about CANYON and RHYOLITE for example, but we can be pretty sure they were hard  ...
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/02/2023 12:56 pm
    I also wince a bit when I read

    Quote
    In its entirety, MOL served quietly and secretly as a way to honor President Kennedy’s 1962 call to achieve the impossible. It was decided to undertake the Manned Orbiting Laboratory not because it was easy, but because it was hard.


    That's what convinced me this was written by a summer intern. A trained historian would not write this.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/02/2023 03:45 pm
    I also wince a bit when I read

    Quote
    In its entirety, MOL served quietly and secretly as a way to honor President Kennedy’s 1962 call to achieve the impossible. It was decided to undertake the Manned Orbiting Laboratory not because it was easy, but because it was hard.




    That's what convinced me this was written by a summer intern. A trained historian would not write this.

    I thought the line about Cuba was the most interesting one.

    Quote
    While criticism persisted, MOL personnel argued that VHR imagery would have provided comprehensible evidence for decision-makers during the Cuban Missile Crisis.


    Does anyone recall seeing this in a doc somewhere ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/02/2023 08:19 pm

    Quote
    While criticism persisted, MOL personnel argued that VHR imagery would have provided comprehensible evidence for decision-makers during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Does anyone recall seeing this in a doc somewhere ?


    Yes, I saw it in a doc about VHR. It was about the value of the low-altitude reconnaissance flights during the Missile Crisis vs. the U-2 imagery. The low-altitude images revealed important details missing from the U-2 imagery. I forget what they were (if they were even mentioned in that document), but there is supporting evidence in places like Brugioni's Cuban Missile Crisis book.

    So far all we have is anecdotal evidence about the value of VHR. I don't know of a still-classified comprehensive study about what VHR provides.

    Update: Found it:

    Robert Perry “Recce Satellite R&D: Capabilities in Readout, Crisis Reconnaissance and Very High Resolution"

    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/hosr/hosr-vol4.pdf

    I have not looked at it today.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/03/2023 04:22 pm

    Quote
    While criticism persisted, MOL personnel argued that VHR imagery would have provided comprehensible evidence for decision-makers during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Does anyone recall seeing this in a doc somewhere ?


    Yes, I saw it in a doc about VHR. It was about the value of the low-altitude reconnaissance flights during the Missile Crisis vs. the U-2 imagery. The low-altitude images revealed important details missing from the U-2 imagery. I forget what they were (if they were even mentioned in that document), but there is supporting evidence in places like Brugioni's Cuban Missile Crisis book.

    So far all we have is anecdotal evidence about the value of VHR. I don't know of a still-classified comprehensive study about what VHR provides.

    Update: Found it:

    Robert Perry “Recce Satellite R&D: Capabilities in Readout, Crisis Reconnaissance and Very High Resolution"

    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/hosr/hosr-vol4.pdf

    I have not looked at it today.

    Thanks for that. That's an interesting doc, new to me, and much more about readout/EOI than VHR as far as I can see. In fact it's the longest account of the readout/EOI saga up to the KH-11 decision that I can recall seeing. Might be worth requesting a review of the redactions as surely some are now obsolete ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/03/2023 08:59 pm

    Quote
    While criticism persisted, MOL personnel argued that VHR imagery would have provided comprehensible evidence for decision-makers during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Does anyone recall seeing this in a doc somewhere ?


    Yes, I saw it in a doc about VHR. It was about the value of the low-altitude reconnaissance flights during the Missile Crisis vs. the U-2 imagery. The low-altitude images revealed important details missing from the U-2 imagery. I forget what they were (if they were even mentioned in that document), but there is supporting evidence in places like Brugioni's Cuban Missile Crisis book.

    So far all we have is anecdotal evidence about the value of VHR. I don't know of a still-classified comprehensive study about what VHR provides.

    Update: Found it:

    Robert Perry “Recce Satellite R&D: Capabilities in Readout, Crisis Reconnaissance and Very High Resolution"

    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/hosr/hosr-vol4.pdf

    I have not looked at it today.

    Thanks for that. That's an interesting doc, new to me, and much more about readout/EOI than VHR as far as I can see. In fact it's the longest account of the readout/EOI saga up to the KH-11 decision that I can recall seeing. Might be worth requesting a review of the redactions as surely some are now obsolete ?
    Such a FOIA request has been filed in 2018....   ;)

    edit: and it actually has been processed:
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/03/2023 09:16 pm
    edit: and it actually has been processed:
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf)

    Yeah, that was me. I read it when I got it rereleased and nothing jumped out at me as very revelatory. In fact, I remember being disappointed. If somebody wants to point out what was revealed in the newer version vs. the older one, please go ahead.

    This discussion reminded me that I started--and forgot about--a draft article about VHR. I wanted to write about proposals like HEXADOR and the value of VHR. I think the reason I never proceeded with it very far is because I was underwhelmed by the material released on this subject to date. Nothing I've found answers the question of what is the magic of VHR.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/03/2023 11:17 pm
    edit: and it actually has been processed:
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf)

    Yeah, that was me. I read it when I got it rereleased and nothing jumped out at me as very revelatory. In fact, I remember being disappointed. If somebody wants to point out what was revealed in the newer version vs. the older one, please go ahead.

    This discussion reminded me that I started--and forgot about--a draft article about VHR. I wanted to write about proposals like HEXADOR and the value of VHR. I think the reason I never proceeded with it very far is because I was underwhelmed by the material released on this subject to date. Nothing I've found answers the question of what is the magic of VHR.
    Maybe no-one has a "definitive" answer? It seems that most strategic requirements (like the location of Soviet ICBM or ABM and SAM sites) were already addressed by KH-4A's 7 to 10 ft resolution.

    A memo from Aug 1960 states that OXCART's 1ft ground resolution (as opposed to U2's 2.25 ft resolution) would reveal "exact physical characteristics of individual aircraft, missiles erected on launch pads, individual industrial plants, and technical intelligence of various types."

    The only vague justification I could find for still higher resolution was the desire to determine the calibre of Soviet weapons (tanks).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/04/2023 01:17 pm
    Maybe no-one has a "definitive" answer? It seems that most strategic requirements (like the location of Soviet ICBM or ABM and SAM sites) were already addressed by KH-4A's 7 to 10 ft resolution.

    A memo from Aug 1960 states that OXCART's 1ft ground resolution (as opposed to U2's 2.25 ft resolution) would reveal "exact physical characteristics of individual aircraft, missiles erected on launch pads, individual industrial plants, and technical intelligence of various types."

    The only vague justification I could find for still higher resolution was the desire to determine the calibre of Soviet weapons (tanks).

    I'm pretty sure that at some point by the latter 1960s NRO/NPIC did a study about the value of very high resolution. We know that a resolution study was done in 1963 that resulted in the determination that what was needed was a satellite with CORONA's coverage and GAMBIT-1's resolution. As the resolution got better with the GAMBIT-3 and the MOL/DORIAN, we can surmise that somebody at some point asked what was the value, and where was the tipping point--was 8 inches sufficient, or did they need 6 or 4 inches? Why?

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/04/2023 06:16 pm
    edit: and it actually has been processed:
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf)

    Yeah, that was me. I read it when I got it rereleased and nothing jumped out at me as very revelatory. In fact, I remember being disappointed. If somebody wants to point out what was revealed in the newer version vs. the older one, please go ahead.


    I think having written this https://thespacereview.com/article/3791/1 you probably know the story inside out anyway, it may be hard to surprise you ;-)

    But thanks for uploading both versions, I'll look forward to comparing them at some point.

    Re Cuba at a quick look the thing that leapt out was that the USAF metsats had been used in the missile crisis. These days I hesitate to suggest that we didn't know about this, as some guy has probably written about it at TSR, but *I* didn't know about  it ;-);-)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/06/2023 12:41 pm
    There is a document that mentions something about the value of VHR in certain circumstances. The example I remember is determining the control surfaces on an ABM missile. The NIIRS scale also indicates what can be detected at different resolutions, so certainly that is a clue. What would be good to have is some kind of document that states not only what they could see with VHR, but what they needed to see and why that was important.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/06/2023 09:22 pm
    There is a document that mentions something about the value of VHR in certain circumstances. The example I remember is determining the control surfaces on an ABM missile. The NIIRS scale also indicates what can be detected at different resolutions, so certainly that is a clue. What would be good to have is some kind of document that states not only what they could see with VHR, but what they needed to see and why that was important.
    The GAMBIT Story iterates the NIIRS scale. For Rating Categories 8 and 9 an antenna of the SA-4 launcher and SA-2 canards are quoted as examples, respectively. They also mention the ability to discern certain features of Mig-21/FISHBED (the attached images give an idea of the scale of the difference for two different Mig-21 models). The section on NIIRS closes with "(...) GAMBIT-3 was (...) consistently acquiring imagery REDACTED"

    We know from the accidental lapse in redaction in the "original" release of this document in Sept. 2011 that "(...) the mature system produced examples of imagery better than four inches ground resolution distance" - see
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26821.msg886828#msg886828 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26821.msg886828#msg886828)

    My understanding is that "the fact of a resolution better than 1 ft" remains classified (the latest declassification round had moved the fact from "better than 3 ft" to "better than 2 ft").  The way the classification system works, this probably means that studies on the overall value of VHR might also stay classified.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/06/2023 10:11 pm
    The "MOL and HEXAGON termination" memo from April 11, 1969, comparing a future "improved" G3 to MOL, states:

    "This MOL higher resolution will provide many critical fine details which will allow us to determine a number of performance characteristics of emerging weapons systems well in advance of test demonstrations. This capability should be of considerable value in any arms control limitation."

    The "HEXAGON termination" memo, also from early 1969, states that The G-3 best resolution to date has been 12"
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/07/2023 06:47 am
    edit: and it actually has been processed:
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf)

    Yeah, that was me. I read it when I got it rereleased and nothing jumped out at me as very revelatory. In fact, I remember being disappointed. If somebody wants to point out what was revealed in the newer version vs. the older one, please go ahead.


    Happy to move this to the KH-11/EOI/Frog thread but I have browsed the differences between the 2 versions of Perry's draft and can now see what you mean, I guess the main differences indeed aren't especially revelatory.

    However I did see one interesting thing, on pages 57-59 of newer version (doc itself, not including the comments at start of pdf), when discussing cheaper options for a  crisis satellite in June 1969. See 3 grabs below. It refers to a satellite building on EARPOP (which I take to mean P-11 here) and  metsat experience, does this suggest a small spin stabilised vehicle ?

    [Edit: Hadn't realised when I wrote the above that the latest from Joe Page https://thespacereview.com/article/4526/1
     mentions a "SPIN SCAN" project-perhaps we'll be hearing more soon.  ]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/07/2023 01:29 pm
    Happy to move this to the KH-11/EOI/Frog thread but I have browsed the differences between the 2 versions of Perry's draft and can now see what you mean, I guess the main differences indeed aren't especially revelatory.

    However I did see one interesting thing, on pages 57-59 of newer version (doc itself, not including the comments at start of pdf), when discussing cheaper options for a  crisis satellite in June 1969. See 3 grabs below. It refers to a satellite building on EARPOP (which I take to mean P-11 here) and  metsat experience, does this suggest a small spin stabilised vehicle ?

    [Edit: Hadn't realised when I wrote the above that the latest from Joe Page https://thespacereview.com/article/4526/1
     mentions a "SPIN SCAN" project-perhaps we'll be hearing more soon.  ]

    I was going to reply with SPIN SCAN, but you updated before I could reply.

    By EARPOP they certainly mean the P-11/P-989 satellites*. I'm guessing that the "experience" means efforts to build in direct downlink. I have an article in the works about that and the development of TENCAP (Tactical Exploitation of National CAPabilities). However, I don't have anything on the technical details, like using specific frequencies to enable smaller receiver dishes, which helped make the system mobile and therefore tactical, rather than hooked to a fixed ground station.



    *P-11 was the Lockheed designation. Program 989 was the official USAF/NRO designation. However, "P-11" got used as shorthand in a lot of documents, so clearly it was how many people who were aware of the satellites referred to the program.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/07/2023 01:40 pm
    The "MOL and HEXAGON termination" memo from April 11, 1969, comparing a future "improved" G3 to MOL, states:

    "This MOL higher resolution will provide many critical fine details which will allow us to determine a number of performance characteristics of emerging weapons systems well in advance of test demonstrations. This capability should be of considerable value in any arms control limitation."

    The "HEXAGON termination" memo, also from early 1969, states that The G-3 best resolution to date has been 12"

    Thanks for that. The arms control monitoring argument for VHR shows up in a few places. It's a difficult issue to parse out--were they simply trying to sell this using the justification that was popular at the time? In other words, they knew the big bosses were interested in arms control, so they claimed that VHR was important for that? Or was that a true statement?

    It's easy to see the value of HEXAGON for arms control monitoring because it saw everything at pretty good resolution. So with HEXAGON you had the ability to cover the entire Soviet landmass in a relatively short period of time and count every new silo or bomber that appeared. On the other hand, high resolution provided more data on the technical characteristics of new weapons, but I suspect that this only really worked when combined with other intelligence data like telemetry. For instance, a good high-resolution photo of a missile on the pad could provide a decent estimate of the internal volume for fuel, but probably with larger error bars than desirable. Combine that with telemetry data, however, and they could get a much better estimation of range.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/07/2023 01:49 pm
    Happy to move this to the KH-11/EOI/Frog thread but I have browsed the differences between the 2 versions of Perry's draft and can now see what you mean, I guess the main differences indeed aren't especially revelatory.

    However I did see one interesting thing, on pages 57-59 of newer version (doc itself, not including the comments at start of pdf), when discussing cheaper options for a  crisis satellite in June 1969. See 3 grabs below. It refers to a satellite building on EARPOP (which I take to mean P-11 here) and  metsat experience, does this suggest a small spin stabilised vehicle ?

    [Edit: Hadn't realised when I wrote the above that the latest from Joe Page https://thespacereview.com/article/4526/1
     mentions a "SPIN SCAN" project-perhaps we'll be hearing more soon.  ]

    I was going to reply with SPIN SCAN, but you updated before I could reply.

    By EARPOP they certainly mean the P-11/P-989 satellites*
    . I'm guessing that the "experience" means efforts to build in direct downlink. I have an article in the works about that and the development of TENCAP (Tactical Exploitation of National CAPabilities). However, I don't have anything on the technical details, like using specific frequencies to enable smaller receiver dishes, which helped make the system mobile and therefore tactical, rather than hooked to a fixed ground station.

    Thanks. Did you mean to add a footnote there ?

    I should have been more precise in my quoting, isn't it possible that by "an application ... of approaches developed and tested in the Earpop Elint ... and in the P-35 weather satellite" Perry just meant spin stabilisation ? All P-11s before about 1970, and all the earliest metsats, were spin stabilised, and the latter were literally spin scan. And these were the only spinners used by NRO before JUMPSEAT and SDS which used a much more elaborate stabilisation system.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/07/2023 07:15 pm

    1--Thanks. Did you mean to add a footnote there ?

    2--I should have been more precise in my quoting, isn't it possible that by "an application ... of approaches developed and tested in the Earpop Elint ... and in the P-35 weather satellite" Perry just meant spin stabilisation ? All P-11s before about 1970, and all the earliest metsats, were spin stabilised, and the latter were literally spin scan. And these were the only spinners used by NRO before JUMPSEAT and SDS which used a much more elaborate stabilisation system.

    1--Yes, added.

    2--Yes, I assumed spin technology, including stabilization and also how they could torque the spacecraft magnetically. But also probably the tape recorders and maybe the direct downlink capability.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/07/2023 08:46 pm
    edit: and it actually has been processed:
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf)

    Yeah, that was me. I read it when I got it rereleased and nothing jumped out at me as very revelatory. In fact, I remember being disappointed. If somebody wants to point out what was revealed in the newer version vs. the older one, please go ahead.


    Happy to move this to the KH-11/EOI/Frog thread but I have browsed the differences between the 2 versions of Perry's draft and can now see what you mean, I guess the main differences indeed aren't especially revelatory.

    However I did see one interesting thing, on pages 57-59 of newer version (doc itself, not including the comments at start of pdf), when discussing cheaper options for a  crisis satellite in June 1969. See 3 grabs below. It refers to a satellite building on EARPOP (which I take to mean P-11 here) and  metsat experience, does this suggest a small spin stabilised vehicle ?

    [Edit: Hadn't realised when I wrote the above that the latest from Joe Page https://thespacereview.com/article/4526/1
     mentions a "SPIN SCAN" project-perhaps we'll be hearing more soon.  ]

    Interesting! Would spin-scanning be the best strategy for crisis response, where you would like to obtain images of very specific locations on a very short time scale? I always thought of spin-scanning more as a survey strategy, where one slowly fills in gaps, and after many orbits (several days, or weeks) is getting the "complete picture".

    Any ideas on the observational strategy?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/07/2023 10:23 pm
    edit: and it actually has been processed:
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/050918/F-2018-00047.pdf)

    Yeah, that was me. I read it when I got it rereleased and nothing jumped out at me as very revelatory. In fact, I remember being disappointed. If somebody wants to point out what was revealed in the newer version vs. the older one, please go ahead.


    Happy to move this to the KH-11/EOI/Frog thread but I have browsed the differences between the 2 versions of Perry's draft and can now see what you mean, I guess the main differences indeed aren't especially revelatory.

    However I did see one interesting thing, on pages 57-59 of newer version (doc itself, not including the comments at start of pdf), when discussing cheaper options for a  crisis satellite in June 1969. See 3 grabs below. It refers to a satellite building on EARPOP (which I take to mean P-11 here) and  metsat experience, does this suggest a small spin stabilised vehicle ?

    [Edit: Hadn't realised when I wrote the above that the latest from Joe Page https://thespacereview.com/article/4526/1
     mentions a "SPIN SCAN" project-perhaps we'll be hearing more soon.  ]

    Interesting! Would spin-scanning be the best strategy for crisis response, where you would like to obtain images of very specific locations on a very short time scale? I always thought of spin-scanning more as a survey strategy, where one slowly fills in gaps, and after many orbits (several days, or weeks) is getting the "complete picture".

    Any ideas on the observational strategy?

    That would have been my impression as well, so I'll be interested to hear more. I am wondering if this'll turn out to be a piggy back design, like the one Blackstar was suggesting a while ago in this thread in the KH-11 thread  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2379278#msg2379278, but like him then wonder  how the optics would have been done in such a small satellite for that time [Perry quotes resolution of about CORONA quality]. All fascinating.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/08/2023 11:26 am
    I don't think Joe has much on SPIN SCAN, so you are likely to be disappointed.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/08/2023 11:47 am
    Interesting! Would spin-scanning be the best strategy for crisis response, where you would like to obtain images of very specific locations on a very short time scale? I always thought of spin-scanning more as a survey strategy, where one slowly fills in gaps, and after many orbits (several days, or weeks) is getting the "complete picture".

    Any ideas on the observational strategy?

    Just think of it as a scanner like the early spinning Tiros or DMSP satellites. It produces an image by scanning quickly over the face of the earth. It could take an image over an area, store it on a tape recorder, and then beam it down to a ground station. The obvious limitation is resolution. It would have been very poor considering the technology of the time--short focal length and limited image capture options.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/08/2023 12:08 pm
    Interesting! Would spin-scanning be the best strategy for crisis response, where you would like to obtain images of very specific locations on a very short time scale? I always thought of spin-scanning more as a survey strategy, where one slowly fills in gaps, and after many orbits (several days, or weeks) is getting the "complete picture".

    Any ideas on the observational strategy?

    Just think of it as a scanner like the early spinning Tiros or DMSP satellites. It produces an image by scanning quickly over the face of the earth. It could take an image over an area, store it on a tape recorder, and then beam it down to a ground station. The obvious limitation is resolution. It would have been very poor considering the technology of the time--short focal length and limited image capture options.

    Which is why I am surprised to see Perry saying it would be as good as CORONA, even if he meant KH-1:

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: edzieba on 02/08/2023 12:56 pm
    I did some back-of-the-napkin, and a completely unmodified TIROS/ESSL flown at 150km rather than its usual altitude could achieve ~200m ground resolution. A fair way off of CORONA's 1-2m, but switching to larger vidicons and longer focal length lenses might actually put a usable resolution within reach.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/10/2023 02:12 am
    Something just occurred to me reading the footnotes in Joe Page's PINTO article--I think Joe is right that "Pinto" comes from the Ford Pinto and not the horse. There are other documents from this time indicating that when they were talking about a crisis reconnaissance system during this time period, some people (I think maybe the Secretary of State) discussed the need for a "Model A" system as opposed to a "Cadillac." Their view was that they needed something that was cheap and good enough in the near-term.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Harry Cover on 02/10/2023 12:08 pm
    Henry Ford's Model A was successor to the ubiquitous Model T, and both were icons of Ford early era: first mass produced, cheap cars.

    I remember reading about a "Model T" spysat related to the FROG vs EOI debate. FROG was to be the Ford and EOI was the Cadillac. FROG was supposed to be the Ford, because it was to be derived from the existing KH-8 GAMBIT-3 and its prolific Agena bus. Unfortunately FROG grew more and more heavier, complicated and expensive and the "Model T" argument ultimately made no sense.

    Interestingly enough PINTO was also a Ford... so it seems they were using that metaphore again.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/11/2023 01:39 pm
    The GAMBIT Story iterates the NIIRS scale. For Rating Categories 8 and 9 an antenna of the SA-4 launcher and SA-2 canards are quoted as examples, respectively. They also mention the ability to discern certain features of Mig-21/FISHBED (the attached images give an idea of the scale of the difference for two different Mig-21 models). The section on NIIRS closes with "(...) GAMBIT-3 was (...) consistently acquiring imagery REDACTED"

    We know from the accidental lapse in redaction in the "original" release of this document in Sept. 2011 that "(...) the mature system produced examples of imagery better than four inches ground resolution distance" - see
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26821.msg886828#msg886828 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26821.msg886828#msg886828)

    My understanding is that "the fact of a resolution better than 1 ft" remains classified (the latest declassification round had moved the fact from "better than 3 ft" to "better than 2 ft").  The way the classification system works, this probably means that studies on the overall value of VHR might also stay classified.

    Getting back to thinking about this some more...

    Thanks for that info above. On your last comment, it seems that they could declassify something from such studies, even if they deleted substantial portions of them. The first problem is that we don't have any references to such studies. So any FOIA effort would be general, which makes it easier for them to deny it--requesting a specific document via FOIA is best.

    I once had somebody who worked on the ground side of GAMBIT-3 tell me that the best resolution returned from that system was 2.4 inches. I trust the source, although he was on the operations side, not somebody who regularly used the images. Without better declassified sources, the best we have is that accidental release. (Also: I should add that the best resolution ever obtained from a HEXAGON was 6-inches. None of the documents indicate that, but I got it from a reliable source.)

    I'm going to muse about this stuff, including the crisis response stuff, this weekend and may post some more of my ramblings here.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/11/2023 02:47 pm
    I'm going to muse about this stuff, including the crisis response stuff, this weekend and may post some more of my ramblings here.

    I look forward to it. Meanwhile the 2004 RAND-published Augenstein and Murray tribute to Merton Davies that I posted a link to in the KH-11 thread, and which is attached, has a bit of MOL-related serendipity on the subject of resolution and whether the human eye could beat what I take to be the Fried limit, see grab below. This seems to me the first truly plausible explanation I've seen as to why some people initially thought putting people in this role might be worth the trouble.

    What is less clear to me is what they thought astronauts would actually be doing in a crisis, e.g. what they thought an orbital crew would have got them in Cuba for example.

    I can more easily see crews playing a wartime "spotter" role not unlike that referred to in the 1960 moonbase study https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55159.msg2454767#msg2454767  , and a staple of science fiction of that era.

    One intriguing example of such analysis is the reference to RAND's Recce-X  study in the second grab, though that may just have been with respect to unmanned satellites.

    Was also reminded of the passage in Ken Gatland's "Mannned Spacecraft" about early naked eye observations (last two grabs).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/11/2023 03:21 pm
    Turns out Recce-X was mentioned in a RAND doc previously posted here and found by Google, see grab and attached RAND doc. Also mentioned in a few conressional budget hearings as having started in 1967.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/11/2023 10:41 pm
    The GAMBIT Story iterates the NIIRS scale. For Rating Categories 8 and 9 an antenna of the SA-4 launcher and SA-2 canards are quoted as examples, respectively. They also mention the ability to discern certain features of Mig-21/FISHBED (the attached images give an idea of the scale of the difference for two different Mig-21 models). The section on NIIRS closes with "(...) GAMBIT-3 was (...) consistently acquiring imagery REDACTED"

    We know from the accidental lapse in redaction in the "original" release of this document in Sept. 2011 that "(...) the mature system produced examples of imagery better than four inches ground resolution distance" - see
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26821.msg886828#msg886828 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26821.msg886828#msg886828)

    My understanding is that "the fact of a resolution better than 1 ft" remains classified (the latest declassification round had moved the fact from "better than 3 ft" to "better than 2 ft").  The way the classification system works, this probably means that studies on the overall value of VHR might also stay classified.

    Getting back to thinking about this some more...

    Thanks for that info above. On your last comment, it seems that they could declassify something from such studies, even if they deleted substantial portions of them. The first problem is that we don't have any references to such studies. So any FOIA effort would be general, which makes it easier for them to deny it--requesting a specific document via FOIA is best.

    I once had somebody who worked on the ground side of GAMBIT-3 tell me that the best resolution returned from that system was 2.4 inches. I trust the source, although he was on the operations side, not somebody who regularly used the images. Without better declassified sources, the best we have is that accidental release. (Also: I should add that the best resolution ever obtained from a HEXAGON was 6-inches. None of the documents indicate that, but I got it from a reliable source.)

    I'm going to muse about this stuff, including the crisis response stuff, this weekend and may post some more of my ramblings here.
    Indeed, it would be best to ask for a specific document, rather than trying to initiate a key word search.

    A CREST search for VHR https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/search/site/VHR (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/search/site/VHR) lists:
    i) a "Letter of appreciation" by the COMIREX VHR Evaluation Panel for a study on imaging resolution requirements carried out between May and Oct 1970.
    ii) a COMIREX memo from June 23, 1971, referring to a "COMIREX Imagery Resolution Requirements Study, 30 October 1970, TCS-8799/70"

    CREST lists a 1-page document by that name:
    https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79b01709a003700010001-1 (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79b01709a003700010001-1)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/12/2023 12:28 am
    Indeed, it would be best to ask for a specific document, rather than trying to initiate a key word search.

    A CREST search for VHR https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/search/site/VHR (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/search/site/VHR) lists:
    i) a "Letter of appreciation" by the COMIREX VHR Evaluation Panel for a study on imaging resolution requirements carried out between May and Oct 1970.
    ii) a COMIREX memo from June 23, 1971, referring to a "COMIREX Imagery Resolution Requirements Study, 30 October 1970, TCS-8799/70"

    CREST lists a 1-page document by that name:
    https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79b01709a003700010001-1 (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79b01709a003700010001-1)

    Thanks for that. But I wonder what agency is responsible for COMIREX reports? Would that be CIA? Or does COMIREX now fall under NGA?

    If I file a FOIA with CIA I can expect to wait many years for a response. NRO can be much faster. I don't know about NGA. I think I filed something with NGA a few years ago and they responded by saying "Go away."
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/13/2023 10:03 pm
    Indeed, it would be best to ask for a specific document, rather than trying to initiate a key word search.

    A CREST search for VHR https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/search/site/VHR (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/search/site/VHR) lists:
    i) a "Letter of appreciation" by the COMIREX VHR Evaluation Panel for a study on imaging resolution requirements carried out between May and Oct 1970.
    ii) a COMIREX memo from June 23, 1971, referring to a "COMIREX Imagery Resolution Requirements Study, 30 October 1970, TCS-8799/70"

    CREST lists a 1-page document by that name:
    https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79b01709a003700010001-1 (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79b01709a003700010001-1)

    Thanks for that. But I wonder what agency is responsible for COMIREX reports? Would that be CIA? Or does COMIREX now fall under NGA?

    If I file a FOIA with CIA I can expect to wait many years for a response. NRO can be much faster. I don't know about NGA. I think I filed something with NGA a few years ago and they responded by saying "Go away."
    In my very limited experience, CIA FOIA can be quite responsive when asking for a specific document. The initial classification "S" would suggest that the document did not inherit any "TS" classification. As the linked document has a page count "1", it might be best to ask for all documents with the document ID(?) "TCS-8799/70", or the title "COMIREX Imagery Resolution Requirements Study", and dated 30 October 1970.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/14/2023 12:07 pm
    https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1625279930790445059

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/18/2023 11:48 pm
    I looked at Lt. General Lew Allen's notes leading into this again:

    Robert Perry “Recce Satellite R&D: Capabilities in Readout, Crisis Reconnaissance and Very High Resolution"

    Very interesting. I had forgotten some of the things he wrote there. One of the things he pointed out was that quite often in satellite reconnaissance, it was "the technological imperative" that led development of new systems, not specific requirements.

    For those who never studied the history of technology or science and technology policy (I did that many years ago in grad school), there is a theory about technology developing either as the result of "technology push" or "demand pull." You can substitute "requirements" for "demand" here. Simply put, Allen (citing Merton Davies' RAND buddy Amrom Katz) suggests that systems were developed by engineers pushing the technology, rather than as a response to a clear requirement.

    Now one could argue with that. There were requirements:

    -CORONA was required because large swaths of the Soviet Union were inaccessible to the U-2, and the U-2 was a "melting asset" anyway that would soon disappear.
    -GAMBIT was required because once the U-2 was vulnerable to missiles, they needed a system with U-2 resolution.
    -HEXAGON was the result of requirements established by a study (was it the Drell Panel or the Purcell Panel? I forget.).

    But I think that Allen is talking a bit more generally here, and about other systems, mainly the MOL and the VHR (or "Hexador") and near-real-time. In particular, when he starts talking about the decisions that led to the KENNEN, Allen says that there was no real requirement for it. The requirement was for strategic systems (counting tanks, missiles, planes, and subs), and not for timeliness. He makes the fascinating argument that once the technology fell into place, Din Land and the CIA pushed for that system with a vengeance, and that there was not actually much of a requirement for it.

    That argument puts the other programs like FROG and the systems that Joe Page II has been writing about (CORONA 6-Pack, PINTO, etc.) into a new light. What General Allen basically says is that because they were not really required, they didn't have a lot of support. He even says that he was wrong to push for FROG, because it was not that good. He suggests that these were only proposed because people thought that they should advance an alternative to the expensive KENNEN system, not because they thought that the intelligence community really needed a near-real-time system.

    (more in later posts)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/18/2023 11:55 pm
    There's also some great subtlety in what Allen wrote. He suggests that there was not really a requirement for very high resolution (VHR) either. He says that they sort of backed into that: they approved MOL because they were canceling Dyna-Soar and there was a desire to have some new manned system to continue on from Dyna-Soar. Then they didn't know what to do with MOL, so they stuck a powerful camera on it. Then the Land Panel declared that this should also include an unmanned option. And then they ended up with a really expensive MOL program that was not ideal for anything.

    There are a bunch of important points in all that. One is that Allen is saying that VHR was not required, and that what they should have pursued was an upgrade of GAMBIT, which is what they eventually did all along. That raises an interesting question about whether if MOL did not exist, would they have sought out faster improvements to GAMBIT instead (in the 1966-1970 period).

    He also provides some dollar figures. VHR was "not worth" its $500 million cost. Manned MOL would have cost $1 billion as a lab, $2 billion as MOL/DORIAN, and $3 billion for the version that included both astronauts and the robotic option. (Interestingly, that final figure was deleted in the 2018 version but revealed in the 2022 version.)

    Allen suggests that if it was not for MOL, then $500 million for VHR might have seemed reasonable. But apparently by the time VHR was rejected, people had been tired of spending so much money on MOL.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/19/2023 12:22 am
    So...

    Continuing my train of thought here, and my earlier posts about VHR and whether there was ever a study done about the need for VHR, I still think that there could have been a study done on VHR. It seems like it just makes sense: if you are studying a very high resolution reconnaissance satellite in terms of technology, orbits, etc., then an obvious question to ask is what it can do. And the related question to that is what is the value of doing that?

    Allen may be right that there was no requirement/demand for VHR. But that does not mean that nobody studied what could be done with that kind of quality imagery.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/19/2023 09:35 am
    I looked at Lt. General Lew Allen's notes leading into this again:

    Robert Perry “Recce Satellite R&D: Capabilities in Readout, Crisis Reconnaissance and Very High Resolution"

    Very interesting. 

    It is, and bears many rereadings. Leaves me wanting to read more of his writing in fact.

    One thing I wondered is when it was written ? As far as I can tell it is after the final EOI decision but well before the debut of the KH-11. In this respect it's interesting to that he even compares the KH-11 to the SST (cancelled in spring 1971) at one point, as something that may also not really be needed. 

    What are also interesting to me is i) the way he talks about manned spaceflight:
    Quote
    many felt it was essential that DOD have some kind of man in space effort if the national commitment to Apollo was really going to generate a new era of manned spaceflight.
    which is  particularly intriguing comment if made around the time of the Shuttle decisions, and ii) the bald statement that
    Quote
    the DORIAN camera specifications were actually optimised to make maximum use of man's contribution and  were substantially off-optimum for an unmanned application (e.g. focal length too long).
    Is it known in detail what is he getting at with the latter comment ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/19/2023 12:11 pm
    So...

    Continuing my train of thought here, and my earlier posts about VHR and whether there was ever a study done about the need for VHR, I still think that there could have been a study done on VHR. It seems like it just makes sense: if you are studying a very high resolution reconnaissance satellite in terms of technology, orbits, etc., then an obvious question to ask is what it can do. And the related question to that is what is the value of doing that?

    Allen may be right that there was no requirement/demand for VHR. But that does not mean that nobody studied what could be done with that kind of quality imagery.
    The attached pages from a 1969 proposal for a study on "(...) the effect of photographic ground resolution on photointerpretation" briefly address the difficulty in quantifying the "dollar value" of intelligence.

    The biggest challenge might have been to assign a strategic (rather than pure tactical) value to VHR.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/19/2023 12:55 pm
    and ii) the bald statement that
    Quote
    the DORIAN camera specifications were actually optimised to make maximum use of man's contribution and  were substantially off-optimum for an unmanned application (e.g. focal length too long).
    Is it known in detail what is he getting at with the latter comment ?

    It's not known, but I can guess.

    This goes back to the crux of the issue of VHR--why do you need it? (Specifically, why did anybody in the late 1960s think that they needed it at that time? We can posit that maybe decades later there emerged reasons why it was needed.)

    My guess is that what he is saying is that when they decided on that powerful camera (long focal length), it resulted in such a small viewing area and precise pointing requirements that only a human could effectively point the camera. We can guess that there were probably several reasons for that, including the fact that the precision of the spacecraft orbit and the precision of the geolocation of targets on the ground were not sufficient for any of that to be done automatically. So you really needed a human to do all of that and the system was optimized to have humans running the system in real time--telling the computer exactly what to do in real time. An automated system could not do it that precisely. And Gen. Allen may have been implying that the cost of trying to get the automated system to be capable of that was very expensive.

    I think we have to think out the automated/unmanned MOL carefully. It was not simply a bunch of return vehicles and then a system for turning the camera on and off and pointing it at pre-set targets (like GAMBIT). It probably entailed a lot more sophistication in terms of high-precision determination of both the satellite's orbit and attitude, and information about the precise location of targets on the Earth. That probably required more computer processing power and other stuff like measuring the shape of the Earth and its gravity field and putting that all into the computer models that directed the camera operations. Those details are not revealed in the documents that have been released.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/19/2023 03:28 pm
    The attached pages from a 1969 proposal for a study on "(...) the effect of photographic ground resolution on photointerpretation" briefly address the difficulty in quantifying the "dollar value" of intelligence.

    The biggest challenge might have been to assign a strategic (rather than pure tactical) value to VHR.

    Another good find. It also strikes me that this is the kind of thing they should have revisited periodically, because technology would have changed on the ground processing side, affecting what the satellites could deliver. For instance, 1-foot ground resolution in 1970 might have been necessary, but maybe a new system on the ground that provided image enhancement might have made it possible to get the same results with 2-foot resolution. There was certainly a major push for developing better processing systems that could do things like change analysis. I suspect that much of that was only incrementally useful until recent decades when massive computer power made it possible. Today it would not surprise me if a lot of the initial analysis is done by a computer, so an imaging satellite takes an image and a computer on the ground compares it to previous images of the same location and determines if there has been any real change. If not, the image is classified as lower priority.

    Certainly the advent of near-real-time imaging with the KENNEN probably forced a lot of reexamination of imagery interpretation. It was no longer simply resolution, it was how quickly you got it. Was 2-foot resolution "better" than 1-foot resolution if you got it in 30 minutes compared to 2 days?

    One person who did know some of this stuff told me that GAMBIT and HEXAGON were still producing unique and better quality imagery into the 1980s. KENNEN was fast, but it wasn't as good, at least for certain applications.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: edzieba on 02/19/2023 03:51 pm
    Quote
    the DORIAN camera specifications were actually optimised to make maximum use of man's contribution and  were substantially off-optimum for an unmanned application (e.g. focal length too long).
    Is it known in detail what is he getting at with the latter comment ?
    Probably down to image circle: the human retina has cells packed only so close together in the fovea, so that puts an absolute maximum limit on effective lines/mm at the focal plane, as well as an absolute limit on image plane size (due to eyeball motion, this is more defined by the eye entrance pupil/optics exit pupil interaction, but for all intents and purposes has a maximum limit). If you want a higher ground resolution then you must reduce angle of view (increase focal length) to achieve it.
    With film on the other hand, as long as you are capable of manufacturing the optics of sufficient size at sufficient optical quality (and do not run into limitations like the f/0.5 limit or optical element intersection) then you can fix focal plane lines/mm and magnification (and thus image plane resolution, which ideally would be the 6cm seeing limit) at your desired fidelity, and increase the image plane size (film strip width, or film square size) to achieve a wider coverage area at the same fidelity.
    On top of that, film grain density can be higher than rod & cone density in the foveal region of the retina, again meaning that a shorter focal length for film-based camera will result in the same angular resolution as a human-viewed telescope, with the potential for a larger imaged area.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/19/2023 03:54 pm
    Meanwhile, I was interested to see four inches resolution quoted for DORIAN in the long and very detailed mapping camera history that I know was talked about here last year: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/061422/F-2022-00041_C05099307.pdf  (page i-9, see grab below)

    Was that figure public anywhere else ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/19/2023 03:56 pm
    Meanwhile, I was interested to see four inches resolution quoted for DORIAN in the long and very detailed mapping camera history that I know was talked about here last year: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/061422/F-2022-00041_C05099307.pdf  (page i-9, see grab below)

    Was that figure public anywhere else ?

    Ooh, that's a great find. I've told the story about how I found out about the resolution goal back in the 1990s. A guy told me a story...

    I may have that interview on cassette tape. I have a bunch of cassette interviews that I really should get converted to MP3 files and then transcribed.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/20/2023 05:40 pm
    Meanwhile, I was interested to see four inches resolution quoted for DORIAN in the long and very detailed mapping camera history that I know was talked about here last year: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/061422/F-2022-00041_C05099307.pdf  (page i-9, see grab below)

    Was that figure public anywhere else ?

    Ooh, that's a great find. I've told the story about how I found out about the resolution goal back in the 1990s. A guy told me a story...


    This story ?

    Quote
    According to a recently declassified memo concerning the visit [to NPIC] written by Major General James T. Stewart, Vice Director of the MOL program, [Hubert] Humphrey arrived about 45 minutes late for the visit. The initial briefing, held in a secure room at NPIC, involved Stewart telling Humphrey about the increasingly expensive and controversial program. According to a former NPIC photo-interpreter who was present for the briefing, at one point during the meeting Dick Helms, who had not spoken at all, wrote a note on a piece of paper, folded it, and slipped it in front of Humphrey, who glanced at it but did not say anything. After the briefing was over and the senior officials left the room, the photo-interpreter lingered behind and grabbed the piece of paper. On it, Helms had written “Why four inches?”

    From your piece at https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3490/1

     
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/20/2023 08:53 pm
    The attached pages from a 1969 proposal for a study on "(...) the effect of photographic ground resolution on photointerpretation" briefly address the difficulty in quantifying the "dollar value" of intelligence.

    The biggest challenge might have been to assign a strategic (rather than pure tactical) value to VHR.

    Another good find. It also strikes me that this is the kind of thing they should have revisited periodically, because technology would have changed on the ground processing side, affecting what the satellites could deliver. For instance, 1-foot ground resolution in 1970 might have been necessary, but maybe a new system on the ground that provided image enhancement might have made it possible to get the same results with 2-foot resolution. There was certainly a major push for developing better processing systems that could do things like change analysis. I suspect that much of that was only incrementally useful until recent decades when massive computer power made it possible. Today it would not surprise me if a lot of the initial analysis is done by a computer, so an imaging satellite takes an image and a computer on the ground compares it to previous images of the same location and determines if there has been any real change. If not, the image is classified as lower priority.
    <snip>
    The "Final report" of the study, which had Autometric/Raytheon as one of the sponsors, and which is dated July 1970, describes that they obtained aerial overflight images of Aberdeen Proving Ground and artillery museum, and of Ft. Meade at 1.5" resolution. The negatives were processed by Eastman Kodak to create sets of images at a range of degraded resolutions, and then handed to "experienced photo-interpreters".  The outcome of the PI analysis, though, seems to be subject of yet another report - security compartmentalization in action  >:(

    https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79B00873A001600040034-7.pdf (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79B00873A001600040034-7.pdf)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/20/2023 09:28 pm
    Attached are the (initial?) overflight request at 500' altitude for Aberdeen, with the NPIC reference NPIC/7SSG/RED-1774-69, and a criticism of the study on PI performance, with reference to NPIC Memorandum NPIC/TSG/RED-45/71

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/20/2023 09:52 pm
    This story ?

    Quote
    According to a recently declassified memo concerning the visit [to NPIC] written by Major General James T. Stewart, Vice Director of the MOL program, [Hubert] Humphrey arrived about 45 minutes late for the visit. The initial briefing, held in a secure room at NPIC, involved Stewart telling Humphrey about the increasingly expensive and controversial program. According to a former NPIC photo-interpreter who was present for the briefing, at one point during the meeting Dick Helms, who had not spoken at all, wrote a note on a piece of paper, folded it, and slipped it in front of Humphrey, who glanced at it but did not say anything. After the briefing was over and the senior officials left the room, the photo-interpreter lingered behind and grabbed the piece of paper. On it, Helms had written “Why four inches?”

    From your piece at https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3490/1


    Yeah. I'm trying to remember the name of the guy who told me the story. But I loved the fact that he told me that around 1997 or so and then two decades later I discovered a document that confirmed the basics of his story.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/21/2023 01:43 pm
    The "Final report" of the study, which had Autometric/Raytheon as one of the sponsors, and which is dated July 1970, describes that they obtained aerial overflight images of Aberdeen Proving Ground and artillery museum, and of Ft. Meade at 1.5" resolution. The negatives were processed by Eastman Kodak to create sets of images at a range of degraded resolutions, and then handed to "experienced photo-interpreters".  The outcome of the PI analysis, though, seems to be subject of yet another report - security compartmentalization in action  >:(

    So that's interesting, but raises some questions. First, an aside: the 1963 study did essentially the same thing. (Was that the Drell Panel? It was either the Drell Panel or the Purcell Panel. I'm too lazy to look that up at the moment.) That's what led them to the conclusion that they needed a system with CORONA area coverage and GAMBIT resolution, and I think at that time GAMBIT resolution was 2-3 feet.

    But why in 1970 did they start with 1.5 feet? Why not start with something higher, like 6 inches, and then work down from there? After all, they were already close to 1.5 feet, and they were discussing systems that could do better than that. This seems like they framed the question of "Assume you have the capability of the system planned for 1973. What can you do with it?"

    In other words, the parameters of the study seem like they were trying to justify the planned capabilities of GAMBIT, rather than asking if something better was required.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: edzieba on 02/21/2023 05:06 pm
    The "Final report" of the study, which had Autometric/Raytheon as one of the sponsors, and which is dated July 1970, describes that they obtained aerial overflight images of Aberdeen Proving Ground and artillery museum, and of Ft. Meade at 1.5" resolution. The negatives were processed by Eastman Kodak to create sets of images at a range of degraded resolutions, and then handed to "experienced photo-interpreters".  The outcome of the PI analysis, though, seems to be subject of yet another report - security compartmentalization in action  >:(

    So that's interesting, but raises some questions. First, an aside: the 1963 study did essentially the same thing. (Was that the Drell Panel? It was either the Drell Panel or the Purcell Panel. I'm too lazy to look that up at the moment.) That's what led them to the conclusion that they needed a system with CORONA area coverage and GAMBIT resolution, and I think at that time GAMBIT resolution was 2-3 feet.

    But why in 1970 did they start with 1.5 feet? Why not start with something higher, like 6 inches, and then work down from there? After all, they were already close to 1.5 feet, and they were discussing systems that could do better than that. This seems like they framed the question of "Assume you have the capability of the system planned for 1973. What can you do with it?"

    In other words, the parameters of the study seem like they were trying to justify the planned capabilities of GAMBIT, rather than asking if something better was required.
    It could have been meant to study what level of degradation could be applied to existing imagery to obscure full capability, whilst it still remaining useful. That was only a year before the debate on how to more widely utilise satellite imagery (e.g. the "bring more people into TALENT-KEYHOLE"/"move some images out of TALENT-KEYHOLE"/"declassify images within TALENT-KEYHOLE" question studied by COMIREX https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/Archive/NARP/1971%20NARPs/SC-2021-00001_C05134214.pdf).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 02/21/2023 07:06 pm
    The "Final report" of the study, which had Autometric/Raytheon as one of the sponsors, and which is dated July 1970, describes that they obtained aerial overflight images of Aberdeen Proving Ground and artillery museum, and of Ft. Meade at 1.5" resolution.
    <snip>
    <snip>
    But why in 1970 did they start with 1.5 feet?
    <snip>
    Starting ground resolution was 1.5 inch (''), not feet (')      ;)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 02/21/2023 07:26 pm
    The "Final report" of the study, which had Autometric/Raytheon as one of the sponsors, and which is dated July 1970, describes that they obtained aerial overflight images of Aberdeen Proving Ground and artillery museum, and of Ft. Meade at 1.5" resolution.
    <snip>
    <snip>
    But why in 1970 did they start with 1.5 feet?
    <snip>
    Starting ground resolution was 1.5 inch (''), not feet (')      ;)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyh1Va_mYWI
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 02/22/2023 03:44 am
    The "Final report" of the study, which had Autometric/Raytheon as one of the sponsors, and which is dated July 1970, describes that they obtained aerial overflight images of Aberdeen Proving Ground and artillery museum, and of Ft. Meade at 1.5" resolution.
    <snip>
    <snip>
    But why in 1970 did they start with 1.5 feet?
    <snip>
    Starting ground resolution was 1.5 inch (''), not feet (')      ;)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyh1Va_mYWI

    Touché.

    In my defense, I did a little too much LDS in the 60s.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 05/05/2023 07:07 am
    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3049/1

    Through the looking glass
    by Dwayne Day
    Monday, August 22, 2016

    The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) was expensive, especially for a military space program that was already expanding rapidly in the 1960s while the Vietnam War was ramping up. Although nowhere near as pricey as Apollo, MOL was still a substantial expenditure, involving the procurement of a major optical system, human spaceflight systems—including Gemini spacecraft—and new large rockets to boost MOL into orbit. By the time it was canceled in summer 1969, MOL’s price tag had doubled to more than $3 billion, and its schedule had repeatedly slipped.

    When it was canceled, program officials sought out potential customers of the MOL hardware that had already been built. MOL officials within the secret National Reconnaissance Office that was responsible for it made inquiries to NASA offering their hardware and large optics technology, trying to make lemonade out of the lemons of the cancellation decision. Among the most expensive and unique pieces of MOL hardware were more than half a dozen large mirrors that were a key component in MOL’s large KH-10 DORIAN camera system.
    A less-redacted version of the memo on "Project COLT" to NRO Director John McLucas from Jan 1971 has been released. It now reveals two additional motivations for giving 6 of the 72 inch blanks to UA (Meinel). The previous redactions, though, were hiding quite obvious facts:

    a. A study and test model synthetic aperture device in the 8-13 micron region

    c. The synthetic aperture concept has the potential for large optics at significantly reduced weight over conventional fabrication techniques. 

    It is interesting that "similar work" was going on at that time, but the codename and name of the study lead are still redacted. A related release concerns a media request on the "Segmented Mirror Telescope", which NRO had donated to the Naval Postgraduate School" in 2010, and potential technology heritage in JWST.

    They also released a couple of docs on SAMOS E-2 and E-5, and a few early ELINT related docs (Projects CANIS, TANGIBLE, ROPEVAL):

    https://www.nro.gov/FOIA/FOIA-For-All-Other-Public-Releases/FOIA-For-All-Releases-FY23/ (https://www.nro.gov/FOIA/FOIA-For-All-Other-Public-Releases/FOIA-For-All-Releases-FY23/)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 05/05/2023 03:46 pm

    They also released a couple of docs on SAMOS E-2 and E-5, and a few early ELINT related docs (Projects CANIS, TANGIBLE, ROPEVAL):


    The E-2 and E-5 docs are in the form of short slide presentations (about 3 pages each) summarizing those programs. They're nice concise overviews, but there's no new information in them. I think that for E-5 the only thing we don't have that we really need are good photos of the spacecraft and the camera system (preferably the camera inside the spacecraft). Considering that we've never seen anything like that even badly reproduced in the histories, I have to reluctantly conclude that photos do not exist. I find that really hard to believe--nobody took photos of the spacecraft, not even contractor closeout photos? But we got nothing.

    CANES is interesting. An electronic detection package on TRANSIT navigation satellites circa 1960. Did we know about this before? The name seems familiar, but my brain is making windy echo sounds when I try to remember this.

    TANGIBLE and ROPEVAL were early 1970s exercises using SIGINT satellites (mainly STRAWMAN) to detect ships at sea. I have a draft article on STRAWMAN that goes into these and a dozen other similar efforts. They started by practicing against US Navy ships, but quickly pivoted to trying to track Soviet vessels. POPPY was also doing something similar, and I have not totally figured out the differences.

    Thanks for the update. More rambling comments by me will follow.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 05/05/2023 04:07 pm

    c. The synthetic aperture concept has the potential for large optics at significantly reduced weight over conventional fabrication techniques. 


    And yet they ultimately did not go that route, as far as we know. The FIA optics used a 2.4 meter diameter mirror and was considerably lighter than previous optics. That reminds me that we have those data points and we need to plot them:

    -mirror diameter/mass for GAMBIT-3
    -mirror diameter/mass for DORIAN
    -mirror diameter/mass for Advanced GAMBIT-3
    -mirror diameter/mass for KH-11 (I don't think we have this mass figure)
    -mirror diameter/mass for Hubble
    -mirror diameter/mass for FIA

    There was a substantial mass reduction from GAMBIT-3 to FIA. All I can guess is that it was sufficient to meet their requirements and they did not go the synthetic aperture route. (Some caveats apply.)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 05/05/2023 05:14 pm

    c. The synthetic aperture concept has the potential for large optics at significantly reduced weight over conventional fabrication techniques. 


    And yet they ultimately did not go that route, as far as we know.
    Precise wavefront control and maintenance of the "phasing" of the segments requires an active control loop (sensor + data analysis + actuators). Probably not worth the effort in LEO. From GEO on the other hand...

    Quote
    The FIA optics used a 2.4 meter diameter mirror and was considerably lighter than previous optics. That reminds me that we have those data points and we need to plot them:

    -mirror diameter/mass for GAMBIT-3
    -mirror diameter/mass for DORIAN
    -mirror diameter/mass for Advanced GAMBIT-3
    -mirror diameter/mass for KH-11 (I don't think we have this mass figure)
    -mirror diameter/mass for Hubble
    -mirror diameter/mass for FIA

    There was a substantial mass reduction from GAMBIT-3 to FIA. All I can guess is that it was sufficient to meet their requirements and they did not go the synthetic aperture route. (Some caveats apply.)
    Palomar 200": 627 kg/m^2 (12 700 kg total mass)
    KH-10 (MMT): 207 kg/m^2 (544 kg total mass)
    Hubble Space Telescope: 181 kg/m^2 (818 kg total mass)
    Roman Space Telescope (FIA): 41 kg/m^2 (186 kg total mass)
    James Webb Space Telescope: 21 kg/m^2 (705 kg total mass for PMSA segments + support structure)
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2347340#msg2347340 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2347340#msg2347340)

    Based on the small difference between KH-10 and Hubble, I would guess that early KH-11 mirror diameter/mass ratios were in the same ballpark. Later blocks probably moved closer to the ratios for Roman (FIA?). Do you have the (Advanced) GAMBIT-3 numbers at hand?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 05/05/2023 06:14 pm

    Palomar 200": 627 kg/m^2 (12 700 kg total mass)
    KH-10 (MMT): 207 kg/m^2 (544 kg total mass)
    Hubble Space Telescope: 181 kg/m^2 (818 kg total mass)
    Roman Space Telescope (FIA): 41 kg/m^2 (186 kg total mass)
    James Webb Space Telescope: 21 kg/m^2 (705 kg total mass for PMSA segments + support structure)
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2347340#msg2347340 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2347340#msg2347340)

    Based on the small difference between KH-10 and Hubble, I would guess that early KH-11 mirror diameter/mass ratios were in the same ballpark. Later blocks probably moved closer to the ratios for Roman (FIA?). Do you have the (Advanced) GAMBIT-3 numbers at hand?

    Those are great. We need to plot them out on a graph, but just going from the KH-10 to the FIA shows an incredible mass reduction.

    AG3 is here:

    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4426/1

    Note that "9x5" refers to the GAMBIT-3 version then in use.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 05/05/2023 06:39 pm
    I might post this in the CORONA thread, but it's an interesting little document in the latest release. Essentially it is an overview about what was going on with CORONA and HEXAGON and related things in July 1970. (A quick skim did not indicate anything about GAMBIT.)

    Note that it gives the time and date for recovery of a CORONA SRV (I cannot read the time), and then indicates when the forward facing film was processed--about two days later. So that provides a baseline of how long it could take from recovery to processing. You'd have to add more hours on the front and back of that if you want to figure out how long it would take from taking the photo to getting it on somebody's desk in Washington.

    Note also the mention of how they immediately started analyzing the film in order to make adjustments to the satellite in orbit to improve the quality of the next photos. I always assumed they did this, but I don't remember seeing it spelled out.

    This is report #51, meaning that there were 50 others before this one, and who knows how many after it.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 05/06/2023 12:07 am

    Palomar 200": 627 kg/m^2 (12 700 kg total mass)
    KH-10 (MMT): 207 kg/m^2 (544 kg total mass)
    Hubble Space Telescope: 181 kg/m^2 (818 kg total mass)
    Roman Space Telescope (FIA): 41 kg/m^2 (186 kg total mass)
    James Webb Space Telescope: 21 kg/m^2 (705 kg total mass for PMSA segments + support structure)
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2347340#msg2347340 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2347340#msg2347340)

    Based on the small difference between KH-10 and Hubble, I would guess that early KH-11 mirror diameter/mass ratios were in the same ballpark. Later blocks probably moved closer to the ratios for Roman (FIA?). Do you have the (Advanced) GAMBIT-3 numbers at hand?

    Those are great. We need to plot them out on a graph, but just going from the KH-10 to the FIA shows an incredible mass reduction.

    AG3 is here:

    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4426/1

    Note that "9x5" refers to the GAMBIT-3 version then in use.
    Thanks. "The Gambit Story" lists the weight of the G-3 primary as 374.7 lb,  i.e. around 170 kg. For a 43.5 inch diameter this results in 177 kg/m^2, thus about the same as for KH-10 and HST. The G-3 mirror was probably somewhat thinner than the larger diameter KH-10 and HST mirrors.

    Edit: for G-3 the quoted weight is for the "mounted mirror", thus this might include the mass of the mirror mount? Maybe the numbers in the other table are for the pure glass? 260 lb would correspond to 123 kg/m^2, which seems surprisingly low?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 05/06/2023 12:15 am

    It is interesting that "similar work" was going on at that time, but the codename and name of the study lead are still redacted. A related release concerns a media request on the "Segmented Mirror Telescope", which NRO had donated to the Naval Postgraduate School" in 2010, and potential technology heritage in JWST.


    I missed this part. I don't think it was previously public that the Segmented Mirror Telescope was donated by NRO to the NPS, was it? I thought that the official story was that the SMT was developed as part of a missile defense project. I always assumed NRO was behind it in some way, but the program itself was not classified. Another rabbit hole for me to jump down...
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 05/06/2023 11:25 am

    It is interesting that "similar work" was going on at that time, but the codename and name of the study lead are still redacted. A related release concerns a media request on the "Segmented Mirror Telescope", which NRO had donated to the Naval Postgraduate School" in 2010, and potential technology heritage in JWST.


    I missed this part. I don't think it was previously public that the Segmented Mirror Telescope was donated by NRO to the NPS, was it? I thought that the official story was that the SMT was developed as part of a missile defense project. I always assumed NRO was behind it in some way, but the program itself was not classified. Another rabbit hole for me to jump down...
    They were quite open about SMT's origin and the transfer in late 2009/early 2010. In the video segment (2nd link) it is mentioned that the motivation for the project was to develop imaging satellites for a "higher orbit", and that the project was apparently completed/terminated around 2005 (they mention that it took NPS 4 yrs to get the transfer arranged):
    https://nps.edu/-/nps-new-home-for-giant-segmented-mirror-space-telescope#:~:text=The%20Naval%20Postgraduate%20School%20is,cutting%2Dedge%20space%20imaging%20technologies. (https://nps.edu/-/nps-new-home-for-giant-segmented-mirror-space-telescope#:~:text=The%20Naval%20Postgraduate%20School%20is,cutting%2Dedge%20space%20imaging%20technologies.)
    https://nps.edu/web/nps-video-portal/-/tlvkyrctgkrkqy6sgbw-dkxny-wnqwr (https://nps.edu/web/nps-video-portal/-/tlvkyrctgkrkqy6sgbw-dkxny-wnqwr)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 05/06/2023 12:06 pm
    The one I am thinking about was on the cover of Aviation Week in 1987. Came out of the SDI program. I am not at my office right now, but I have a big file on it. Just cannot remember the name.


    Update: just found the AWST cover from 1987. SDI Litton Itek Large Adaptive Mirror.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 05/06/2023 12:20 pm
    The one I am thinking about was on the cover of Aviation Week in the early 1990s. Came out of the SDI program. I am not at my office right now, but I have a big file on it. Just cannot remember the name.
    HALO?

    Corning Museum of Glass has quite a collection of (space) mirror blanks. There is a "Hexagon-shaped Lightweight Mirror Blank" from the 1960s, and a "Hexagon-shaped Section of a Large ULE mirror" from 1996. They also have a 2.5m times 1.7m "Segment of HALO Aspherical Mirror with Actuators".

    I wasn't aware that actual hardware had been fabricated for the High Altitude Large Optics (HALO) telescope.

    https://www.cmog.org/artwork/hexagon-shaped-lightweight-mirror-blank (https://www.cmog.org/artwork/hexagon-shaped-lightweight-mirror-blank)
    https://www.cmog.org/artwork/hexagon-shaped-section-large-ule-tm-mirror-blank (https://www.cmog.org/artwork/hexagon-shaped-section-large-ule-tm-mirror-blank)
    https://www.cmog.org/artwork/segment-halo-aspherical-mirror-actuators (https://www.cmog.org/artwork/segment-halo-aspherical-mirror-actuators)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 05/08/2023 02:24 pm

    They also released a couple of docs on SAMOS E-2 and E-5, and a few early ELINT related docs (Projects CANIS, TANGIBLE, ROPEVAL):




    CANES is interesting. An electronic detection package on TRANSIT navigation satellites circa 1960. Did we know about this before? The name seems familiar, but my brain is making windy echo sounds when I try to remember this.

    Thanks for the update.

    And thanks from me. I couldn't remember it either but it is in the place where I thought it might be, the massive Program C  history https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/U.S.%20Navy-NRO%20Program%20C%20Electronic%20Intelligence%20Satellites%20(1958-1977).pdf
    declassified in 2012, see below

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 05/08/2023 03:13 pm
    And thanks from me. I couldn't remember it either but it is in the place where I thought it might be, the massive Program C  history https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/U.S.%20Navy-NRO%20Program%20C%20Electronic%20Intelligence%20Satellites%20(1958-1977).pdf
    declassified in 2012, see below


    I'll have to look at this more closely. My quick skim of the FOIA documents indicated that CANES was something that would be added on to Transit. However, Tattletale became GRAB, right? But this history indicates that CANES was going to replace Tattletale. Untying this knot might be difficult.

    I've mostly avoided going too deep into the GRAB/GREB/DYNO and then POPPY history because the few times I waded into it years ago, the source material was very confusing. Partly that was due to continued classification, but there were also confusing histories. And it just wasn't clear what was being upgraded on the systems over time and how they were gaining capabilities (also partly due to the classification--when they delete all the frequency ranges, it's impossible to say that it changed from frequency X to frequency Y, only that some kind of change occurred).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 05/08/2023 03:21 pm
    And thanks from me. I couldn't remember it either but it is in the place where I thought it might be, the massive Program C  history https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/U.S.%20Navy-NRO%20Program%20C%20Electronic%20Intelligence%20Satellites%20(1958-1977).pdf
    declassified in 2012, see below


    I'll have to look at this more closely. My quick skim of the FOIA documents indicated that CANES was something that would be added on to Transit. However, Tattletale became GRAB, right? But this history indicates that CANES was going to replace Tattletale. Untying this knot might be difficult.


    That's what I thought but phrase "Transit pickaback launch of two units" might actually mean with Transit not on Transit ?

    Quote

    I've mostly avoided going too deep into the GRAB/GREB/DYNO and then POPPY history because the few times I waded into it years ago, the source material was very confusing. Partly that was due to continued classification, but there were also confusing histories. And it just wasn't clear what was being upgraded on the systems over time and how they were gaining capabilities (also partly due to the classification--when they delete all the frequency ranges, it's impossible to say that it changed from frequency X to frequency Y, only that some kind of change occurred).

    I find the NRL/Program C story quite complicated too.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 05/08/2023 08:31 pm
    That's what I thought but phrase "Transit pickaback launch of two units" might actually mean with Transit not on Transit ?

    You're right. Here is GRAB 1 with Transit 2A.

    So CANES was another name for GRAB. But what did the name difference mean? I'm guessing that the overall program name changed from Tattletale to CANES and then to DYNO, but the specific satellite was referred to as GRAB (sometimes GREB). But sheesh, this stuff gets confusing really fast.

    (I realize this is not part of MOL, but we don't have another thread specifically on this subject. We could probably shift it over to the SIGINT thread.)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 05/09/2023 11:26 am

    (I realize this is not part of MOL, but we don't have another thread specifically on this subject. We could probably shift it over to the SIGINT thread.)

    Fine with me
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/16/2023 01:48 pm
    What is the best source or sources on the changes between the Gemini B and the NASA Gemini?

    Doing some research and need to understand this better.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Michel Van on 06/17/2023 10:36 pm
    What is the best source or sources on the changes between the Gemini B and the NASA Gemini?

    Doing some research and need to understand this better.

    Gemini: Steps to the Moon by david j. Shayler
    it has few pages on Gemini B info.

    The NRO web page with pdf on MOL program has some info about Gemini B.


    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/25/2023 01:42 am
    Is there an overall MOL chronology somewhere? I looked in the official MOL history and did not find anything. There is a MOL chronology document, but it only covers the launch plans, not the overall program.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: leovinus on 06/25/2023 03:25 am
    Is there an overall MOL chronology somewhere? I looked in the official MOL history and did not find anything. There is a MOL chronology document, but it only covers the launch plans, not the overall program.
    Not sure. There are the general accounts like in "A Military Man in Space" and "Struggling towards space doctrine". Looking at NASA's "Astronautics and Aeronautics" publications from 1963 to 1970, it almost looks like you could compile the MOL chronology from those, see screenshot for a one page example.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 06/25/2023 08:20 am
    Is there an overall MOL chronology somewhere? I looked in the official MOL history and did not find anything. There is a MOL chronology document, but it only covers the launch plans, not the overall program.
    Not sure. There are the general accounts like in "A Military Man in Space" and "Struggling towards space doctrine". Looking at NASA's "Astronautics and Aeronautics" publications from 1963 to 1970, it almost looks like you could compile the MOL chronology from those, see screenshot for a one page example.

    A v good question-and one we've touched on upthread, probably a couple of years ago already. Not sure what @blackstar means by the official history but if it's the ~1970 Berger history  that was reprinted as part of the Dorian  Files revisited pdf then I remember it being a useful way to determine what happened when but not a true chronology. The formating introduced when it was reprinted was quite helpful imho, it's possible the NRO historians found the story almost as difficult as we do ...

    I think part of the problem is that what we want is a reliable chronology of the open MOL *and* covert DORIAN, and as you say @leovinus the former may exist in things like the NASA chronolgy you posted while the best thing to piece the latter from might be the monthly DORIAN reports in the 2015 release.

    The other part of the problem imho is the loose ends at the beginning and end. The latter may well be hard to follow for quite a while yet because it seems likely that the knowledge gained from developing target sequencing algorithms could have contributed to how the KH-11 worked, for example   [Edit: I see that some guy has pointed this out here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2443227#msg2443227 ]. The former seems intrinsically messy, as it is tied to the broader  story of how tighter civilian control was established over the white USAF's space programme, the creation of the NRO, the early role of Aerospace as honest broker etc etc. These are not entirely unstudied topics, but equally they are ones where I suspect there are surprises, and of course they link to a much broader historical topic: "US military and national security space 1956-63", say.

    The one thing that really did help me was the set of briefing slides done for an incoming DNRO, possibly Flax [Edit: actually later, McLucas, just before cancellation], that had a chronological stovepipe diagram, running left to right. Here's the link https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2438573#msg2438573 to my old post on this, see grabs below: 
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/25/2023 12:04 pm
    Those help. The NRO compiled other program chronologies and we have them (it would probably be a neat idea to post a bunch of them to a single thread). For instance, I think we have both FULCRUM and HEXAGON development program histories up to some point. I think there is also a Samos one.

    And by chronology, I mean a list of key events. I'm working on something where I cannot write the whole history, but want to touch on the key events that happened over several years. And I'd rather not have to plow through the entire Berger history to extract the key events.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 06/25/2023 12:22 pm
    Those help. The NRO compiled other program chronologies and we have them (it would probably be a neat idea to post a bunch of them to a single thread). For instance, I think we have both FULCRUM and HEXAGON development program histories up to some point. I think there is also a Samos one.
    Nice idea.

    Quote
    And by chronology, I mean a list of key events. I'm working on something where I cannot write the whole history, but want to touch on the key events that happened over several years. And I'd rather not have to plow through the entire Berger history to extract the key events.

    I do understand what you mean by chronology, and have found doing a home made one v useful for a project that I am much more focused on-I may well include it as an appendix when that finally gets finished. However MOL doesn't interest me as much as the mid-late 60s and evolution of DSP/RH/CANYON etc, so I am not volunteering ;-)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/25/2023 05:18 pm
    I do understand what you mean by chronology, and have found doing a home made one v useful for a project that I am much more focused on-I may well include it as an appendix when that finally gets finished. However MOL doesn't interest me

    I am trying to control how much time and effort I put into this project. Assembling my own chronology is within my abilities, but would take more time and effort than I want to devote to it.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 06/25/2023 05:21 pm
    I do understand what you mean by chronology, and have found doing a home made one v useful for a project that I am much more focused on-I may well include it as an appendix when that finally gets finished. However MOL doesn't interest me

    I am trying to control how much time and effort I put into this project. Assembling my own chronology is within my abilities, but would take more time and effort than I want to devote to it.

    Sure, I wasn't trying to volunteer you either-just flagging that afaik you are right and this chronology has not even been gathered together by NRO, or Aerospace for example.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/25/2023 06:36 pm
    I do understand what you mean by chronology, and have found doing a home made one v useful for a project that I am much more focused on-I may well include it as an appendix when that finally gets finished. However MOL doesn't interest me

    I am trying to control how much time and effort I put into this project. Assembling my own chronology is within my abilities, but would take more time and effort than I want to devote to it.

    Sure, I wasn't trying to volunteer you either-just flagging that afaik you are right and this chronology has not even been gathered together by NRO, or Aerospace for example.

    Understood. The project I'm working on re MOL is already taking up a bunch of time simply writing it. A chronology would be a time-saver.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Lunarmodule15 on 06/26/2023 06:09 am
    (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/23864.0/2193699.jpg)

    Can't help thinking about South Park legendary " underpants gnomes" profit scheme here.  https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes

    "USAF wants manned space flight, post DynaSoar " - "needs a mission" - "tries many missions" - "NRO" =  "SOLUTION"
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 06/26/2023 07:09 am

    Can't help thinking about South Park legendary " underpants gnomes" profit scheme here.  https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes

    "USAF wants manned space flight, post DynaSoar " - "needs a mission" - "tries many missions" - "NRO" =  "SOLUTION"

    Pretty much how Lew Allen summarised it in 1974 (though refs to underpants were evidently redacted ...). One interesting q is what the upper and lower divisions on LHS of sequence are, I'd say open AF and covert NRO.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/26/2023 11:12 am
    So here's a short version of the FULCRUM chronology.

    MOL was a lot longer lived and more complex, so any MOL chronology would properly be much much longer.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/26/2023 11:19 am
    I cannot find it with a quick look. Is there a good short overview of the DORIAN camera system, including its focal length?

    I'll explain what I'm doing a little later.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/26/2023 11:22 am
    Can't help thinking about South Park legendary " underpants gnomes" profit scheme here.  https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes


    Do you know how many space plans share that characteristic?

    For example: "Build cheap rockets"--->And then a miracle occurs--->Mars colony!
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 06/26/2023 12:40 pm
    I cannot find it with a quick look. Is there a good short overview of the DORIAN camera system, including its focal length?

    I'll explain what I'm doing a little later.
    My eye-balling estimate of the Effective Focal length of the primary mirror is 490 inch (12.45m) and f/7 - see
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2444207#msg2444207 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2444207#msg2444207)
    (assuming that the drawings are to scale, and not distorted in horizontal or vertical direction).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Jim on 06/26/2023 02:22 pm

    I do understand what you mean by chronology, and have found doing a home made one v useful for a project that I am much more focused on-I may well include it as an appendix when that finally gets finished. However MOL doesn't interest me as much as the mid-late 60s and evolution of DSP/RH/CANYON etc, so I am not volunteering ;-)

    Question.   How is DSP related to RH/CANYON?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 06/26/2023 04:14 pm

    I do understand what you mean by chronology, and have found doing a home made one v useful for a project that I am much more focused on-I may well include it as an appendix when that finally gets finished. However MOL doesn't interest me as much as the mid-late 60s and evolution of DSP/RH/CANYON etc, so I am not volunteering ;-)

    Question.   How is DSP related to RH/CANYON?

    Sorry Jim, you are right to pull me up short ... I meant evolution of DSP AND RH AND CANYON. It's  of course well known now they aren't  closely related, and of course may well have not had a lot in common, except a common contractor for two of them.

    I happen to be interested in that moment, when GEO SIGINT and IR first appeared, and the relationship between Hughes, Lockheed, TRW, NRO and the AF-when I can spare time I'll start a relevant thread or two.

    It was an exceptionally interesting time in this regard, as I'm sure you know Jim, especially when you also add HEO orbits into the mix: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4096/1
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 06/26/2023 04:44 pm
    Can't help thinking about South Park legendary " underpants gnomes" profit scheme here.  https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes

    Do you know how many space plans share that characteristic?

    For example: "Build cheap rockets"--->And then a miracle occurs--->Mars colony!


    I'm afraid that phrase will alway bring this Harris cartoon to my mind:

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 06/26/2023 06:24 pm
    I cannot find it with a quick look. Is there a good short overview of the DORIAN camera system, including its focal length?

    I'll explain what I'm doing a little later.
    Another interesting number is that DORIAN was really aiming for close-to-diffraction limited performance. The "optical tolerance" of the primary mirror was 1/10 of a wavelength (this is typically measured in the optical, i.e. at a wavelength of approximately 500 nm, possible also 633 nm in case they were using a HeNe laser as reference). This number was retracted in another version of this graph, which was posted by LittleBird last year:  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2350942#msg2350942 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2350942#msg2350942)

    See, e.g., the section on "Reasonable Strehl Standards" for the meaning/implication of peak-to-valley and RMS wavefront errors in optics: http://www.rfroyce.com/standards.htm (http://www.rfroyce.com/standards.htm)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 06/26/2023 06:53 pm
    Can't help thinking about South Park legendary " underpants gnomes" profit scheme here.  https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes

    Do you know how many space plans share that characteristic?

    For example: "Build cheap rockets"--->And then a miracle occurs--->Mars colony!


    I'm afraid that phrase will alway bring this Harris cartoon to my mind:
    Speaking of "miracles" - did we already discuss the attached concept, which shows a KH-11-type telescope with the camera in the Cassegrain focus, and attached via a two-axis mount to MOL?

    This would have been the ultimate Frankenstein (Kerbal?) surveillance telescope...

    Edit: Of course, "someone" already included this graphics in his article(s) ...   ;)
    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1 (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1)

    Edit 2: now if we just imagine removing MOL from the graphics, and the 2-axis mount, what is left is [REDACTED]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/26/2023 08:03 pm
    Speaking of "miracles" - did we already discuss the attached concept, which shows a KH-11-type telescope with the camera in the Cassegrain focus, and attached via a two-axis mount to MOL?

    This would have been the ultimate Frankenstein (Kerbal?) surveillance telescope...

    Edit: Of course, "someone" already included this graphics in his article(s) ...   ;)
    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1 (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1)

    Edit 2: now if we just imagine removing MOL from the graphics, and the 2-axis mount, what is left is [REDACTED]

    I totally forgot about that one.

    The way they declassified MOL was a bit odd. Around 2012 NRO released some of those MOL drawings in response to a FOIA request (I think it was made by JPIII). At that time I was working with Bob Crippen and we also had Dick Truly visiting and I showed them the images and they were thrilled. They were finally going to be able to talk about MOL. Then I think that around 2014 NRO released a few more images. But it was not until 2015 that they officially declassified the program.

    To be honest, I'm hoping that I can just win the lottery, quit my job, and spend all my time reading these documents and then writing the big history of MOL, among other things. I guess I should buy lottery tickets.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 06/27/2023 11:09 am
    Speaking of "miracles" - did we already discuss the attached concept, which shows a KH-11-type telescope with the camera in the Cassegrain focus, and attached via a two-axis mount to MOL?

    This would have been the ultimate Frankenstein (Kerbal?) surveillance telescope...

    Edit: Of course, "someone" already included this graphics in his article(s) ...   ;)
    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1 (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1)

    Edit 2: now if we just imagine removing MOL from the graphics, and the 2-axis mount, what is left is [REDACTED]

    That's a nice one ... is it from the late 60s after the design was firmed up, or from the early 60s era that also produced some amazing images like these SIGINT dishes ? (Edit: thay are all from the declassified contractors' presentations in spring 1965 for MOL, included in the ~800 pdfs released in iirc 2015.)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 06/27/2023 12:15 pm
    Speaking of "miracles" - did we already discuss the attached concept, which shows a KH-11-type telescope with the camera in the Cassegrain focus, and attached via a two-axis mount to MOL?

    This would have been the ultimate Frankenstein (Kerbal?) surveillance telescope...

    Edit: Of course, "someone" already included this graphics in his article(s) ...   ;)
    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1 (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1)

    Edit 2: now if we just imagine removing MOL from the graphics, and the 2-axis mount, what is left is [REDACTED]

    That's a nice one ... is it from the late 60s after the design was firmed up, or from the early 60s era that also produced some amazing images like these SIGINT dishes ? (Edit: thay are all from the declassified contractors' presentations in spring 1965 for MOL, included in the ~800 pdfs released in iirc 2015.)
    These illustrations nicely visualize the main "problem" of MOL. There is very little (if at all) to be gained by attaching a manned laboratory to an orbiting surveillance platform, which by design should be operational 24/7, and hence needs the capability for operating autonomously.

    Do we know about the planned work schedule for the DORIAN/MOL astronauts? Were they supposed to work together, or in shifts (i.e. telescope operators alternating for consecutive passes over USSR/China)? Work/sleep schedule would probably have been tailored to the day-/night-time passages over eastern Europe and Asia?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/27/2023 12:25 pm
    These illustrations nicely visualize the main "problem" of MOL. There is very little (if at all) to be gained by attaching a manned laboratory to an orbiting surveillance platform, which by design should be operational 24/7, and hence needs the capability for operating autonomously.

    Do we know about the planned work schedule for the DORIAN/MOL astronauts? Were they supposed to work together, or in shifts (i.e. telescope operators alternating for consecutive passes over USSR/China)? Work/sleep schedule would probably have been tailored to the day-/night-time passages over eastern Europe and Asia?

    This is one of the questions I've pondered ever since I started paying attention to MOL. I actually asked Crippen and Truly about what the schedule was supposed to be. I don't believe the program had reached that point where they began planning the schedule, but they said that the plan was that one astronaut would sleep while the other operated the reconnaissance equipment, but they always figured they would both be up working the equipment.

    I assume that there are computer programs (I guess we call them apps now?) where you could put in the MOL orbit and generate a timeline and see how much time it would be over targets of interest. Camera operations over the USSR only make sense during optimal lighting times, so if the USSR is dark or mostly dark, the astronauts could sleep. But how much time would that really give them? Also, they'd still have other things to do while not taking photos, like maintenance, eating, hygiene, etc.

    I recently read some comments by then-Brig. Gen. Lew Allen about how MOL was compromised because it took a really high-resolution camera system and then forced it to also operate unmanned. But I think he was looking at it from the exact opposite direction--the astronauts created big limitations on the operation of the system.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Jim on 06/27/2023 12:38 pm
    These illustrations nicely visualize the main "problem" of MOL. There is very little (if at all) to be gained by attaching a manned laboratory to an orbiting surveillance platform, which by design should be operational 24/7, and hence needs the capability for operating autonomously.

    Do we know about the planned work schedule for the DORIAN/MOL astronauts? Were they supposed to work together, or in shifts (i.e. telescope operators alternating for consecutive passes over USSR/China)? Work/sleep schedule would probably have been tailored to the day-/night-time passages over eastern Europe and Asia?

    This is one of the questions I've pondered ever since I started paying attention to MOL. I actually asked Crippen and Truly about what the schedule was supposed to be. I don't believe the program had reached that point where they began planning the schedule, but they said that the plan was that one astronaut would sleep while the other operated the reconnaissance equipment, but they always figured they would both be up working the equipment.

    I assume that there are computer programs (I guess we call them apps now?) where you could put in the MOL orbit and generate a timeline and see how much time it would be over targets of interest. Camera operations over the USSR only make sense during optimal lighting times, so if the USSR is dark or mostly dark, the astronauts could sleep. But how much time would that really give them? Also, they'd still have other things to do while not taking photos, like maintenance, eating, hygiene, etc.

    I recently read some comments by then-Brig. Gen. Lew Allen about how MOL was compromised because it took a really high-resolution camera system and then forced it to also operate unmanned. But I think he was looking at it from the exact opposite direction--the astronauts created big limitations on the operation of the system.

    Actually, there would be a period, where there were no daylight passes over Asia/Europe and the crew could sleep during this.
    But for about 8 hours, the astronaut would be quite busy with passes every 90 minute.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: leovinus on 06/27/2023 03:16 pm
    These illustrations nicely visualize the main "problem" of MOL. There is very little (if at all) to be gained by attaching a manned laboratory to an orbiting surveillance platform, which by design should be operational 24/7, and hence needs the capability for operating autonomously.

    Do we know about the planned work schedule for the DORIAN/MOL astronauts? Were they supposed to work together, or in shifts (i.e. telescope operators alternating for consecutive passes over USSR/China)? Work/sleep schedule would probably have been tailored to the day-/night-time passages over eastern Europe and Asia?
    I assume that there are computer programs (I guess we call them apps now?) where you could put in the MOL orbit and generate a timeline and see how much time it would be over targets of interest. Camera operations over the USSR only make sense during optimal lighting times, so if the USSR is dark or mostly dark, the astronauts could sleep. But how much time would that really give them? Also, they'd still have other things to do while not taking photos, like maintenance, eating, hygiene, etc.
    Yeah. Mission planning software such as discussed a while back in this thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2444329#msg2444329). Probably doc #711 in that same post.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/27/2023 10:29 pm
    So, the thing is... I don't really want to be writing about MOL now. But I have some things that are kinda making me research and write about MOL at this time.

    Thanks to the link above, I re-discovered this image, which shows where they would have stored the film in the Gemini B. I remember asking Crippen and Truly about where they would store the film and one of them replied that this was a big problem.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Jim on 06/28/2023 12:37 am
    So, the thing is... I don't really want to be writing about MOL now. But I have some things that are kinda making me research and write about MOL at this time.

    Thanks to the link above, I re-discovered this image, which shows where they would have stored the film in the Gemini B. I remember asking Crippen and Truly about where they would store the film and one of them replied that this was a big problem.

    there was the SRVs deployed by the crew
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/28/2023 01:38 am
    So, the thing is... I don't really want to be writing about MOL now. But I have some things that are kinda making me research and write about MOL at this time.

    Thanks to the link above, I re-discovered this image, which shows where they would have stored the film in the Gemini B. I remember asking Crippen and Truly about where they would store the film and one of them replied that this was a big problem.

    there was the SRVs deployed by the crew

    Yeah, I wrote about that. But only one of them, and it was apparently never in the baseline design, just as an add-on that was always in danger of cancellation. That's one of the problems for understanding MOL--we don't have a definitive document as of early 1969 that states what MOL vehicle they were going to build.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 06/29/2023 05:11 am
    These illustrations nicely visualize the main "problem" of MOL. There is very little (if at all) to be gained by attaching a manned laboratory to an orbiting surveillance platform, which by design should be operational 24/7, and hence needs the capability for operating autonomously.

    Do we know about the planned work schedule for the DORIAN/MOL astronauts? Were they supposed to work together, or in shifts (i.e. telescope operators alternating for consecutive passes over USSR/China)? Work/sleep schedule would probably have been tailored to the day-/night-time passages over eastern Europe and Asia?

    This is one of the questions I've pondered ever since I started paying attention to MOL. I actually asked Crippen and Truly about what the schedule was supposed to be. I don't believe the program had reached that point where they began planning the schedule, but they said that the plan was that one astronaut would sleep while the other operated the reconnaissance equipment, but they always figured they would both be up working the equipment.

    I assume that there are computer programs (I guess we call them apps now?) where you could put in the MOL orbit and generate a timeline and see how much time it would be over targets of interest. Camera operations over the USSR only make sense during optimal lighting times, so if the USSR is dark or mostly dark, the astronauts could sleep. But how much time would that really give them? Also, they'd still have other things to do while not taking photos, like maintenance, eating, hygiene, etc.

    I recently read some comments by then-Brig. Gen. Lew Allen about how MOL was compromised because it took a really high-resolution camera system and then forced it to also operate unmanned. But I think he was looking at it from the exact opposite direction--the astronauts created big limitations on the operation of the system.

    and re Jim's reply, I notice there are some slides in the declassified ~800 pdf set that show the workday as envisaged at one point, see my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2352578#msg2352578 and attached.
    Makes the life of Poole and Bowman on the good ship Discovery 1 seem like a piece of cake ...
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 06/29/2023 10:02 am
    These illustrations nicely visualize the main "problem" of MOL. There is very little (if at all) to be gained by attaching a manned laboratory to an orbiting surveillance platform, which by design should be operational 24/7, and hence needs the capability for operating autonomously.

    Do we know about the planned work schedule for the DORIAN/MOL astronauts? Were they supposed to work together, or in shifts (i.e. telescope operators alternating for consecutive passes over USSR/China)? Work/sleep schedule would probably have been tailored to the day-/night-time passages over eastern Europe and Asia?

    This is one of the questions I've pondered ever since I started paying attention to MOL. I actually asked Crippen and Truly about what the schedule was supposed to be. I don't believe the program had reached that point where they began planning the schedule, but they said that the plan was that one astronaut would sleep while the other operated the reconnaissance equipment, but they always figured they would both be up working the equipment.

    I assume that there are computer programs (I guess we call them apps now?) where you could put in the MOL orbit and generate a timeline and see how much time it would be over targets of interest. Camera operations over the USSR only make sense during optimal lighting times, so if the USSR is dark or mostly dark, the astronauts could sleep. But how much time would that really give them? Also, they'd still have other things to do while not taking photos, like maintenance, eating, hygiene, etc.

    I recently read some comments by then-Brig. Gen. Lew Allen about how MOL was compromised because it took a really high-resolution camera system and then forced it to also operate unmanned. But I think he was looking at it from the exact opposite direction--the astronauts created big limitations on the operation of the system.

    and re Jim's reply, I notice there are some slides in the declassified ~800 pdf set that show the workday as envisaged at one point, see my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2352578#msg2352578 and attached.
    Makes the life of Poole and Bowman on the good ship Discovery 1 seem like a piece of cake ...
    Wow, task overload, anyone? What about regular MOL maintenance activities? Weren't the initial 3-person ISS crews busy almost full-time with regular maintenance activities in order to keep ISS operational?

    1960s were truly the period of The Right Stuff astronauts - 15.5hr work shifts for 30 days with no time planned for contingencies or breaks.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 06/29/2023 11:11 am
    These illustrations nicely visualize the main "problem" of MOL. There is very little (if at all) to be gained by attaching a manned laboratory to an orbiting surveillance platform, which by design should be operational 24/7, and hence needs the capability for operating autonomously.

    Do we know about the planned work schedule for the DORIAN/MOL astronauts? Were they supposed to work together, or in shifts (i.e. telescope operators alternating for consecutive passes over USSR/China)? Work/sleep schedule would probably have been tailored to the day-/night-time passages over eastern Europe and Asia?

    This is one of the questions I've pondered ever since I started paying attention to MOL. I actually asked Crippen and Truly about what the schedule was supposed to be. I don't believe the program had reached that point where they began planning the schedule, but they said that the plan was that one astronaut would sleep while the other operated the reconnaissance equipment, but they always figured they would both be up working the equipment.

    I assume that there are computer programs (I guess we call them apps now?) where you could put in the MOL orbit and generate a timeline and see how much time it would be over targets of interest. Camera operations over the USSR only make sense during optimal lighting times, so if the USSR is dark or mostly dark, the astronauts could sleep. But how much time would that really give them? Also, they'd still have other things to do while not taking photos, like maintenance, eating, hygiene, etc.

    I recently read some comments by then-Brig. Gen. Lew Allen about how MOL was compromised because it took a really high-resolution camera system and then forced it to also operate unmanned. But I think he was looking at it from the exact opposite direction--the astronauts created big limitations on the operation of the system.

    and re Jim's reply, I notice there are some slides in the declassified ~800 pdf set that show the workday as envisaged at one point, see my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2352578#msg2352578 and attached.
    Makes the life of Poole and Bowman on the good ship Discovery 1 seem like a piece of cake ...
    Wow, task overload, anyone? What about regular MOL maintenance activities? Weren't the initial 3-person ISS crews busy almost full-time with regular maintenance activities in order to keep ISS operational?

    1960s were truly the period of The Right Stuff astronauts - 15.5hr work shifts for 30 days with no time planned for contingencies or breaks.

    Indeed-and they couldn't even go outside for a cigarette ;-). That slide appears to be from 1966 btw, one wonders if realism intervened at any point.

    It does make me wonder about a theme that continually recurs, even now, in official descriptions of MOL, crisis reconnaissance. As far as I can see very little is ever really spelled out about what this was supposed to mean-as distinct from less urgent very high resolution tasks that presumably scoped the KH-10's design. See e.g. the preface by James Outzen, director of Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance, in Courtney Homer's recent NRO oral history "Spies in Space", here  https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/Spies_In_Space-Reflections_on_MOL_web.pdf and grab below:

    Obviously these would be very fit and highly trained people, but would they really offer a better answer in the midst of a crisis than equally worried but somehat more comfortable people on the ground working remotely ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Lunarmodule15 on 06/29/2023 05:52 pm
    Quote
    Wow, task overload, anyone?

    Grueling, indeed. 30 days inside that tin can with that kind of crazy schedule, would have been no picnic. And we have, 50 years later, a bit more hindsight at astronaut psychology in orbit.

    A few elements from the top of my head

    - While the astronaut "discontent" onboard Skylab (late 1973) has been blown out of proportion by the media, the Soviets also got in trouble with their cosmonauts early in the Salyut / Almaz program. Can't remember which missions, but one cosmonaut mental health really went down the drain at some point. Think they had to return early. They blamed toxic fumes, but the crew said otherwise.

    - Early long duration missions brought a few (bad) surprises for ground crews... it was learned that astronaut morale could be frail, even more with rigid schedules and work overload.

    - Brian Burroughs "Dragonfly" also mentions a few case of overworked astronauts onboard Mir, 20 years later.

    - It is also easy to forget that, between 10 ft diameter (Gemini & Titan - rather than a Shuttle - Spacelab 15 ft) and with the big camera taking a lot of space, the MOL living quarters were no Versailles palace by any mean... when I checked the numbers on declassified documents and compared them with the closest real world thing - Salyut / Almaz - I was a bit shocked. Not too many cubic meters to live in. More than on a Gemini / Soyuz / Apollo (mercifully) but by space station modules standards, the MOL would have been pretty cramped. Even for two men.

    - Early sketches of Skylab / wet workshop in 1968 were so inhumane, astronauts went bonkers only looking at them. AAP boss George Mueller had to hire legendary "art déco" designer Raymond Loewy (and his alumni: a young John Frassanito) to make the future Skylab a bit more liveable.

    So - space soldiers might have been devoted to their job and disciplined, 30 days would have been no vacations.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 06/29/2023 07:56 pm
    There are probably other things to add to that calculation. For instance, how well do astronauts sleep in orbit? When they wrote up that schedule, they based it upon what limited data they had from that time. I suspect that based upon later data, they would have had to adjust.

    Similarly, there were other things like how long it took to do other tasks, like hygiene. They just didn't have much of a dataset back then. Plus, the military mindset might work against them, where they assume that everybody is just going to tough it out, but eventually fatigue sets in and people make mistakes. Make a mistake during reentry and it could be fatal.

    The military learns, forgets, and then re-learns these things. I was listening to an interview with a USAF pilot (really a backseater who operated the electronics) and he talked about how between Desert Storm and Bosnia in the late 1990s the USAF had forgotten some basic things about aircrew fatigue. And of course with the military it's one thing when the average age of the people doing something is 19, and another thing when you're putting 35-year-old men in a spacecraft for a month. They may not have the endurance.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 06/30/2023 05:53 am

    Similarly, there were other things like how long it took to do other tasks, like hygiene. They just didn't have much of a dataset back then. Plus, the military mindset might work against them, where they assume that everybody is just going to tough it out, but eventually fatigue sets in and people make mistakes. Make a mistake during reentry and it could be fatal.


    And make a mistake during a superpower confrontation which you have been sent up to observe and it could be a lot worse than that ... or possibly a Steven Baxter story ;-) I don't think he's written that particular scenario, perhaps our own writer is taking notes ;-)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 07/03/2023 12:01 am
    The one thing that really did help me was the set of briefing slides done for an incoming DNRO, possibly Flax [Edit: actually later, McLucas, just before cancellation], that had a chronological stovepipe diagram, running left to right. Here's the link https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2438573#msg2438573 to my old post on this, see grabs below: 

    Looking at these again, they're pretty good as an overview. I've incorporated some of that into my article. I suspect that at least some of the 800 MOL documents refer to these dates, decisions, and events.

    The article I'm working on is a joint one with another author that compares MOL to Almaz. It is very large. A lot of work.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 07/08/2023 02:32 am
    Looking at these two slides again, they're actually pretty good for understanding MOL what/when. I don't think I fully appreciated them because they're not drawn the way you would really draw them today--no thought balloons and more like a Gantt Chart.

    They provide some interesting ways to approach the topic, although I'd have to dig through documents to confirm. For instance, look at the top middle of the 1965 slide, where it refers to "AF Developed Lab." That raises the question to what extent MOL was really a USAF program from late 1963 until mid-1965 when they brought in the results of the optical systems studies. Was USAF just looking at whatever they could do and meanwhile NRO was off studying stuff, but not actively involved in MOL? Also, what were those optical studies and do they still exist?

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/08/2023 08:13 pm
    Looking at these two slides again, they're actually pretty good for understanding MOL what/when. I don't think I fully appreciated them because they're not drawn the way you would really draw them today--no thought balloons and more like a Gantt Chart.

    Part of why they intrigued me is the knowledge that they were done for an incoming and skeptical DNRO shortly before cancellation.

    One wonders how a similar type of briefing would look nowadays ?

    Quote
    They provide some interesting ways to approach the topic, although I'd have to dig through documents to confirm. For instance, look at the top middle of the 1965 slide, where it refers to "AF Developed Lab." That raises the question to what extent MOL was really a USAF program from late 1963 until mid-1965 when they brought in the results of the optical systems studies. Was USAF just looking at whatever they could do and meanwhile NRO was off studying stuff, but not actively involved in MOL? Also, what were those optical studies and do they still exist?

    I think Berger in its formatted form is your friend here. The unformatted doc also useful but I think the version in the DORIAN files is about as useful a guide as we have.

    Looking back up this mammoth thread (a Twitter style unroller would be handy) I can see a couple of things.

    One is that the official break between Pre-Phase I and Phase I was indeed mid 65, as per this post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2300022#msg2300022 and the grab from a history done by Aerospace in about 1967 [I'm not sure if latter half of  my post was off-beam or not.]

    However the DORIAN codeword was created in spring of 64, see second grab and this post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2298589#msg2298589  -so NRO needed to keep some MOL-related activities v secure by then. However this may at least as much be about McMillan's desire to prevent his own secrets leaking out via this programme over which he was only partly in control (a point attested to in the histories). One question that may illuminate things for you is to ask "who was in charge ?" at various points in the MOL/DORIAN history.

    I still think the two milestones that matter most are broadly as per my post here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2299626#msg2299626

    Quote
    1. Focusing of the research    to covert imaging, which as we saw in Carl Berger's 1970 history was done in Feb March1964 and which resulted in part from/required discussions between DNRO McMillan and Schriever. In the pdf of Berger, doc #800 in MOL 2015 release, it is  pp 69-73. It needed the DORIAN keyword which I think was created at that time. The internal SAFSP scepticism/dissent was thus about a report they had done as part of this process.

    "Focusing" doesn't mean that no other BYEMAN research was done, e.g. SIGINT.

    2. Focusing of that research further to create the primary mission. This would seem to have happened by May 1965, see attached from McMillan to Greer, "Direction of MOL Program Resulting from Presentations and Discussions from May
    17-19, 1965", document #92 in the 2015 release.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 07/09/2023 02:49 am
    One interesting question is what was the difference between the Air Force studying "large experimental optics" for MOL and the studies that were underway on MOL for reconnaissance?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/09/2023 07:29 am
    One interesting question is what was the difference between the Air Force studying "large experimental optics" for MOL and the studies that were underway on MOL for reconnaissance?

    I really don't know  the big picture answer, but I think this specific episode, from Feb-March 1964 described in pp 69-73 of attached Berger history,  the section labelled "Reconnaissance: the main emphasis", is quite informative. See  the 3 grabs below, about coordination between DNRO McMillan, and programme director (?) Schriever. In particular note which parts of the history were (S) and which (TS-DORIAN).

    From my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2298593#msg2298593

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/09/2023 12:12 pm
    re my comment here:

    One interesting question is what was the difference between the Air Force studying "large experimental optics" for MOL and the studies that were underway on MOL for reconnaissance?
    I really don't know  the big picture answer

    ... and looking back at my post here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2300022#msg2300022,
    I can see why I had given up trying to get a big picture understanding of the chronology before about 1964. It was because I couldn't fully reconcile the nice short Aerospace history from 1967 which covers their involvement from 1960 onwards, with the 1970 Berger history and the slides done in 1969 for McLucas. As I said in my 2021 post:

    Quote
    While it's true that the single history "book" i.e. Berger doesn't really go before 1962, and describes a programme where reconnaissance doesn't become the prime focus until 64 and doesn't become the operational mission until 65, there is a short history document included as #426 in the 2015 release ... that does go further back and adds to the picture. It's from Aerospace in August 67 and describes their work from 1960 ... it suggests that the 63-64 period was a temporary loss of focus in an effort that was slowly ramping up but was arguably recon-centred from the start, from their perspective.  And it started before the NRO existed.

    I may well be misreading the Aerospace  history (attached and grabs)-what do you think ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/09/2023 04:46 pm
    One more thought.Looking back upthread  I was also reminded of the nice mini-history of Aerospace's work on MOL that appeared in Crosslink Summer 2004: https://web.archive.org/web/20070305205226/http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2004/02.html (thanks again to leovinus for finding this).

    This starts with work that follows the official start of the "white" USAF MOL programme in 1963, saying:

    Quote
    During one particularly momentous press conference on December 10, 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara announced both the death of the Dyna-Soar space plane and the birth of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL)

    ...

     A few days before Secretary McNamara's announcement, a team of representatives from the Air Force Space Systems Division and Aerospace flew to Washington, DC, to review several possible implementations of MOL. Consultation with other NASA and Department of Defense (DOD) personnel produced a working sketch of the program. Planners envisioned a pressurized laboratory module, approximately the size of a small house trailer, that would enable up to four Air Force crewmembers to operate in a "shirt-sleeve" environment. The laboratory would be attached to a modified Gemini capsule and boosted into near-Earth orbit by an upgraded Titan III. Astronauts would remain in the capsule until orbit and then move into the laboratory. In addition to military reconnaissance duties (still largely classified), the astronauts would conduct a variety of scientific experiments and assess the adaptability of humans in a long-duration space environment (up to four weeks in orbit). When their mission was complete, they would return to the capsule, which would separate from the laboratory and return to Earth. Launch facilities would be located at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to permit launch into polar orbit for overflight of the Soviet Union.

    Planners agreed that the use of existing Gemini technologies would make MOL's acceptance easier for those in Congress who were concerned about additional defense spending and those within the space community who worried that a concurrent Air Force space program could slow down work on the Apollo program, possibly endangering the U.S. effort to beat the Soviets to the moon. The press release announcing the startup of MOL stressed cooperation with NASA to emphasize that the Air Force was not embarking on an entirely solo project: "The MOL program will make use of existing NASA control facilities. These include the tracking facilities which have been set up for the Gemini and other space flight programs of NASA and of the Department of Defense throughout the world. The laboratory itself will conduct military experiments involving manned use of equipment and instrumentation in orbit and, if desired by NASA, for scientific and civilian purposes." NASA continued to provide a great deal of logistical support to MOL over the course of the program's lifetime.
     

    Following McNamara's announcement, Aerospace immediately began work as part of the concept study phase. At the beginning of 1964, seven Aerospace scientists and 19 engineers developed possible experiments for MOL and worked to define possible MOL configurations as well as vehicle and subsystems concepts. On February 1, 1964, the Air Force Space Command announced the creation of a special MOL management office, headed by Col. Richard Jacobson. Two days later, Aerospace initiated a major organizational restructuring, with Pete Leonard appointed to lead the newly formed Manned Systems Division. The next month, Walt Williams came to Aerospace from NASA to become vice president and general manager of this new division. By the end of the year, the number of Aerospace technical staff members assigned to work directly on MOL had increased to 34. These researchers regularly gave presentations and briefings on their findings in Washington throughout 1964; still, outside the Defense Department, MOL lacked a committed core of government supporters.

    It then describes the ramp up

    Quote
    The Air Force assigned more research contracts for the MOL laboratory vehicle in early 1965, and Aerospace continued studies concerning the future of the military in space. Although the first MOL crew was scheduled to fly sometime between late 1967 and early 1968, full approval of the program was contingent on the DOD's demonstrating a genuine national need to deploy military personnel in space. To facilitate approval, the Defense Department affirmed that NASA's lunar landing program would remain the top priority and that duplicative programs would be avoided, with the Air Force continuing its use of existing hardware and facilities and cooperation with NASA on MOL experiments.

    The program finally received formal approval from President Lyndon Johnson on August 25, 1965. Johnson's announcement included a budget of $1.5 billion for MOL development. The MOL program would enable the United States to gain "new knowledge of what man is able to do in space," Johnson said, "and relate that ability to the defense of America." Johnson's approval marked the formal recognition that the Defense Department had a clear mandate to explore the potential applications of piloted spaceflight to support national security requirements.

    Following official approval, the MOL program immediately began work on Phase I, which extended from September 1, 1965, to May 1, 1966. After working primarily with the planning for MOL, including the design concepts for the spacecraft, Aerospace now had formal GSE/TD (general systems engineering/technical direction) for both the spacecraft and the Titan IIIC launch vehicle under contract to Air Force Space Systems Division, commanded by Gen. Ben I. Funk. Pete Leonard was appointed head of a new MOL Systems Engineering Office, with Walt Williams as his associate and William Sampson as his assistant. The three were collectively known as "the troika" by Aerospace employees. During Phase I, the Aerospace technical contingent working on MOL more than doubled in size, from 80 to 190. The Air Force's MOL program office had a complex organizational structure, with Gen. Bernard Schriever serving as program director in Washington, DC, and Brig. Gen. Russell Berg, who reported directly to Schriever, acting as deputy at the Space Systems Division in El Segundo, California. To improve administrative efficiency, Aerospace began colocating employees from its MOL Systems Engineering Office with members of the Air Force MOL program office in early 1966.

    and more, it's well worth a read. It suggests the sheer size and complexity of the programme at Aerospace at its peak:

    Quote
    When Project Gemini successfully concluded, 22 members of that program office were transferred to MOL, where their expert knowledge of Gemini hardware could be effectively used. Some veterans of the Mercury and Gemini programs were disappointed that they would not get to support the Apollo program, which would have been a logical next step if the Air Force had not decided to embark on its own piloted space program. In February, Aerospace made another organizational adjustment, reflecting management's belief that MOL would remain a major component of the company's activities. Three directorates were established under the aegis of the MOL Systems Engineering Office: Engineering, led by Sam Tennant, who would later serve as president of Aerospace; Operations, headed by Robert Hansen; and the Planning, Launch Operations, and Test Directorate, led by Ben Hohmann, who had achieved such great success with the Mercury and Gemini programs.

    In a reflection of the growing bureaucratic and engineering complexity of MOL, by May 1967, Aerospace had 28 MOL working groups, including software management, environmental control and life support, crew transfer, and ground-systems coordination. The proliferation of bureaucracy, not only at Aerospace but in the Air Force as well, sometimes made the transmission of information difficult. Joe Wambolt, who served as the director of launch operations in Ben Hohmann's directorate, remembers that, "It was almost impossible to find out what another office was doing. No one ever seemed to know the 'big picture' of what was going on. A lot of people knew a great deal about what was happening in their particular offices, but the only person who ever understood everything that was going on in the entire MOL program, in my opinion, was Sam Tennant."

    But what of course the article can't do is talk about DORIAN as it was written in 2004. Perhaps the simplest explanation for what puzzled me would be if Aerospace worked for the white USAF and the black NRO on  MOL, and while the former may have started in 1963, the latter might well have started as early as 1960, under whatever security approach was deemed appropriate.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Jim on 07/09/2023 07:10 pm

     if Aerospace worked for the white USAF and the black NRO

    There is no "if", that is what Aerospace did.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/10/2023 05:26 am
    Looking at these two slides again, they're actually pretty good for understanding MOL what/when. I don't think I fully appreciated them because they're not drawn the way you would really draw them today--no thought balloons and more like a Gantt Chart.

    As Jessica Rabbit might have said ... "I'm not complicated, I'm just drawn that way" ;-)

    Actually I rather like these old school graphics. Apart from  labels [*] on the top and bottom paths, and some sense of what is going on "off stage left", i.e. before 1963, I'm  not sure how you could improve them even now.

    [* and what would these be ? Aerospace/USAF and Aerospace/NRO ? In latter case the 1960-61 track would be precusrsor to NRO.]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 07/14/2023 01:26 pm
    It is going to be a few months until we publish it, but I've been co-writing an article comparing MOL and Almaz. There are some fascinating parallels, and it appears that Almaz was influenced by MOL--i.e. the Americans have one, so we should have our own military space station!

    The DORIAN optics system on MOL was much more powerful than Almaz, and it makes more sense to have people working on that than on the Almaz system. But maybe we'll figure that out as we continue to write.

    I think that the biggest surprise we learned about the MOL in the past decade was that there was supposed to be an "unmanned MOL" that would launch as many times as the manned version. As soon as that program was started, it raised the obvious question of why you needed a manned version at all. The astronauts started out filling a small niche purpose that got smaller and smaller as the program progressed.



    That image is from here:

    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 07/14/2023 09:01 pm
    <snip>
    I think that the biggest surprise we learned about the MOL in the past decade was that there was supposed to be an "unmanned MOL" that would launch as many times as the manned version. As soon as that program was started, it raised the obvious question of why you needed a manned version at all. The astronauts started out filling a small niche purpose that got smaller and smaller as the program progressed.
    <snip>
    A small oddity in the studies of the Image Velocity Sensor (IVS, which might also have served to compensate some astronaut induced vibrations, and which was essential for automatic operations of the main telescope): someone assigned "Peter, Paul and Mary" as codenames(?) to the contractors ITEK, GOODYEAR, and HYCON.

    Is there any (good) story on how the codename DORIAN had been picked?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 07/14/2023 09:38 pm
    Is there any (good) story on how the codename DORIAN had been picked?

    That is a good question and I don't know the answer. Could it be related to Dorian Gray? Isn't there a scene at the end where he stares into a mirror?

    When I interviewed Dick Truly, he said that the general in charge of the program had a secretary named Dorian, and the general would yell out for her to come into his office. Truly said it always sent a chill up his spine to hear that name shouted out because it was secret.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 07/29/2023 11:17 pm
    Somebody recently posted these to another site but I'm including them here for completeness. They are MOL documents (mostly declassified in 2015) about the film-scanning system on MOL. I have not gone through them recently, but will do so. I'm not sure if this system was still in the baseline MOL at the time of program cancellation in summer 1969.


    UPDATE: I just made a quick scan of the documents and it looks like readout went through a few different phases for MOL:

    1964-discussed as a possibility, apparently not included
    1967-discussed as a real add-on, to replace the film-return capsule then under development, but apparently not added
    1969-investigated in terms of a "poor-man's" system (i.e. could they do it cheaply?), but not clear if it was included
    1969-investigated for the "Phase II" MOL configuration for the mid-1970s

    If anybody learns more, please post.


    (Here is my standard gripe about the fact that we never got a final description of what MOL was by 1969, which makes it difficult to understand what equipment was going to be included.)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/30/2023 05:50 am
    Somebody recently posted these to another site but I'm including them here for completeness. They are MOL documents (mostly declassified in 2015) about the film-scanning system on MOL. I have not gone through them recently, but will do so. I'm not sure if this system was still in the baseline MOL at the time of program cancellation in summer 1969.


    UPDATE: I just made a quick scan of the documents and it looks like readout went through a few different phases for MOL:

    1964-discussed as a possibility, apparently not included
    1967-discussed as a real add-on, to replace the film-return capsule then under development, but apparently not added
    1969-investigated in terms of a "poor-man's" system (i.e. could they do it cheaply?), but not clear if it was included
    1969-investigated for the "Phase II" MOL configuration for the mid-1970s

    If anybody learns more, please post
    .


    See also doc #372 in same set, we chatted about this a while ago in KH-11 thread, in context of buckets vs readout decisions, see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.620 and the posts that precede and follow it.

    Looking at those docs together, esp the NRL doc, #20, I am more than ever struck that i) MOL must surely have facilitated some important collective brainstorming sessions that may well have cut across the tightly compartmented spysat world, and ii) it might have allowed work to be continued that otherwise would have had to be cut because of the v tight billion dollar cap on NRO.

    Couple of interesting things in #20 that aren't readout, will post.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/30/2023 06:01 am
    Somebody recently posted these to another site but I'm including them here for completeness. They are MOL documents (mostly declassified in 2015) about the film-scanning system on MOL. I have not gone through them recently, but will do so. I'm not sure if this system was still in the baseline MOL at the time of program cancellation in summer 1969.

    Doc #20 in that group (taken from the large set declassified in 2015 and indexed at the back of the MOL compendium) is an NRL technical panel from 1964. First grab is its cover. One thing I'd never seen was mention (grab 2), under  command and control, of a STARLIGHT report  which recommended "space oriented command ships". Not obvious that    spaceborne C and C was being meant, but see grab 3, which talks about C and C "posts whether in space or on shipboard". Finally, there's a statement that USN foresees no requirement for "precision delivery" experiments (grab 4).

    [Edit: One reason I am interested is that command and control was an area listed as being studied in first half of 64 in the slides done for incoming DNRO McLucas in 1969, see final grab.]

     
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/30/2023 06:17 am
      One thing I'd never seen was mention (grab 2), under  command and control, of a STARLIGHT report  which recommended "space oriented command ships". Not obvious that this means  spaceborne C and C was being meant, but see grab 3, which talks about C and C "posts whether in space or on shipboard".

    Starlight seems to have been an interesting  broad based effort by Institute of Naval Studies on USN use of space, see 1964 item below collected  in a 1972 senate hearing, via Google Books: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Hearings_Reports_and_Prints_of_the_Senat/lp43AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/30/2023 09:03 am
    Somebody recently posted these to another site but I'm including them here for completeness. They are MOL documents (mostly declassified in 2015)

    Doc #20 in that group (taken from the large set declassified in 2015 and indexed at the back of the MOL compendium) is an NRL technical panel from 1964.  Finally, there's a statement that USN foresees no requirement for "precision delivery" experiments (grab 4).
    <snip>

    No more MOL posts for now from me after this, but Garwin clips attached below are  why I am intrigued by reference  to "precision delivery". Taken from an interview or paper I posted upthread, I'll add link when I find it. [Edit:
     quotes are from Garwin's paper, "National Security Space Policy" from the journal International Security ,  Vol. 11, No. 4 (Spring, 1987), pp. 165-173
    published by The MIT Press, Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538846 (paywalled).]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/30/2023 04:40 pm
    Actually, as Columbo would say, just one more post.

    Libra shared a handy way to do searches a few years ago, and using it on this site will help Blackstar find posts on readout and MOL, as it did for libra when used on the NRO site. Syntax  is e.g

    "DORIAN" "readout system" site:forum.nasaspaceflight.com

    in Google, or can be accessed via !guk (or appropriate country) command in DuckDuckGo for example.

    I'd seen most of what surfaced before, but the attached PSAC reconnaissance panel in late 67 was new to me. It's interesting, as it reports Land, Garwin and Purcell's (and Joe Shea's) "interrogation" of various unfortunates about MOL ;-) In particular it says that the panel liked readout and were sorry to see it recently dropped from MOL-see grabs below.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Michel Van on 07/30/2023 07:45 pm
    We had over in Secret Project Forum in MOL Diskussion
    a interest argument about DORIAN camera system

    in Short:
    KH-10 had extreme resolution of 4 inch.

    I don't believe the Eastman-Kodak was able to make extrem high resolution analog film for DORIAN.
    That It KH-10 camera system using same analog film used on KH-9
    But this would reduce drastic the area photograph by Camera at resolution of 4 inch.

    Is this real reasons KH-10 DORIAN was abandon ?
    Not cost overrun, the unnecessary to be manned,
    But because limited Photographic results ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 07/30/2023 08:40 pm
    Is this real reasons KH-10 DORIAN was abandon ?

    Nixon wanted to cut the budget. NRO was building the KH-9 HEXAGON and the KH-10 MOL/DORIAN. Under the new budget guidelines they could afford only one. They canceled MOL/DORIAN.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/31/2023 09:17 am
    Is this real reasons KH-10 DORIAN was abandon ?

    Nixon wanted to cut the budget. NRO was building the KH-9 HEXAGON and the KH-10 MOL/DORIAN. Under the new budget guidelines they could afford only one. They canceled MOL/DORIAN.

    Michael, see attached plot via the End of Apollo thread-shows the budget pressure on military and civil space rather clearly imo.
     I have since found a source for the raw numbers and I think plot is accurate. MOL had acquired a price tage of about 3billion in contemporary USD at that point, much of which was still to come iirc. NRO budget would have been capped and by then would have been experiencing strain from combined costs of CANYON, RHYOLITE, JUMPSEAT, GAMBIT3 and HEXAGON almost surely.

    Meanwhile it is interesting that the 1967 PSAC  coments I uploaded above (Land, Drell, Purcell, Garwin, Shea and others) explicitly doubted that first DORIAN would reach its [redacted] resolution target. However their doubts  don't sound like they are about film to me-I suggest both you and Blackstar read that doc, it's short and probably the best insight we'll get about what that panel thought unless the briefing slides exist. Yarymovich says at the end that Land is not going to send a summary letter to Dr Horning [sic] who I assume was actually this gentleman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Hornig, right ?



    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 07/31/2023 12:52 pm
    I wrote about the MOL budget here:

    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2858/1

    By March 1969, the MOL budget estimate had risen to $3.1 billion. I think they had spent about $1.5 billion by that time.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 07/31/2023 04:36 pm
    We had over in Secret Project Forum in MOL Diskussion
    a interest argument about DORIAN camera system

    in Short:
    KH-10 had extreme resolution of 4 inch.

    I don't believe the Eastman-Kodak was able to make extrem high resolution analog film for DORIAN.
    That It KH-10 camera system using same analog film used on KH-9
    But this would reduce drastic the area photograph by Camera at resolution of 4 inch.

    Is this real reasons KH-10 DORIAN was abandon ?
    Not cost overrun, the unnecessary to be manned,
    But because limited Photographic results ?
    Film resolution should not have been the limiting factor. Kodak's Type 3409/3414 AERECON High Altitude Film has a resolving power of 320 to 630 lines per mm - see attached data sheet and, e.g., the post at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26821.msg811994#msg811994 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26821.msg811994#msg811994)
    Under ideal conditions, KH-10 could have achieved the same ground resolution distance, and collected the same amount of light per (ground) square feet as KH-8 in a 60% 36% higher orbit (e.g. 120 98 nm vs. 72 nm).

    For MOL I'd be more worried about image smear caused by vibrations (astronauts moving around, cooling pumps, fans of the life support system, etc).

    Edit: corrected ratios for the orbits. KH-10 had 60 inch diameter "free aperture" (with 72 inch primary mirror), KH-8 had 43.5 inch "free aperture" (with 44 inch primary).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 07/31/2023 04:53 pm
    For MOL I'd be more worried about image smear caused by vibrations (astronauts moving around, cooling pumps, fans of the life support system, etc).

    I get the feeling that this was indeed one of several things that the 1967 PSAC panel was worried about, see first grab, and attached pdf of the summary by Yarymovych. One thing that intrigues me is that are assessing both GAMBIT 3 and MOL in parallel, and so it's not always ultra clear which system is being described (second and third grabs). 

    But the most intriguing remark is Land's, that "MOL should not be launched with a known optical quality deficiency ... to satisfy a present schedule" (fourth grab).

    This to me casts a new light on the astronauts' comments of 1968 that Blackstar quotes in his piece mentioned just above, i.e.

    Quote
    At a recent talk at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, former MOL astronaut Lt. Gen. (ret.) James Abrahamson remarked that in early 1968 the deputy director of the MOL program, Major General J.S. Bleymaier, asked the MOL astronauts for their advice about the program’s goals. Presumably the program was in political and budgetary trouble at this time, which is why the program office developed the chronology that listed the changing program goals, increasing cost, and slipping schedule. Abrahamson said that the astronauts told Bleymaier to promise that MOL would be fully operational on its very first flight. Presumably this meant eliminating the two qualification flights.

    Abrahamson said that this turned out to be a mistake, because it caused the schedule to slip by nearly a year—with first launch no longer the December 1970 unmanned spacecraft, but now the August 1971 first manned flight.

    added emphasis mine.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 07/31/2023 06:14 pm
    <snip>
    But the most intriguing remark is Land's, that "MOL should not be launched with a known optical quality deficiency ... to satisfy a present schedule" (fourth grab).
    <snip>
    One concern were the thermal expansion coefficients, and hence the stability of the optical quality of the mirrors. In Feb 1968, the baseline mirror material for MOL flights 1 and 2 was fused silica, while R&D for mirrors made of CER-VIT (5.5 time lower thermal expansion coefficient) and ULE (~27 14 times lower thermal expansion coefficient) was still ongoing.

    There was a project "requirement" to switch to ULE by flight 5 at the latest, and ideally ("objective") as soon as flight 3.

    Side questions: did the 60-inch CER-VIT mirrors, which were installed in two 1.5m telescopes on Mount Lemmon in 1974 and 1977, also originate in the MOL/DORIAN project?

    edit: the problem with optical distortion caused by thermal expansion of silica glass was only recognised in 1967: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/324.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/324.pdf)

    In July 1968 a study of thermal distortion predictions for ULE and CER-VIT mirrors was initiated (with ULE now quoted with a ~14 times smaller thermal expansion coefficient than silica glass): https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/557.pdf (https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/557.pdf)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 07/31/2023 08:41 pm
    NRO has revamped their website. The main page looks a lot more corporate. But trying to find their declassified documents is going to be challenging:

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-declassified-major-nro-programs-and-projects/

    The "FOIA For All" site appears to be a mess:

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-resources-foia-for-all/

    Stops at 2020 and the 2020 site is empty. I still have not found their "Sunshine Week" releases.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 07/31/2023 08:48 pm
    But the most intriguing remark is Land's, that "MOL should not be launched with a known optical quality deficiency ... to satisfy a present schedule" (fourth grab).

    This to me casts a new light on the astronauts' comments of 1968 that Blackstar quotes in his piece mentioned just above, i.e.


    They were kinda damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't (there are less polite ways to put this). And it's always fun to read comments by Din Land--you get the sense that he was always critical of the Air Force programs. Maybe he was just as critical of the CIA ones as well, but we seem to have more evidence of him questioning the high-resolution systems.

    Side question: what was the film format for DORIAN? How wide was the film and how big would each image be? I have to scan the documents again, but do we have a good description of the physical size of the film and how much territory each image would cover?

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 08/01/2023 04:27 am
    NRO has revamped their website. The main page looks a lot more corporate. But trying to find their declassified documents is going to be challenging:

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-declassified-major-nro-programs-and-projects/

    The "FOIA For All" site appears to be a mess:

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-resources-foia-for-all/

    Stops at 2020 and the 2020 site is empty. I still have not found their "Sunshine Week" releases.


    Someone will get a promotion or award for "modernizing the NRO website, vastly increasingly it's usefulness and increasing usability for visitors...'
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Targeteer on 08/01/2023 04:41 am
    NRO has revamped their website. The main page looks a lot more corporate. But trying to find their declassified documents is going to be challenging:

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-declassified-major-nro-programs-and-projects/

    The "FOIA For All" site appears to be a mess:

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-resources-foia-for-all/

    Stops at 2020 and the 2020 site is empty. I still have not found their "Sunshine Week" releases.


    They hinted that "something was going to launch soon" in cryptic tweets.  Someone will get a promotion or award for "modernizing the NRO website, vastly increasingly it's usefulness and increasing usability for visitors...'
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/01/2023 06:38 am
    NRO has revamped their website. The main page looks a lot more corporate. But trying to find their declassified documents is going to be challenging:

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-declassified-major-nro-programs-and-projects/

    The "FOIA For All" site appears to be a mess:

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-resources-foia-for-all/

    Stops at 2020 and the 2020 site is empty. I still have not found their "Sunshine Week" releases.


    Someone will get a promotion or award for "modernizing the NRO website, vastly increasingly it's usefulness and increasing usability for visitors...'

    Always worth seeing if a revamp enables anything I personally hadn't tried, though-your mileage may vary.

    I liked the way that this page

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-declassified-major-nro-programs-and-projects/

     has many of the document names all together on one page, allowing the browser to do a keyword search on the page-and indeed making eyeballing it easy. Searching for "readout"  here for example gets 15 hits, including a couple of interesting ones I'd not seen:

    i) A memo giving NRP's answer to Packard in 1969 as to why readout suited NASA better than film, first grab and attached
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/NROStaffRecords/662.PDF

    and

    ii) a farsighted memo based on ARPA findings from 1959, next 2 grabs and attached,
    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/NROStaffRecords/866.PDF
    which shows that someone was alreading thinking about how comsats could be used to relay image data, and how  cloud cover could be monitored in situ with an IR sensor on an imaging spysat (edzieba will like this I reckon), allowing the cameras to be "shut off ... or retrain[ed]".

    As far as Sunshine Week goes, I tried adopting Libra's handy tip as per my post, and found that third hit to this
    "sunshine week" site:www.nro.gov
     still worked and finds https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-declassified-from-the-nro-archives/
    you then need to "expand all" (see last grab). Is that what you wanted ?





    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/01/2023 06:58 am
    But the most intriguing remark is Land's, that "MOL should not be launched with a known optical quality deficiency ... to satisfy a present schedule" (fourth grab).

    This to me casts a new light on the astronauts' comments of 1968 that Blackstar quotes in his piece mentioned just above, i.e.


    They were kinda damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't (there are less polite ways to put this). And it's always fun to read comments by Din Land--you get the sense that he was always critical of the Air Force programs. Maybe he was just as critical of the CIA ones as well, but we seem to have more evidence of him questioning the high-resolution systems.


    He was of course the panel chair, and meeting is stated to have been in his offices in Cambridge, Mass. At one point he seems to have decided he was being too hard on them, see first grab below.

    I guess it depends on whether the PSAC Reconnaissance panels had oversight of Program B, and how long Land was its chair for. Only example I can think of that is similar is a panel from 65 or 66 on ISINGLASS, in the docs that you found on this,  when McMillan was asking similarly searching questions about ISINGLASS, but I don't think that was PSAC.

    PSAC did have at least some oversight of Program A and C SIGINT at some point, see this intriguing item from the SIGINT satellite story, second grab and attached.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/01/2023 07:11 am
    Somebody recently posted these to another site but I'm including them here for completeness. They are MOL documents (mostly declassified in 2015) about the film-scanning system on MOL. I have not gone through them recently, but will do so. I'm not sure if this system was still in the baseline MOL at the time of program cancellation in summer 1969.


    UPDATE: I just made a quick scan of the documents and it looks like readout went through a few different phases for MOL:

    1964-discussed as a possibility, apparently not included
    1967-discussed as a real add-on, to replace the film-return capsule then under development, but apparently not added
    1969-investigated in terms of a "poor-man's" system (i.e. could they do it cheaply?), but not clear if it was included
    1969-investigated for the "Phase II" MOL configuration for the mid-1970s

    If anybody learns more, please post
    .


    See also doc #372 in same set, we chatted about this a while ago in KH-11 thread, in context of buckets vs readout decisions, see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.620 and the posts that precede and follow it.

     <snip>

    One other doc that intrigues me and helps set the context of the early 1967 MOL readout question is the attached one, from late 66. It seems to be saying "we interpret the recent ExCom guidance as disallowing work on readout for crisis management, and so quite a few r&d jobs will go, but we will carry on doing research on a long lived routine readout sat". MOL would have sat on the borders of these two types, but would have been closer to the disallowed crisis type in some ways I'd have thought. 
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 08/01/2023 06:23 pm
    But the most intriguing remark is Land's, that "MOL should not be launched with a known optical quality deficiency ... to satisfy a present schedule" (fourth grab).

    This to me casts a new light on the astronauts' comments of 1968 that Blackstar quotes in his piece mentioned just above, i.e.


    They were kinda damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't (there are less polite ways to put this). And it's always fun to read comments by Din Land--you get the sense that he was always critical of the Air Force programs. Maybe he was just as critical of the CIA ones as well, but we seem to have more evidence of him questioning the high-resolution systems.

    Side question: what was the film format for DORIAN? How wide was the film and how big would each image be? I have to scan the documents again, but do we have a good description of the physical size of the film and how much territory each image would cover?
    Field of view of the primary telescope was 9000 ft diameter (presumably at 80 nm altitude).
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2350972#msg2350972 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2350972#msg2350972)

    Doc 620 states that a pick-off of the central 1 inch of the main optics corresponds to 1000 ft. Thus a 9 inch wide film would have covered the field of view.

    4 inch ground resolution distance would have required a film with ~120 lines (line pairs?) per mm:
    1000 ft *12 inch/ft / (120 lines/mm * 25.4 mm/inch * 1 inch) = 4 inch/line
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/01/2023 07:48 pm
    One other doc that intrigues me and helps set the context of the early 1967 MOL readout question is the attached one, from late 66. It seems to be saying "we interpret the recent ExCom guidance as disallowing work on readout for crisis management, and so quite a few r&d jobs will go, but we will carry on doing research on a long lived routine readout sat". MOL would have sat on the borders of these two types, but would have been closer to the disallowed crisis type in some ways I'd have thought. 

    That is intriguing. I knew that FROG had been canceled around 1967 (according to this, late 1966), but did not know why that was. I do remember that FROG was proposed as an "experiment" rather than an operational system in the mid-1960s, and assumed that there was resistance to spending money on an experiment rather than planning for operations.

    What the language in that document implies is that in late 1967 there was antipathy to the concept of a crisis response capability provided by FROG and that is why it was canceled. MOL read-out suffered collateral damage from that decision.

    But this also ties back to something I have written about with the recent article on SPIN SCAN: although there was an argument in favor of building a crisis-response satellite, it just never built up sufficient momentum. So people proposed it, and then it go squashed.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/01/2023 09:43 pm
    One other doc that intrigues me and helps set the context of the early 1967 MOL readout question is the attached one, from late 66. It seems to be saying "we interpret the recent ExCom guidance as disallowing work on readout for crisis management, and so quite a few r&d jobs will go, but we will carry on doing research on a long lived routine readout sat". MOL would have sat on the borders of these two types, but would have been closer to the disallowed crisis type in some ways I'd have thought. 

    That is intriguing. I knew that FROG had been canceled around 1967 (according to this, late 1966), but did not know why that was. I do remember that FROG was proposed as an "experiment" rather than an operational system in the mid-1960s, and assumed that there was resistance to spending money on an experiment rather than planning for operations.

    What the language in that document implies is that in late 1967 there was antipathy to the concept of a crisis response capability provided by FROG and that is why it was canceled. MOL read-out suffered collateral damage from that decision.

     

    My nonexpert impression, and it would be good to hear from folk like Libra who have looked into this properly and whose posts on this   (mainly in KH-11 thread) would be helpful for you to review, is that:

    i) MOL readout was in fact formally included in the baseline when it was approved, but when Evans tried to find out about progress in March 66 it transpired that not a lot had been done. See https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/213.pdf , attached and first two grabs.

    ii) The cancellation of FROG Mk I in late 66 brought an opportunity to rethink readout, and in spring 67 Evans wrote a memo encouraging the replacement of the MOL capsule return vehicle by readout: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/357.pdf, attached, and third grab

    iii) By summer 67 DNRO Flax had not acted on Evans' recommendations and so another memo, this time from Battle basically says "can we go ahead with it, here's a draft memo from March with wording." https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/400.pdf, and attached, and last two grabs.

    What I don't know is what happened next-but I assume whatever it was is reason why in late 67 the PSAC reconnaissance panel was regretting the deletion of readout from MOL.
     
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/02/2023 05:44 am
    The bit I really don't understand is what happens between i) and ii) here:



    i) MOL readout was in fact formally included in the baseline when it was approved, but when Evans tried to find out about progress in March 66 it transpired that not a lot had been done. See https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/213.pdf , attached and first two grabs.

    ii) The cancellation of FROG Mk I in late 66 brought an opportunity to rethink readout, and in spring 67 Evans wrote a memo encouraging the replacement of the MOL capsule return vehicle by readout: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/357.pdf, attached, and third grab

     

    See grab below from the March 67 Evans memo. 

    So it sounds as if MOL acquired the FROG Mk I technology and ground station as a simple way to fulfill a mission it was already supposed to have, but then when Evans proposed the logical step of deleting the data (not film per se) recovery capsule (after the Apollo fire-I know various folk talked about this  upthread) Flax declined to make that change, possibly because of the policy re readout, and/or just couldn't afford it ?

    As I've mentioned elsewhere Flax had a particularly complicated job because he had a real (not cover) unclassified AF R&D job, not just his DNRO one-and we have lots of evidence that budgets were already tightening in early 67 as both overt and covert space activity boomed.

    By the way, for anyone like me who needs reminding, Evans was MOL deputy from Jan 65 to March 68, see Wiki entry for MOL:

    Quote
    In January 1965, Schriever had appointed Brigadier General Harry L. Evans as his deputy for MOL. Evans had previously worked with Schriever in the USAF Ballistic Systems Division.[41] He had also been the Corona program manager, and had supervised SAMOS, MIDAS and SAINT, together with the early communications and weather satellite programs.[42][43] As well as being Schriever's deputy, Evans became Zuckert's Special Assistant for MOL on 18 January 1965. In this role, he reported directly to Zuckert, and was responsible for liaison between MOL and other agencies such as NASA.[41]

    In the wake of Johnson's announcement of the program, MOL was given the designation Program 632A. The USAF announced the appointment of Schriever as MOL director and Evans as vice director, in charge of the MOL staff at the Pentagon, with Brigadier General Russell A. Berg as deputy director, in charge of the MOL staff at the Los Angeles Air Force Station in El Segundo, California.[44] The MOL System Program Office (SPO) was created in March 1964 under Brigadier General Joseph S. Bleymaier, the Deputy Commander of the AFSC Space Systems Division (SSD). By August 1965, the MOL had a staff of 42 military and 23 civilian personnel.[45] Schriever retired from the Air Force in August 1966, and was succeeded as head of the AFSC and MOL Program Director by Major General James Ferguson.[46] Evans retired from the Air Force on 27 March 1968, and was replaced by Major General James T. Stewart.[47]

    You'll remember Lee Battle ( https://www.afspc.af.mil/Portals/3/documents/Pioneers/2001_Battle.pdf and  https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1333/1 ).  I assume he was higher up system than Evans but not sure how he and Flax related in the command chain-maybe he was just seeking to help Evans get a decision.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/02/2023 06:30 pm
    One thing that struck me was the sheer managerial complexity of MOL. The first of the 3 readout memos  I m mentioned above refers to "discussions with SAF-SL1, SAF-SP, and Aerospace personnel". I wasn't sure what SAF-SL1 was, but it turns out to be the MOL Systems Office, as per memo below: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/252.pdf
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/02/2023 07:18 pm
    One thing that struck me was the sheer managerial complexity of MOL.


    And yeah, that's been something that struck me as well--and maybe it has deterred me from writing more about MOL. When you break it down, there were a lot of aspects (components?) to that project:

    -new pad facility
    -new launch vehicle
    -Gemini spacecraft
    -pressurized laboratory module
    -DORIAN camera system
    -astronaut office and training requirements

    And some of those things had many subcomponents. The lab module had to include food, hygiene equipment (like the toilet), and life support systems. The DORIAN/lab incorporated the spotting system for the camera. There was also the reentry vehicle and its subcomponents (like the electronics for launching it and the airlock for securing it). And there was also the film-scanning system. Each of these things involved new design and development.

    That's why I really wonder about the attitudes towards MOL within the NRO. What did the guys working on the SIGINT payloads and GAMBIT think about MOL? Did they think it was a good idea, or a huge waste of resources, or somewhere in between? I could see somebody wanting to upgrade GAMBIT looking at MOL and thinking "If only I had the money that they are spending on X, I could get my upgrade funded."

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/02/2023 08:54 pm
    That's why I really wonder about the attitudes towards MOL within the NRO. What did the guys working on the SIGINT payloads and GAMBIT think about MOL? Did they think it was a good idea, or a huge waste of resources, or somewhere in between? I could see somebody wanting to upgrade GAMBIT looking at MOL and thinking "If only I had the money that they are spending on X, I could get my upgrade funded."

    I think it certainly left a handy hole in the budget when it was cancelled.

    But there may also have been a few people who thought it might offer a creative way to demosntrate things that couldn't be done elsewhere. I remain struck by the second memo (MOL #357) in the list of 3 above, where Evans enumerates the case for readout. One interesting thing is the way he tries to show that perishable i.e. urgent, information isn't just synonymous with crisis management, first two grabs. His arguments make a lot of sense to me, with our 20-20 hindsight-I wonder what the arguments against them at the time were ? I also get the feeling that the large payload of MOL allowed brainstorming about multi sensor payloads in ways that may have borne fruit in later uncrewed satellites.

    But my guess, albeit totally unsubstantiated, is that these issues paled compared with the continuing Program A vs Program B friction, even after MOL was cancelled. Even though tensions were by now below the McMillan-Wheelon level there's an interesting memo from Lew Allen (as he goes from SAFSP to NRO HQ I think) that you may well find indicative/useful, see attched, and last grab, of its first page, it's https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/NROStaffRecords/442.PDF
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/02/2023 10:21 pm
    But there may also have been a few people who thought it might offer a creative way to demosntrate things that couldn't be done elsewhere.

    Except that we also have quite a bit of evidence that MOL couldn't demonstrate other stuff, because so many other payloads that were first discussed for MOL were thrown off because a) the photographic payload was so large it didn't leave a lot of mass/volume/money for other stuff, and/or b) MOL was moving too slowly to provide opportunities to test that stuff.

    DONKEY got removed from MOL and put elsewhere. We know about other experiments like the astronaut maneuvering unit that got kicked off (went to NASA Gemini), and other early proposed payloads like the radar and SIGINT equipment that also got removed.

    When you compare the big, lumbering MOL program, which was always slipping schedule and eating money, to what else was going on at NRO, it looks like other people at SAFSP would not be impressed. After all, they were building and deploying Program 989 payloads in under nine months, and satellites like QUILL in a little over a year. If MOL ever launched it would not happen until 1971 or 1972, seven-plus years after it started.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/03/2023 07:05 am
    But there may also have been a few people who thought it might offer a creative way to demosntrate things that couldn't be done elsewhere.

    Except that we also have quite a bit of evidence that MOL couldn't demonstrate other stuff, because so many other payloads that were first discussed for MOL were thrown off because a) the photographic payload was so large it didn't leave a lot of mass/volume/money for other stuff, and/or b) MOL was moving too slowly to provide opportunities to test that stuff.

    DONKEY got removed from MOL and put elsewhere. We know about other experiments like the astronaut maneuvering unit that got kicked off (went to NASA Gemini), and other early proposed payloads like the radar and SIGINT equipment that also got removed.

    Indeed, and we also know about a letter, quoted upthread, from Marshall Carter, director of NSA to Flax in late 66 about combined optical and SIGINT sensors where Carter basically says "I support it for MOL, but couldn't we put it on an uncrewed satellite".  I guess I still stand by my point that it was helpful in hatching ideas but you are right in general.

    I'm still intrigued by the Evans memo of March 67, if one takes "demonstrate" to mean "make the case for readout for more than just crisis use". Was it the latter aspect that caused Flax to dither and then just not implement it ? Was it indeed the crisis policy that drove Flax's decision ? How important was his dual hateed status, in that he had to be seen to be neutral between overt and covert AF.

    Quote

    When you compare the big, lumbering MOL program, which was always slipping schedule and eating money, to what else was going on at NRO, it looks like other people at SAFSP would not be impressed. After all, they were building and deploying Program 989 payloads in under nine months, and satellites like QUILL in a little over a year. If MOL ever launched it would not happen until 1971 or 1972, seven-plus years after it started.

    That is quite true. Obvious question, to which I assume we have no answer yet, is whose lunch, i.e exactly how much of the NRO budget was it eating ? More generally there's a question which intrigues me more and more, is how on earth were development costs of RHYOLITE, CANYON, JUMPSEAT, DORIAN, GAMBIT 3, HEXAGON *and* operations of CORONA and GAMBIT *and* R&D on ZAMAN, SDS etc etc all fitted into the no more than 1 billion per year envelope between 66 and 72, say. Did CIA spend some of its own (i.e. not Program B) money on programmes that we know had cost overruns, like HEXAGON and one other, likely RHYOLITE, which were stated to have gone over by factors of 2-3 in the 1971 ExCom transcript ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: edzieba on 08/03/2023 09:17 am
    That is quite true. Obvious question, to which I assume we have no answer yet, is whose lunch, i.e exactly how much of the NRO budget was it eating ? More generally there's a question which intrigues me more and more, is how on earth were development costs of RHYOLITE, CANYON, JUMPSEAT, DORIAN, GAMBIT 3, HEXAGON *and* operations of CORONA and GAMBIT *and* R&D on ZAMAN, SDS etc etc all fitted into the no more than 1 billion per year envelope between 66 and 72, say. Did CIA spend some of its own (i.e. not Program B) money on programmes that we know had cost overruns, like HEXAGON and one other, likely RHYOLITE, which were stated to have gone over by factors of 2-3 in the 1971 ExCom transcript ?
    I'm starting to think that MOL went broadly through two management paradigms:
    In the 'early days', MOL existed because "the Air Force needs to put men in space, and we'll figure out why we need to do that later" (or more charitably 'we need a man-in-space programme to find out what we can use men in space for'), but needed an 'official' reason. Pretty much a direct follow-on to Dynasoar.
    MOL cycled through reasons to exist until the last one standing was manned earth observation, and that became the second management paradigm, added onto the first (that kept the programme alive and funded): "MOL needs to exist to feed NRO staff and contractors with funds over and above the $1bn ceiling". This was a handy reason for MOL to exist, because it was a 'black' reason so harder to be attacked in congress (can't complain about it if you are restricted by where and to who you complain). This was also handy for the NRO as a way to fund vendors to study and work on yet-larger mirrors and spacecraft and launch capabilities and other sundry maybe-useful items, without spending the NRO's own budget on the endeavour.
    For those who either did not see the political game at play or did not want to play it out of principle, MOL was a nonsensical programme sapping funds that could have been spent on expanding existing programmes or on programmes with a better reason to exist. In the end those voices won out (possibly the cancellation of FULCRUM/HEXAGON was the straw that broke the camels back and caused everyone to get behind the push to kill MOL to save the actually needed programme), but as expected that meant funding for VHR and near-real-time did not end up allocated elsewhere but dried up, with unmanned-DORIAN and HEXADOR both going nowhere (and even Advanced Gambit3 not flying), and a concerted effort was needed to push for ZOSTER and ZAMAN to get funded and to get buy-in from the white-side AF for SDS multi-use (after being burned once before).
    That's not to say that MOL was in-and-of-itself a 'good' programme - and in the end it had gone from 'benign growth' to 'cancerous' in nearly killing off HEXAGON - but I'd be willing to bet that without it other programmes would not have benefited from advancements and contractor expertise built up under the banner of MOL and have either taken longer, been less capable, or just never gotten off the ground at all (without big light mirrors being a mostly known quantity, ZAMAN probably would not have been viable).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/03/2023 01:19 pm
    That is quite true. Obvious question, to which I assume we have no answer yet, is whose lunch, i.e exactly how much of the NRO budget was it eating ? More generally there's a question which intrigues me more and more, is how on earth were development costs of RHYOLITE, CANYON, JUMPSEAT, DORIAN, GAMBIT 3, HEXAGON *and* operations of CORONA and GAMBIT *and* R&D on ZAMAN, SDS etc etc all fitted into the no more than 1 billion per year envelope between 66 and 72, say. Did CIA spend some of its own (i.e. not Program B) money on programmes that we know had cost overruns, like HEXAGON and one other, likely RHYOLITE, which were stated to have gone over by factors of 2-3 in the 1971 ExCom transcript ?
    I'm starting to think that MOL went broadly through two management paradigms:

    In the 'early days', MOL existed because "the Air Force needs to put men in space, and we'll figure out why we need to do that later" (or more charitably 'we need a man-in-space programme to find out what we can use men in space for'), but needed an 'official' reason. Pretty much a direct follow-on to Dynasoar.
    Indeed, and pretty much what we've seen in Lew Allen's comments on a Perry history https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2458749#msg2458749 which turn out to be Nov 74. See first grab for this part, which he puts even more acerbically, as "many felt it was essential that DOD have some kind of man-in-space effort   if the national commitment to Apollo was really going to generate a new era of manned space flight". Ouch ;-) One needs to remember that he was writing this in Nov 1974, six or so month after last Skylab crew landed and with only ASTP between then and whenever Shuttle was to debut. Lew Allen, one feels, would be thinking that manned flight had essentially ended and yet the sky had yet to fall in ...

    Quote
    MOL cycled through reasons to exist until the last one standing was manned earth observation, and that became the second management paradigm,
    Again agreed, and referred to in second grab from same doc.

    What intrigues me is that the third point you make, one that Libra and I have also speculated on:
    Quote
    added onto the first (that kept the programme alive and funded): "MOL needs to exist to feed NRO staff and contractors with funds over and above the $1bn ceiling". This was a handy reason for MOL to exist, because it was a 'black' reason so harder to be attacked in congress (can't complain about it if you are restricted by where and to who you complain). This was also handy for the NRO as a way to fund vendors to study and work on yet-larger mirrors and spacecraft and launch capabilities and other sundry maybe-useful items, without spending the NRO's own budget on the endeavour.
    For those who either did not see the political game at play or did not want to play it out of principle, MOL was a nonsensical programme sapping funds that could have been spent on expanding existing programmes or on programmes with a better reason to exist.

    ... isn't really acknowledged by Allen.

    It's unlikely he didn't see the game (which those far down in the scheme of things might well not do), but he might well qualify as  one who didn't approve of it-he was characterised by Wheelon in a tribute that I uploaded in one of these threads as "the  straightest shooter of all" or words to that effect.

    It would be truly interesting to see Wheelon's reply, if it ever came back-it was being sought.

    It's also worth noting that the covert mission of MOL couldn't be criticised in Congress except in v closed sessions but it also by same token couldn't be defended in open session. There is at least one memo in the big MOL set that talks about this problem, I'll dig it out because it is really interesting in relation to several issues like the AAP/Skylab v MOL relationship, and the upset Florida delegation  who discover that only one MOL-related launch is going to happen from  ETR (dscussed upthread and in a recent Titan IIIC thread).

    Quote
    In the end those voices won out (possibly the cancellation of FULCRUM/HEXAGON was the straw that broke the camels back and caused everyone to get behind the push to kill MOL to save the actually needed programme),

    I'd be interested to hear Blackstar's take on this. "Everyone" would need to include the NRO HQ staff, Program A and Program B in this context.

    In particular, as PSAC, Program B, Lew Allen and the incoming DNRO are all on record as being MOL sceptics I am really curious who its allies were by 1969, apart from the contract holders, and the > 10 000 people employed by them for example.

    Quote
    but as expected that meant funding for VHR and near-real-time did not end up allocated elsewhere but dried up, with unmanned-DORIAN and HEXADOR both going nowhere (and even Advanced Gambit3 not flying), and a concerted effort was needed to push for ZOSTER and ZAMAN to get funded and to get buy-in from the white-side AF for SDS multi-use (after being burned once before).
    That's not to say that MOL was in-and-of-itself a 'good' programme - and in the end it had gone from 'benign growth' to 'cancerous' in nearly killing off HEXAGON - but I'd be willing to bet that without it other programmes would not have benefited from advancements and contractor expertise built up under the banner of MOL and have either taken longer, been less capable, or just never gotten off the ground at all (without big light mirrors being a mostly known quantity, ZAMAN probably would not have been viable).

    I tend to agree with you on the technological spinoff,  as far as any of us can tell, and would add the very large SIGINT antenna contractor studies done in 65ish, and DONKEY, and maybe even part of the genesis of the JUMPSEAT idea as other possible examples.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 08/03/2023 06:23 pm
    <snip>
    Indeed, and pretty much what we've seen in Lew Allen's comments on a Perry history https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2458749#msg2458749 which turn out to be Nov 74. See first grab for this part, which he puts even more acerbically, as "many felt it was essential that DOD have some kind of man-in-space effort   if the national commitment to Apollo was really going to generate a new era of manned space flight". Ouch ;-) One needs to remember that he was writing this in Nov 1974, six or so month after last Skylab crew landed and with only ASTP between then and whenever Shuttle was to debut. Lew Allen, one feels, would be thinking that manned flight had essentially ended and yet the sky had yet to fall in ...
    <snip>
    Lew Allen reaffirms his views in a 1991 oral history interview:
    "[McNamara] (...)  announced the start of a program called the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. (...) And all of that began coming together pretty well, so the laboratory looked as though it was a technologically sound approach. But the part that didn’t come together very well was what in the world one was going to do with it when it got into space. So in struggling with that on several occasions, Harold Brown would assign me tasks to participate in that thrashing about, trying to figure out what the purpose of all this was. And that had modest success. It ended up, some years later, being canceled, and I was involved in that at a later time.
    (...)
    One of the things we looked at for some time was called Blue Gemini. (...) We worked all of that to show that the project was technically kind of neat and could be done pretty well, and then one couldn’t begin quite figuring out why. So that wasn’t done. The MOL—the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program—was the later manifestation of struggling with that, of the military’s trying to get a manned program under way without ever, to this day, having solved the issue of why you really wanted to have it manned.
    (...)
    The military’s motivation was that if this is so significant that the president is making a bold decision to go to the moon and develop the capability for manned spaceflight, then manned spaceflight itself must be very important, and we, the military services, ought to understand all that and it ought to be important for us. So that was the thinking that led up to them saying, “This is the way the nation is really going. This is the future. And we need to be a very active part of that. But we can’t figure out why!”."

    https://oralhistories.library.caltech.edu/203/1/Allen%2C_L._OHO.pdf (https://oralhistories.library.caltech.edu/203/1/Allen%2C_L._OHO.pdf)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/04/2023 10:29 am

    Lew Allen reaffirms his views in a 1991 oral history interview:
     
    https://oralhistories.library.caltech.edu/203/1/Allen%2C_L._OHO.pdf (https://oralhistories.library.caltech.edu/203/1/Allen%2C_L._OHO.pdf)


    Thanks hoku, some fascinating stuff in there, shortly after he stopped being director of JPL, and then a few years later. Pity that the second inteview didn't ask him more about NRO whose existence was declassified by 1994 iirc.

    But some stuff that is entertaining, like his very polite explanation that he felt he did indeed have enough prior space expertise for the JPL job (first grab), and odd things that to me were jawdropping, like the fact that NSA had been asked to look at the Watergate tapes, and declined (not a story I'd heard, second grab).

    Also interesting that he was approached to be NASA administrator in 90s mid 80s after Beggs but declined (last grab).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 02:46 am
    Doc 620 states that a pick-off of the central 1 inch of the main optics corresponds to 1000 ft. Thus a 9 inch wide film would have covered the field of view.

    4 inch ground resolution distance would have required a film with ~120 lines (line pairs?) per mm:
    1000 ft *12 inch/ft / (120 lines/mm * 25.4 mm/inch * 1 inch) = 4 inch/line


    Sort of catching up with this conversation now. I went through the readout documents I posted up-thread and one of them mentions 9-inch film and a field of view of 9000 feet.

    Something that is hinted at in the readout docs, but which I have not seen elsewhere (it could be there) is the need to use the system in a surveillance mode, meaning a lower resolution and presumably covering more area. It's not clear how they would do this. I think that one of the documents mentions the need for 30-inch resolution. That's about 3 feet, and roughly equivalent to the HEXAGON. But I think (without looking at my notes) that this was proposed for the Block II vehicle, so it was not a capability with the Block I.

    The document on the Block II vehicle is rather interesting. It dates from May 1969, so about one month before program cancellation, and it includes various things that could be added to the baseline MOL to upgrade its capability. One of the highest priorities was a near-infrared capability. Also discusses a UV astronomy capability, but determines that this would require too much mass and they do not recommend it. (They also note that this is a NASA mission, not NRO.) Block II MOL would increase mission duration from 30 days to 45 days.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 02:55 am
    One of the things we looked at for some time was called Blue Gemini. (...) We worked all of that to show that the project was technically kind of neat and could be done pretty well, and then one couldn’t begin quite figuring out why. So that wasn’t done. The MOL—the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program—was the later manifestation of struggling with that, of the military’s trying to get a manned program under way without ever, to this day, having solved the issue of why you really wanted to have it manned.
    (...)

    I have written about Blue Gemini. (Sidenote: in 1999 while I was working on a project for USAF, I came across a document that described Blue Gemini. I requested that it be declassified and they quickly did that. It provided a basic overview of the program, which we didn't really have before then.)

    Blue Gemini was a proposal that lasted from (I think) spring to fall 1962. The proposal was for about six USAF Gemini flights. The first 1-2 would be joint with a NASA astronaut. Then there would be a couple with two USAF astronauts aboard. And the final two missions would be "operational" missions, possibly replacing one of the astronauts with mission equipment in the other seat. This could be a telescope or SIGINT equipment or something.

    I think that BG grew out of the fact that USAF was already helping NASA with Gemini by providing the Titan II rocket and related support, so why not just buy additional vehicles and put USAF astronauts on board?

    But the problem becomes sort of obvious once you think about it a bit (as Lew Allen indicated in his interview): what were the USAF astronauts going to do? For the first few missions, what did it matter if one of the astronauts was USAF or if both were NASA? And if the goal was to do experiments and share the data, why not just have NASA do that and share the data with USAF? The issue then came down to what would those final "operational" missions be? What equipment would you want to put in the extra Gemini seat and why would you need an astronaut to operate it? Why couldn't you just put that on a satellite by itself and operate it from the ground? Once they started asking those questions, Blue Gemini didn't make any sense, and so the program was canceled.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 03:14 am
    So it sounds as if MOL acquired the FROG Mk I technology and ground station as a simple way to fulfill a mission it was already supposed to have, but then when Evans proposed the logical step of deleting the data (not film per se) recovery capsule (after the Apollo fire-I know various folk talked about this  upthread) Flax declined to make that change, possibly because of the policy re readout, and/or just couldn't afford it ?


    I have been writing about the MOL readout system. Took a bit of work, but I'm finally beating it into shape. I'm still running into holes/questions, and the above one is an example.

    So readout is apparently part of the baseline system, and early on it is being studied by Kodak and GE. But by spring 1966 they apparently have not made a lot of progress. Meanwhile, some other contractors are working on their own tech. Philco did it on their own, and showed it off to the MOL program office. But more importantly, CBS was working on it for FROG. So by late 1966, the CBS system apparently becomes the baseline readout system for MOL.

    And then it gets a bit weird in spring 1967. The MOL program was carrying two systems for earlier return of data--the "data return vehicle" (a modified CORONA reentry vehicle), and the readout system. Apparently both were included in the baseline MOL, although I don't know with certainty that this meant that the plan was to carry both systems, or if it meant that there was mass and volume to carry one or the other system. I think the plan was to carry both systems on MOL.

    But this didn't make a heck of a lot of sense. If the readout system worked, then the DRV was unnecessary. It was just added cost and mass and risk. So it appears that by spring 1967 the MOL program office (several memos) was leaning towards canceling the DRV in favor of the readout system. That seems rather logical, although I would note that the DRV could return 60 pounds of film to Earth and deleting it meant that film could not be returned.

    But despite the program office's decision, the DRV is not canceled and in late 1967 the readout system is canceled, for reasons that are not explained in the documents that I have looked at, but probably have to do with cost.

    Something that I see hinted at in some of the documents is that there was no clear idea of how or when to use the readout system. One document implies that it was being included for testing purposes, not for operational intelligence purposes. And other documents indicate that use of the readout system would have been planned from the ground. In other words, they did not intend to leave it up to the astronauts to decide what photos to send down by readout. That seems to be an inherent contradiction, because one of the points of having astronauts onboard is to use their judgement on intelligence collection, but the readout system is being discussed in some documents as if they don't really know how or when or why it will be used, they'll figure this out once the program is operating. So maybe DNRO Al Flax was aware of this and thought we need to start saving money on this expensive MOL program, and nobody really knows how we are going to use the readout system, so that's an obvious thing to cut.

    I don't know if I fully understand the inclusion and then deletion of readout, but what I understand so far is in many ways emblematic of the overall MOL program, where they didn't really know what they were doing or why, but were hoping to figure it out once they started flying.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 08/08/2023 08:50 am
    One of the things we looked at for some time was called Blue Gemini. (...) We worked all of that to show that the project was technically kind of neat and could be done pretty well, and then one couldn’t begin quite figuring out why. So that wasn’t done. The MOL—the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program—was the later manifestation of struggling with that, of the military’s trying to get a manned program under way without ever, to this day, having solved the issue of why you really wanted to have it manned.
    (...)
    <snip>
    And if the goal was to do experiments and share the data, why not just have NASA do that and share the data with USAF?
    <snip>
    See page 40 to 59 66 in the PDF attached to
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38317.msg2248771#msg2248771 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38317.msg2248771#msg2248771)
    The memo "Review of Gemini 5 Photography" details the "ordeals" of an intelligence officer in his dealings with a particular NASA astronaut - and NASA in general - on the matter of sensitive reconnaissance photography   ;)

    P.S.: Maybe USAF just tried to avoid getting into regular "fist fights" with NASA astronauts?  :o ::)  :-\
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 08/08/2023 09:06 am
    Doc 620 states that a pick-off of the central 1 inch of the main optics corresponds to 1000 ft. Thus a 9 inch wide film would have covered the field of view.

    4 inch ground resolution distance would have required a film with ~120 lines (line pairs?) per mm:
    1000 ft *12 inch/ft / (120 lines/mm * 25.4 mm/inch * 1 inch) = 4 inch/line


    Sort of catching up with this conversation now. I went through the readout documents I posted up-thread and one of them mentions 9-inch film and a field of view of 9000 feet.

    Something that is hinted at in the readout docs, but which I have not seen elsewhere (it could be there) is the need to use the system in a surveillance mode, meaning a lower resolution and presumably covering more area. It's not clear how they would do this. I think that one of the documents mentions the need for 30-inch resolution. That's about 3 feet, and roughly equivalent to the HEXAGON. But I think (without looking at my notes) that this was proposed for the Block II vehicle, so it was not a capability with the Block I.

    The document on the Block II vehicle is rather interesting. It dates from May 1969, so about one month before program cancellation, and it includes various things that could be added to the baseline MOL to upgrade its capability. One of the highest priorities was a near-infrared capability. Also discusses a UV astronomy capability, but determines that this would require too much mass and they do not recommend it. (They also note that this is a NASA mission, not NRO.) Block II MOL would increase mission duration from 30 days to 45 days.
    My guess is that MOL block 1 was severly data rate limited in the downlink. A 9" inch (circular) diameter film, scanned at 120 lines/mm at 256 grey levels (1 Byte) corresponds to (4.5*25.4*120)^2 * Pi = 600 MByte. If you multiply this by the number of images per orbit you easily get into the 10s of GB range.

    Thus either you scan only a small portion of the image, or you scan the entire image at much reduced resolution. Going from 4 to 30 inch ground resolution reduces the data volume by a factor of ~60.

    "gigabit / sec data link" is one of the EOI requirements cited by Lew Allen in his intro to Perry's history:
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2295682#msg2295682 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2295682#msg2295682)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 10:28 am
    My guess is that MOL block 1 was severly data rate limited in the downlink. A 9" inch (circular) diameter film, scanned at 120 lines/mm at 256 grey levels (1 Byte) corresponds to (4.5*25.4*120)^2 * Pi = 600 MByte. If you multiply this by the number of images per orbit you easily get into the 10s of GB range.


    The plan was to cut the film into smaller pieces for scanning, which they called "chips." There are conflicting numbers, but I think that one document refers to them as 2 by 6 inches. Still, they were concerned about how much could be relayed. There are some numbers in the later documents about the time available for transmission. If they used a single ground station, they had a total of 500 seconds of transmission time (less than 10 minutes) per day. So there was a proposal to transmit via a geosynchronous relay satellite, which would dramatically increase the amount of transmission time.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 10:29 am
    See page 40 to 59 66 in the PDF attached to
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38317.msg2248771#msg2248771 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38317.msg2248771#msg2248771)
    The memo "Review of Gemini 5 Photography" details the "ordeals" of an intelligence officer in his dealings with a particular NASA astronaut - and NASA in general - on the matter of sensitive reconnaissance photography   ;)

    P.S.: Maybe USAF just tried to avoid getting into regular "fist fights" with NASA astronauts?  :o ::)  :-\

    Yes, but they did cancel Blue Gemini. They may not have liked playing second fiddle to NASA at that time, but they agreed to do it.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: edzieba on 08/08/2023 11:03 am
    So readout is apparently part of the baseline system, and early on it is being studied by Kodak and GE. But by spring 1966 they apparently have not made a lot of progress. Meanwhile, some other contractors are working on their own tech. Philco did it on their own, and showed it off to the MOL program office. But more importantly, CBS was working on it for FROG. So by late 1966, the CBS system apparently becomes the baseline readout system for MOL.

    And then it gets a bit weird in spring 1967. The MOL program was carrying two systems for earlier return of data--the "data return vehicle" (a modified CORONA reentry vehicle), and the readout system. Apparently both were included in the baseline MOL, although I don't know with certainty that this meant that the plan was to carry both systems, or if it meant that there was mass and volume to carry one or the other system. I think the plan was to carry both systems on MOL.

    But this didn't make a heck of a lot of sense. If the readout system worked, then the DRV was unnecessary. It was just added cost and mass and risk. So it appears that by spring 1967 the MOL program office (several memos) was leaning towards canceling the DRV in favor of the readout system. That seems rather logical, although I would note that the DRV could return 60 pounds of film to Earth and deleting it meant that film could not be returned.

    [...]

    I don't know if I fully understand the inclusion and then deletion of readout, but what I understand so far is in many ways emblematic of the overall MOL program, where they didn't really know what they were doing or why, but were hoping to figure it out once they started flying.
    With my cynical budget hat on: the cancellation of FROG mk.1 and the baselining of readout into MOL occurring around the same time would mean that the work at contractors on scanning, data transmission, and reproduction systems was able to continue, but being funded by the AF rather than the NRO. This clearly did not work out as intended (after MOL's cancellation FROG never got a second chance, being outcompeted with electrooptical systems development by the time budget was available for a new system), but being able to fund your R&D from someone else's pocketbook whilst your own ever-shrinking budget - $1 Bn stretches less and less each year with inflation - only needs to pay for operational systems was probably a very attractive idea, despite MOL ending up as a real boondoggle. Being burnt by MOL would also explain why the NRO and AF were so resistant to joining forces for SDS, and why the NRO resisted getting heavily invested into STS.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/08/2023 12:16 pm
    So readout is apparently part of the baseline system, and early on it is being studied by Kodak and GE. But by spring 1966 they apparently have not made a lot of progress. Meanwhile, some other contractors are working on their own tech. Philco did it on their own, and showed it off to the MOL program office. But more importantly, CBS was working on it for FROG. So by late 1966, the CBS system apparently becomes the baseline readout system for MOL.

    And then it gets a bit weird in spring 1967. The MOL program was carrying two systems for earlier return of data--the "data return vehicle" (a modified CORONA reentry vehicle), and the readout system. Apparently both were included in the baseline MOL, although I don't know with certainty that this meant that the plan was to carry both systems, or if it meant that there was mass and volume to carry one or the other system. I think the plan was to carry both systems on MOL.

    But this didn't make a heck of a lot of sense. If the readout system worked, then the DRV was unnecessary. It was just added cost and mass and risk. So it appears that by spring 1967 the MOL program office (several memos) was leaning towards canceling the DRV in favor of the readout system. That seems rather logical, although I would note that the DRV could return 60 pounds of film to Earth and deleting it meant that film could not be returned.

    [...]

    I don't know if I fully understand the inclusion and then deletion of readout, but what I understand so far is in many ways emblematic of the overall MOL program, where they didn't really know what they were doing or why, but were hoping to figure it out once they started flying.
    With my cynical budget hat on: the cancellation of FROG mk.1 and the baselining of readout into MOL occurring around the same time would mean that the work at contractors on scanning, data transmission, and reproduction systems was able to continue, but being funded by the AF rather than the NRO. This clearly did not work out as intended (after MOL's cancellation FROG never got a second chance, being outcompeted with electrooptical systems development by the time budget was available for a new system), but being able to fund your R&D from someone else's pocketbook whilst your own ever-shrinking budget - $1 Bn stretches less and less each year with inflation - only needs to pay for operational systems was probably a very attractive idea, despite MOL ending up as a real boondoggle.
    I tend to agree, but I do wonder if we will ever get any truly clear acknowledgement of this other than things like the doc I was talking about here (and which Libra may have spotted, I don't recall): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2510474#msg2510474 and attached pdf.

    Grab below from this doc shows how the writer (Lew Allen I think) was interpreting the guidance on FROG Mark I.

    But as well as true R&D, and ops, there's a third set of costs to do with development for systems you are building, and things like RHYOLITE would have been drinking vast amounts of that-just based on what we have seen alluded to in declassified docs already. It's not totallly clear if overruns on that was coming out of NRO or CIA money, but either way it added to the overall costs of the NRP, I'd say.

    Quote
    Being burnt by MOL would also explain why the NRO and AF were so resistant to joining forces for SDS, and why the NRO resisted getting heavily invested into STS.

    Not sure that follows, but I am sure that Flax would have been acutely aware of the prssure on covert *and* overt space budgets from the costs of the many new systems that were all coming on stream, because his dual roles gave him oversight of both worlds. A good example of this is his spring 1967 memo about an intel IR satellite that wasn't DSP, and then his opening up to re-examination of the options for DSP as early as 1968-a job that Yarymovich handled for him.

     This period and its Govt-Industry interaction is a topic I hope to address myself in a future piece, but won't be soon.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 01:06 pm
    With my cynical budget hat on: the cancellation of FROG mk.1 and the baselining of readout into MOL occurring around the same time would mean that the work at contractors on scanning, data transmission, and reproduction systems was able to continue, but being funded by the AF rather than the NRO. This clearly did not work out as intended (after MOL's cancellation FROG never got a second chance, being outcompeted with electrooptical systems development by the time budget was available for a new system), but being able to fund your R&D from someone else's pocketbook whilst your own ever-shrinking budget - $1 Bn stretches less and less each year with inflation - only needs to pay for operational systems was probably a very attractive idea, despite MOL ending up as a real boondoggle. Being burnt by MOL would also explain why the NRO and AF were so resistant to joining forces for SDS, and why the NRO resisted getting heavily invested into STS.

    From 1965-1966, readout was part of the baseline MOL design, it's just that it was apparently not progressing very far. Eastman Kodak and GE were the contractors doing readout at that time. Starting in 1966, it appears that the Kodak/GE work on readout ended, and the CBS work that was going on for FROG was substituted into the MOL baseline. And there is no indication that the first stuff was funded by NRO and the second version was funded by Air Force. It appears that the readout work was always funded by NRO, at least up to 1967.

    Simply put, from what I can tell based upon the documents I have looked at: a) readout was always in the baseline MOL until late 1967, when it was "deferred" (although the mass and volume margin was still retained in the MOL design), and b) it was always funded by NRO.

    By late 1968, NRO started to look at a "poor man's readout" that would have lower cost. They didn't get anywhere with that before the MOL program was canceled. Readout then continued for ground use in Vietnam under the name COMPASS LINK, but that may have been paid for by NRO.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/08/2023 01:43 pm
    With my cynical budget hat on: the cancellation of FROG mk.1 and the baselining of readout into MOL occurring around the same time would mean that the work at contractors on scanning, data transmission, and reproduction systems was able to continue, but being funded by the AF rather than the NRO. This clearly did not work out as intended (after MOL's cancellation FROG never got a second chance, being outcompeted with electrooptical systems development by the time budget was available for a new system), but being able to fund your R&D from someone else's pocketbook whilst your own ever-shrinking budget - $1 Bn stretches less and less each year with inflation - only needs to pay for operational systems was probably a very attractive idea, despite MOL ending up as a real boondoggle. Being burnt by MOL would also explain why the NRO and AF were so resistant to joining forces for SDS, and why the NRO resisted getting heavily invested into STS.

    From 1965-1966, readout was part of the baseline MOL design, it's just that it was apparently not progressing very far. Eastman Kodak and GE were the contractors doing readout at that time. Starting in 1966, it appears that the Kodak/GE work on readout ended, and the CBS work that was going on for FROG was substituted into the MOL baseline. And there is no indication that the first stuff was funded by NRO and the second version was funded by Air Force. It appears that the readout work was always funded by NRO, at least up to 1967.

    Simply put, from what I can tell based upon the documents I have looked at: a) readout was always in the baseline MOL until late 1967, when it was "deferred" (although the mass and volume margin was still retained in the MOL design), and b) it was always funded by NRO.


    If true, I take your implied point that this would be inside the billion dollar cap. But would there still be an incentive to have some R&D work done under MOL auspices, even if they still had to pay for it ? Evans in March 67 sounds to me like a man who thinks that the value of readout will become clear with experience in situ, if he can just find someone prepared to pay for the trials.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 02:16 pm
    This is the only decent image I can find of the readout system.

    Of course, it was not actually designed at any point, so this is at best a sketch that shows how it would go into the vehicle. They did reserve space in a console inside the lab for it. I don't know how far they got to looking at the communications antenna for it before it was "deferred" in late 1967. However, the documents from late 1968/early 1969 indicate that they had identified a location for the antenna in the structure. It would be a 2-foot-diameter dish on an arm located behind a blow-off panel. (This illustration shows a fairing over the antenna, but the other document indicates that the antenna would be inside the vehicle, not requiring an external fairing.) The panel would be jettisoned and the arm deployed, giving it full hemisphere coverage.

    Presumably for the relay-satellite version they would have to find a different location for the antenna because it would be pointing up instead of down.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/08/2023 02:27 pm
    I remain curious about the GLO system shown in GE's advanced MOL planning slides from around time of cancellation: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2866/1 see grabs below.



    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/08/2023 03:08 pm

    But despite the program office's decision, the DRV is not canceled and in late 1967 the readout system is canceled, for reasons that are not explained in the documents that I have looked at, but probably have to do with cost.

    Something that I see hinted at in some of the documents is that there was no clear idea of how or when to use the readout system. One document implies that it was being included for testing purposes, not for operational intelligence purposes. And other documents indicate that use of the readout system would have been planned from the ground. In other words, they did not intend to leave it up to the astronauts to decide what photos to send down by readout. That seems to be an inherent contradiction, because one of the points of having astronauts onboard is to use their judgement on intelligence collection, but the readout system is being discussed in some documents as if they don't really know how or when or why it will be used, they'll figure this out once the program is operating. So maybe DNRO Al Flax was aware of this and thought we need to start saving money on this expensive MOL program, and nobody really knows how we are going to use the readout system, so that's an obvious thing to cut.

    I don't know if I fully understand the inclusion and then deletion of readout, but what I understand so far is in many ways emblematic of the overall MOL program, where they didn't really know what they were doing or why, but were hoping to figure it out once they started flying.

    I would still strongly suggest reading Evans' arguments, they seem to me to be less vague or at least more sensible than your characterisation:
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2510925#msg2510925
    He sounds to me like someone who is expecting more crises and who thinks that having readout on MOL will prove itself when given a chance.

    I also think it's interesting that the  PSAC panel liked readout and lamented its cancellation in 1967. A late (April 69) memo about PSAC says that they were always in favour of the uncrewed version, https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/712.pdf and attached pdf and grab, so presumably their views on readout need to be considered in that context ? A readout satellite with KH-10 optiocs might to them have seemed (in 1967) a relatively good return for all the expenditure.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 03:53 pm
    I would still strongly suggest reading Evans' arguments, they seem to me to be less vague or at least more sensible than your characterisation:
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2510925#msg2510925
    He sounds to me like someone who is expecting more crises and who thinks that having readout on MOL will prove itself when given a chance.


    What I meant is that this is still an example of "We'll fly it first and figure out if we need it," rather than "We need it, so we're building it, even if we don't fully know how we're going to use it." Evans is not the USIB or the Land Panel or the CIA. He was a program-level official, not a national-level official.

    Also, if you simply consider the flight rate, they were thinking of two manned MOL missions per year, for 30 days duration. So that's really only two months of readout per year, and really less because readout would be a secondary MOL mission compared to the primary mission of doing technical intelligence collection (i.e. taking high-resolution photos of hardware and installations).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 03:55 pm
    I remain curious about the GLO system shown in GE's advanced MOL planning slides from around time of cancellation: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2866/1 see grabs below.


    I think that's also discussed in the MOL Block II document. The problem is that they only appear to have been looking at it for a few months before the program was canceled. Readout was under consideration for the whole life of the program, but video transmission for maybe 6-7 months or so.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/08/2023 04:03 pm
    I would still strongly suggest reading Evans' arguments, they seem to me to be less vague or at least more sensible than your characterisation:
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2510925#msg2510925
    He sounds to me like someone who is expecting more crises and who thinks that having readout on MOL will prove itself when given a chance.


    What I meant is that this is still an example of "We'll fly it first and figure out if we need it," rather than "We need it, so we're building it, even if we don't fully know how we're going to use it." Evans is not the USIB or the Land Panel or the CIA. He was a program-level official, not a national-level official.

    Fair enough. Though interesting to see from Wiki page what sort of roles he had held before this one:

    Quote
    He then joined the Ballistic Missile Division as program director of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. In November 1960, he became vice director of the Samos Project Office in El Segundo, California.[2][3] He was also deputy director of Program A, the Air Force component of the National Reconnaissance Office.[4] 

    [...]

    In November 1962, Evans became chief of the Requirements and Development Division in J-5 (Plans and Policy) Division of the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at The Pentagon in Washington, DC.



    which would presumably have given him a pretty broad perspective.

    Quote
    Also, if you simply consider the flight rate, they were thinking of two manned MOL missions per year, for 30 days duration. So that's really only two months of readout per year, and really less because readout would be a secondary MOL mission compared to the primary mission of doing technical intelligence collection (i.e. taking high-resolution photos of hardware and installations).

    Wouldn't readout work after the Gemini was landed ? Or were they expecting to deorbit the whole thing immediately-which seems i) remarkably wasteful and ii) a clear giveaway about what its (supposedly covert) mission was ?

    [Edit: Or was readout something that a crew member had to do manually ?]

    [Edit 2: But I guess encrypted transmission after crew departure would also say something.]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: JAFO on 08/08/2023 04:49 pm

    But the problem becomes sort of obvious once you think about it a bit (as Lew Allen indicated in his interview): what were the USAF astronauts going to do?

    Considering the state of automation back then, maybe it was a desire to keep a man in the loop for unanticipated real-time decisions/adjustments? And, of course, to keep a finger in the pie and control of the project so someone else would not jump it and take it over.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 05:43 pm
    Wouldn't readout work after the Gemini was landed ? Or were they expecting to deorbit the whole thing immediately-which seems i) remarkably wasteful and ii) a clear giveaway about what its (supposedly covert) mission was ?

    [Edit: Or was readout something that a crew member had to do manually ?]

    [Edit 2: But I guess encrypted transmission after crew departure would also say something.]

    No, it was a manual system. They had to take the photos with the DORIAN camera, process the film, select the portion of the image to scan and cut it out of the film, and feed it through the scanner.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/08/2023 05:47 pm
    Considering the state of automation back then, maybe it was a desire to keep a man in the loop for unanticipated real-time decisions/adjustments? And, of course, to keep a finger in the pie and control of the project so someone else would not jump it and take it over.

    Let me state it more broadly: what were the astronauts going to do that required them to be there and could not be done robotically?

    USAF started out with a list of things, but kept crossing them off as the automatic systems kept improving. They were things like:

    -fix malfunctioning equipment (as reliability increased quickly, this was no longer necessary)
    -manually adjust the focus of the camera (auto-focus systems were developed)
    -select the best targets of opportunity (just add in more film and take more photos)

    For more on that, take a look at my Space Review articles on the value of man in MOL.

    But overall, this was the problem that plagued the military astronaut program throughout the 1960s. The USAF kept looking for a military mission that required astronauts and they could not come up with a satisfactory answer. That's why Dyna-Soar, Blue Gemini, and MOL all got canceled.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/09/2023 07:01 am
    Wouldn't readout work after the Gemini was landed ? Or were they expecting to deorbit the whole thing immediately-which seems i) remarkably wasteful and ii) a clear giveaway about what its (supposedly covert) mission was ?

    [Edit: Or was readout something that a crew member had to do manually ?]

     

    No, it was a manual system. They had to take the photos with the DORIAN camera, process the film, select the portion of the image to scan and cut it out of the film, and feed it through the scanner.

    Thanks. One of those things that seems extraordinary from 2023 and yet may have seemed quite reasonable to many at the time. A bit like changing valves (tubes) on Arthur C Clarke's comsat space stations in 1945.

    You are reminding me of the little developing table in Almaz, with a curtain to shield it from light, iirc. This is seen, again iirc, in the film Astrospies. I'll have a look at this some time and post a grab if memory has not deceived me. [Edit: Memory had deceived me about the curtains I think, they just dimmed the station's lights, but see 44:50 or so onwards for a brief discussion by a cosmonaut who trained on Almaz of how their readout system worked. Grabs below]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URkD5W8FAFI
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/09/2023 08:42 am
    Interesting post-cancellation memo on rationale for VHR, see grabs below and attached, from https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/772.pdf

    Interesting comment re silo hardness as a spurious rationale, and mention of Selin and Sorrel(s) - I wonder who they were ?

    [Edit: I had a nagging feeling that name Selin was familiar, and it was, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Selin
    Somebody, hoku iiirc, posted one of his memos on deterrence-a fascinating insight into that moment. ]

    [Edit 2. It was indeed hoku https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15459.msg2390967#msg2390967 and in fact the memo was about VHR and MOL]

    Written at a time when the uncrewed VHR MOL-derived mission was at least in theory still being looked at.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/09/2023 02:57 pm

    Thanks. One of those things that seems extraordinary from 2023 and yet may have seemed quite reasonable to many at the time. A bit like changing valves (tubes) on Arthur C Clarke's comsat space stations in 1945.

    Yeah, but keep in mind that it was a manual system on MOL because it was being added to the manned laboratory and was not designed to be automatic from the start. If they wanted it to be automatic, that probably would have interfered with the primary mission. I have not seen anything indicating that the unmanned (or "automatic") MOL could have this capability.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/09/2023 03:08 pm
    Interesting post-cancellation memo on rationale for VHR, see grabs below and attached, from https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/772.pdf

    Interesting comment re silo hardness as a spurious rationale, and mention of Selin and Sorrel(s) - I wonder who they were ?

    That is a really interesting memo for a lot of reasons. First, it's a discussion of VHR. Second, it mentions some studies on VHR (which I guess I should FOIA). But finally, it makes a great point that if you know you are going to produce a sloppy/bad answer, maybe you should not do it at all, because that can provoke a reaction that you may not want.

    I've told this story before, but back in the latter 1990s I interviewed a guy who worked for NPIC and who was involved in briefing vice president Hubert Humphrey when he visited NPIC at the Washington Navy Yard in 1967. (A few years ago NRO declassified a document that confirmed this visit, and I was thrilled to see that.)

    The guy told me a story about how the Director of Central Intelligence was there during the MOL briefing and at one point he jotted something down on a piece of paper and slid it in front of the VP who looked at it, folded it in half, and did not say anything. The briefing continued, and Humphrey asked some pointed questions about MOL. Then it ended and everybody left the room to go see stuff. The guy lingered until everybody was gone, and then he grabbed the piece of paper that Humphrey had left. On it the DCI had written "Why four inches?" In other words, he wanted the VP to ask why MOL's resolution goal was four inches?

    Now extrapolating from this a bit, we can assume that the DCI did not think such high resolution was necessary, or at least not necessary at MOL's cost.

    So put that in context with the above memo and it fits rather well, doesn't it? It confirms that there was real doubt within the intelligence community that very high resolution had any value. What intelligence questions could VHR answer? There were probably a few, but maybe even the few that people commonly stated were dubious.

    Food for thought. Another rabbit hole for me to fall down.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/09/2023 03:35 pm
    Interesting post-cancellation memo on rationale for VHR, see grabs below and attached, from https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/772.pdf

    Interesting comment re silo hardness as a spurious rationale, and mention of Selin and Sorrel(s) - I wonder who they were ?

    That is a really interesting memo for a lot of reasons. First, it's a discussion of VHR. Second, it mentions some studies on VHR (which I guess I should FOIA). But finally, it makes a great point that if you know you are going to produce a sloppy/bad answer, maybe you should not do it at all, because that can provoke a reaction that you may not want.

    I've told this story before, but back in the latter 1990s I interviewed a guy who worked for NPIC and who was involved in briefing vice president Hubert Humphrey when he visited NPIC at the Washington Navy Yard in 1967. (A few years ago NRO declassified a document that confirmed this visit, and I was thrilled to see that.)

    The guy told me a story about how the Director of Central Intelligence was there during the MOL briefing and at one point he jotted something down on a piece of paper and slid it in front of the VP who looked at it, folded it in half, and did not say anything. The briefing continued, and Humphrey asked some pointed questions about MOL. Then it ended and everybody left the room to go see stuff. The guy lingered until everybody was gone, and then he grabbed the piece of paper that Humphrey had left. On it the DCI had written "Why four inches?" In other words, he wanted the VP to ask why MOL's resolution goal was four inches?

    Now extrapolating from this a bit, we can assume that the DCI did not think such high resolution was necessary, or at least not necessary at MOL's cost.

    So put that in context with the above memo and it fits rather well, doesn't it? It confirms that there was real doubt within the intelligence community that very high resolution had any value. What intelligence questions could VHR answer? There were probably a few, but maybe even the few that people commonly stated were dubious.

    Food for thought. Another rabbit hole for me to fall down.

    My pleasure.

    While you are going down the rabbit hole, here's the Selin memo, #665 in the MOL set, that hoku drew our attention to a while back. See attached, and second grab, from https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/665.pdf
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/09/2023 04:15 pm
    I know  of course that in reality neither of us can spend much of the next year reading MOL documents even just from the "set of 800", but here's just one more, some briefing slides I came across while unsuccessfully trying to find out who Sorrel(s) was. It's #707, the set from which the "Underpants Gnomes diagrams" come https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/707.pdf and attached.

    Interesting in many ways but in particular shows that MOL had just over 12000 people cleared into DORIAN around the time of its cancellation, with many more employed in the overt part (elswwhere in briefing for org charts etc)-see grabs below.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/09/2023 04:53 pm
    While you are going down the rabbit hole, here's the Selin memo, #665 in the MOL set, that hoku drew our attention to a while back. See attached, and second grab, from https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/mol/665.pdf

    In the VHR discussion it's necessary to try and separate VHR on its own from VHR as a justification for MOL. I don't think there was a good justification for VHR alone, which is why after MOL got canceled it seems like there was not much effort in justifying a new VHR system. By 1970 much of the discussion was about near-real-time, and there was apparently no convincing argument that VHR was needed.

    At least some of the problem in unraveling this is that we don't know the goal and actual resolution for the GAMBIT-3. I think that the goal resolution for GAMBIT-3 when it was started was 12-inches. But there is some indication that it took them a while to reach that (maybe 1970 or 1971?). And they only got better over the 1970s. We just don't know what the resolution was in 1969, 1970, 1971 and so on. I think that one of the key improvements in GAMBIT-3 resolution came in the 1970s with the development of better film.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/09/2023 05:40 pm

    At least some of the problem in unraveling this is that we don't know the goal and actual resolution for the GAMBIT-3. I think that the goal resolution for GAMBIT-3 when it was started was 12-inches. But there is some indication that it took them a while to reach that (maybe 1970 or 1971?). And they only got better over the 1970s. We just don't know what the resolution was in 1969, 1970, 1971 and so on. I think that one of the key improvements in GAMBIT-3 resolution came in the 1970s with the development of better film.

    The 1967 PSAC panel reviewed GAMBIT and DORIAN together, and either heard or felt that G3 wouldn't hit its targets quickly, iirc it said that G3 might take 20 flights to do so. They were not happy about this. I don't seem to have attached the doc upthread but I will put it on this post later. [Edit: turns out I did post it and the grab about PSAC’s disappointment-see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2510269#msg2510269] FWIW KH-8 #20 was Spring 1969.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/09/2023 09:30 pm
    Stupid me, somehow I glanced at the readout system image I posted up-thread and I never noticed this center image that shows how they would have cut the film.

    The math is pretty simple on this--the 9-inch diameter film had a diameter of 9000 feet on the ground, so one inch on the film is pretty much 1000 feet on the ground. Therefore a 6-inch long strip 2 inches wide is 6000 feet on the ground and 2000 feet wide. That seems like a lot, but the reality is that there are a lot of things to photograph, and they are often spread more than 9000 feet apart, so during each pass over a target area, MOL would have only photographed a few targets, leaving many others missed. The astronauts' job was to pick out the most important targets during each photographic pass. (When you think about this, they would still probably be missing interesting stuff. There might be something going on in a target area but they don't immediately spot it, or they have decided that something else is more important and photograph that instead.)

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/09/2023 10:08 pm
    Fair enough. Though interesting to see from Wiki page what sort of roles he had held before this one:

    Quote
    He then joined the Ballistic Missile Division as program director of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. In November 1960, he became vice director of the Samos Project Office in El Segundo, California.[2][3] He was also deputy director of Program A, the Air Force component of the National Reconnaissance Office.[4] 

    [...]

    In November 1962, Evans became chief of the Requirements and Development Division in J-5 (Plans and Policy) Division of the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at The Pentagon in Washington, DC.

    which would presumably have given him a pretty broad perspective.


    I should have responded to this earlier. I'm not implying that Evans was not intelligent or experienced. I'm also not saying that he was wrong. My point is that he was a program manager trying to justify this part of the program. That is different than a stated requirement coming from the user community, or the part of the intelligence community that was tasked with establishing requirements.

    I actually agree that if they had put readout on MOL (assuming that MOL would have flown), they quite possibly would have figured out useful ways to use it. That said, MOL's greatest strength was that it was a powerful camera system, and it seems to me that they should have wanted to maximize that aspect of the system. Trying to also turn it into a near-real-time reconnaissance system seems like it was diluting MOL's core strength.

    Something else we don't know is how much this would have taken up crew time. It seems to me that we can divide MOL astronauts' time into two big categories: a) taking photos, and b) everything else. That everything else included sleep, eating, hygiene, maintenance and other stuff. I suspect that in 1967 the USAF had no good clue how much time it was going to take to do all those other things. They could guess, but their actual on-orbit data was really limited.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/10/2023 03:48 pm
    Fair enough. Though interesting to see from Wiki page what sort of roles he had held before this one:

    Quote
    He then joined the Ballistic Missile Division as program director of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. In November 1960, he became vice director of the Samos Project Office in El Segundo, California.[2][3] He was also deputy director of Program A, the Air Force component of the National Reconnaissance Office.[4] 

    [...]

    In November 1962, Evans became chief of the Requirements and Development Division in J-5 (Plans and Policy) Division of the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at The Pentagon in Washington, DC.

    which would presumably have given him a pretty broad perspective.


    I should have responded to this earlier. I'm not implying that Evans was not intelligent or experienced.

    Don't worry, I think anyone who knows your articles, or your books like the AF Chief Scientist history, would never suggest otherwise. I was just intrigued by his background, which I wasn't aware of, esp the BMEWS role.

    Quote
    I'm also not saying that he was wrong. My point is that he was a program manager trying to justify this part of the program. That is different than a stated requirement coming from the user community, or the part of the intelligence community that was tasked with establishing requirements.

    I actually agree that if they had put readout on MOL (assuming that MOL would have flown), they quite possibly would have figured out useful ways to use it. That said, MOL's greatest strength was that it was a powerful camera system, and it seems to me that they should have wanted to maximize that aspect of the system. Trying to also turn it into a near-real-time reconnaissance system seems like it was diluting MOL's core strength.

    He was indeed a programme manager, but I am not sure that justifying this part of the programme i.e. readout  was his primary motivation. There's another, earlier memo that we've seen a while ago that imo shows him genuinely concerned that the MOL programme isn't broad enough. See grabs below, and attached, and https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/199.pdf. I don't think he is just trying to make the overt part look like the programme which has already been announced-it sounds to me as if he thinks it actually needs to be a Manned Orbiting Laboratory and not just a carrier for DORIAN's KH-10 camera. I think the March 67 memo dovetails nicely with this, but that it may thus also be a factor in Flax's inaction. Interestingly he claimed Schriever shared his concerns (last grab), this might be a bureaucratic manoeuver or might be quite true. He seems imho quite astutely to feel it needs overt USAF buy-in to keep it in being.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/10/2023 05:03 pm
    On a related topic, did you have a PDF of the Baird memo you mention here https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3818/1 that could be shared here ? Doesn't seem to be on the NRO site unless I am looking in wrong place ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/10/2023 05:34 pm
    On a related topic, did you have a PDF of the Baird memo you mention here https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3818/1 that could be shared here ? Doesn't seem to be on the NRO site unless I am looking in wrong place ?

    https://www.nro.gov/foia-home/foia-declassified-from-the-nro-archives/

    Attached. It was from one of the "Sunshine Week" releases. For those, they released documents that were 50 years old, so in 2019 they released a bunch of documents from 2018.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/10/2023 07:14 pm
    He was indeed a programme manager, but I am not sure that justifying this part of the programme i.e. readout  was his primary motivation. There's another, earlier memo that we've seen a while ago that imo shows him genuinely concerned that the MOL programme isn't broad enough. See grabs below, and attached, and https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/199.pdf. I don't think he is just trying to make the overt part look like the programme which has already been announced-it sounds to me as if he thinks it actually needs to be a Manned Orbiting Laboratory and not just a carrier for DORIAN's KH-10 camera. I think the March 67 memo dovetails nicely with this, but that it may thus also be a factor in Flax's inaction. Interestingly he claimed Schriever shared his concerns (last grab), this might be a bureaucratic manoeuver or might be quite true. He seems imho quite astutely to feel it needs overt USAF buy-in to keep it in being.


    [I'm going to re-state the obvious below. Forgive me.]

    This is an inherent problem with MOL that it faced for its entire existence. As a narrowly-focused program to just take high-res pictures, was it worth the cost? But if it was instead conceived more broadly in terms of tech development, it was harder to answer the question of what it was supposed to do and why that would be worth the cost. Evans may have been arguing in favor of spreading out MOL's utility a bit more, but was that going to increase support for MOL or risk the support it already had?

    I think MOL's cost and schedule slips just exaggerated all of these issues. If it was cheaper and on schedule, they would have felt less pressure.

    The final answer comes down to what happened by June 1969 when the Nixon administration decided that NRO (and USAF) could fund one big IMINT system, but not two. Which one had more usefulness to the national leadership, HEXAGON or MOL? HEXAGON, despite its development problems, had a clearly-defined mission, a clearly-defined reason for being. MOL/DORIAN did not. At that point, they were both judged in terms of their value as intelligence collection systems, not in terms of their potential to do anything else.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/11/2023 08:25 am
    He was indeed a programme manager, but I am not sure that justifying this part of the programme i.e. readout  was his primary motivation. There's another, earlier memo that we've seen a while ago that imo shows him genuinely concerned that the MOL programme isn't broad enough. See grabs below, and attached, and https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/199.pdf. I don't think he is just trying to make the overt part look like the programme which has already been announced-it sounds to me as if he thinks it actually needs to be a Manned Orbiting Laboratory and not just a carrier for DORIAN's KH-10 camera. I think the March 67 memo dovetails nicely with this, but that it may thus also be a factor in Flax's inaction. Interestingly he claimed Schriever shared his concerns (last grab), this might be a bureaucratic manoeuver or might be quite true. He seems imho quite astutely to feel it needs overt USAF buy-in to keep it in being.


    [I'm going to re-state the obvious below. Forgive me.]

    This is an inherent problem with MOL that it faced for its entire existence. As a narrowly-focused program to just take high-res pictures, was it worth the cost? But if it was instead conceived more broadly in terms of tech development, it was harder to answer the question of what it was supposed to do and why that would be worth the cost. Evans may have been arguing in favor of spreading out MOL's utility a bit more, but was that going to increase support for MOL or risk the support it already had?

    I think MOL's cost and schedule slips just exaggerated all of these issues. If it was cheaper and on schedule, they would have felt less pressure.

    The final answer comes down to what happened by June 1969 when the Nixon administration decided that NRO (and USAF) could fund one big IMINT system, but not two. Which one had more usefulness to the national leadership, HEXAGON or MOL? HEXAGON, despite its development problems, had a clearly-defined mission, a clearly-defined reason for being. MOL/DORIAN did not. At that point, they were both judged in terms of their value as intelligence collection systems, not in terms of their potential to do anything else.

    Well put, sir, and unarguably true. But (there's always a but with me isn't there ;-) ) I came across a nice quote the other day in UK edition of The Week. I'll need to chase it up but sense of it was "the most interesting history is written about people preparing for a future which didn't happen". I think that's particularly true of MOL/DORIAN.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/11/2023 08:33 am
    Considering the state of automation back then, maybe it was a desire to keep a man in the loop for unanticipated real-time decisions/adjustments? And, of course, to keep a finger in the pie and control of the project so someone else would not jump it and take it over.

    Let me state it more broadly: what were the astronauts going to do that required them to be there and could not be done robotically?

    USAF started out with a list of things, but kept crossing them off as the automatic systems kept improving. They were things like:

    -fix malfunctioning equipment (as reliability increased quickly, this was no longer necessary)

    This is an interesting question, actually, because although reliability did indeed increase dramatically, it was still an issue through to mid 70s. Although redacted the list of "failures and anomalies" https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/sigintphaseii/SC-2017-00007iiii.pdf from July 68 (CANYON?) to about 73 confirms this. The question presumably is value for money from in situ repairs, right ?

    Quote
    -manually adjust the focus of the camera (auto-focus systems were developed)
    -select the best targets of opportunity (just add in more film and take more photos)
    In this context I was really intrigued by the RAND work as early as 1959 on automatic shutoff when clouds were present-posted in SDS thread.

    Quote
    For more on that, take a look at my Space Review articles on the value of man in MOL.

    But overall, this was the problem that plagued the military astronaut program throughout the 1960s. The USAF kept looking for a military mission that required astronauts and they could not come up with a satisfactory answer. That's why Dyna-Soar, Blue Gemini, and MOL all got canceled.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/11/2023 02:08 pm
    This is an interesting question, actually, because although reliability did indeed increase dramatically, it was still an issue through to mid 70s. Although redacted the list of "failures and anomalies" https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/sigintphaseii/SC-2017-00007iiii.pdf from July 68 (CANYON?) to about 73 confirms this. The question presumably is value for money from in situ repairs, right ?

    I think it's a very complicated question, because it also includes the issue of designing the system that could fail to be repairable by astronauts. If something breaks but the astronauts cannot reach it, or requires analysis and repair equipment (soldering in space?), then simply having an astronaut onboard does not help.

    Of course, this then leads into the justification for the space shuttle in the 1970s. The ability to do repair and servicing with the shuttle was a primary justification for building it. But as we now know with the history of the shuttle, that capability was rarely used, and it came with limitations and high costs.

    Trying to step back and look at the whole issue, and not just MOL, I think that one of the problems is that the robotic systems and their design and development (and replacement) always moved at a faster pace than the human systems. We saw that with MOL and we saw that with shuttle--by the time the human system was available, the reliability and design of the robotic systems improved substantially. Taking the later example of shuttle, one could compare the reliability of robotic spacecraft in 1972 when the shuttle was approved to the reliability of robotic spacecraft in 1982, when the shuttle was declared operational.

    Furthermore, by the 1990s almost nobody was talking about using astronauts to repair robotic spacecraft because their lifetimes and reliability had continued to improve substantially. Taking that to today, we have seen that the whole field is shifting a bit further. In the case of megaconstellations of satellites, the operators accept a higher failure rate and simply make up for it with numbers. The idea of having astronauts repair anything other than their own spacecraft is no longer discussed at all.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/11/2023 04:40 pm
    This is an interesting question, actually, because although reliability did indeed increase dramatically, it was still an issue through to mid 70s. Although redacted the list of "failures and anomalies" https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/sigintphaseii/SC-2017-00007iiii.pdf from July 68 (CANYON?) to about 73 confirms this. The question presumably is value for money from in situ repairs, right ?

    I think it's a very complicated question, because it also includes the issue of designing the system that could fail to be repairable by astronauts. If something breaks but the astronauts cannot reach it, or requires analysis and repair equipment (soldering in space?), then simply having an astronaut onboard does not help.

    Of course, this then leads into the justification for the space shuttle in the 1970s. The ability to do repair and servicing with the shuttle was a primary justification for building it. But as we now know with the history of the shuttle, that capability was rarely used, and it came with limitations and high costs.

    Trying to step back and look at the whole issue, and not just MOL, I think that one of the problems is that the robotic systems and their design and development (and replacement) always moved at a faster pace than the human systems. We saw that with MOL and we saw that with shuttle--by the time the human system was available, the reliability and design of the robotic systems improved substantially. Taking the later example of shuttle, one could compare the reliability of robotic spacecraft in 1972 when the shuttle was approved to the reliability of robotic spacecraft in 1982, when the shuttle was declared operational.

    Indeed. Having remembered the discussions of repairable spacecraft in the 1970s, especially in Flight International, I was really interested to discover that some farsighted folk had already decided this wasn't really viable even when Shuttle was being approved. We touched on this in the KH-9 thread, where the following long extracts from Heppenheimer's first Shuttle book come from. I'm reposting because I think we tend to forget even now that some people had already written such repairs off as a justification for the traffic model, whatever NASA wanted to believe.

    Quote
    .. Newly strengthened, its counterpart within the OMB became the Evaluation Division, with the economist William Niskanen as its director.

    Niskanen, from the University of Chicago, counted himself as a disciple of the economist Milton Friedman, a leading advocate of the free market and a strong critic of government programs. Niskanen himself went on to build a reputation as a supporter of tax cuts, heading the libertarian Cato Institute. He did not love the Shuttle in 1971, and his criticisms were blunt. He dismissed out of hand the Aerospace Corp.’s mission models: “My impression is that the mission models that NASA is projecting for the 1980s are unrealistic. They start at a number that strains credibility and go up from there.

    The Mathematica report had tried to make such models appear plausible by noting that “the 1964-1969 U.S. traffic equivalent is represented by an annual traffic of 51 Space Shuttle flights.” This was close to the 57 flights per year of the baseline mission model. Because a rising tide lifts all boats, NASA’s flight rates during the 1960s had been buoyed powerfully by the agency’s generous budgets. The OMB had no intention of granting such largesse during the 1970s. In addition to this, the Air Force had flown large numbers of Corona reconnaissance satellites, modest in size. These were about to give way to the much larger Big Bird, which would fly far less frequently.

    Niskanen also struck at the heart of NASA’s rationale for the Shuttle, as he rejected the idea that payload effects would lead to large cost savings: “A large part of the presumed savings come from relaxed design, repair, and refurbishment of satellites. I was struck, however, with the fact that payload design is so far down the road — in miniaturization, sophistication, and reliability — that you wouldn’t get manufacturers or users to go for much relaxation.[John Mauer interview, Willis Shapley, October 26, 1984, p. 29; National Journal, August 12, 1972, p. 1296; Who’s Who in Economics (1986), p. 641; Morgenstern and Heiss, Analysis, May 31, 1971, p. 0-37.]

    The payload-effects concept amounted to asserting that the Shuttle indeed would meet its cost goals, including cost per flight as low as $4.6 million, and hence would spark a revolution in spacecraft design. The first statement was a speculation; the second then amounted to a speculation that rested on a speculation. Moreover, while payload effects drew strong enthusiasm from a coterie of supporters, this concept flew in the face of the hard-won lessons through which engineers indeed had learned to build reliable spacecraft.

    Much of this experience had accumulated within Lockheed itself, which had struggled through a dozen failures in the Corona program, during 1959 and 1960, before finally achieving success. “It was a most heartbreaking business,” Richard Bissell, the program manager within the CIA, would later recall. “In the case of a [reconnaissance] satellite you fire the damn thing off and you’ve got some telemetry, and you never get it back. You’ve got no hardware. You never see it again, and you have to infer from telemetry what went wrong. Then you make a fix, and if it fails again you know you’ve inferred wrong. In the case of Corona it went on and on.” [Ruffner, ed., Corona, pp. 16-24; Mosley, Dulles, p. 432.]

    [...]

    Such experiences [i.e. those of Lockheed and JPL] flew in the face of the payload effects concept, which amounted to asserting that spacecraft of the future would resemble stereo systems assembled from components. Yet there also was excellent reason to believe that even if the users of satellites were in a position to do so, they would not want to pursue payload effects.

    On-orbit refurbishment of spacecraft represented an important aspect of payload effects. NASA’s Joseph McGolrick noted that the users that were contacted indicated no interest in doing that. Usually, what you were talking about was a satellite that was at the end of its life or was partway through its life, and they really didn’t want it back. It was, effectively, garbage.” Refurbishment on the ground was even less promising: “you’re bringing back junk and relaunching, and you’ve got an extra launch in there to be paid for.”

    On-orbit checkout of payloads was another important concept. It drew fire from NASA’s Philip Culbertson, Director of Advanced Manned Missions:

        We asked the communications satellite people if they expected to check their payloads out in low earth orbit. And the answer came back that they would not anticipate doing an extensive test of the satellites, if for no other reason than that would require deploying solar arrays and then retracting them and putting them back together again. They felt that the benefit from that was outweighed by the additional risks that they would go through in going through that additional deployment and retraction. [John Mauer interviews: Joseph McGolrick, October 24, 1984, pp. 34-36; Philip Culbertson, October 29, 1984, p. 15.]"

    I suspect this accumulated experience  came too late to have affected the narrowing down of MOL's role circa 65-66, but the knowledge gained from many CORONAs and GAMBITs must have been a key component of it, as Heppenheimer said.


    Quote
    Furthermore, by the 1990s almost nobody was talking about using astronauts to repair robotic spacecraft because their lifetimes and reliability had continued to improve substantially. Taking that to today, we have seen that the whole field is shifting a bit further. In the case of megaconstellations of satellites, the operators accept a higher failure rate and simply make up for it with numbers. The idea of having astronauts repair anything other than their own spacecraft is no longer discussed at all.

    One of many interesting consequences of this is that the satellite insurance market has shrunk.

    Interesting though that repair by robots is now on the agenda, and of course spectacular demonstrations like the GEO rendezvous with an Intelsat.

    Must go, I have an AE 35 unit to repair ... ;-)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/26/2023 04:38 pm
    My article on the film readout system for MOL will run in The Space Review in a few weeks. Bart also has something in the works on Soviet systems. (That is independent from our joint Almaz-MOL article that will eventually also include my MOL film-readout material.)

    But I'm having trouble coming up with a good title for the article. My working title has been "Faxing from space..." but I don't like that. If anybody has a clever and descriptive title for my article on this, please let me know.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/26/2023 04:46 pm
    A variant on beam me down Scotty suggests itself;-)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Thorny on 08/26/2023 05:08 pm
    But I'm having trouble coming up with a good title for the article. My working title has been "Faxing from space..." but I don't like that. If anybody has a clever and descriptive title for my article on this, please let me know.

    The First Instagrams?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 08/26/2023 05:56 pm
    A variant on beam me down Scotty suggests itself;-)

    I used to use a lot of Babylon 5 episode titles, because they often played on the concept of darkness and light, which worked really well when describing secret projects.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 08/28/2023 03:54 pm
    A variant on beam me down Scotty suggests itself;-)

    I used to use a lot of Babylon 5 episode titles, because they often played on the concept of darkness and light, which worked really well when describing secret projects.

    Indeed.

    I'm thinking something like One Hour Photo, or even Pictures at 11 ;-). If the latter was good enough for Robert Plant ...
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: edzieba on 08/29/2023 09:57 am
    A variant on beam me down Scotty suggests itself;-)

    I used to use a lot of Babylon 5 episode titles, because they often played on the concept of darkness and light, which worked really well when describing secret projects.
    "The Geometry of Shadows" works for the actual flying-spot process, laser or CRT (measuring how much light is occluded from a source over a given area of film).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: leovinus on 08/29/2023 07:45 pm
    While reading old Spaceflight magazines, I came across an interview with McNamara titled "A manned military space laboratory". On Dec 10th, 1963, it is to clarify the cancelation of Dyna-Soar X-20 and mentioning Gemini, Gemini X, MOL, ASSET and more.
    Quote
    We expect that the cancellation of Dyna-Soar. plus the expansion of ASSET, plus the Gemini X programme, inclusive of the Manned Orbital Laboratory, will result in expenditure of savings of approximately $I00 million during the next 18 months,
    Attached, and originally from Spaceflight  1964-05: Vol 6 Iss 3, page 74 which you can read here https://archive.org/details/sim_spaceflight_1964-05_6_3
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 09/01/2023 07:50 am
    A variant on beam me down Scotty suggests itself;-)

    I used to use a lot of Babylon 5 episode titles, because they often played on the concept of darkness and light, which worked really well when describing secret projects.
    "The Geometry of Shadows" works for the actual flying-spot process, laser or CRT (measuring how much light is occluded from a source over a given area of film).

    I’m thinking perhaps

    “A picture from DORIAN, in greyscale …”

    I’ll get my coat

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 09/05/2023 09:33 pm
    This could go in a bunch of different threads, but since we were recently discussing near-real-time reconnaissance satellites in this thread, I'm going to drop it here. Bart will probably put it in the Russian thread too.

    https://thespacereview.com/article/4646/1

    Soviet television reconnaissance satellites
    by Bart Hendrickx
    Tuesday, September 5, 2023

    Starting in the early 1960s, the Soviet Union launched hundreds of photoreconnaissance satellites that returned exposed film back to Earth in capsules. It was not until 1982 that the country orbited its first electro-optical reconnaissance satellite, capable of sending imagery back to Earth in near real time. As a stopgap measure, proposals were tabled in the 1960s and 1970s for achieving the same goal by using reconnaissance satellites carrying television cameras. Such cameras were ultimately flown on two uncrewed versions of the Almaz military space station in the late 1980s/early 1990s, but by that time the technology was already outdated. While some information on these projects has emerged in the past 20 years or so, the details remain sketchy.[1]

    Film readout systems
    The obvious drawbacks of film-return satellites were the limited supply of film they could carry (and, hence, their limited lifetimes) and, more importantly, their inability to return images in timely fashion. The Soviet Union made its first attempts to relay images back to Earth via radio channels with the first-generation photoreconnaissance satellites named Zenit-2, which were essentially uncrewed versions of the Vostok spacecraft crammed full with cameras. Four of these satellites launched in 1962–1963 carried an experimental film readout system called Baikal that scanned film automatically developed on board and transmitted the images to Earth. A similar technique had been used by the Luna-3 probe in 1959 to send back the first images of the far side of the Moon. However, the images obtained with the Baikal system had a resolution on the order of 10 meters, not enough to provide valuable intelligence. As a result, the payload was dropped from subsequent Zenit-2 satellites.

    A similar film readout system tested by a US Air Force Samos reconnaissance satellite in 1961 suffered the same fate (although the technology was transferred to NASA for use in the Lunar Orbiter program). Later in the decade, the Pentagon gave approval for a film readout version of the GAMBIT spy satellites known as Film Read-Out GAMBIT or FROG.[2] In 1971 it was canceled in favor of the first electro-optical reconnaissance satellite, which saw its inaugural flight in 1976 under the code name KENNEN.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 09/07/2023 01:24 pm
    This could go in a bunch of different threads, but since we were recently discussing near-real-time reconnaissance satellites in this thread, I'm going to drop it here. Bart will probably put it in the Russian thread too.

    https://thespacereview.com/article/4646/1

    Soviet television reconnaissance satellites
    by Bart Hendrickx
    Tuesday, September 5, 2023

    Starting in the early 1960s, the Soviet Union launched hundreds of photoreconnaissance satellites that returned exposed film back to Earth in capsules. It was not until 1982 that the country orbited its first electro-optical reconnaissance satellite, capable of sending imagery back to Earth in near real time. As a stopgap measure, proposals were tabled in the 1960s and 1970s for achieving the same goal by using reconnaissance satellites carrying television cameras. Such cameras were ultimately flown on two uncrewed versions of the Almaz military space station in the late 1980s/early 1990s, but by that time the technology was already outdated. While some information on these projects has emerged in the past 20 years or so, the details remain sketchy.[1]

    I wonder if anyone else saw this pic and had deja vu ...

    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2500388#msg2500388

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 09/07/2023 02:25 pm
    I think that the advantage of this approach is that the aperture is much bigger. But it strikes me that the added complexity is a drawback.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 09/07/2023 02:49 pm
    I think that the advantage of this approach is that the aperture is much bigger. But it strikes me that the added complexity is a drawback.

    Indeed. I can't offhand think of that many spacecraft that use such mounts, even for small cameras, telescopes etc. One of the few exceptions is SBIRS iirc. But I'm hoping you will all correct me ;-) ... I will correct myself to say I think I mean SBIRS High HEO, I will dig out a pic of the sensor when I have a minute.

    [Edit: Here is one, from Apil 8th, 2002 in AW and ST, note the yoke, refereed to as the GDA or Gimbal Drive Assembly. ]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 09/08/2023 02:48 pm
    I think that the advantage of this approach is that the aperture is much bigger. But it strikes me that the added complexity is a drawback.

    Indeed. I can't offhand think of that many spacecraft that use such mounts, even for small cameras, telescopes etc. One of the few exceptions is SBIRS iirc. But I'm hoping you will all correct me ;-) ... I will correct myself to say I think I mean SBIRS High HEO, I will dig out a pic of the sensor when I have a minute.

    [Edit: Here is one, from Apil 8th, 2002 in AW and ST, note the yoke, refereed to as the GDA or Gimbal Drive Assembly. ]

    Turns out I could not have been more wrong, and there are gimbals aplenty out there ... e.g

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Based_Space_Surveillance

    https://bluehalo.com/

    and Moog, etc etc.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 09/13/2023 11:32 pm
    Monday my Space Review article will be on the MOL readout system.

    I never actually planned to write about MOL readout, but kinda fell into it, thanks in part to people posting stuff to this thread. I realized that this was actually a worthwhile subject. After all, how they were supposed to use the system, and how they were supposed to get the imagery to the ground, were important issues. Readout was a subsystem, not the main system (which consisted of taking photos and then storing them in Gemini). It did not last during the entire MOL program. But even after it was removed, some people wanted to put it back on for the Block II MOL, if that was ever approved.

    While researching this, I came across some information on how much film MOL was expected to produce. Here is some text from my article:

    "The DORIAN camera used 23-centimeter wide film. Each 23-centimeter (9-inch) diameter image on the film had a ground diameter of 2743 meters (9000 feet). The readout system was not equipped to transmit an entire frame from the DORIAN camera. Rather, the astronauts would examine the developed film in orbit using a microscope, and then cut out the most important part of the image. This “chip” would then be scanned for transmission to the ground. The system capability was to be up to 160 frame “chips” per day of 5 x 15-centimeter (2 x 6-inch) film-readout (roughly equivalent to 610 by 1828 meters [2000 feet by 6000 feet] on the ground). A 30-day MOL mission could produce up to 5,364 meters of exposed film, although the amount that would be transmitted to the ground would be relatively small."

    Footnote for the length of film:

    The film had a width of 9.5 inches with the exposed portion having a diameter of 9 inches. Major General Harry L. Evans, Memorandum for Deputy Director, MOL Program, “Employment of the MOL Photographic Product,” November 29, 1966, with attached: Major General Harry L. Evans, Memorandum for General Stewart, “Employment of the MOL Photographic Product,” November 7, 1966, https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/foia/declass/mol/313.pdf
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 09/15/2023 09:08 am
    Monday my Space Review article will be on the MOL readout system.

    I see you are keeping us in suspense re the title ;-)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 09/16/2023 12:49 am
    Monday my Space Review article will be on the MOL readout system.

    I see you are keeping us in suspense re the title ;-)

    I went with "Live from orbit: the Manned Orbiting Laboratory's Top Secret Film-Readout System."

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 09/19/2023 11:51 am
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4654/1

    Live, from orbit: the Manned Orbiting Laboratory’s top-secret film-readout system
    by Dwayne A. Day
    Monday, September 18, 2023

    What good is warning of enemy attack that arrives after the attack has occurred? That was one of the dilemmas facing the operators of American intelligence satellites during the 1960s. The satellites used film, which had to be returned to Earth, processed, and analyzed, which could often be a week or more after the photograph was taken. Some members of the satellite reconnaissance community sought to reduce that time, to get the images to the ground faster. This was the subject of a subsystem for the expensive and complicated Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) of the 1960s, but this aspect of the program has been overlooked since MOL was declassified eight years ago.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 09/22/2023 08:22 pm
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4654/1

    Live, from orbit: the Manned Orbiting Laboratory’s top-secret film-readout system
    by Dwayne A. Day
    Monday, September 18, 2023

    What good is warning of enemy attack that arrives after the attack has occurred? That was one of the dilemmas facing the operators of American intelligence satellites during the 1960s. The satellites used film, which had to be returned to Earth, processed, and analyzed, which could often be a week or more after the photograph was taken. Some members of the satellite reconnaissance community sought to reduce that time, to get the images to the ground faster. This was the subject of a subsystem for the expensive and complicated Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) of the 1960s, but this aspect of the program has been overlooked since MOL was declassified eight years ago.
    <snip>
    The system capability was to be up to 160 frame “chips” per day
    Thanks for writing this up! I can see that selecting, cutting, scanning, and downloading that many frames per day could have kept MOL astronauts quite busy. It also might have provided a strong and plausible justification for "man in space".

    Given the overall workload in the non-automated version of MOL (as we discussed above), I'm still wondering if/how a two men crew might have been able to handle these additional tasks. July missions with the long daytime hours (and hence extended viewing opportunities) at far-northern latitudes would have been particularly gruesome.

    I can also understand, though, that having a "crisis capability" only in the months of January and July might not have made a very convincing argument for the additional expense and complexity.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 09/22/2023 09:16 pm
    Thanks for writing this up! I can see that selecting, cutting, scanning, and downloading that many frames per day could have kept MOL astronauts quite busy. It also might have provided a strong and plausible justification for "man in space".

    Given the overall workload in the non-automated version of MOL (as we discussed above), I'm still wondering if/how a two men crew might have been able to handle these additional tasks. July missions with the long daytime hours (and hence extended viewing opportunities) at far-northern latitudes would have been particularly gruesome.

    I can also understand, though, that having a "crisis capability" only in the months of January and July might not have made a very convincing argument for the additional expense and complexity.

    This week I talked to a bunch of Kodak guys about a lot of different subjects: Samos, Gambit (mostly KH-7), UPWARD, film processing, Kodak facilities. We didn't get to discuss much about MOL or G3, although I'm in contact with them and plan to follow up.

    I mentioned to them plans for cutting and scanning the film and one of them thought that it was a rather dumb idea, but we did not discuss why he thought so. My view is that if you have gone through all the trouble of making a very powerful camera system, you should not spend much effort on other stuff that could detract from that.

    One thing that I did learn about was why they built the MOL facilities partially underground. I believe that one of the histories said that this was to hide the height from Soviet satellites (not sure where I saw that). Not true. It was actually a city height requirement because the facility was near the airport.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Emmettvonbrown on 10/06/2023 11:44 am
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4654/1

    Live, from orbit: the Manned Orbiting Laboratory’s top-secret film-readout system
    by Dwayne A. Day
    Monday, September 18, 2023

    What good is warning of enemy attack that arrives after the attack has occurred? That was one of the dilemmas facing the operators of American intelligence satellites during the 1960s. The satellites used film, which had to be returned to Earth, processed, and analyzed, which could often be a week or more after the photograph was taken. Some members of the satellite reconnaissance community sought to reduce that time, to get the images to the ground faster. This was the subject of a subsystem for the expensive and complicated Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) of the 1960s, but this aspect of the program has been overlooked since MOL was declassified eight years ago.

    Hello, newbie here but fascinated by spysats. Just wanted to bounce out of this to say that CBS laser scan system had kind of three lives
    - MOL, as explained
    - FROG (first try 1965-66, second try 1968-71)
    - and COMPASS LINK

    I have a short writting about COMPASS LINK I will submit to The Space Review.

    I've developped that point made by Blackstar in his writting.

    Quote
    The NRO Director did make the technology available to the Air Force for possible use in reconnaissance aircraft such as the RF-4C Phantom. Although this never transpired, it was used for a ground-based system for scanning and transmitting aerial reconnaissance photos.[3,4]

    3- Lieutenant General Joseph R. Holzapple, Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development, U.S. Air Force, “Photographic Readout System for Use in Reconnaissance Aircraft,” February 9, 1967, with attached: Director of National Reconnaissance Alexander M. Flax, Memorandum for Lieutenant General Holzapple, AFRD, “Photographic Readout System for Use in Reconnaissance Aircraft,” February 9, 1967. Also attached: “Work Statement: Photographic Film Readout System for Aircraft Applications, Columbia Broadcasting System Laboratories.”

    4- Major General Harry L. Evans, Vice Director, MOL Program, Memorandum for Record, “January 5, 1967 MOL Management Meeting,” Jan 16, 1967.


    I'm still polishing it.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/11/2023 09:50 pm
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4708/1


    Diamonds and DORIANS: The Soviet Union’s Almaz and the United States’ Manned Orbiting Laboratory military space stations (part 1)
    by Bart Hendrickx and Dwayne A. Day
    Monday, December 11, 2023

    In the early 1980s, inside a secure US Air Force facility known as the Blue Cube and located not far from the 101 Freeway in Silicon Valley in Northern California, there was a large photograph hanging on a wall. It was in black and white and showed an ungainly-looking spacecraft, a cylinder with solar panels and a conical nose at one end. The vehicle was launched by the Soviet Union and was known as a Transportnyi Korabl Snabzheniya, or Transport Supply Spacecraft—“TKS” for short. The photograph was top secret and had been taken by an American GAMBIT reconnaissance spacecraft, demonstrating its ability to photograph other spacecraft in orbit. The TKS was designed to carry a crew and supplies to a secretive Soviet space station known as Almaz (“diamond”), which itself was equipped with a powerful camera system—and a 23-millimeter cannon that could have blown the GAMBIT out of the sky if it had ever gotten too close. The Cold War was also waged in orbit.

    Almaz was a product of the design bureau led by Vladimir Chelomei, originally called OKB-52 and later renamed TsKBM (1966) and NPO Mashinostroyeniya (1983), the name it still holds today. In many ways, it was a competitor of the OKB-1 design bureau of the famous chief designer Sergei Korolev, which later evolved into what is now known as RKK Energiya. Three Almaz stations were launched under the cover names Salyut-2, Salyut-3, and Salyut-5 in 1973, 1974, and 1976 respectively, creating the impression that they were of the same type as the civilian Salyut stations of Korolev’s design bureau. As would become known much later, the civilian stations (internally designated “Longterm Orbital Station” or DOS) had not been approved until 1970 and were in fact modified versions of Almaz, which traces back its origins to 1964.

    While Salyut-2 failed in orbit shortly after launch, Salyuts-3 and 5 hosted a total of three crews, which flew to the stations on Soyuz spacecraft of the Korolev bureau. Chelomei’s own TKS, a 20-ton vehicle about the same size as Almaz itself, ultimately flew only to the civilian Salyut stations and was the forerunner of later space station modules, including the Nauka Multipurpose Laboratory Module, launched to the International Space Station in July 2021.

    Although Western observers were aware of the dual nature of the Salyut space stations as early as the 1970s, details about the design and history of Almaz did not begin to emerge from Russian sources until after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This made it possible to obtain a fairly good understanding of the project by the turn of the century.

    Our knowledge of the project was significantly expanded with the publication in 2015 of an encyclopedia on Soviet/Russian piloted space projects, which devoted about 70 pages to Almaz. What may be the definitive history of Almaz was written by a team of authors of NPO Mashinostroyeniya and published in 2019. Titled Ogranka Almazov (“The Cutting of Diamonds”), the 500-page book contains a wealth of new information on the project and is lavishly illustrated with never-before-seen pictures and drawings taken from the company’s archives. It does relate the project’s history from the biased perspective of the organization that ran it and does not contain any primary government documents (such as government decrees and ministry orders) that would provide an even deeper insight into Almaz’s objectives, capabilities, and development.

    Almaz was the Soviet counterpart to America’s Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). Both were designed as piloted reconnaissance platforms, but unlike Almaz, MOL was canceled in 1969 before a single mission was flown. The National Reconnaissance Office, which was developing the MOL in the 1960s, finally declassified the program in 2015, releasing an official history along with thousands of pages of documents. The NRO later followed this with a history featuring many interviews with the surviving MOL astronauts.

    With many aspects of MOL and Almaz now declassified, it has become possible to make a comparison of their objectives, design features, and the reasons for their cancelation. Both Almaz and MOL failed to demonstrate a viable military role for humans in Earth orbit.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/12/2023 10:37 am
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4708/1


    Diamonds and DORIANS: The Soviet Union’s Almaz and the United States’ Manned Orbiting Laboratory military space stations (part 1)
    by Bart Hendrickx and Dwayne A. Day
    Monday, December 11, 2023


    Great to see this out, and also great to see what I will (thanks to a poster on this site) always think of as the "Underpants Gnomes" diagram below getting the exposure it deserves-still probably the best single snapshot of MOL's evolution and its essential dilemmas.

    [PS, when you do last part it would probably be good to mention that these diagrams were done for (or shown to) the incoming DNRO just before cancellation.]
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 12/13/2023 10:26 pm
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4708/1


    Diamonds and DORIANS: The Soviet Union’s Almaz and the United States’ Manned Orbiting Laboratory military space stations (part 1)
    by Bart Hendrickx and Dwayne A. Day
    Monday, December 11, 2023

    <snip>
    Thanks, nicely researched!

    "On top of that, many of the pictures returned by the satellites showed only cloud cover, rendering them useless. Unlike the United States, the Soviet Union did not have dedicated military weather satellites to help the reconnaissance satellites obtain cloud-free pictures."

    Couldn't the Soviets just rely on open data, i.e. gathering US weather info from local radio+TV weather reports/forecasts?

    Also, how did the 1964 agreement between the US and USSR on exchanging satellite weather data fit into this?

    "The United States and the Soviet Union have been working out an agreement to exchange weather information over a direct communications link between the two capitals. The agreement we have now reached provides for the exchange on a reciprocal basis of weather information gathered by satellites."

    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-president-the-agreement-with-the-soviet-union-for-the-exchange-weather
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/14/2023 01:14 pm
    Couldn't the Soviets just rely on open data, i.e. gathering US weather info from local radio+TV weather reports/forecasts?

    Also, how did the 1964 agreement between the US and USSR on exchanging satellite weather data fit into this?

    "The United States and the Soviet Union have been working out an agreement to exchange weather information over a direct communications link between the two capitals. The agreement we have now reached provides for the exchange on a reciprocal basis of weather information gathered by satellites."

    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-president-the-agreement-with-the-soviet-union-for-the-exchange-weather

    Both are good questions. However, I suspect that the issues were timeliness and precision. Gathering that data from open US weather reports would not be either timely nor precise, because those reports cover large areas and large timescales. They don't indicate if a specific target area is going to be covered with clouds at a specific time.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/14/2023 04:17 pm
    Couldn't the Soviets just rely on open data, i.e. gathering US weather info from local radio+TV weather reports/forecasts?

    Also, how did the 1964 agreement between the US and USSR on exchanging satellite weather data fit into this?

    "The United States and the Soviet Union have been working out an agreement to exchange weather information over a direct communications link between the two capitals. The agreement we have now reached provides for the exchange on a reciprocal basis of weather information gathered by satellites."

    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-president-the-agreement-with-the-soviet-union-for-the-exchange-weather

    Both are good questions. However, I suspect that the issues were timeliness and precision. Gathering that data from open US weather reports would not be either timely nor precise, because those reports cover large areas and large timescales. They don't indicate if a specific target area is going to be covered with clouds at a specific time.

    And presumably the Russians  wouldn't want to rely on something that would be vulnerable to wartime spoofing, as e.g. the Vietnamese and Chinese were allegedly doing to the US as early as the 60s, see the fascinating reminiscence here:
    https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1991/april/weather-satellite-photos-and-vietnam-war


    Quote
    Evidence indicated that the Chinese and possibly the North Vietnamese also were processing daytime satellite photos, sometimes, intercepted surface observations reported bad weather when the satellite photos indicated just the opposite. My weather commander commented that this falsification of meteorological information was a violation of the World Metrological Organization Code.

    “What would you do if you were bombed on clear days only?” I replied.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Yeknom-Ecaps on 12/17/2023 01:37 am
    I have come across a couple of informal notes referencing Norvin “Bud” Evans as "GE Astronaut Selectee" or "GE Selectee" or something similar.

    Any Internet searches come up with: after retirement from USAF Bud Evans went to GE to work on MOL designing the interior and working on astronaut training.

    Anyone have more information on Bud Evans role as an "GE astronaut"? Or anything about "GE astronauts at all?

    Thanks.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/19/2023 12:47 am
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4713/1

    Diamonds and DORIANS: The Soviet Union’s Almaz and the United States’ Manned Orbiting Laboratory military space stations (part 2)
    MOL and Almaz enter active development
    by Dwayne A. Day and Bart Hendrickx
    Monday, December 18, 2023

    The American story
    The Manned Orbiting Laboratory was initially started by the US Air Force in late 1963, studied throughout 1964, and received presidential authorization by summer 1965. Contract definition, proposal evaluations, and contract negotiations occurred thru late 1966, but by early 1967 it was clear that there was insufficient budget to proceed on the planned schedule and timeline and contract adjustments followed (see “Diamonds and DORIANS: the Soviet Union’s Almaz and the United States’ Manned Orbiting Laboratory military space stations (part 1),” The Space Review, December 11, 2023.) By mid-1967, the program was well underway, with various contractors around the United States building facilities and ramping up work. MOL, and its huge KH-10 DORIAN optical system, became a major military space program for the United States Air Force and the secretive National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
    MOL design

    Station design
    MOL consisted of a Gemini spacecraft, a connecting section, a pressurized operations section known as the “laboratory module,” and a large unpressurized segment known as the “mission module” containing the optics. The Gemini was officially known as the Gemini B. It was similar to the NASA Gemini spacecraft with one significant difference: an access hatch located between the astronauts’ seats and passing through the heat shield. This was considered a potential vulnerability. In November 1966, the Air Force launched a Titan III rocket carrying a refurbished Gemini spacecraft equipped with the heat shield hatch. The rocket launched from Florida and the spacecraft flew a suborbital trajectory and splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean, proving that the heat shield worked.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 12/21/2023 08:02 am
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4713/1

    Diamonds and DORIANS: The Soviet Union’s Almaz and the United States’ Manned Orbiting Laboratory military space stations (part 2)
    MOL and Almaz enter active development
    by Dwayne A. Day and Bart Hendrickx
    Monday, December 18, 2023

    The American story
    The Manned Orbiting Laboratory was initially started by the US Air Force in late 1963, studied throughout 1964, and received presidential authorization by summer 1965. Contract definition, proposal evaluations, and contract negotiations occurred thru late 1966, but by early 1967 it was clear that there was insufficient budget to proceed on the planned schedule and timeline and contract adjustments followed (see “Diamonds and DORIANS: the Soviet Union’s Almaz and the United States’ Manned Orbiting Laboratory military space stations (part 1),” The Space Review, December 11, 2023.) By mid-1967, the program was well underway, with various contractors around the United States building facilities and ramping up work. MOL, and its huge KH-10 DORIAN optical system, became a major military space program for the United States Air Force and the secretive National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

    "General Electric also received a contract for $110 million for “experiment integration work,” which included aspects of the highly-classified KH-10 DORIAN optics system. However, Eastman Kodak, which had manufactured both the GAMBIT-1 (KH-7) and GAMBIT-3 (KH-8) camera systems, also was contracted to build the similar but much larger KH-10 system, although the contract amount remains classified. For other robotic reconnaissance programs, the camera system was the largest expense (the KH-9 HEXAGON camera system accounted for over half of the program’s total budget), so the DORIAN system would not have been cheap. "

    Eyeballing the Jan 1969 "MOL budget costs" diagram yields a total of about 1B US$ cost for the "Camera System", i.e. 1/3 of the overall budget (this is from charts presented at a Feb 8, 1969 briefing to DepSecDef).
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/21/2023 03:53 pm
    Eyeballing the Jan 1969 "MOL budget costs" diagram yields a total of about 1B US$ cost for the "Camera System", i.e. 1/3 of the overall budget (this is from charts presented at a Feb 8, 1969 briefing to DepSecDef).

    Ah, wonderful! That gibes with my slightly-informed guess. I wrote:

    "MOL, though, had the additional expense of all the systems, including the Gemini spacecraft, needed to support the astronauts. At its peak, Kodak had over 1,000 direct and indirect workers on DORIAN."

    If we consider that HEXAGON's camera was over half the cost of that program, my reasoning was that the MOL spacecraft, plus the life support systems, plus the Gemini spacecraft, would add up to more than 50% of the cost, and I figured it would add up to 60-65% at least. And that was just guessing without looking at anything.

    Now MOL is complicated by the fact that they also were working on an unmanned MOL. That was in many ways the equivalent of building a second spacecraft, and it would have required its own reentry vehicles and command system and film handling system (which probably would have been added to the camera system cost). I'll be discussing unmanned MOL in part 3 in a few weeks.

    Something that I recently learned from talking to people is that the big building at Kodak that contained all the DORIAN fabrication and testing equipment (Building 101) was a federally built building, and Kodak only occupied it. I don't know if that means that Kodak or the US government paid for the equipment inside the building. I was told that this was part of Kodak's contract with the government; Kodak did not want to be responsible for infrastructure that was 100% government use. Kodak had other facilities, like film processing, that was mostly commercial, but occasionally used to produce government products (film for reconnaissance missions). So an interesting question is where was the budget for Building 101 kept? Was that in the USAF MOL budget, or some other government agency? (Note: this is not a burning question for me, but it does highlight how expensive MOL was.)
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/21/2023 04:57 pm
    Eyeballing the Jan 1969 "MOL budget costs" diagram yields a total of about 1B US$ cost for the "Camera System", i.e. 1/3 of the overall budget (this is from charts presented at a Feb 8, 1969 briefing to DepSecDef).

    Ah, wonderful! That gibes with my slightly-informed guess. I wrote:

    "MOL, though, had the additional expense of all the systems, including the Gemini spacecraft, needed to support the astronauts. At its peak, Kodak had over 1,000 direct and indirect workers on DORIAN."

    If we consider that HEXAGON's camera was over half the cost of that program, my reasoning was that the MOL spacecraft, plus the life support systems, plus the Gemini spacecraft, would add up to more than 50% of the cost, and I figured it would add up to 60-65% at least. And that was just guessing without looking at anything.

    Now MOL is complicated by the fact that they also were working on an unmanned MOL. That was in many ways the equivalent of building a second spacecraft, and it would have required its own reentry vehicles and command system and film handling system (which probably would have been added to the camera system cost). I'll be discussing unmanned MOL in part 3 in a few weeks.

    Something that I recently learned from talking to people is that the big building at Kodak that contained all the DORIAN fabrication and testing equipment (Building 101) was a federally built building, and Kodak only occupied it. I don't know if that means that Kodak or the US government paid for the equipment inside the building. I was told that this was part of Kodak's contract with the government; Kodak did not want to be responsible for infrastructure that was 100% government use. Kodak had other facilities, like film processing, that was mostly commercial, but occasionally used to produce government products (film for reconnaissance missions). So an interesting question is where was the budget for Building 101 kept? Was that in the USAF MOL budget, or some other government agency? (Note: this is not a burning question for me, but it does highlight how expensive MOL was.)

    As per my older post, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2512863#msg2512863 I'm also curious as to just how big MOL was in terms of personnel. The slides below are from #707 in "the MOL set" and date from just before cancellation. They show about 2500 people cleared for DORIAN just in Eastman Kodak, and a total of about 12000 people cleared into DORIAN overall, so one obvious question is how many extra people would be added by the unclassified USAF side ? Another is why the number for Aerospace is relatively small ?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/21/2023 08:26 pm
    As per my older post, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2512863#msg2512863 I'm also curious as to just how big MOL was in terms of personnel. The slides below are from #707 in "the MOL set" and date from just before cancellation. They show about 2500 people cleared for DORIAN just in Eastman Kodak, and a total of about 12000 people cleared into DORIAN overall, so one obvious question is how many extra people would be added by the unclassified USAF side ? Another is why the number for Aerospace is relatively small ?

    Thanks for the reminder about the 2500 clearances at EK. The guys I talked to generally referred to "more than a thousand" people at Kodak. But 2500 is a lot more than a thousand. I'll have to go back to them with that. Of course, they were all low level, and none of the senior people are still around.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 12/21/2023 10:53 pm
    "MOL, though, had the additional expense of all the systems, including the Gemini spacecraft, needed to support the astronauts. At its peak, Kodak had over 1,000 direct and indirect workers on DORIAN."
    <snip>

    As per my older post, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2512863#msg2512863 I'm also curious as to just how big MOL was in terms of personnel. The slides below are from #707 in "the MOL set" and date from just before cancellation. They show about 2500 people cleared for DORIAN just in Eastman Kodak, and a total of about 12000 people cleared into DORIAN overall, so one obvious question is how many extra people would be added by the unclassified USAF side ? Another is why the number for Aerospace is relatively small ?
    <snip>
    Something that I recently learned from talking to people is that the big building at Kodak that contained all the DORIAN fabrication and testing equipment (Building 101) was a federally built building, and Kodak only occupied it. I don't know if that means that Kodak or the US government paid for the equipment inside the building. I was told that this was part of Kodak's contract with the government; Kodak did not want to be responsible for infrastructure that was 100% government use. Kodak had other facilities, like film processing, that was mostly commercial, but occasionally used to produce government products (film for reconnaissance missions). So an interesting question is where was the budget for Building 101 kept? Was that in the USAF MOL budget, or some other government agency? (Note: this is not a burning question for me, but it does highlight how expensive MOL was.)
    Carl Berger's MOL History from Feb 1970 states that Kodak had almost 1700 MOL personnel at the time of project cancellation.

    edit: Berger quotes at total cost of $32.5M for EKC facilities and equipment.

    edit 2: Flax memo from April 4, 1966 on facility construction at EKC attached.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/22/2023 09:57 am
    "MOL, though, had the additional expense of all the systems, including the Gemini spacecraft, needed to support the astronauts. At its peak, Kodak had over 1,000 direct and indirect workers on DORIAN."
    <snip>

    As per my older post, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg2512863#msg2512863 I'm also curious as to just how big MOL was in terms of personnel. The slides below are from #707 in "the MOL set" and date from just before cancellation. They show about 2500 people cleared for DORIAN just in Eastman Kodak, and a total of about 12000 people cleared into DORIAN overall, so one obvious question is how many extra people would be added by the unclassified USAF side ? Another is why the number for Aerospace is relatively small ?
    <snip>
    Something that I recently learned from talking to people is that the big building at Kodak that contained all the DORIAN fabrication and testing equipment (Building 101) was a federally built building, and Kodak only occupied it. I don't know if that means that Kodak or the US government paid for the equipment inside the building. I was told that this was part of Kodak's contract with the government; Kodak did not want to be responsible for infrastructure that was 100% government use. Kodak had other facilities, like film processing, that was mostly commercial, but occasionally used to produce government products (film for reconnaissance missions). So an interesting question is where was the budget for Building 101 kept? Was that in the USAF MOL budget, or some other government agency? (Note: this is not a burning question for me, but it does highlight how expensive MOL was.)
    Carl Berger's MOL History from Feb 1970 states that Kodak had almost 1700 MOL personnel at the time of project cancellation.

    Thanks. I realise that the briefing slides I was quoting were April '69 and thus a few months before cancellation, but 2500 to 1700 in a few months is already a lot of lost jobs. I would have suggested that explanation could be that 2500 was the total number of people who had ever been cleared into DORIAN at EKC, but I note fwiw that some of the other numbers in the April briefing slides don't match those in Berger either.

    The April slides have 3681 people DORIAN-cleared at GE, Berger has 2628 "MOL staff" at GE in June

    and, importantly,

    April slides have Douglas Aircraft as 3058 with all others (bar Aerospace) as 1622 , whereas Berger has a MOL staff in June at the merged McDonnell Douglas of 6263.

    Berger also mentions a Titan IIID [sic] group of several thousand people, though one guesses these would not all be  DORIAN-cleared anyway.

    Not sure  all these numbers can be reconciled, but they'd certainly be worth Blackstar raising on his next trip to Rochester. 
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/22/2023 11:57 am
    One possibility is that the number for "cleared" is a total authorization, rather than the number of people who actually had the clearances. So Kodak might have been authorized to clear up to 2500 people, but they only had 1700 who had the clearances.

    I'm not going to get that answer from the people I talk to because they were not the managers. They were down in the trenches. What I did get was an interesting story about how that played out at Kodak. When MOL got canceled, there were a bunch of companies like McDonnell Douglas that had public MOL contracts, so firing people from there was not unexpected. But Kodak's work on MOL was classified, and suddenly firing 1000 people from Kodak after MOL was canceled would have revealed that MOL was an optics system. So what they had to do was fire people in small batches over many months, to conceal the relationship. According to one guy, this destroyed morale within the division, because everybody was just waiting to get fired.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 12/22/2023 02:45 pm
    Personnel charged to the project and personnel cleared don't have to be the same. A mechanic in a workshop not necessarily has to be cleared. Folks in administration etc. might be cleared for multiple projects, w/o being charged to a particular project.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 12/22/2023 03:31 pm
    Personnel charged to the project and personnel cleared don't have to be the same. A mechanic in a workshop not necessarily has to be cleared. Folks in administration etc. might be cleared for multiple projects, w/o being charged to a particular project.

    Thanks, meanwhile I see that although ~5-600 people at Aerospace seemed like a smaller number than I'd remembered, my memory was wrong, see grab below from https://web.archive.org/web/20070305205226/http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2004/02.html and this was indeed a significant fraction of of the company's overall workforce.

    Interestingly the docs hoku has just posted seem to show that TRW's effort on MOL was of a similar magnitude to Aerospace's-we know that one thing TRW did for MOL was computer programs.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: ExGeek on 12/22/2023 03:36 pm
    Personnel charged to the project and personnel cleared don't have to be the same. A mechanic in a workshop not necessarily has to be cleared. Folks in administration etc. might be cleared for multiple projects, w/o being charged to a particular project.

    This is true.  It also comes down to a particular company's accounting practices.  Some companies handled this with managers/admins/etc in these situations charging directly to the contracts.  Others created overhead accounts to pay for these folks, with each program/contract that "benefits" from their oversight paying into the overhead kitty, typically a fixed percentage.

    It also comes down to whether the numbers are all "real people" or FTEs (full-time equivalents).  10 people in an admin support role (document control, for example), might charge only 10% of their time to any given contract.  10 people at 10% on a DORIAN contract would add up to 1 FTE.  Are those numbers reporting 10 people, or one FTE?  It's 10 people accessed into that compartment, but budgetarily, only one equivalent person.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 12/22/2023 03:43 pm
    Personnel charged to the project and personnel cleared don't have to be the same. A mechanic in a workshop not necessarily has to be cleared. Folks in administration etc. might be cleared for multiple projects, w/o being charged to a particular project.

    This is true.  It also comes down to a particular company's accounting practices.  Some companies handled this with managers/admins/etc in these situations charging directly to the contracts.  Others created overhead accounts to pay for these folks, with each program/contract that "benefits" from their oversight paying into the overhead kitty, typically a fixed percentage.

    It also comes down to whether the numbers are all "real people" or FTEs (full-time equivalents).  10 people in an admin support role (document control, for example), might charge only 10% of their time to any given contract.  10 people at 10% on a DORIAN contract would add up to 1 FTE.  Are those numbers reporting 10 people, or one FTE?  It's 10 people accessed into that compartment, but budgetarily, only one equivalent person.

    Good points. I had not thought about the FTE issue. When I talked to the Kodak guys one of the things they said was that people with clearances would exit programs and go to work on the commercial side for awhile while maintaining their clearance, and Kodak could then put them back onto a classified project if necessary. I think at least one of the guys left GAMBIT for several years to work on the commercial side, but got called back for a short time to work on a problem with GAMBIT, then went back to commercial work. It was considered one of the strengths of Kodak that they had a huge base of skilled people to use when needed.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: ExGeek on 12/22/2023 04:20 pm
    Personnel charged to the project and personnel cleared don't have to be the same. A mechanic in a workshop not necessarily has to be cleared. Folks in administration etc. might be cleared for multiple projects, w/o being charged to a particular project.

    This is true.  It also comes down to a particular company's accounting practices.  Some companies handled this with managers/admins/etc in these situations charging directly to the contracts.  Others created overhead accounts to pay for these folks, with each program/contract that "benefits" from their oversight paying into the overhead kitty, typically a fixed percentage.

    It also comes down to whether the numbers are all "real people" or FTEs (full-time equivalents).  10 people in an admin support role (document control, for example), might charge only 10% of their time to any given contract.  10 people at 10% on a DORIAN contract would add up to 1 FTE.  Are those numbers reporting 10 people, or one FTE?  It's 10 people accessed into that compartment, but budgetarily, only one equivalent person.

    Good points. I had not thought about the FTE issue. When I talked to the Kodak guys one of the things they said was that people with clearances would exit programs and go to work on the commercial side for awhile while maintaining their clearance, and Kodak could then put them back onto a classified project if necessary. I think at least one of the guys left GAMBIT for several years to work on the commercial side, but got called back for a short time to work on a problem with GAMBIT, then went back to commercial work. It was considered one of the strengths of Kodak that they had a huge base of skilled people to use when needed.

    This was fairly common with companies that had multiple compartmented programs.  Security policies varied from time to time (and compartment to compartment) as to how long you could carry an access without working on a program. 
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 01/03/2024 12:41 am
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4717/1

    Diamonds and DORIANS: program troubles, operations, cancellation, and legacy (part 3)
    by Bart Hendrickx and Dwayne A. Day
    Tuesday, January 2, 2024

    As both the United States’ Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) and the Soviet Union’s Almaz programs progressed, they naturally ran into problems common to large, complicated space projects. But the MOL program faced an identity crisis from the start: if most of the mission could be performed robotically, why were astronauts needed at all? That question was essentially answered for both countries by the 1970s—astronauts were not necessary for military missions—and almost all military missions in the five decades since have been performed with robotic spacecraft.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 01/03/2024 04:11 pm
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4717/1

    Diamonds and DORIANS: program troubles, operations, cancellation, and legacy (part 3)
    by Bart Hendrickx and Dwayne A. Day
    Tuesday, January 2, 2024

    Great series and great pics. The last one intrigues me, when does it date from ? Shows the VIB and SMAB (e.g. https://www.spaceline.org/cape-canaveral-launch-sites/launch-complex-40-titan-fact-sheet/ and https://www.spaceline.org/cape-canaveral-launch-sites/launch-complex-41-titan-fact-sheet/) and thus appears to refer to the ITL including pads 40 and 41 at ETR, unless there was originally an expectation that these would also be replicated on the west coast. Would thus seem to date from period when it was still thought some MOL flights would be from ETR (as well as the boilerplate one)-does it ?

    Pic also mentions ETR airstrip but does so twice so not quite sure what was meant.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Jim on 01/03/2024 08:07 pm

    Great series and great pics. The last one intrigues me, when does it date from ? Shows the VIB and SMAB (e.g.  and thus appears to refer to the ITL including pads 40 and 41 at ETR, unless there was originally an expectation that these would also be replicated on the west coast. Would thus seem to date from period when it was still thought some MOL flights would be from ETR (as well as the boilerplate one)-does it ?

    Pic also mentions ETR airstrip but does so twice so not quite sure what was meant.

    The ITL would not be replicated on the west coast: no room for it.

    Just for east coast test flights and to keep inquiries down.

    First ETR airstrip is a mistake or misdirection so as not to reveal all factory locations.
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: hoku on 01/04/2024 03:02 pm
    https://thespacereview.com/article/4717/1

    Diamonds and DORIANS: program troubles, operations, cancellation, and legacy (part 3)
    by Bart Hendrickx and Dwayne A. Day
    Tuesday, January 2, 2024
    ...
    Very nice to see and read this side-by-side comparison of Almaz and MOL!

    Attached are a few slides from John Shafer's talk from a while back on the Kodak facilities put in place for MOL. It interesting that the testing+alignment of the optics with the 70/72 inch mirrors required "master" mirrors with diameters up to 82 inch.

    I'm still wondering why (and when) they decided to go for the "growth" option of all the chambers (i.e. that the next step after MOL would aim for recon sats with 90+ inch diameter primary mirrors)?
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 01/04/2024 10:49 pm
    So that's an interesting question of how the facilities were sized for MOL. Did they size them to fit only MOL, or did they deliberately make them big enough to handle bigger systems? I'll have to dig some more, but I could see the NRO agreeing to add in a lot of margin to cover future growth in large optics.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: LittleBird on 01/05/2024 06:39 am
    Meanwhile there's a couple more docs in the large MOL set than I'd realised which give us an idea of what the PSAC was saying about manned vs unmanned use of MOL in 1965-66, see both attached and grabs of Martin's summary from first of the two. Always good to be reminded of just how stellar the panel was, e.g. Drell, Land and Purcell as well as Garwin.

    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: sdsds on 02/02/2024 06:07 am
    According to MOL Compendium endnote 23, shortly before MOL was initiated McNamara wrote a memo to Zuckert, dated 22 Feb 62, With Subject: AF Manned Mil Space Prog.. Is a copy of that memo available somewhere?

    https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/MOL_Compendium_August_2015.pdf
    Title: Re: MOL discussion
    Post by: Blackstar on 03/02/2024 04:23 pm
    Somebody recently told me about this sci-fi story that appeared in the May 1989 issue of Omni magazine. They said that it was the first time they learned about Space Launch Complex 6 (Slick-6). I have not read it yet, but I see Slick-6 mentioned.