Author Topic: MOL discussion  (Read 366895 times)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #420 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 ?
« Last Edit: 03/27/2018 01:47 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #421 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.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #422 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...


Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7344
  • Likes Given: 71418
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #423 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! :)
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #424 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.


Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #425 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?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #426 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.


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #427 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.

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 2113
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #428 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.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #429 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?


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #430 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.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #431 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.


Offline Michael Cassutt

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #432 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

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #433 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.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2018 06:31 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #434 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.”

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #435 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.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2018 07:12 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 2113
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #436 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.

Offline zhangmdev

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #437 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.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #438 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

Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #439 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").
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0