Author Topic: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites  (Read 114622 times)

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7304
  • Likes Given: 70456
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #340 on: 11/26/2023 04:42 pm »
I think knowledge by adversaries of the *observability* of something can indeed sometimes affect whether it happens, and this indeed is the sort of thing Kissinger was concerned with-manoeuvring by both sides around a pending ceasefire in 1970 is the specific instance. I have posted about this in one of these threads -I think this is the episode where U2 flights were needed.

I think it remains relevant, being able to say “we know what you are doing and this is our evidence” in near real-time seems like a game changer to me, in politics if not in war?
I concur--Nixon and Kissenger were likely expecting NRT reconnaissance data to have a deterrent effect on the international stage.

However, this would require admission of not only the existence and operations of reconnaissance satellites, but also of near real-time imagery, followed by prompt analysis.

Or would the mere mention of "national technical means" be enough?  It worked for SALT I and II. 🧂 But, the Soviets and American intelligence communities had some idea of the other's capabilities?💡 🤔
« Last Edit: 11/27/2023 01:22 am by zubenelgenubi »
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?

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7656
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #341 on: 11/26/2023 07:54 pm »
They could do Lunar Orbiter in 1966-67, but FROG failed somehow.  Was it downlink bandwidth?

 - Ed Kyle

It did not fail. It got canceled. Too expensive for too limited capability.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7656
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #342 on: 11/27/2023 12:15 am »
They could do Lunar Orbiter in 1966-67, but FROG failed somehow.  Was it downlink bandwidth?

 - Ed Kyle

It did not fail. It got canceled. Too expensive for too limited capability.

Let me add to that: FROG required extending the Agena's lifetime a lot. I think that at the time the Agena could do 30 days and they were looking at extending it to at least 90 days with a goal of about 360 days. That required a lot of upgrading.

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #343 on: 11/27/2023 09:47 am »
They could do Lunar Orbiter in 1966-67, but FROG failed somehow.  Was it downlink bandwidth?

 - Ed Kyle

It did not fail. It got canceled. Too expensive for too limited capability.

Let me add to that: FROG required extending the Agena's lifetime a lot. I think that at the time the Agena could do 30 days and they were looking at extending it to at least 90 days with a goal of about 360 days. That required a lot of upgrading.
A contributing factor for the cancellation decision must have been tightening budget pressure - already in 1969 there had been discussions if they could afford a direct follow-on project in light of the budget overruns for both Hexagon and Dorian. The 1969 budget-crunch was temporarily solved by the MOL cancellation.

Another factor might have been the death of Richard Russell Jr., who had chaired the Senate Committee on Appropriations from 1969 to early 1971. His successor Allen J. Ellender in June 1971 clearly communicated that for FY72 they would only fund one follow-on project, i.e. either FROG or EOI.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2023 09:48 am by hoku »

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5986
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9159
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #344 on: 11/27/2023 10:05 am »
There were people who claimed that FROG required more development than EOI at this point. I have to look at this stuff more closely, because I find that a bit hard to accept.
I can easily see that being the case. KENNEN had a clean-sheet design, but for FROG everything had to be shimmied in around existing systems. You couldn't just decide a put in a film scanner, you needed to put in a film scanner that physically fit between and around existing GAMBIT3 components (which themselves had already been slimmed down and packed in tight to fit within the launch vehicle and Agena capabilities), and could be supported by the capabilities of the Agena bus-stage (power, fluids, thermal, etc). Same with the downlink subsystem, a whole bunch of extra work-with-'legacy'-hardware design requirements added on top of the actual functional design requirements.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7656
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #345 on: 11/27/2023 11:41 am »
There were people who claimed that FROG required more development than EOI at this point. I have to look at this stuff more closely, because I find that a bit hard to accept.
I can easily see that being the case. KENNEN had a clean-sheet design, but for FROG everything had to be shimmied in around existing systems. You couldn't just decide a put in a film scanner, you needed to put in a film scanner that physically fit between and around existing GAMBIT3 components (which themselves had already been slimmed down and packed in tight to fit within the launch vehicle and Agena capabilities), and could be supported by the capabilities of the Agena bus-stage (power, fluids, thermal, etc). Same with the downlink subsystem, a whole bunch of extra work-with-'legacy'-hardware design requirements added on top of the actual functional design requirements.

I think that the physical/structural stuff may have been relatively easy, because the optical system remained mostly the same and the film supply probably stayed in the same location. All the other stuff for processing and scanning the film went into a new large structure in front of all that.

However, you're right that they had new power and stabilization and comms requirements to address.

Also, in order to extend the lifetime, they had to keep the processing material (which was wet) relatively cold. That would be heated up for the processing, but it had to be kept colder to last longer. So thermal issues would have posed some difficulties.

From my article on SPIN SCAN:

"The bimat processing material could be stored for years at a temperature of 2.8 degrees Celsius (37 degrees Fahrenheit), but the film had to be about 21 degrees Celsius (70 degrees Fahrenheit) to be developed properly. The solution was to introduce the exposed film to the bimat storage box through a vapor seal, press the film and bimat together, and electrically heat them to 70 degrees."

https://thespacereview.com/article/4614/1

« Last Edit: 11/27/2023 01:12 pm by Blackstar »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7656
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #346 on: 11/27/2023 01:19 pm »
They could do Lunar Orbiter in 1966-67, but FROG failed somehow.  Was it downlink bandwidth?

 - Ed Kyle

It did not fail. It got canceled. Too expensive for too limited capability.

Let me add to that: FROG required extending the Agena's lifetime a lot. I think that at the time the Agena could do 30 days and they were looking at extending it to at least 90 days with a goal of about 360 days. That required a lot of upgrading.
A contributing factor for the cancellation decision must have been tightening budget pressure - already in 1969 there had been discussions if they could afford a direct follow-on project in light of the budget overruns for both Hexagon and Dorian. The 1969 budget-crunch was temporarily solved by the MOL cancellation.

Another factor might have been the death of Richard Russell Jr., who had chaired the Senate Committee on Appropriations from 1969 to early 1971. His successor Allen J. Ellender in June 1971 clearly communicated that for FY72 they would only fund one follow-on project, i.e. either FROG or EOI.


There is an official NRO history of the office's relations with Congress. I should look at that. For the first nine years of the NRO's existence it appears as if Congress didn't do anything other than approve what NRO wanted. Only by the early 1970s did they start asking questions and saying no to certain requests, and this may have become more intrusive during the latter 1970s.

I know somebody who worked in the intelligence community in the 1980s who thought that NRO became very adept at selling their programs in Congress. They brought out the pretty pictures and wowed the senators and then walked away with a big fat check. But that may have been relative to other intelligence agencies that were less skilled at selling themselves.

Offline ExGeek

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #347 on: 11/27/2023 02:19 pm »
They could do Lunar Orbiter in 1966-67, but FROG failed somehow.  Was it downlink bandwidth?

 - Ed Kyle

It did not fail. It got canceled. Too expensive for too limited capability.

Let me add to that: FROG required extending the Agena's lifetime a lot. I think that at the time the Agena could do 30 days and they were looking at extending it to at least 90 days with a goal of about 360 days. That required a lot of upgrading.
A contributing factor for the cancellation decision must have been tightening budget pressure - already in 1969 there had been discussions if they could afford a direct follow-on project in light of the budget overruns for both Hexagon and Dorian. The 1969 budget-crunch was temporarily solved by the MOL cancellation.

Another factor might have been the death of Richard Russell Jr., who had chaired the Senate Committee on Appropriations from 1969 to early 1971. His successor Allen J. Ellender in June 1971 clearly communicated that for FY72 they would only fund one follow-on project, i.e. either FROG or EOI.


There is an official NRO history of the office's relations with Congress. I should look at that. For the first nine years of the NRO's existence it appears as if Congress didn't do anything other than approve what NRO wanted. Only by the early 1970s did they start asking questions and saying no to certain requests, and this may have become more intrusive during the latter 1970s.

I know somebody who worked in the intelligence community in the 1980s who thought that NRO became very adept at selling their programs in Congress. They brought out the pretty pictures and wowed the senators and then walked away with a big fat check. But that may have been relative to other intelligence agencies that were less skilled at selling themselves.

Not only that, they were good at banking unused funds, to the point that by the time the cloak came off in the 1990s, they had themselves a brand new shiny HQ building near Dulles.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2023 04:53 pm by ExGeek »

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #348 on: 11/27/2023 04:23 pm »
They could do Lunar Orbiter in 1966-67, but FROG failed somehow.  Was it downlink bandwidth?

 - Ed Kyle

It did not fail. It got canceled. Too expensive for too limited capability.

Let me add to that: FROG required extending the Agena's lifetime a lot. I think that at the time the Agena could do 30 days and they were looking at extending it to at least 90 days with a goal of about 360 days. That required a lot of upgrading.
A contributing factor for the cancellation decision must have been tightening budget pressure - already in 1969 there had been discussions if they could afford a direct follow-on project in light of the budget overruns for both Hexagon and Dorian. The 1969 budget-crunch was temporarily solved by the MOL cancellation.

Another factor might have been the death of Richard Russell Jr., who had chaired the Senate Committee on Appropriations from 1969 to early 1971. His successor Allen J. Ellender in June 1971 clearly communicated that for FY72 they would only fund one follow-on project, i.e. either FROG or EOI.


There is an official NRO history of the office's relations with Congress. I should look at that. For the first nine years of the NRO's existence it appears as if Congress didn't do anything other than approve what NRO wanted. Only by the early 1970s did they start asking questions and saying no to certain requests, and this may have become more intrusive during the latter 1970s.

I know somebody who worked in the intelligence community in the 1980s who thought that NRO became very adept at selling their programs in Congress. They brought out the pretty pictures and wowed the senators and then walked away with a big fat check. But that may have been relative to other intelligence agencies that were less skilled at selling themselves.
"Good" traditions are hard to break: "Later DCIs could hardly imagine the halcyon days of their predecessors' dealings with Capitol Hill in the 1950s, when oversight was really overlook."

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/16290853

 ;)

Online Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 508
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #349 on: 11/27/2023 06:13 pm »
 :o

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7656
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #350 on: 11/27/2023 07:34 pm »

Not only that, they were good at banking unused funds, to the point that by the time the cloak came off in the 1990s, they had themselves a brand new shiny HQ building near Dulles.

There is a history of the Westfields facility controversy. I have attached it.

I don't think the scandal over banking the funding was part of that. It was a separate scandal. Without reading the Westfields history, I believe the issue there was that Congress was not paying close attention to the HQ construction and then jumped to the conclusion that they had been kept in the dark. I also have the suspicion--I'd have to do real research on this--that there were some bigger issues going on in the intelligence community and embarrassing the CIA over this was part of an ulterior motive.

However, all that happened many years after the retirement of the GAMBIT, which is the subject of this thread. So I think we should gently steer ourselves back towards that topic.


Addendum: For those who do not know, in the early 1990s the NRO started construction of a new headquarters located near Dulles International Airport outside of Washington, DC. Up until that time, the NRO's various leadership organizations had been spread out. They had an HQ in the Pentagon, but also a big presence at Los Angeles Air Force Base. The HQ was more than just a new building, it was a major change in the way that the NRO operated by bringing all the major components together for the first time in three decades. The HQ facility had four buildings, and all things considered, it was not that expensive. However, some members of Congress claimed that they had been insufficiently briefed on the construction of the new HQ building, and they claimed that it was "extravagant." This became a public scandal, which is something that the intelligence community dislikes. However, I think it was very deliberately made public by some members of Congress who wanted to beat up on the intelligence community. (As a sidenote: I have been to the NRO HQ twice, although a long time ago, and not beyond the non-secure part of the building. It did not strike me as all that extravagant. And I was told by somebody years ago that the overall HQ was not as secure as other facilities they had been in, so it's not like they were spending huge amounts of money on the facility.)
« Last Edit: 11/28/2023 04:44 pm by Blackstar »

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #351 on: 11/28/2023 06:20 am »
<snip>
However, all that happened many years after the retirement of the GAMBIT, which is the subject of this thread. So I think we should gently steer ourselves back towards that topic.
Agreed. One topic, though, which doesn't seem to have been widely researched, is the role of congressional staffers in the interaction between politicians and the intelligence agencies. In the (late) 1960s/early 1970s, William "Bill" Woodruff, (chief) counsel of senate (sub-) committees, is a name frequently encountered in FOIA-released documents.

Staffers (Executive assistants") like him seem to have played a key role in preparing both sides (i.e. politicians and agency directors) for congressional hearings, and in getting programs approved and funded (quite possibly sometimes "under the radar").

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7656
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #352 on: 12/14/2023 08:34 pm »
Just did a research trip. Talked to people about GAMBIT (both 7 and 8), FROG, UPWARD, Bimat, KH-11, FIA, Lunar Orbiter, and a few other things. (Did you know that there was a plan to send a Lunar Orbiter spacecraft to flyby Venus and Mercury?)

Here's a picture of the line scanner unit for Lunar Orbiter. And also an early sketch of the film processing system for FROG.
« Last Edit: 12/15/2023 06:01 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • UK
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #353 on: 12/15/2023 05:34 pm »
Just did a research trip. Talked to people about GAMBIT (both 7 and 8), FROG, UPWARD, Bimat, KH-11, FIA, Lunar Orbiter, and a few other things. (Did you know that there was a plan to send a Lunar Orbiter spacecraft to flyby Venus and Mercury?)

No I didn't ... is that anything to do with why Mariner Venus-Mercury was built by Boeing  ?

 
« Last Edit: 12/15/2023 06:01 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7304
  • Likes Given: 70456
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #354 on: 12/15/2023 06:04 pm »
I turned off the "shades+smile" smiley by checking the "Don't use smileys" box.
"8 and )" =  8)
« Last Edit: 12/15/2023 06:08 pm by zubenelgenubi »
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 leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1090
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 863
  • Likes Given: 1718
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #355 on: 12/15/2023 06:32 pm »
Did you know that there was a plan to send a Lunar Orbiter spacecraft to flyby Venus and Mercury?)

Vaguely. Lunar Orbiter was mentioned in the context of Mars and other planets e.g.

NTRS
19670012097 ,Study of applicability of lunar orbiter subsystems to planetary orbiters, 1967,
19680089538 ,Study of applicability of lunar orbiter subsystems in planetary orbiters, 1967,

rg_7_admin_orgs_march2020.csv:e000043085.pdf,52955,KEY OFFICIALS SPEECHES,"1968-12-05: DECEMBER 5, 1968","Wednesday, November 3, 2010","NICKS SPEECH BEFORE THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, RE ""APPLYING SURVEYOR AND LUNAR ORBITER TECHNIQUES TO MARS""","NICKS SPEECH BEFORE THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, RE ""APPLYING SURVEYOR AND LUNAR ORBITER TECHNIQUES TO MARS""","Nicks speech before the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, DC, December 5, 1968, re ""Applying Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter Techniques to Mars.""",SPEECHES,"NICKS, ORAN W.","NICKS, ORAN W.","SURVEYOR PROJECT, LUNAR ORBITER PROJECT, MARS EXPLORATION"

Not entirely surprising as Lockheed, Ford, Boeing were doing concepts for manned plus unmanned planetary flybys Mars/Venus in the early 60s and re-use/dual-use of systems seems like a reasonable choice.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • UK
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #356 on: 12/16/2023 01:30 pm »
Did you know that there was a plan to send a Lunar Orbiter spacecraft to flyby Venus and Mercury?)

Vaguely. Lunar Orbiter was mentioned in the context of Mars and other planets e.g.

NTRS
19670012097 ,Study of applicability of lunar orbiter subsystems to planetary orbiters, 1967,
19680089538 ,Study of applicability of lunar orbiter subsystems in planetary orbiters, 1967,

rg_7_admin_orgs_march2020.csv:e000043085.pdf,52955,KEY OFFICIALS SPEECHES,"1968-12-05: DECEMBER 5, 1968","Wednesday, November 3, 2010","NICKS SPEECH BEFORE THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, RE ""APPLYING SURVEYOR AND LUNAR ORBITER TECHNIQUES TO MARS""","NICKS SPEECH BEFORE THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, RE ""APPLYING SURVEYOR AND LUNAR ORBITER TECHNIQUES TO MARS""","Nicks speech before the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, DC, December 5, 1968, re ""Applying Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter Techniques to Mars.""",SPEECHES,"NICKS, ORAN W.","NICKS, ORAN W.","SURVEYOR PROJECT, LUNAR ORBITER PROJECT, MARS EXPLORATION"

Not entirely surprising as Lockheed, Ford, Boeing were doing concepts for manned plus unmanned planetary flybys Mars/Venus in the early 60s and re-use/dual-use of systems seems like a reasonable choice.

You are reminding me of how, at about the same time, John Naugle of NASA was being asked in Congress whether he could use an Agena itself as a Mars spacecraft, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39251.msg2294724#msg2294724 see grab below.

Presumably as the post 1965-66 budget squeeze began to bite there might well have been some behind the scenes discussion between those cleared to do so about what sort of reuse was possible, though sending an Agena to orbit Mars still seems a bit of a stretch.
« Last Edit: 12/16/2023 01:43 pm by LittleBird »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7656
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #357 on: 12/16/2023 03:15 pm »
I talked to a few people involved with FROG (and Lunar Orbiter, which was also a Kodak camera project). I have a lot of material, but it's going to take some time to process it. A few points:

-apparently, Bimat processing was originally supposed to be a battlefield system. But the Bimat material had to be kept cold, meaning that if you were using it on the battlefield, you needed a refrigerator unit. Not practical.

-Lunar Orbiter used 70mm film. FROG would have used two four-inch film strips. Scaling up the film to that larger format was not easy. As my source said, even though the technology was all "proven," somebody had to design it, and that was not necessarily going to be simple. (Here we get into some semantics, but I think it's still a valid point.)

-he didn't know about any concerns about the laser scanner. But that would not have been a Kodak development.

-the FROG vehicle was going to be big compared to a lot of the previous spacecraft projects. It was a big long cylinder as you can see in the drawings.

-because Bimat was unclassified, they could actually design and discuss aspects of it in an unclassified setting. That made things easier. I saw a briefing set that was created for General Lew Allen and it did not have any classified markings on it.

-I have a chart showing Bimat lifetime vs. temperature. As the temperature increases, the lifetime of the material drops.

I'll share more as I go through my notes.


Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7656
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #358 on: 12/22/2023 02:12 am »
NRO produced this.

NRO
@NatReconOfc
#OTD in 1972 the first Block III GAMBIT-3 satellite launched. The Block III included a new roll joint that could handle 18,000 maneuvers per mission.
This mission, 4337, was the longest GAMBIT mission yet flown up to that point at 31 days.


https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1737908325512077516
« Last Edit: 12/22/2023 02:24 am by Blackstar »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7656
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The KH-7 and KH-8 GAMBIT reconnaissance satellites
« Reply #359 on: 12/31/2023 04:23 pm »
I am going through my notes from my research trip. Lots of stuff to go through (and I keep smacking myself in the forehead for not asking question X, Y or Z).

This is an unclassified chart that was prepared for Lew Allen, who was at SAFSP. I don't have a date (I can probably get that) but this was almost certainly 1970-1971, when FROG was being actively evaluated. It is possible it is from around early 1971, or maybe even April-May when FROG was approved and briefly in development.

What it shows is the performance of Bimat material necessary for processing FROG photos in orbit. Bimat was unclassified because it had been used on Lunar Orbiter. That made it easier for the Kodak people to talk about it and what they were doing with applying it to FROG.

As you can see, temperature affected the performance. It had to be kept cold. According to the person I talked to, this was not that difficult for the spacecraft. They could design for it and, I assume, once it was designed into the system, it was not hard to maintain that temperature. That was harder for a ground-based system like COMPASS LINK, because there you had to assure that there was always power to a refrigerator. I assume that COMPASS LINK was maintained at a base and was not a field-deployed system.

(SO-111 refers to a film type.)
« Last Edit: 12/31/2023 04:23 pm by Blackstar »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1