Author Topic: KH-11 KENNEN  (Read 339114 times)

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • UK
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #980 on: 10/17/2023 05:22 am »

<snip>

Interesting. Was this just as true for industrial researchers like Fried https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Fried
 as it was for university academics ? Presumably there might then be corporate confidentiality but not classification per se ?

Quote
From 1957 to 1959 he was with RCA Astro-Electronics Division, Princeton, N. J., where he worked on computer applications analysis. In 1961 he was employed by Rockwell International, where he held the position of Manager in the Electro-Optical Laboratory of the Autonetics Division (Anaheim, Calif.), where, as head of the Laser Techniques Group, he was engaged in the study of devices necessary for laser applications, and in the analysis of system concepts for laser application. He also did extensive work in the study of optical propagation in a randomly inhomogeneous atmosphere and the consequent effects on optical system performance. In 1966 he joined the technical staff of the North American Aviation Science Center, Thousand Oaks, Calif., where he was engaged in a study of the microwave reflectivity and emissivity of rough surfaces.

<snip>

From 1970 (when he founded the company) until 1993 (when he sold the company), Fried was the president of the Optical Sciences Company (Placentia, California). In 1993, he received the SPIE Technology Achievement Award for his initial laser guide-star work. From 1993 to 1995 he was a professor of physics at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Later, he worked as an independent consultant.
Unless your corporate boss can see an money-making application, then you can probably publish (paper or conference talk), IF you can get that same boss to pony up the money/time for such publishing.  The closer to application, the less likely you'll get the OK to publish. Conversely, if the application is ready for sale, then you can, must go to conferences to sell the idea. Often your boss or bosses boss will go to hobnob, and present your idea.

Thanks. One imagines that some Rockwell folk might have found Fried's  internal reports useful when the company was tendering for the KH-11's on board computer-which they won ;-)

[Edit: Rockwell's may be one of the less well known of the great corporate science labs but it seems to have been pretty important https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-08-02-me-19515-story.html

I see that it still exists to some extent:]


Quote
The laboratory did independent contract research for the U.S. Government, and also provided research services for the company's business units. It was famous for its research in: advanced materials, particularly ceramics;[20] for its infrared imagers;[21] for its research in liquid-crystal displays;[22] and for its high-speed electronics.[23] The laboratory invented Metalorganic vapour-phase epitaxy (MOVPE), also commonly known as Metal Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition (MOCVD).[24] It also achieved fame in selected areas of information science, notably human-computer interaction, augmented reality, multimedia systems, and diagnostics.[25] Rockwell Science Center led the United States Army Research Laboratory's Advanced Displays Federated Laboratory Consortium in the late 1990s. In 2000, the infrared imaging division of the laboratory moved into a new building in Camarillo, California.

After Rockwell International's breakup in 2001, the laboratory was spun off as a semi-autonomous company called Rockwell Scientific, half owned by Rockwell Collins and half owned by Rockwell Automation. In 2006, the main laboratory and infrared imaging division were sold to Teledyne Corporation. Teledyne made the laboratory complex in Thousand Oaks into its corporate headquarters. A reduced but active research and development operation continues there, under the name Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, LLC.[23]
« Last Edit: 10/17/2023 06:20 am by LittleBird »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7655
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #981 on: 11/14/2023 01:06 am »
https://thespacereview.com/article/4692/1

Something goes boom in the night: the explosion of a Cold War secret
by Dwayne A. Day and Asif Siddiqi
Monday, November 13, 2023

In the fall of 1983 American reconnaissance satellites spotted preparations for a space launch at the sprawling Soviet missile and space launch range known as the Baikonur Cosmodrome, then popularly called “Tyuratam.” The satellites photographed activity at what the CIA labeled “Launch Site A1.” A1 was in fact the most famous launch pad at Baikonur, both for the Soviet Union and the rest of the world. When a CIA U-2 spyplane had first flown over Baikonur in the late 1950s, it spotted one primary launch pad, which the National Photographic Interpretation Center, which analyzed overhead imagery of the Soviet Union, soon named Complex A. Later launch complexes were designated B, C, D, and so on. Complex A became famous as the site of the Sputnik launch, and later Yuri Gagarin launched from there as well. But soon Site A1 would be the site of a spectacular accident, one that the Soviet Union sought to keep secret. American satellites would photograph the accident in detail, and information on it would accidentally leak to the Western media.


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7655
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #982 on: 12/15/2023 09:54 pm »
What is the best account of the early development of the Hubble Space Telescope?

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #983 on: 12/16/2023 09:24 am »
What is the best account of the early development of the Hubble Space Telescope?
A good start are various accounts by Bob O'Dell, who was the first Project Scientist for the Large (Hubble) Space Telescope:
Short overviews:
https://esahubble.org/videos/hst3_odell/
https://theconversation.com/hubble-space-telescopes-chief-scientist-on-what-it-took-to-get-the-project-off-the-ground-40287
Oral history interview: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/4802-1
https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/4802-2
https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/4802-3

Bob O'Dell's "recommended reading list":
Smith, R.W.: 1993, “The Space Telescope. A study of NASA, science, technology, and politics”, second edition (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge). https://archive.org/details/spacetelescopest00camb
A detailed history of the Marshall Space Flight Center involvement: Dunar, A. J., & Waring, S. P.: 1999 “Power to Explore—History of the Marshall Space Flight Center 1960–1990” (U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington) Chapter 12. https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4313.pdf
A concise attempt to tell the story of the HST from one scientist’s point of view as an insider is: O’Dell, C. R.: 2003 “The Orion Nebula: Where Stars are Born” (Harvard University Press: Cambridge), Chapter 10.

edit: links added
« Last Edit: 12/16/2023 02:40 pm by hoku »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • UK
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #984 on: 12/16/2023 03:33 pm »
What is the best account of the early development of the Hubble Space Telescope?

<snip>
Bob O'Dell's "recommended reading list":
Smith, R.W.: 1993, “The Space Telescope. A study of NASA, science, technology, and politics”, second edition (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge). https://archive.org/details/spacetelescopest00camb
<snip>

I was interested to see that Robert Smith's archive for this book is at JHU: https://archivesspace.library.jhu.edu/repositories/3/resources/9

Quote
The Space Telescope Collection is a group of records compiled by Robert W. Smith. The material in this collection spans the years 1952 to 1991, but most of the records are concentrated in the 1970s and 1980s. The collection contains correspondence files, scientific plans, reports, publications, administrative records and subject files from various NASA centers, universities, research groups and contractors who were active in the development of the Hubble Space Telescope and the Space Telescope Science Institute.

Not sure Eric Chaisson's famous book fits your bill but it's online at archive.org as well: https://archive.org/details/hubblewarsastrop00chai and I was fascinated to see the ground based images of Hubble that appear in it in the book review below:

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #985 on: 12/16/2023 07:55 pm »
<snip>
Not sure Eric Chaisson's famous book fits your bill but it's online at archive.org as well: https://archive.org/details/hubblewarsastrop00chai and I was fascinated to see the ground based images of Hubble that appear in it in the book review below:
Yeah, I also was quite impressed when I saw ground based images of Hubble for the first time - must have been at this conference https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1992ESOC...39..181L

I'm not sure, though, if the images had been "fuzzed" (degraded in resolution) as stated in the book review. More recent images, though, definitely reveal more details: https://afresearchlab.com/technology/air-force-maui-optical-and-supercomputing-amos-site/
« Last Edit: 12/16/2023 07:57 pm by hoku »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7655
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #986 on: 12/16/2023 07:56 pm »
One thing I got confirmed: the mirror technology developed for MOL was then incorporated into KH-8 and then into KH-11 and then Hubble.

Also, when NASA was going to build Hubble, they wanted a 3-meter mirror. But only Perkin-Elmer could make a 3-meter mirror and NASA needed to hold a real competition. NASA went to Kodak and asked them to bid on Hubble and Kodak said that they could not make a 3-meter mirror, but they could make a 2.5-meter mirror. So NASA set the requirement at 2.4 meters, P-E and Kodak both bid, and Kodak lost. I know why Kodak lost, and it partly had to do with their experience with KH-11--they knew too much and their bid was too high as a result (in other words, they knew what it should really cost to do the work).



« Last Edit: 12/18/2023 04:49 pm by Blackstar »

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #987 on: 12/16/2023 09:23 pm »
One thing I got confirmed: the mirror technology developed for MOL was then incorporated into KH-8 and then into KH-11 and then Hubble.

Also, when NASA was going to build Hubble, they wanted a 3-meter mirror. But only Perkin-Elmer could make a 3-meter mirror and NASA needed to hold a real competition. NASA went to Kodak and asked them to bid on Hubble and Kodak said that they could not make a 3-meter mirror, but they could make a 3.5-meter mirror. So NASA set the requirement at 2.4 meters, P-E and Kodak both bid, and Kodak lost. I know why Kodak lost, and it partly had to do with their experience with KH-11--they knew too much and their bid was too high as a result (in other words, they knew what it should really cost to do the work).
The "funny" thing, though, was that Kodak's bid included an end-to-end test. PE didn't have the facilities to verify the image quality of a complete optical telescope assembly with large mirrors, and setting up such a facility might easily have doubled their bid. Kodak could re-use the test set-up developed for KH-10/11.

The track record of the PE+LMSC collaboration, i.e. their 1970 study for the Large Telescope Experiment Program (LTEP) and on KH-9, might also have played a role in selecting PE (and LMSC) in July 1977.

edit: dates of contract awards corrected
« Last Edit: 12/17/2023 07:38 am by hoku »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7655
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #988 on: 12/18/2023 02:35 pm »
The "funny" thing, though, was that Kodak's bid included an end-to-end test. PE didn't have the facilities to verify the image quality of a complete optical telescope assembly with large mirrors, and setting up such a facility might easily have doubled their bid. Kodak could re-use the test set-up developed for KH-10/11.

One of the interviewees told me that Kodak's experience on KH-11 led them to conclude that they needed both an end-to-end test of the optics, and a backup mirror. But neither of those were in NASA's requirements: Kodak included them in their proposal, that increased the cost, and Kodak lost the bid.

Now playing what-if here, Kodak could have kept them out of the proposal, won the bid, and then NASA could have added them as later requirements (NASA did add a requirement for a backup mirror, which was built by Kodak). I am sure that there has been a ton of stuff written about how P-E screwed up the Hubble mirror, and the tests that they conducted actually did catch the problem, but they ignored the results. However, an end-to-end test certainly would have caught the problem.


Online Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 508
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #989 on: 12/18/2023 04:11 pm »
- P.E screw up, Kodak backup mirror, not flown; and the flawed Hubble mirror in orbit: are a remarquable example of the Murphy Law at work... "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong."

- Also, the Shuttle could have brought back Hubble to Earth solid ground for a mirror swap. You know, that Kodak backup mirror... that wasn't flawed at last.
-A good case could be made the Shuttle had been designed, build and flown for such mission: I mean, salvage satellites in orbit and bring them down to Earth for refurbishment and money savings. Also broken or flawed satellites... like Hubble and its mirror.
-Yet in the end, it was easier and cheaper to put corrective lenses in orbit. Still, the Shuttle did a good job in that mission, no question about that. It adapted.

Online Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 508
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #990 on: 12/18/2023 04:17 pm »
One thing I got confirmed: the mirror technology developed for MOL was then incorporated into KH-8 and then into KH-11 and then Hubble.

Also, when NASA was going to build Hubble, they wanted a 3-meter mirror. But only Perkin-Elmer could make a 3-meter mirror and NASA needed to hold a real competition. NASA went to Kodak and asked them to bid on Hubble and Kodak said that they could not make a 3-meter mirror, but they could make a 3.5-meter mirror. So NASA set the requirement at 2.4 meters, P-E and Kodak both bid, and Kodak lost. I know why Kodak lost, and it partly had to do with their experience with KH-11--they knew too much and their bid was too high as a result (in other words, they knew what it should really cost to do the work).

-Put otherwise: they were honest, and it did not paid. Rule number One of contractors and bidding wars (to you, Boeing and all the others): better to underbid (and screw up, as P.E did).

-I don't get the 3.5 m part. 

-My understanding was that NASA wanted 3 m but Congress (in 1975, Congressman Bolland) balked at the cost and almost cancelled it. So they went for 2.4 m (94 inch rather than 120 inch). Saw that in many Hubble histories and books. Maybe that was only a part of the story, or a minor part of that story.

Quote
I am sure that there has been a ton of stuff written about how P-E screwed up the Hubble mirror, and the tests that they conducted actually did catch the problem, but they ignored the results.

This. I think I red the exact story a while back, and it was really that kind of really tortured  / idiotic / twisted story that, with perfect hindsight is just head-scratching (or head banging against a wall, but that's more painful and dangerous). Completely baffling.

- It is not a matter of "Kodak would have seen the flaw" or "Kodak backup mirror wasn't flawed". Nor even "Kodak had the ground hardware to see the flaw, not P.E".
Fact is that P.E actually did saw the flaw, but dismissed it for some obscure reasons (facepalm).
« Last Edit: 12/18/2023 04:29 pm by Emmettvonbrown »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7655
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #991 on: 12/18/2023 04:53 pm »
-Put otherwise: they were honest, and it did not paid. Rule number One of contractors and bidding wars (to you, Boeing and all the others): better to underbid (and screw up, as P.E did).

No. The way it was told to me was that the problem was not that Kodak underbid, the problem was that Kodak included things in their proposal that NASA did not ask for. That drove up their bid. The lesson that they took away from that loss was to only propose what is in the requirements and nothing more. Let the customer ask for more after the contract selection.

-I don't get the 3.5 m part. 

Typo on my part (which I have corrected). Kodak could only make a 2.5-meter mirror. P-E could make a 3-meter mirror. NASA needed a real competition, so they lowered the requirement to 2.4 meters and therefore both P-E and Kodak could bid on it.

Offline ExGeek

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #992 on: 12/18/2023 08:24 pm »
-Put otherwise: they were honest, and it did not paid. Rule number One of contractors and bidding wars (to you, Boeing and all the others): better to underbid (and screw up, as P.E did).

No. The way it was told to me was that the problem was not that Kodak underbid, the problem was that Kodak included things in their proposal that NASA did not ask for. That drove up their bid. The lesson that they took away from that loss was to only propose what is in the requirements and nothing more. Let the customer ask for more after the contract selection.

Virtually the same thing happened with FIA in the bidding between the Boeing consortium and the LM consortium.  LM knew what was needed.  Boeing was venturing into unfamiliar territory.  It was actually shocking when Boeing was awarded both contracts.  The result was several Boeing ECPs larger than most programs' bottom line and eventual partial program cancellation, and the institution of a replacement program with updated LM designs.  Overall a costly mistake by the NRO in procurement and program management.

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #993 on: 12/18/2023 10:05 pm »
<snip>
Now playing what-if here, Kodak could have kept them out of the proposal, won the bid, and then NASA could have added them as later requirements (NASA did add a requirement for a backup mirror, which was built by Kodak). I am sure that there has been a ton of stuff written about how P-E screwed up the Hubble mirror, and the tests that they conducted actually did catch the problem, but they ignored the results. However, an end-to-end test certainly would have caught the problem.
The back-up mirror requirement seems to have been added as a schedule-preserving measure because of doubts in PE's computerised polishing technique. This was initially justified as PE successively failed in polishing a 60 inch (1.5m) test mirror in 1978 and '79.

It also seems that in 1980 Kodak was directed to stop work on the back-up mirror in an effort to "free" (redirect) money within the project. Judging from the NASM exhibit, the back-up mirror must have been largely finished by then.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/mirror-primary-backup-hubble-space-telescope/nasm_A20010288000
« Last Edit: 12/18/2023 10:13 pm by hoku »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15200
  • Liked: 7655
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #994 on: 12/18/2023 10:44 pm »
Virtually the same thing happened with FIA in the bidding between the Boeing consortium and the LM consortium.  LM knew what was needed.  Boeing was venturing into unfamiliar territory.  It was actually shocking when Boeing was awarded both contracts.  The result was several Boeing ECPs larger than most programs' bottom line and eventual partial program cancellation, and the institution of a replacement program with updated LM designs.  Overall a costly mistake by the NRO in procurement and program management.

What is a good source on FIA?

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #995 on: 12/19/2023 11:14 am »
Virtually the same thing happened with FIA in the bidding between the Boeing consortium and the LM consortium.  LM knew what was needed.  Boeing was venturing into unfamiliar territory.  It was actually shocking when Boeing was awarded both contracts.  The result was several Boeing ECPs larger than most programs' bottom line and eventual partial program cancellation, and the institution of a replacement program with updated LM designs.  Overall a costly mistake by the NRO in procurement and program management.

What is a good source on FIA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Imagery_Architecture
 ;)

... and references therein -  https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/fia.htm gives a good high-level overview

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37429
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21434
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #996 on: 12/19/2023 03:44 pm »

-A good case could be made the Shuttle had been designed, build and flown for such mission: I mean, salvage satellites in orbit and bring them down to Earth for refurbishment and money savings. Also broken or flawed satellites... like Hubble and its mirror.


Not really.   The satellite has to be designed for it   The HST spacecraft was not designed for the telescope to be removed and neither was the mirror designed to be removed from the telescope.

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6026
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 3183
  • Likes Given: 1093
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #997 on: 12/19/2023 04:09 pm »
The "funny" thing, though, was that Kodak's bid included an end-to-end test. PE didn't have the facilities to verify the image quality of a complete optical telescope assembly with large mirrors, and setting up such a facility might easily have doubled their bid. Kodak could re-use the test set-up developed for KH-10/11.

One of the interviewees told me that Kodak's experience on KH-11 led them to conclude that they needed both an end-to-end test of the optics, and a backup mirror. But neither of those were in NASA's requirements: Kodak included them in their proposal, that increased the cost, and Kodak lost the bid.

Now playing what-if here, Kodak could have kept them out of the proposal, won the bid, and then NASA could have added them as later requirements (NASA did add a requirement for a backup mirror, which was built by Kodak). I am sure that there has been a ton of stuff written about how P-E screwed up the Hubble mirror, and the tests that they conducted actually did catch the problem, but they ignored the results. However, an end-to-end test certainly would have caught the problem.



I have a photo copy of a journal article, somewhere, that details how the exact prescription error was calculated using a notebook that documented the polishing process but would be interested in reading some of the "stuff" you mentioned above if you have links :)
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • UK
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #998 on: 12/19/2023 05:30 pm »

-A good case could be made the Shuttle had been designed, build and flown for such mission: I mean, salvage satellites in orbit and bring them down to Earth for refurbishment and money savings. Also broken or flawed satellites... like Hubble and its mirror.


Not really.   The satellite has to be designed for it   The HST spacecraft was not designed for the telescope to be removed and neither was the mirror designed to be removed from the telescope.

Did the shuttle in the end  ever return any other free flying satellites apart from LDEF ? [Sorry, I'd forgotten about Palapa and Westar  https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110023479/downloads/20110023479.pdf?attachment=true but I guess they needed rather less repair than HST would have, being essentially undamaged.]
« Last Edit: 12/19/2023 07:05 pm by LittleBird »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15349
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8487
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Reply #999 on: 12/19/2023 05:37 pm »
Did the shuttle in the end  ever return any other free flying satellites apart from LDEF ?
STS-41-C (launch) / STS-32R (retrieve): LDEF
STS-41-B (launch) / STS-51-A (retrieve): Palapa B-2 and Westar 6
STS-46 (launch) / STS-57 (retrieve): EURECA
H-II Test Vehicle 3 (launch) / STS-72 (retrieve): Space Flyer Unit

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/15094/what-satellites-did-the-shuttle-retrieve-from-orbit

 - Ed Kyle

Tags:
 

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