Author Topic: MOL discussion (Read 459183 times)

Jparenti · « **Reply #160 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.)

Blackstar · « **Reply #161 on:** 07/06/2014 02:37 am »

Quote from: 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:

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.

John Charles · « **Reply #162 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.

Star One · « **Reply #163 on:** 07/06/2014 05:12 pm »

Quote from: 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.

You mean the program history which is the key document to be so far not declassified.

John Charles · « **Reply #164 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.

Blackstar · « **Reply #165 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.

Blackstar · « **Reply #166 on:** 07/14/2014 04:53 pm »

John Charles · « **Reply #167 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?

Jim · « **Reply #168 on:** 07/14/2014 05:14 pm »

Quote from: John Charles on 07/14/2014 05:08 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.

Blackstar · « **Reply #169 on:** 07/14/2014 06:45 pm »

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2553/1

dasmoth · « **Reply #170 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?

Star One · « **Reply #171 on:** 07/14/2014 07:02 pm »

Quote from: Blackstar on 07/14/2014 06:45 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.

Jim · « **Reply #172 on:** 07/14/2014 07:08 pm »

Quote from: 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?

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.

Jparenti · « **Reply #173 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.

Star One · « **Reply #174 on:** 07/21/2014 07:40 pm »

Another article from Dwayne Day.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2560/1

kevin-rf · « **Reply #175 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?

IslandPlaya · « **Reply #176 on:** 07/22/2014 02:27 pm »

From these unclassified discussions is there any reason why vertical integration of the spacecraft would be necessary?

kevin-rf · « **Reply #177 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...

IslandPlaya · « **Reply #178 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.

jg · « **Reply #179 on:** 07/22/2014 02:56 pm »

Quote from: 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.

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....