http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3049/1Through the looking glassby Dwayne DayMonday, August 22, 2016The 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.
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):
c. The synthetic aperture concept has the potential for large optics at significantly reduced weight over conventional fabrication techniques.
Quote from: hoku on 05/05/2023 07:07 amc. 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 FIAThere 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#msg2347340Based 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?
Quote from: hoku on 05/05/2023 05:14 pmPalomar 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#msg2347340Based 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/4426/1Note that "9x5" refers to the GAMBIT-3 version then in use.
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.
Quote from: hoku on 05/05/2023 07:07 amIt 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...
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.
Quote from: hoku on 05/05/2023 07:07 amThey 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).pdfdeclassified in 2012, see below
Quote from: LittleBird on 05/08/2023 02:24 pmAnd 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).pdfdeclassified in 2012, see belowI'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).
That's what I thought but phrase "Transit pickaback launch of two units" might actually mean with Transit not on Transit ?
(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.)
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.
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.