Author Topic: MOL discussion  (Read 367963 times)

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #860 on: 05/05/2023 07:07 am »
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3049/1

Through the looking glass
by Dwayne Day
Monday, August 22, 2016

The 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.
A less-redacted version of the memo on "Project COLT" to NRO Director John McLucas from Jan 1971 has been released. It now reveals two additional motivations for giving 6 of the 72 inch blanks to UA (Meinel). The previous redactions, though, were hiding quite obvious facts:

a. A study and test model synthetic aperture device in the 8-13 micron region

c. The synthetic aperture concept has the potential for large optics at significantly reduced weight over conventional fabrication techniques. 

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.

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):

https://www.nro.gov/FOIA/FOIA-For-All-Other-Public-Releases/FOIA-For-All-Releases-FY23/

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #861 on: 05/05/2023 03:46 pm »

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):


The E-2 and E-5 docs are in the form of short slide presentations (about 3 pages each) summarizing those programs. They're nice concise overviews, but there's no new information in them. I think that for E-5 the only thing we don't have that we really need are good photos of the spacecraft and the camera system (preferably the camera inside the spacecraft). Considering that we've never seen anything like that even badly reproduced in the histories, I have to reluctantly conclude that photos do not exist. I find that really hard to believe--nobody took photos of the spacecraft, not even contractor closeout photos? But we got nothing.

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.

TANGIBLE and ROPEVAL were early 1970s exercises using SIGINT satellites (mainly STRAWMAN) to detect ships at sea. I have a draft article on STRAWMAN that goes into these and a dozen other similar efforts. They started by practicing against US Navy ships, but quickly pivoted to trying to track Soviet vessels. POPPY was also doing something similar, and I have not totally figured out the differences.

Thanks for the update. More rambling comments by me will follow.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #862 on: 05/05/2023 04:07 pm »

c. 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 FIA

There 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.)

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #863 on: 05/05/2023 05:14 pm »

c. 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.
Precise wavefront control and maintenance of the "phasing" of the segments requires an active control loop (sensor + data analysis + actuators). Probably not worth the effort in LEO. From GEO on the other hand...

Quote
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 FIA

There 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#msg2347340

Based 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?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #864 on: 05/05/2023 06:14 pm »

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#msg2347340

Based 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/4426/1

Note that "9x5" refers to the GAMBIT-3 version then in use.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2023 06:15 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #865 on: 05/05/2023 06:39 pm »
I might post this in the CORONA thread, but it's an interesting little document in the latest release. Essentially it is an overview about what was going on with CORONA and HEXAGON and related things in July 1970. (A quick skim did not indicate anything about GAMBIT.)

Note that it gives the time and date for recovery of a CORONA SRV (I cannot read the time), and then indicates when the forward facing film was processed--about two days later. So that provides a baseline of how long it could take from recovery to processing. You'd have to add more hours on the front and back of that if you want to figure out how long it would take from taking the photo to getting it on somebody's desk in Washington.

Note also the mention of how they immediately started analyzing the film in order to make adjustments to the satellite in orbit to improve the quality of the next photos. I always assumed they did this, but I don't remember seeing it spelled out.

This is report #51, meaning that there were 50 others before this one, and who knows how many after it.


Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #866 on: 05/06/2023 12:07 am »

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#msg2347340

Based 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/4426/1

Note that "9x5" refers to the GAMBIT-3 version then in use.
Thanks. "The Gambit Story" lists the weight of the G-3 primary as 374.7 lb,  i.e. around 170 kg. For a 43.5 inch diameter this results in 177 kg/m^2, thus about the same as for KH-10 and HST. The G-3 mirror was probably somewhat thinner than the larger diameter KH-10 and HST mirrors.

Edit: for G-3 the quoted weight is for the "mounted mirror", thus this might include the mass of the mirror mount? Maybe the numbers in the other table are for the pure glass? 260 lb would correspond to 123 kg/m^2, which seems surprisingly low?
« Last Edit: 05/06/2023 12:13 am by hoku »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #867 on: 05/06/2023 12:15 am »

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.


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...

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #868 on: 05/06/2023 11:25 am »

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.


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...
They were quite open about SMT's origin and the transfer in late 2009/early 2010. In the video segment (2nd link) it is mentioned that the motivation for the project was to develop imaging satellites for a "higher orbit", and that the project was apparently completed/terminated around 2005 (they mention that it took NPS 4 yrs to get the transfer arranged):
https://nps.edu/-/nps-new-home-for-giant-segmented-mirror-space-telescope#:~:text=The%20Naval%20Postgraduate%20School%20is,cutting%2Dedge%20space%20imaging%20technologies.
https://nps.edu/web/nps-video-portal/-/tlvkyrctgkrkqy6sgbw-dkxny-wnqwr

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #869 on: 05/06/2023 12:06 pm »
The one I am thinking about was on the cover of Aviation Week in 1987. 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.


Update: just found the AWST cover from 1987. SDI Litton Itek Large Adaptive Mirror.
« Last Edit: 05/06/2023 12:15 pm by Blackstar »

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #870 on: 05/06/2023 12:20 pm »
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.
HALO?

Corning Museum of Glass has quite a collection of (space) mirror blanks. There is a "Hexagon-shaped Lightweight Mirror Blank" from the 1960s, and a "Hexagon-shaped Section of a Large ULE mirror" from 1996. They also have a 2.5m times 1.7m "Segment of HALO Aspherical Mirror with Actuators".

I wasn't aware that actual hardware had been fabricated for the High Altitude Large Optics (HALO) telescope.

https://www.cmog.org/artwork/hexagon-shaped-lightweight-mirror-blank
https://www.cmog.org/artwork/hexagon-shaped-section-large-ule-tm-mirror-blank
https://www.cmog.org/artwork/segment-halo-aspherical-mirror-actuators
« Last Edit: 05/06/2023 12:21 pm by hoku »

Online LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #871 on: 05/08/2023 02:24 pm »

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):




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).pdf
declassified in 2012, see below


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #872 on: 05/08/2023 03:13 pm »
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).pdf
declassified in 2012, see below


I'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).

Online LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #873 on: 05/08/2023 03:21 pm »
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).pdf
declassified in 2012, see below


I'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.


That's what I thought but phrase "Transit pickaback launch of two units" might actually mean with Transit not on Transit ?

Quote

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).

I find the NRL/Program C story quite complicated too.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #874 on: 05/08/2023 08:31 pm »
That's what I thought but phrase "Transit pickaback launch of two units" might actually mean with Transit not on Transit ?

You're right. Here is GRAB 1 with Transit 2A.

So CANES was another name for GRAB. But what did the name difference mean? I'm guessing that the overall program name changed from Tattletale to CANES and then to DYNO, but the specific satellite was referred to as GRAB (sometimes GREB). But sheesh, this stuff gets confusing really fast.

(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.)
« Last Edit: 05/08/2023 08:35 pm by Blackstar »

Online LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #875 on: 05/09/2023 11:26 am »

(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.)

Fine with me

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #876 on: 06/16/2023 01:48 pm »
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.


Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #877 on: 06/17/2023 10:36 pm »
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.

Gemini: Steps to the Moon by david j. Shayler
it has few pages on Gemini B info.

The NRO web page with pdf on MOL program has some info about Gemini B.



Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #878 on: 06/25/2023 01:42 am »
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.


Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 867
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #879 on: 06/25/2023 03:25 am »
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.
Not sure. There are the general accounts like in "A Military Man in Space" and "Struggling towards space doctrine". Looking at NASA's "Astronautics and Aeronautics" publications from 1963 to 1970, it almost looks like you could compile the MOL chronology from those, see screenshot for a one page example.

Tags:
 

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