MOL discussion

[Targeteer]

More drawings showed up on the wiki page.  Looks like declassification has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-10_Dorian

Interestingly I can't find anything on the NRO or AF FOIA websites...

[John Charles]

These diagrams show concepts for future MOL-derived variants, possibly part of a sales pitch to USAF or NRO. They must have been classified simply because they were related to MOL. Maybe they were "easy" to declassify after only 45 years because they were never sensitive to begin with.

[Star One]

More drawings showed up on the wiki page.  Looks like declassification has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-10_Dorian

Thanks. Followed the reference link but that didn't give much in way of clue about this declassification.

[Jim]

Thanks. Followed the reference link but that didn't give much in way of clue about this declassification.

The pictures on the wiki all are "stamped" "NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 10 JUNE 2014"

[Jim]

These diagrams show concepts for future MOL-derived variants, possibly part of a sales pitch to USAF or NRO. They must have been classified simply because they were related to MOL. Maybe they were "easy" to declassify after only 45 years because they were never sensitive to begin with.

One of the diagrams is the actual configuration.

[kevin-rf]

Someone has edit'd the Wiki page, they are no longer up. At least what I saw last night is no longer up.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KH-10_Dorian&action=history

Cached version from wiki that still has all 25 images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KH-10_Dorian&oldid=613523157

[Star One]

Someone has edit'd the Wiki page, they are no longer up. At least what I saw last night is no longer up.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KH-10_Dorian&action=history

Cached version from wiki that still has all 25 images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KH-10_Dorian&oldid=613523157

If you read the reason for removal it says there was too many images.

[kevin-rf]

Shame, some very interesting images in that image dump.

I wonder if we are allowed to post them on NSF? I think I'll ping Chris and ask.

[John Charles]

Thanks to Jim for the pointer the wiki page, and to kevin-rf for the pointer to the cache. I had only seen the 2 still at the wiki page initially. Looking at all 2 dozen of them, I still think they are from a 1966 sales pitch for future growth options, in direct competition to AAP (later Skylab), and possibly for a future USAF-NASA "National Space Station" which had been discussed. The unmanned version surface last year, and it is good to see more details. These images also reinforce a point Blackstar made previously, that the initial manned version was only capable of returning a couple of film canisters, versus the six or more film return capsules from the unmanned version. (I don't know how credible the "manned-version-plus-buckets" concept was.)

[Star One]

It's odd that they are not to be found on the NRO site.

[Blackstar]

Wait for my TSR article.

[Star One]

Wait for my TSR article.

That's the kind of news I wanted to hear.

[archipeppe68]

Wait for my TSR article.

As also for my updated drawings... 

[Blackstar]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1

[Archibald]

Fascinating as usual. About the Gambit 3: indeed I've long asked myself, wasn't MOL role already fitted by the KH-8 ? What value does a bigger ship with astronauts add ?

[Blackstar]

Fascinating as usual. About the Gambit 3: indeed I've long asked myself, wasn't MOL role already fitted by the KH-8 ? What value does a bigger ship with astronauts add ?

And I am sure they were asking that question at the time.

Part of this was probably schedule driven, meaning that GAMBIT 3 was conceived, developed and operational relatively quickly, while MOL kept plodding along. So it was up and running and making MOL obsolete.

[kevin-rf]

I don't know what I found more interesting, the article (which was good) or some of the TSR comments (Which are also good).

Nice article.

[Herb Schaltegger]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1

Fascinating article. Thanks for the write-up of one of the more mysterious aspects of American space history.

[Archibald]

Fascinating as usual. About the Gambit 3: indeed I've long asked myself, wasn't MOL role already fitted by the KH-8 ? What value does a bigger ship with astronauts add ?

And I am sure they were asking that question at the time.

Part of this was probably schedule driven, meaning that GAMBIT 3 was conceived, developed and operational relatively quickly, while MOL kept plodding along. So it was up and running and making MOL obsolete.

KH-8 didn't really existed back in 1964 when they started MOL but it was a derivative of the KH-7 that already existed, so it was a straight development that rapidly overtook MOL. Now why was MOL continued ? either because USAF wanted its own manned space effort; or perhaps it was just a train wreck no one could stop until, well, 1969...

[Star One]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2539/1

Thanks for the article, interesting stuff.

Shame the images got deleted off Wikipedia.