Just a question. Since Kodak was in Rochester, N.Y, and since the objective was to get the pictures as fast as possible, I suppose that the lifting body would have landed at a military base close from Rochester ? It sounds logical, in order to minimize transit time by road or by air, plus I suppose the NRO would be quite nervous about USSR very high-res picture travelling across the U.S countryside, even under cover. So I wonder, was there an Air Force base near Rochester where the lifting body could have quietly and discretely landed ? just asking...
Another Babylon 5 episode reference. Thank you, Dwayne! (Season 5, episode 17)
Just a question. Since Kodak was in Rochester, N.Y, and since the objective was to get the pictures as fast as possible, I suppose that the lifting body would have landed at a military base close from Rochester ?
Quote from: Archibald on 03/06/2018 08:26 pmJust a question. Since Kodak was in Rochester, N.Y, and since the objective was to get the pictures as fast as possible, I suppose that the lifting body would have landed at a military base close from Rochester ? It sounds logical, in order to minimize transit time by road or by air, plus I suppose the NRO would be quite nervous about USSR very high-res picture travelling across the U.S countryside, even under cover. So I wonder, was there an Air Force base near Rochester where the lifting body could have quietly and discretely landed ? just asking...Griffiss AFB was a SAC base near Rome, NY in that timeframe. However, I doubt there would be enough cross-range capability to reenter over water and land in the Eastern US. I would guess reentry over the Pacific, landing at Edwards AFB, and then flying the film to Rochester would be more likely.
where the lifting body could have quietly and discretely landed ?
I figure there would be (many?) reasons not to, but did anyone analyze this? Just a thought.
Quote from: Sam Ho on 03/06/2018 09:35 pmQuote from: Archibald on 03/06/2018 08:26 pmJust a question. Since Kodak was in Rochester, N.Y, and since the objective was to get the pictures as fast as possible, I suppose that the lifting body would have landed at a military base close from Rochester ? It sounds logical, in order to minimize transit time by road or by air, plus I suppose the NRO would be quite nervous about USSR very high-res picture travelling across the U.S countryside, even under cover. So I wonder, was there an Air Force base near Rochester where the lifting body could have quietly and discretely landed ? just asking...Griffiss AFB was a SAC base near Rome, NY in that timeframe. However, I doubt there would be enough cross-range capability to reenter over water and land in the Eastern US. I would guess reentry over the Pacific, landing at Edwards AFB, and then flying the film to Rochester would be more likely.Don't forget, the Seneca Army Depot was also just outside of Rochester in Romulus had a long runway. Being a nuclear (alleged) munitions depot it would had the extra security and been perfect for black programs.
More info on PRIME and ASSET here:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36029.0Blackstar, I'm always impressed by your work.F=ma
Kodak use to keep detail records beyond just the lot number on every roll of film they produced, even consumer film. I would hazard they knew everything in every step in the manufacturing process, from where on the web it came, the conditions and age of all chemicals used, temperatures, humidity, crystal structure, everything. Kodak was crazy, in college I spent a semester working in the single use camera group with the people who developed Kodak's Disc camera, instant camera, and single use camera's. They lived and breathed film. My point, before developing the film they knew more about each roll of film than you than you most likely know about yourself.
From Andreas Parsch at designation-systems.net:"The X-23A designation is generally attributed to the Martin Marietta SV-5D PRIME unmanned lifting body reentry test vehicle, but available USAF nomenclature records show that X-23A was never actually assigned. On 16 November 1965, the designation X-23A was requested for the SV-5P [sic!] vehicle, which is known to have been designated as X-24A in mid-1967 (see next paragraph). The vehicle description accompanying the designation request of 1965 clearly describes the SV-5P as a low-speed (Mach 2 to landing) manned lifting-body aircraft. However, in a letter dated 15 December 1965, the request was disapproved for the reason that the subject aircraft was unmanned (at that time, the aircraft designation system was still used as originally intended in 1962, i.e. for manned aircraft only)! This appears to be very weird indeed, but apparently there was a severe misunderstanding regarding the nature of the research aircraft at the office which had to approve the designation. In late 1966, the offices responsible for the USAF's lifting body reentry programs again pondered the question how to designate the test vehicles. After a stillborn proposal to introduce a completely new designation category for gliding reentry vehicles, it was decided that the best way to go was to request the designations X-23A for the unmanned SV-5D PRIME and X-24A for the manned SV-5P. X-24A was accordingly requested and approved, but it appears that no actual request for X-23A was ever sent to the nomenclature office. Reasons are unknown, but maybe it was realized that an MDS request for an unmanned vehicle was futile, especially when the rejection of the 1965 request for X-23A explicitly said that unmanned aircraft need no designation. Whatever the reasons, the designation X-23A was never even requested for, let alone allocated to, the SV-5D PRIME vehicle."FWIW...