Quote from: LittleBird on 12/28/2024 02:33 pmTwo things are interesting here imho, one relevant to this thread, and the other to the mythology of the Shuttle (threads here on Hersch book "Dark Star" and the ongoing podcast "16 Sunsets"). The latter topic, on who by late '71, actually wanted the largest possible payload bay is thus one to take elsewhere, but the former, of why Packard and/or Fletcher knew that 60 feet was no longer essential, is relevant here. It seems certain to me that Packard knew about the KH-11 go ahead, as he was a party to discussions and a member of ExCom iirc, and it seems quite likely that Fletcher might also know something, as he had had very high clearances in the late 60s (e.g. the Fletcher committee on RHYOLITE options). Perhaps they both already knew that the "Stubby Hubble" was more like the length (~45 feet?) that is now ascribed to it, see e.g. ArchiPeppe's lovely pictures below, from Blackstar's TSR articles ?I'll toss in a bit of a non-sequitur here that there was a 1973 study of alternative HEXAGONs that also looked at redesigning it for shuttle. That's 2 years too late, but there was certainly the possibility that NRO could have come up with a shorter version of HEXAGON than 60 feet.Now you have to set the dimensions somewhere, and it seems pretty clear by now, even if we don't have a letter or memo that explicitly states it, that the DoD picked the longest payload they had which in 1971 was brand spanking new, and they said "it has to be able to carry this." Had they told NASA something less than 60 feet was acceptable, they were going to have to redesign HEXAGON to fit in the shuttle, and they were not about to let NASA dictate that to them.I wish I knew the dimensions for the KH-11. I don't know if I know anybody who would tell me. It is kinda silly that the first launch was 48 years ago and we still don't know the basics about the vehicle.
Two things are interesting here imho, one relevant to this thread, and the other to the mythology of the Shuttle (threads here on Hersch book "Dark Star" and the ongoing podcast "16 Sunsets"). The latter topic, on who by late '71, actually wanted the largest possible payload bay is thus one to take elsewhere, but the former, of why Packard and/or Fletcher knew that 60 feet was no longer essential, is relevant here. It seems certain to me that Packard knew about the KH-11 go ahead, as he was a party to discussions and a member of ExCom iirc, and it seems quite likely that Fletcher might also know something, as he had had very high clearances in the late 60s (e.g. the Fletcher committee on RHYOLITE options). Perhaps they both already knew that the "Stubby Hubble" was more like the length (~45 feet?) that is now ascribed to it, see e.g. ArchiPeppe's lovely pictures below, from Blackstar's TSR articles ?
The "optimized for STS use" Hexagon with its 6 RVs and a length of 56'4" might have been a 1973(?) afterthought.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/29/2024 01:59 amQuote from: LittleBird on 12/28/2024 02:33 pmTwo things are interesting here imho, one relevant to this thread, and the other to the mythology of the Shuttle (threads here on Hersch book "Dark Star" and the ongoing podcast "16 Sunsets"). The latter topic, on who by late '71, actually wanted the largest possible payload bay is thus one to take elsewhere, but the former, of why Packard and/or Fletcher knew that 60 feet was no longer essential, is relevant here. It seems certain to me that Packard knew about the KH-11 go ahead, as he was a party to discussions and a member of ExCom iirc, and it seems quite likely that Fletcher might also know something, as he had had very high clearances in the late 60s (e.g. the Fletcher committee on RHYOLITE options). Perhaps they both already knew that the "Stubby Hubble" was more like the length (~45 feet?) that is now ascribed to it, see e.g. ArchiPeppe's lovely pictures below, from Blackstar's TSR articles ?I'll toss in a bit of a non-sequitur here that there was a 1973 study of alternative HEXAGONs that also looked at redesigning it for shuttle. That's 2 years too late, but there was certainly the possibility that NRO could have come up with a shorter version of HEXAGON than 60 feet.Now you have to set the dimensions somewhere, and it seems pretty clear by now, even if we don't have a letter or memo that explicitly states it, that the DoD picked the longest payload they had which in 1971 was brand spanking new, and they said "it has to be able to carry this." Had they told NASA something less than 60 feet was acceptable, they were going to have to redesign HEXAGON to fit in the shuttle, and they were not about to let NASA dictate that to them.I wish I knew the dimensions for the KH-11. I don't know if I know anybody who would tell me. It is kinda silly that the first launch was 48 years ago and we still don't know the basics about the vehicle.My understanding is that by late 1971 the options for payload bay dimensions had been narrowed down to either 15x60 ft or 14x45 ft. 15x60 ft was the (preferred) goal, and 14x45 ft was the slightly cheaper fall-back option in case of budget troubles. Mass lifting capacity to polar orbit might have been as important as payload bay size. KH-11's longevity depends on consumables for orbital maintenance.The "optimized for STS use" Hexagon with its 6 RVs and a length of 56'4" might have been a 1973(?) afterthought.
I have not read the documentation yet, but I don't think that's it. That would essentially be tactical reconnaissance, and that could be done by either an A-12 OXCART and later by an SR-71. I think this was for strategic reconnaissance, longer range, Soviet targets.It really is a small rocket to fit in a C-130. That looks like the kind of thing that could be wing-mounted. So I am puzzled by it. This is once again a demonstration of the limitations of air-launch: the rocket cannot be that big, and if it maximizes out the capability of the airplane carrying it, there is no room for growth with the launch vehicle. Update: Document dates from October 1965. Proposal was called ALIAS. Name of author(s) and contractor are deleted. Orbital vehicle. Goal was 1-inch resolution, which is nuts. I have no idea how they thought that was feasible. Electro-optical readout, which was also very primitive in 1965. I'll have to look at it in detail, but this proposal is really out of scope compared to all the others I've seen which require a much larger rocket, optical system, and lower resolution.
Trying to remind myself what a commercial small sat can actually do these days I found a nice list of available imagery including resolutions here: https://www.satimagingcorp.com/satellite-sensors/
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/01/2025 07:22 pmI have not read the documentation yet, but I don't think that's it. That would essentially be tactical reconnaissance, and that could be done by either an A-12 OXCART and later by an SR-71. I think this was for strategic reconnaissance, longer range, Soviet targets.It really is a small rocket to fit in a C-130. That looks like the kind of thing that could be wing-mounted. So I am puzzled by it. Clearly alien technology ;-);-) If one ever doubted the need for outfits like the JASONs this would confirm it. The fact that the Fried limit wasn't published until the following year doesn't really excuse it. That said, can you see what the size of the optics actually is ? There are folk here who could "do the math".
I have not read the documentation yet, but I don't think that's it. That would essentially be tactical reconnaissance, and that could be done by either an A-12 OXCART and later by an SR-71. I think this was for strategic reconnaissance, longer range, Soviet targets.It really is a small rocket to fit in a C-130. That looks like the kind of thing that could be wing-mounted. So I am puzzled by it.
Quote from: LittleBird on 01/02/2025 11:47 amTrying to remind myself what a commercial small sat can actually do these days I found a nice list of available imagery including resolutions here: https://www.satimagingcorp.com/satellite-sensors/That list includes future availability; the 10cm imagery satellite (Clarity 1) is launching on Transporter-13 in March.
Wondering if my kneejerk scepticism about a vertical upward launch option was justified-after all it works for ejector seats and Polaris submarines. However it does raise a serious q in my mind-has _anyone_, ever, launched a suborbital rocket vertically upwards from _inside_ a plane ? I feel I should add the word "successfully", but I'd be curious even if it was attempted. I'm not talking about horizontal launches, launches from F-15s in a climb, rockoons, ejector seats, etc etc.Clearly it wasn't the favoured option in this study ...
Skimming more of the document my first reaction is "somebody has to ask hazegrayart to do this one, asap" ...
Quote from: LittleBird on 01/02/2025 09:27 pmSkimming more of the document my first reaction is "somebody has to ask hazegrayart to do this one, asap" ...I still haven't cracked open the document (again, my job gets in the way of my hobby), but it looks like the concept was to have the launching aircraft also recover the payload. Okay, sure... (said sarcastically)I previously wrote about a satellite inspection proposal here:https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3219/1It was not an easy mission, especially if you were not using a co-orbital system. Co-orbital had the problem of looking a lot like an ASAT. The Program 437AP satellite inspector is the only one we know about that was actually developed by the USAF. I have been thinking recently that NRO probably has a collection of documents about that, because it used their hardware. But I bet that they would not release anything related to the subject.Lots of technological limitations and dead-ends for this mission in the 1960s. Satellite observation became possible with the GAMBIT-3, and then with the KH-11 KENNEN (bringing this thread back on-topic).
It was interesting to see that the inspection proposal was in the CIA reading room, not NRO's, though it says on cover page that it had passed NRO review. One wonders if it was a DDR&E/Program B proposal to NRO, or an in-house venture. I'll start a thread for 1960s ASAT/SAINT-type mission ideas, unless anyone knows of a suitable one. Interesting to wonder how close an approach would have been deemed threatening-but certainly makes sense that this risk would have been a motivating reason for developing sat squared.Meanwhile the pointing requirement between two moving objects in space is a reminder of how cross-cutting technology was-if you can solve the RF problem for SDS and KH-11 you are on the face of it a bit closer to solving it for visible light and a low orbiting pair of satellites.
Quote from: LittleBird on 01/04/2025 12:11 pmMeanwhile the pointing requirement between two moving objects in space is a reminder of how cross-cutting technology was-if you can solve the RF problem for SDS and KH-11 you are on the face of it a bit closer to solving it for visible light and a low orbiting pair of satellites.3-The pointing requirement was--I was told many years ago--solved around 1972 because of concern about Soviet ASAT interceptions. USAF was working on that issue and SAFSP developed the capability to point the GAMBIT at another satellite, possibly including a Soviet co-orbital ASAT. Probably a fascinating story that will never be declassified.
Meanwhile the pointing requirement between two moving objects in space is a reminder of how cross-cutting technology was-if you can solve the RF problem for SDS and KH-11 you are on the face of it a bit closer to solving it for visible light and a low orbiting pair of satellites.
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/04/2025 01:53 pmQuote from: LittleBird on 01/04/2025 12:11 pmMeanwhile the pointing requirement between two moving objects in space is a reminder of how cross-cutting technology was-if you can solve the RF problem for SDS and KH-11 you are on the face of it a bit closer to solving it for visible light and a low orbiting pair of satellites.3-The pointing requirement was--I was told many years ago--solved around 1972 because of concern about Soviet ASAT interceptions. USAF was working on that issue and SAFSP developed the capability to point the GAMBIT at another satellite, possibly including a Soviet co-orbital ASAT. Probably a fascinating story that will never be declassified.You've just reminded me that ambitions for sat-squared continued to be a justification for MOL, quite late in the programme iirc-i.e. I think it persisted even after most missions had been dropped ?
Quote from: LittleBird on 01/05/2025 05:47 amQuote from: Blackstar on 01/04/2025 01:53 pmQuote from: LittleBird on 01/04/2025 12:11 pmMeanwhile the pointing requirement between two moving objects in space is a reminder of how cross-cutting technology was-if you can solve the RF problem for SDS and KH-11 you are on the face of it a bit closer to solving it for visible light and a low orbiting pair of satellites.3-The pointing requirement was--I was told many years ago--solved around 1972 because of concern about Soviet ASAT interceptions. USAF was working on that issue and SAFSP developed the capability to point the GAMBIT at another satellite, possibly including a Soviet co-orbital ASAT. Probably a fascinating story that will never be declassified.You've just reminded me that ambitions for sat-squared continued to be a justification for MOL, quite late in the programme iirc-i.e. I think it persisted even after most missions had been dropped ? Yeah, but I don't know how high that was on the requirements list. I think the primary requirement was still very high resolution imagery of the ground.