Among the CIA's successes described in the documents that make up today's posting was the creation of the RHYOLITE geosynchronous satellite program which allowed continuous coverage of missile telemetry and targets in Eurasia. Agency operatives were also able to tap into radio-telephone communications of Communist leaders as they rode in limousines around Moscow, to track Soviet missile launches from two secret stations inside the Shah's Iran, and to intercept Warsaw Pact communications from a tunnel dug under East Berlin.
Concerning the MultiMission Bipropellant Propulsion System (MMBPS), following document contains a lot of information in Apendix B (PDF page 134 ff)https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750012367/downloads/19750012367.pdf
... there is a memo https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/sigintphaseii/SC-2017-00007lll.pdf from as late as January 1970 where Lew Allen gives his perspective on the Titan IIIC/Transtage vs IIID/Agena, and perhaps surprisingly favours consolidating to the latter, noting that as a by product it would give a IIIB/Agena option at the ITL.This memo is interesting in all sorts of ways, as it refers to the IIID/Agena which I have seen referred to elsewhere but which never found a mission, and because it appears to be thinking about the IIIB/Agena as a replacement for the Atlas/Agena which was already being kept on solely for CANYON and RHYOLITE.
I wondered what the word centers told us, a
The Aquacade was refurbished for the 1964-65 World’s Fair. The guidebook describes the new spectacle: a production by society band leader Meyer Davis and Leon Leonidoff from Radio City on a 75-foot diameter turntable, “one of the largest in the world,” a swimming pool in front of it, and moveable platforms that “shuttled” back and forth over the pool.
Bumping this thread because I think an interesting clue may have been added to what Dave D found last year in a corner of his museum. The 1968 Leslie Dirks "Blue Book" released to in the latest NRO declassifications i.e. Application of Electro-Optical Technology to Satellite Reconnaissance https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/MAJOR%20NRO%20PROGRAMS%20&%20PROJECTS/NRO%20EOI/SC-2016-00001_C05098491.pdf refers (page 54) to a multi mission support stage under development at that point by TRW. The description sounds well suited to being the final low thrust injection stage that Dave was postulating for the Atlas-Agenas that launched RHYOLITE, see screen grab from his video below, for which the MultiMission Bipropellant Propulsion System (MMBPS) engine would be used. [Edit: actually turns out that the name TRW was redacted in the document above but not in the other version of same Dirks Blue Book document included in same set, see attached. At time of posting last year, as pointed out in KH-11 thread by edzieba, the links were: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/MAJOR%20NRO%20PROGRAMS%20&%20PROJECTS/NRO%20EOI/SC-2016-00001_C05096263.pdfhttps://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/MAJOR%20NRO%20PROGRAMS%20&%20PROJECTS/NRO%20EOI/SC-2016-00001_C05098491.pdf]It would then explain why RHYOLITE doesn't have its Agenas listed as being in GEO in databases like ESA's, as they'd still be in GTO. It would also make the (currently untestable) prediction that TRW's RHYOLITE was at least partly based on this TRW bus. This wouldn't seem unreasonable to me, insofar as it doesn't seem to have led to anything else that I know of. Athough the early history of Fltsatcom and TDRSS might well be related to it in some way, they used relatively conventional AKMs iirc.
2. PYRAMIDER, which was a GEO comsat system studied by TRW under contract to CIA or Program B but whih reportedly didn't go ahead-nice line drawings (one FLTSATCOM-like, one reminiscent of verbal descriptions of RHYOLITE) in the Falcon and the Snowman which could be pure fiction, or be from (Boyce/Lee) trial documents, or have been leaked to the author, who knows;
Quote from: LittleBird on 09/28/2021 05:42 pm <snip>It would also make the (currently untestable) prediction that TRW's RHYOLITE was at least partly based on this TRW bus. This wouldn't seem unreasonable to me, insofar as it doesn't seem to have led to anything else that I know of. Athough the early history of Fltsatcom and TDRSS might well be related to it in some way, they used relatively conventional AKMs iirc. <snip>Prompted to revisit this by Blackstar's "Roads not Taken" posts in the KH-11 thread. I mentioned the artist's impressions of PYRAMIDER in that thread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29545.msg2460328#msg2460328Quote 2. PYRAMIDER, which was a GEO comsat system studied by TRW under contract to CIA or Program B but whih reportedly didn't go ahead-nice line drawings (one FLTSATCOM-like, one reminiscent of verbal descriptions of RHYOLITE) in the Falcon and the Snowman which could be pure fiction, or be from (Boyce/Lee) trial documents, or have been leaked to the author, who knows;and have attached pics below (pp 258-9 of US paperback edition of Falcon and the Snowman from mid 80s).<snip> Other s/c looks very FLTSATCOM-like-by the way, has anyone ever seen an account of the early history of FLTSATCOM ? (first launched in 1978 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Satellite_Communications_System ) [Edits: Example images are 3rd and 4th grabs, I think they are Block I and Block II respectively.]
<snip>It would also make the (currently untestable) prediction that TRW's RHYOLITE was at least partly based on this TRW bus. This wouldn't seem unreasonable to me, insofar as it doesn't seem to have led to anything else that I know of. Athough the early history of Fltsatcom and TDRSS might well be related to it in some way, they used relatively conventional AKMs iirc. <snip>
In accordance with this MSO recommendation, the Navy submitted its plan to develop UHF tactical communications satellites in 1971. Among all the services, the Navy had been the only one to follow up on the UHF tactical communications demonstrated during the joint experiments with LES-5/6 and TacSat-1 in the 1960s.On 27 September 1971, the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved the development of the Fleet Satellite Communications (FLTSATCOM) system. The Navy, which had provided the funding and most of the requirements for the UHF system, was designated overall program manager, but the Air Force was assigned to develop the satellites, provide for their launch and on-orbit control, and to develop airborne terminals. The Army was made responsible for the ground terminals and Navy for the shipboard terminals.The concept proposed by the Navy, which was eventually implemented, was that the FLTSATCOM system would provide communications support to the fleet and other U.S. tactical users worldwide (except for the near-polar regions), by means of four geosynchronous satellites arranged around the earth's equator. A special transmitter/receiver package riding on the FLTSATCOM satellites, called AFSATCOM, would provide communications for Air Force strategic bombers. The solar-powered three-axis-stabilized FLTSATCOM satellites would each weigh a little over a ton and be launched by Atlas-Centaur.Once the FLTSATCOM concept-definition phase got started, many more potential users began to submit requirements - not only the military services, but also the State Department and White House. The demand for channel capacity grew to the point that the growth in communications payload weight threatened to exceed the booster lift capability. Requirements had to be prioritized and resolved.
I wondered what the word centers told us, and whether it was i) a reference to some sort of bus, or ii) a synonym for core as in Titan core for example. Using @libra's suggestion of doing a keyword search at site:nro.gov I discovered that I'd been quite wrong-one meaning of centers was the target interval between launches ! So he is probably, imho, talking about launching CANYON at "yearly [Edit: or maybe 18-month] centers". But why CANYON not RHYOLITE ? Well we know 7 CANYONS were launched, and were indeed at roughly yearly intervals, while "only" 4 RHYOLITES were launched. If the latter were indeed based on the TRW multimission support stage that Dirks described in 1968, and if this stage indeed had a design life of 3 years, then [Edit 2: if RHYOLITES came in pairs] Allen had to assume that the second and last pair could have been launched as early as say 1974, neatly explaining how CANYON could be left as the only user of Complex 13 [Edit: In fact it seems RHYOLITE lasted very well, and the last two were only launched in 77-78. I seem to remember speculation that this was to enable the pad to be finally closed. CANYON, meanwhile, according to the late Matthew Aid, was initially very troublesome.
Quote from: LittleBird on 10/27/2021 11:10 amI wondered what the word centers told us, and whether it was i) a reference to some sort of bus, or ii) a synonym for core as in Titan core for example. Using @libra's suggestion of doing a keyword search at site:nro.gov I discovered that I'd been quite wrong-one meaning of centers was the target interval between launches ! So he is probably, imho, talking about launching CANYON at "yearly [Edit: or maybe 18-month] centers". But why CANYON not RHYOLITE ? Well we know 7 CANYONS were launched, and were indeed at roughly yearly intervals, while "only" 4 RHYOLITES were launched. If the latter were indeed based on the TRW multimission support stage that Dirks described in 1968, and if this stage indeed had a design life of 3 years, then [Edit 2: if RHYOLITES came in pairs] Allen had to assume that the second and last pair could have been launched as early as say 1974, neatly explaining how CANYON could be left as the only user of Complex 13 [Edit: In fact it seems RHYOLITE lasted very well, and the last two were only launched in 77-78. I seem to remember speculation that this was to enable the pad to be finally closed. CANYON, meanwhile, according to the late Matthew Aid, was initially very troublesome.Yeah it's rather well known by now that CANYON got off to a rough start; the satellites malfunctioned in orbit, one was lost in a launch failure, etc. It's also been mentioned that RHYOLITE used a distinctive long payload shroud to house its antenna, and the Air Force were reluctant to draw attention to it so they didn't publish any decent quality photos of the four RHYOLITE launches. There is a high res photo of a RHYOLITE launch I'd seen but it was a night launch and the shroud is partially hidden in darkness. That must have been the second flight in March '73 as I believe that was the only RHYOLITE launched at night.The failed CANYON launch in December '71 momentarily delayed Atlas-Centaur AC-26 and its planned Intelsat launch until the Air Force Flight Mishap Review Board determined that it wasn't a fault that would affect the rather different Atlas-Centaur vehicle--CANYON/RHYOLITE used the "long tank" Atlas-Agena and its only civilian use was for OGO-5 in '68.
i) Is he thinking that RHYOLITE will be getting bigger and need a Titan III ? ii) Is he complaing that Program B aren't keeping him informed ? One could read his comment about "I have no first hand knwoledge of the projected Titan IIIC launch rate" as being a similar remark about the white USAF.iii) Or what ?
Quote from: LittleBird on 03/24/2023 09:40 ami) Is he thinking that RHYOLITE will be getting bigger and need a Titan III ? ii) Is he complaing that Program B aren't keeping him informed ? One could read his comment about "I have no first hand knwoledge of the projected Titan IIIC launch rate" as being a similar remark about the white USAF.iii) Or what ?I think (iii) would be: 'If we're the only programme flying Atlas-Agena from that coast, then that programme has to bear both the cost/launch and the entire cost of maintaining launch infrastructure (and transporting stages to that coast, etc). If we can move to Thor-Agena, then we can avoid being burdened with all the other costs of maintaining a launch complex and launch capability due to other users already paying for those anyway'. i.e. even if cost/launch for Thor-Agena was lower than for Atlas-Agena, actual programme costs to continue operating Atlas-Agena for just CANYON launches could end up being higher than flying on the 'oversized' Thor-Agena.
Thanks for that 3 way comparison, I'd seen the rightmost 2 in the superb Nautilus compendium https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/the-sigint-satellites-of-pine-gap-conception-development-and-in-orbit-2/ but didn't recall seeing the OGO launch photo, shows the different shape nicely.
Quote from: LittleBird on 03/24/2023 09:40 ami) Is he thinking that RHYOLITE will be getting bigger and need a Titan III ? ii) Is he complaing that Program B aren't keeping him informed ? One could read his comment about "I have no first hand knwoledge of the projected Titan IIIC launch rate" as being a similar remark about the white USAF.iii) Or what ?I think (iii) would be: 'If we're the only programme flying Atlas-Agena from that coast, then that programme has to bear both the cost/launch and the entire cost of maintaining launch infrastructure (and transporting stages to that coast, etc). If we can move to Titan-Agena, then we can avoid being burdened with all the other costs of maintaining a launch complex and launch capability due to other users already paying for those anyway'. i.e. even if cost/launch for Titan-Agena was lower than for Atlas-Agena, actual programme costs to continue operating Atlas-Agena for just CANYON launches could end up being higher than flying on the 'oversized' Titan-Agena. ::EDIT:: Currected by Jim. Right letter, wrong vehicle!
Indeed, and nicely summarised. And I think this was after the other cost-sharing possibility, flying Intelsat IV on Titan 3B, had been abandoned.
Also the only Titan 3B pad was SLC-4W at VAFB which was quite busy with GAMBIT and JUMPSEAT launches.
