MOL discussion

[Blackstar]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2121/1

The hour of the wolf
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, July 16, 2012

In the late 1960s two massive, expensive, highly classified pieces of machinery clashed in secrecy. It was a classic space battle between humans and machines, and this time the machines won.

The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program was started in late 1963 after the cancellation of the X-20 Dyna-Soar winged spaceplane. The Air Force has declassified many documents on the first year of the MOL program, but they may be misleading. From the available documentation, MOL appears to have started as a general purpose experimental military space station to determine if astronauts could perform militarily useful missions in low Earth orbit. But by 1965 MOL had evolved into an operational photographic reconnaissance satellite whereby astronauts would operate a powerful telescope, code-named DORIAN, to take images of targets inside the Soviet Union with resolution on the ground up to 10 centimeters (four inches)—almost good enough to spot a softball laying in the grass from over 160 kilometers (100 miles) up in space, if the Russians ever bothered to play softball. Exactly when and how the mission shifted remains unclear, but a group of military astronauts were soon in training to perform at least half a dozen flights starting in the late 1960s. MOL was an Air Force program, with both an unclassified, “white,” Air Force office, and a classified, “black,” program, managed by the Air Force component of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

[John Charles]

DDay,
Great article, great artwork! Kudos on starting to tie up the loose ends.
The QUILL image begs the question you posed a year and a half ago: how would the MOL pilots have brought four buckets worth of film back in one Gemini capsule?
John Charles
Houston, Texas

[Blackstar]

Giuseppe and I worked on this last week. He's done a great job. I think that this is an accurate reflection of the MOL configuration. According to one document, the configuration was settled on in early 1965, and they increased the diameter of the main mirror to 70 inches. That is consistent with the mirrors made available for the MMT, and it seems highly unlikely that they would have switched the configuration later while keeping the same mirror diameter. Also, simply put, we only have one official document indicating the camera system configuration, everything else is speculation.

[Rocket Science]

Nicely done...

[Blackstar]

DDay,
Great article, great artwork! Kudos on starting to tie up the loose ends.
The QUILL image begs the question you posed a year and a half ago: how would the MOL pilots have brought four buckets worth of film back in one Gemini capsule?

Well, we still don't know the answer. My guess is that they planned on conserving film, only taking pictures of high priority targets. As a result, they would not have taken a lot of pictures, and they would have sent some down in a small capsule and brought the rest with them in the Gemini.

The more you speculate about details like this, the more the whole thing starts to look dubious. Compare MOL to the KH-9, with its MASSIVE film supply and four buckets and you see that MOL just didn't make much sense. Why have a guy selectively taking pictures when you can just photograph everything and bring it all back?

[ChileVerde]

The more you speculate about details like this, the more the whole thing starts to look dubious. Compare MOL to the KH-9, with its MASSIVE film supply and four buckets and you see that MOL just didn't make much sense. Why have a guy selectively taking pictures when you can just photograph everything and bring it all back?

I have a slight recollection that the idea of having the astronauts (and cosmonauts in the corresponding case) act as real-time photointerpreters/ spotters was floated. So, presumably, the film would be returned later for detailed analysis of the Severodvinsk Ship Yard and the astronauts would give warning if the 1st Guards Tank Army suddenly left garrison.

Whatever the idea was, it didn't carry the day.

[Blackstar]

I have a slight recollection that the idea of having the astronauts (and cosmonauts in the corresponding case) act as real-time photointerpreters/ spotters was floated. So, presumably, the film would be returned later for detailed analysis of the Severodvinsk Ship Yard and the astronauts would give warning if the 1st Guards Tank Army suddenly left garrison.

Whatever the idea was, it didn't carry the day.

There were two arguments for astronauts:

-real time photo interpretation

-targets of opportunity

Neither was convincing. Lots and lots of effort for very little return.

[Archibald]

real time photo interpretation

I can see the reasonning behind that "we don't have the KH-11, not yet. Recovery of the KH-8 and KH-9 buckets takes a looong time.

The answer: have the photo interpreters going into orbit together with the camera and look at the photos, real time, transmitting their interpretation by radio link, real time."

Looks like the NRO holy grail was shortening the photo transmission delay by any mean, with the ultimate goal of real-time.
Didn't they planned a special C-135 able to process the photos while flying from Hawaii to Washington ?
there was also the varied film readout /scanning atempts.
The KH-10 was part of the process - another atempt at real-time !
By the way it says a lot about how big the NRO budget was.

[Blackstar]

1-I can see the reasonning behind that "we don't have the KH-11, not yet. Recovery of the KH-8 and KH-9 buckets takes a looong time.

2-Looks like the NRO holy grail was shortening the photo transmission delay by any mean, with the ultimate goal of real-time.

3-Didn't they planned a special C-135 able to process the photos while flying from Hawaii to Washington ?

4-By the way it says a lot about how big the NRO budget was.

1-Only a few days.

2-I'm not sure that it was the holy grail. They were interested in it, but I really don't see evidence that it drove what they were doing in the 1960s. They did a lot of other stuff.

3-I have really only seen one or two references to this. I don't think it was ever seriously considered.

4-It did not surpass $1 billion until the latter 1970s. NASA was always a lot bigger.

[Gene DiGennaro]

I wonder how spacesickness would have played into the MOL project. I'm willing to bet that gazing into the telescope while things were passing by coupled with zero-g has the potential to really bring on vertigo and nausea.

[Michael Cassutt]

I have a slight recollection that the idea of having the astronauts (and cosmonauts in the corresponding case) act as real-time photointerpreters/ spotters was floated. So, presumably, the film would be returned later for detailed analysis of the Severodvinsk Ship Yard and the astronauts would give warning if the 1st Guards Tank Army suddenly left garrison.

Whatever the idea was, it didn't carry the day.

There were two arguments for astronauts:

-real time photo interpretation

-targets of opportunity

Neither was convincing. Lots and lots of effort for very little return.

Not only unconvincing, but having astronauts on an imaging craft actually made things more difficult, at least according to one very senior SAFSP official I talked to.  To paraphrase, "too much bouncing around.  Even slight, slow movement by crew would ruin the images."

Michael Cassutt

[Archibald]

Not only unconvincing, but having astronauts on an imaging craft actually made things more difficult, at least according to one very senior SAFSP official I talked to.  To paraphrase, "too much bouncing around.  Even slight, slow movement by crew would ruin the images."

Interesting. In this case, what was the point of flying the Large Format Camera on STS-41G (be it a KH-9 camera or not) ?
I mean that the issue of "bouncing astronauts" certainly did not vanished between 1969 and 1984 ? 
(just a bit confused)

[Jim]

Not only unconvincing, but having astronauts on an imaging craft actually made things more difficult, at least according to one very senior SAFSP official I talked to.  To paraphrase, "too much bouncing around.  Even slight, slow movement by crew would ruin the images."

Interesting. In this case, what was the point of flying the Large Format Camera on STS-41G (be it a KH-9 camera or not) ?
I mean that the issue of "bouncing astronauts" certainly did not vanished between 1969 and 1984 ? 
(just a bit confused)

1.  It was a low resolution mapping camera and not the main KH-9 cameras.
2.  The shuttle orbiter's mass was much higher (250klb vs 40klb)and less affected by crew motion

[Blackstar]

Yeah, the mapping camera was something like several hundred meters resolution vs. a few centimeters for MOL.

(Note: I am currently too lazy to look those numbers up.)

I find it hard to believe that normal astronaut movement could affect the MOL system, but I trust Mr. Cassutt's unnamed source. There were at least two high-level independent reviews of MOL before it got canceled, and I'm sure that senior optics experts weighed in on the design.

In fact, that will be one of the more interesting stories for me when MOL is finally declassified--who opposed it and why? The optics people that I've talked to generally end up in awe of their ability to achieve "diffraction limited" results from their systems. Put another way, the actual performance of the optics systems that the US flew has almost always been nearly the same as the theoretical best performance that they could deliver. Probably 99% range. Because that has been true in general, you could do some math with the systems that we still don't know about. For instance, what would be the theoretical max performance of, say, the KH-9?

Now that being the case, why would you want to stick dirty humans into the system? They move around, they bump things, they require fans and toilets and systems to keep them alive. And the vehicle is going to be outgassing. What about the urine dumps? What about the local environment around that vehicle?

I suspect that as they continued to engineer MOL, this kind of stuff made the optics experts twitch and then experience fainting spells. Why take a big, beautiful optics system and degrade its performance like that?

[kevin-rf]

I think the thing that most impressed me, with Giuseppe's excellent side by side KH-9/MOL images is I never realized how small MOL was. This was not really a big spacious space station. It was a change from a couple of weeks in the front seat of a VW Beetle to having a VW Microbus (with implements of photography)!

Also a QA, do we have any evidence that MOL actually had solar panels?

[Danderman]

I think the thing that most impressed me, with Giuseppe's excellent side by side KH-9/MOL images is I never realized how small MOL was. This was not really a big spacious space station. It was a change from a couple of weeks in the front seat of a VW Beetle to having a VW Microbus (with implements of photography)!

Looking at the image produced by DeepCold.com of the MOL interior, it  looks an awful lot like the interior of the SkyLab multiple docking adapter. Based on that guess, I am providing a NASA slide on the MDA to provide some idea of the size of the MOL pressurized section.

[jcm]

I think the thing that most impressed me, with Giuseppe's excellent side by side KH-9/MOL images is I never realized how small MOL was. This was not really a big spacious space station. It was a change from a couple of weeks in the front seat of a VW Beetle to having a VW Microbus (with implements of photography)!

Looking at the image produced by DeepCold.com of the MOL interior, it  looks an awful lot like the interior of the SkyLab multiple docking adapter. Based on that guess, I am providing a NASA slide on the MDA to provide some idea of the size of the MOL pressurized section.

Wow, I hadn't appreciated this before. Makes sense that there's design heritage from MOL to MDA. But how much? Is the MDA really just a slightly
modified MOL pressure section  - is it even possible that the flight Skylab MDA was built from a left over MOL flight test article? The 'docking adapter' aspect is of course new design.

Sort of cool to think that part of MOL (other that the Nov 66 heat shield test) might have actually flown

[Jim]

Wow, I hadn't appreciated this before. Makes sense that there's design heritage from MOL to MDA. But how much? Is the MDA really just a slightly
modified MOL pressure section  - is it even possible that the flight Skylab MDA was built from a left over MOL flight test article? The 'docking adapter' aspect is of course new design.

Sort of cool to think that part of MOL (other that the Nov 66 heat shield test) might have actually flown

No, MDA was built Martin Marietta

Edit

Actually, MSFC built the hull and Martin outfitted it.

July 27-31

Representatives of government and industry participated in a Skylab AM and MDA crew station review at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis. Storage areas, equipment, and crew operations were discussed. Astronauts attending the review conducted walk-throughs of the AM and MDA, major elements of the Skylab cluster that would also include large solar observatory quarters for long stays in space. McDonnell Douglas was developing the AM. The MDA was being built by MSFC; and Martin Marietta, Denver Division, was integrating equipment and experiments.

MSFC News Release 70-146, 28 July 1970; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 6 August 1970; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator Skylab Program," 7 August 1970, NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 10 August 1970.

[Danderman]

Wow, I hadn't appreciated this before. Makes sense that there's design heritage from MOL to MDA. But how much? Is the MDA really just a slightly
modified MOL pressure section  - is it even possible that the flight Skylab MDA was built from a left over MOL flight test article? The 'docking adapter' aspect is of course new design.

Sort of cool to think that part of MOL (other that the Nov 66 heat shield test) might have actually flown

No, MDA was built Martin Marietta

Edit

Actually, MSFC built the hull and Martin outfitted it.

July 27-31

Representatives of government and industry participated in a Skylab AM and MDA crew station review at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis. Storage areas, equipment, and crew operations were discussed. Astronauts attending the review conducted walk-throughs of the AM and MDA, major elements of the Skylab cluster that would also include large solar observatory quarters for long stays in space. McDonnell Douglas was developing the AM. The MDA was being built by MSFC; and Martin Marietta, Denver Division, was integrating equipment and experiments.

MSFC News Release 70-146, 28 July 1970; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 6 August 1970; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator Skylab Program," 7 August 1970, NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 10 August 1970.

My guess is that stuff went from Huntington Beach to MSFC in the middle of the night sometime in late 1969. Stuff like pressure vessels.

Or else there is a large boneyard of 10 foot pressure vessels out there.

This begs the question of the PSI for the MOL air supply, was it 5 lbs or 14 or somewhere in between. I guess that's classified information.

[Bob Shaw]

And was the atmosphere *really* O2He as often reported? Those brave flyboys, with such, er, Mickey Mouse voices!