Author Topic: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?  (Read 13850 times)

Offline dwmzmm

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Far West Houston, TX
    • Challenger 498 NAR Section
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #20 on: 07/26/2008 04:19 pm »
2.     You were saying that use of Apollo hardware would be cheaper and quicker.  Saturn launch pads at VAFB  would have been very expensive. This would be a bigger waste of time and money.


The Air Force built a new pad from scratch for MOL at Vandenberg, SLC-6. A new pad for Titan III-M or a new pad for Saturn IB, I don't see how there would have been much difference. LC-34 and LC-37 were both smaller than their Titan III counterparts at the Cape and had long since demonstrated that you don't need something the size of LC-39 to launch Saturn IB.


Never knew the Air Force/Vandenberg facility was slated to use the
Saturn 1-B from their location; can you cite (or provide links) to your
source?
Dave, NAR # 21853 SR.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #21 on: 07/26/2008 05:46 pm »
2.     You were saying that use of Apollo hardware would be cheaper and quicker.  Saturn launch pads at VAFB  would have been very expensive. This would be a bigger waste of time and money.


 LC-34 and LC-37 were both smaller than their Titan III counterparts at the Cape


Actually, the opposite, they were larger than the LC-40 or LC-41.  It is not just the pads, Saturn/Apollo used Hangar AF and the MSOB
« Last Edit: 07/26/2008 05:48 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #22 on: 07/26/2008 05:51 pm »

Never knew the Air Force/Vandenberg facility was slated to use the
Saturn 1-B from their location; can you cite (or provide links) to your
source?

Not saying that there were plans, just if Apollo saturn hardware were to be use on MOL, a VAFB pad would be required

nobodyofconsequence

  • Guest
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #23 on: 07/26/2008 10:42 pm »
MOL was an intelligence lab, cobbled together from manned spaceflight parts. It got to the point of a mock-up at GE's Valley Forge, PA facility, stood about 3 stories tall when erected, was the same diameter as a Titan II. As a kid, got into trouble climbing up into it (made it up to the top!)

Had nothing in common with NASA except heritage Gemini.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #24 on: 07/27/2008 03:36 pm »
The discussion here begs the real issues surrounding MOL.  Two things drove MOL:

-The USAF, having lost the Military Man in Space mission with the cancellation of Dyna Soar, decided to move toward a man tended orbital reconnaissance platform after searching for an acceptable manned mission.  This was to be a successor to the Corona and KH-9 optical platforms.

-As MOL development costs grew, the concurrent development of digital reconnaissance platforms in the KH-11 series negated the need for the man tended film return type of platform.  As the digital technology overtook the MOL development, the program became excess to USAF and NRO needs and was cancelled.
expensive, would have made a cancellation decision even easier.

That's not quite right.  MOL was _never_ intended to be a successor to the Corona or KH-9.  For starters, KH-9 did not get started until the late 1960s, by which time MOL was well advanced.  KH-9 was the Corona successor.  The digital electro-optical system you refer to was also started _after_ MOL was canceled.

MOL was intended not to succeed anything, but to complement other platforms.  The idea was to achieve both high resolution and near real time (by having astronauts look at the targets live).

Also, keep in mind that MOL evolved over time.  It did not start out as a high resolution system.  It became one around 1965 or so.  See:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1104/1


Online Michael Cassutt

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #25 on: 07/27/2008 10:31 pm »
I do not understand why USAF ,instead wasting time and money to develop MOL laboratory , man rated Titan IIIC and Gemini-B capsule,simply not bought some Saturn 1B rockets and some Apollo capsules.
MOL could be developed from dry workshop/saturn derived concept,and Apollo capsule coluld be send the crew (2 or 3 "space pilots") on the surveillance station.
In this way MOL could be operational from 1967-69.
This sound sensate to me.

Consider this: did the USAF even have the option of using NASA hardware circa 1965?  I doubt it -- there were political challenges (civilian vehicles going to a military program) and logistical-budgetary issues(Congress funded X number of Saturn 1Bs -- the USAF would have needed a new authorization).

Look into the history of the Blue Gemini program -- the idea that the USAF might claim a pair of Gemini missions was not well-received by NASA.  And went nowhere quickly.

From the Air Force perspective, the service already had the T-III in development and the Vandenberg facilities in the works.  Gemini already existed and had been flown.  Why would they spend five minutes thinking about using Apollo which, in 1965, had not been flown (and the CM program was in trouble), was almost certainly more expensive (without even adding the cost of building an Apollo-Saturn pad in California) and not as capable (you needed two launches to put a lab and crew transport into orbit).

Michael Cassutt


Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #26 on: 07/28/2008 01:30 am »
The discussion here begs the real issues surrounding MOL.  Two things drove MOL:

-The USAF, having lost the Military Man in Space mission with the cancellation of Dyna Soar, decided to move toward a man tended orbital reconnaissance platform after searching for an acceptable manned mission.  This was to be a successor to the Corona and KH-9 optical platforms.

-As MOL development costs grew, the concurrent development of digital reconnaissance platforms in the KH-11 series negated the need for the man tended film return type of platform.  As the digital technology overtook the MOL development, the program became excess to USAF and NRO needs and was cancelled.
expensive, would have made a cancellation decision even easier.

That's not quite right.  MOL was _never_ intended to be a successor to the Corona or KH-9.  For starters, KH-9 did not get started until the late 1960s, by which time MOL was well advanced.  KH-9 was the Corona successor.  The digital electro-optical system you refer to was also started _after_ MOL was canceled.

MOL was intended not to succeed anything, but to complement other platforms.  The idea was to achieve both high resolution and near real time (by having astronauts look at the targets live).

Also, keep in mind that MOL evolved over time.  It did not start out as a high resolution system.  It became one around 1965 or so.  See:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1104/1



I stand corrected.  MOL was cancelled in 1969 and KH-9 first flew in 1971.  I thought they had flown before that.

I do believe that as MOL evolved and grew more expensive, concurrent evolution in other optical systems made the expense of a man tended system hard to justify.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #27 on: 07/29/2008 01:36 am »
I stand corrected.  MOL was cancelled in 1969 and KH-9 first flew in 1971.  I thought they had flown before that.

I do believe that as MOL evolved and grew more expensive, concurrent evolution in other optical systems made the expense of a man tended system hard to justify.

I'd have to check my notes, but I think that the KH-9 spacecraft contract was not signed until 1967.  I think the camera contract was signed around 1965 or so.  I've gathered some evidence that MOL was first recommended for cancelation around 1967 and then again in 1968.  I think that the second review recommending cancellation may have floated around until mid-1969 when Nixon decided to follow the advice and kill MOL.

The problem with all this stuff is that the programs are still classified, so gathering information is difficult.  I've obtained snippets on key decision points in each program, but the confidence level is low--in other words, I have info, but I don't know how much to trust it.

I think that your second comment is essentially correct.  However, I would add that my guess--not really supported by evidence, however--is that there was always a core group of people inside NRO who did not like MOL.  As it started to suck up more money, they could point to other systems already in production that were getting better all the time and approaching MOL's capabilities in things like resolution and responsiveness (which I define here not as ability to quickly return data, but ability to be re-targeted as needed).  Improvements in things like weather satellites meant that the robotic systems no longer wasted film photographing cloudy targets.  And adding reentry vehicles to the robotic systems (KH-8 started with one bucket and ended with two) meant that you could improve the response time or the overall lifetime as needed.

When MOL got canceled it angered a lot of people, but it also made a lot of people happy, because it freed up a lot of money for other projects.


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #28 on: 07/29/2008 01:45 am »
Consider this: did the USAF even have the option of using NASA hardware circa 1965?  I doubt it -- there were political challenges (civilian vehicles going to a military program) and logistical-budgetary issues(Congress funded X number of Saturn 1Bs -- the USAF would have needed a new authorization).

(I'm splitting my reply in two posts.)

You're right that using Apollo would have been difficult, but there is some documentation indicating that USAF at least toyed with the idea.  But Apollo would have been expensive and overkill.  Also, asking for Apollo would have inserted USAF into the development process for a vehicle that was vital for the Moon mission.

There was also a NASA plan for a space station in the mid-1960s called MORL.  That was originally going to be a dedicated design, but eventually evolved into the Apollo Applications Program which became Skylab.  I believe that the initial plan was that NASA would help with MOL and USAF would consult on MORL (to a lesser extent).  I once interviewed Michael Yarymovich who worked at NASA and was assigned to MOL.  He said that this was essentially a quid pro quo--USAF was supporting Apollo (people, resources--for instance, General Sam Phillips) and so NASA agreed to support MOL.

However, I think it's also important to consider the overall evolution of USAF man in space at this time.  Around 1962 or so USAF started to consider using Gemini in large part because Dyna Soar was so far off into the future.  They did not want to wait to acquire spaceflight experience.  So first they came up with Blue Gemini and a space station proposal called MODS.  When Dyna Soar got canceled, MODS evolved into MOL.  MOL had an experimental purpose at first and gradually evolved into an operational vehicle for reconnaissance.  So they were always turning limited capabilities into more capable platforms (on paper, anyway).  Asking for Apollo would have been way too big a leap.  It's just contrary to how they were thinking at the time, which was much more incrementally.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #29 on: 07/29/2008 01:55 am »
Look into the history of the Blue Gemini program -- the idea that the USAF might claim a pair of Gemini missions was not well-received by NASA.  And went nowhere quickly.

I haven't found any evidence of NASA objecting to this.  The Blue Gemini story has long been distorted.  Lots of people thought/think that BG was the Air Force's Gemini spacecraft for MOL.  In reality, Blue Gemini was a USAF proposal that only lasted about six months in 1962.  The idea was for USAF to buy about 6-7 Gemini spacecraft and start flying concurrently with NASA's Gemini program.  I think that the plan was that initially, they would fly 2 joint crew NASA missions, i.e. one NASA astronaut and one USAF astronaut.  Missions 3-4 would be all USAF missions primarily to gain experience.  And missions 5-7 would be dedicated to USAF experiments.

There is very limited documentation on Blue Gemini so far, but what I'm aware of indicates that NASA actually supported the program, because their thought was that more Geminis produced would mean cheaper Geminis.  Now I'm guessing that had the BG program continued, NASA might have had problems with USAF getting in the way on Gemini and the plans would have changed (probably by eliminating joint missions), but it seems like at least initially NASA (administrator James Webb) liked the BG idea.  (See On the Shoulders of Titans).

After BG got canceled, USAF sought to get some of their experiments onboard NASA's Gemini.  One Gemini mission (I forget which one) was heavily dedicated to taking photography.  Last year somebody posted a video on YouTube of an astronaut narrating film footage of a Polaris missile launch that was spotted from Gemini.  I can guarantee you that this was deliberately planned so that Gemini was overhead when the launch occurred to test what astronauts could observe.  That was undoubtedly in support of MOL.

One last comment: there must be more documents on Blue Gemini in an archive somewhere.  The place to look would be at LAAFB.  But they probably still have a classification stamp on them.

Online Michael Cassutt

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #30 on: 07/30/2008 01:47 am »
Consider this: did the USAF even have the option of using NASA hardware circa 1965?  I doubt it -- there were political challenges (civilian vehicles going to a military program) and logistical-budgetary issues(Congress funded X number of Saturn 1Bs -- the USAF would have needed a new authorization).

(I'm splitting my reply in two posts.)   [...]

However, I think it's also important to consider the overall evolution of USAF man in space at this time.  Around 1962 or so USAF started to consider using Gemini in large part because Dyna Soar was so far off into the future.  They did not want to wait to acquire spaceflight experience.  So first they came up with Blue Gemini and a space station proposal called MODS.  When Dyna Soar got canceled, MODS evolved into MOL.  MOL had an experimental purpose at first and gradually evolved into an operational vehicle for reconnaissance.  So they were always turning limited capabilities into more capable platforms (on paper, anyway).  Asking for Apollo would have been way too big a leap.  It's just contrary to how they were thinking at the time, which was much more incrementally.

Another factor -- Dyna Soar was run by the Air Force's Aero Systems, not the satellite and missile types Schriever raised up in Los Angeles.  They wanted their own space program and Dyna Soar wasn't it.

MC

Online Michael Cassutt

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #31 on: 07/30/2008 01:51 am »
Look into the history of the Blue Gemini program -- the idea that the USAF might claim a pair of Gemini missions was not well-received by NASA.  And went nowhere quickly.

I haven't found any evidence of NASA objecting to this.  The Blue Gemini story has long been distorted.  Lots of people thought/think that BG was the Air Force's Gemini spacecraft for MOL.  In reality, Blue Gemini was a USAF proposal that only lasted about six months in 1962.  The idea was for USAF to buy about 6-7 Gemini spacecraft and start flying concurrently with NASA's Gemini program.  I think that the plan was that initially, they would fly 2 joint crew NASA missions, i.e. one NASA astronaut and one USAF astronaut.  Missions 3-4 would be all USAF missions primarily to gain experience.  And missions 5-7 would be dedicated to USAF experiments.

There is very limited documentation on Blue Gemini so far, but what I'm aware of indicates that NASA actually supported the program, because their thought was that more Geminis produced would mean cheaper Geminis.  Now I'm guessing that had the BG program continued, NASA might have had problems with USAF getting in the way on Gemini and the plans would have changed (probably by eliminating joint missions), but it seems like at least initially NASA (administrator James Webb) liked the BG idea.  (See On the Shoulders of Titans).  [snippage]

One last comment: there must be more documents on Blue Gemini in an archive somewhere.  The place to look would be at LAAFB.  But they probably still have a classification stamp on them.

Well, I've seen a couple of these ;)  Yes, Webb certainly was open to cooperation with the DOD.  He pretty much had to be, didn't he?  In order to keep getting his hands on Atlas and Titan launchers.

My note about the resistance to Blue Gemini referred to the Houston component of NASA, and referred strictly to a proposal to dedicate two of the ten manned Geminis to USAF missions.

Michael Cassutt

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #32 on: 07/30/2008 03:33 pm »
Another factor -- Dyna Soar was run by the Air Force's Aero Systems, not the satellite and missile types Schriever raised up in Los Angeles.  They wanted their own space program and Dyna Soar wasn't it.

That's probably true.  There is good evidence of Schriever wanting his own man in space program even after DoD was officially told not to have one.  The Samos E-5 reconnaissance spacecraft was a direct outgrowth of the Man In Space Soonest program that was officially canceled after the creation of NASA.  The E-5 was a pressurized capsule--which made no sense for a reconnaissance spacecraft--and Schriever's people later proposed using it for a chimp flight which could then be modified into a human spacecraft.  Eventually they abandoned this and decided in favor of Gemini instead (which made a heck of a lot of sense).

To date there are only about half a dozen documents available on this subject, and the story was completely unknown until less than a decade ago.  But it's clear from the limited documentation that the Air Force was seeking their own man in space program parallel to Mercury.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #33 on: 07/30/2008 03:59 pm »
Well, I've seen a couple of these ;)  Yes, Webb certainly was open to cooperation with the DOD.  He pretty much had to be, didn't he?  In order to keep getting his hands on Atlas and Titan launchers.

My note about the resistance to Blue Gemini referred to the Houston component of NASA, and referred strictly to a proposal to dedicate two of the ten manned Geminis to USAF missions.

I don't think the former was much of an issue. NASA had a pretty good working relationship with the USAF at the time.  The interesting dynamic here is USAF vs. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.  McNamara blindsided the Air Force on a lot of things at that time.

As for Houston, that sounds totally probable.  I figure that if they had actually gone forward with Blue Gemini, the operational details would have been a problem.  They could have worked it all out, but clearly USAF and NASA would have had divergent interests for the missions.

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #34 on: 07/30/2008 04:03 pm »
I think the simple answer would be to spend the dollars to modify Gemini with an internal transfer tunnel in an Apollo docking adapter. Yes, I know that's a big job.

With that one modification, MOL could have been flown on a standard Titan IIIC, and Gemini-B could have flown 2 week missions on an "uprated" Titan II, out of VAFB. Moreover, once the first mission were complete, recurring Geminis could have been launched to the same station. This would have resulted in an earlier, more effective military space station.

If this sounds like Almaz, well, yeah.


This all is funny considering that the part of Skylab where the CSM docked was part of the MOL hardware.  Also, the Apollo Telescope mount was a modified Lunar module Ascent stage.

Coulda been done, just the USAF wanted their own toys.  McNamara killed all these programs as they were "destabilizing".



Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #35 on: 07/30/2008 05:21 pm »

This all is funny considering that the part of Skylab where the CSM docked was part of the MOL hardware.  A


The MDA (Multiple Docking adapter) was built by Martin Marrietta. 
MOL was to be built by MDAC and GE.

There was no MOL heritage hardware on Skylab

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #36 on: 07/30/2008 05:41 pm »
Coulda been done, just the USAF wanted their own toys.  McNamara killed all these programs as they were "destabilizing".

McNamara did not kill MOL.

He killed a bunch of things, including the B-70 bomber, Dyna-Soar, and an air-launch ballistic missile whose name escapes me at the moment.  Did most of that in his first two years in office.

But a lot of those were good decisions.  The Air Force clearly had too many advanced programs on their plate and there was no way that they could pay for all of them.  The Air Force's space plans post-Sputnik were ridiculous (I think they were proposing something like a 60% increase in their space budget between 1961 and 1962).  They had been held in check by Eisenhower, but they were still clamoring for more and more stuff and they simply did not have the money to pay for it, and arguably much of what they wanted would have been hard to make work at all.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #37 on: 07/30/2008 05:42 pm »
an air-launch ballistic missile whose name escapes me at the moment. 

skybolt

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #38 on: 07/30/2008 08:29 pm »
Wasn't the airlock external hatch from Gemini?  Or at least it looks very much like one.






This all is funny considering that the part of Skylab where the CSM docked was part of the MOL hardware.  A


The MDA (Multiple Docking adapter) was built by Martin Marrietta. 
MOL was to be built by MDAC and GE.

There was no MOL heritage hardware on Skylab


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why not Apollo hardware for MOL?
« Reply #39 on: 07/30/2008 09:47 pm »
skybolt

That was it.  Neat idea: drop a ballistic missile from the wing of a B-52.  But also pretty much redundant.  After all, if you already have ICBMs, why build Skybolt?

Of course, the British were banking on having Skybolt available and its cancellation prompted a crisis that ultimately resulted in the Brits getting Polaris.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1