Author Topic: PERCHERON NASA/NRO  (Read 15697 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« on: 04/08/2017 06:26 pm »
One of the declassified NRO documents from the 1960s refers to a classified NASA program known as PERCHERON. I have seen this referenced in another NRO document, which referred to it as a program failure--apparently NRO and NASA did not see eye to eye on the program and it got canceled.

The problem is that I cannot figure out what PERCHERON actually was. Some kind of imagery program. Must have been NASA using NRO technology. But for what purpose?

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #1 on: 04/10/2017 08:05 am »
Maybe NASA tried to got a civilian variant of either Corona or Gambit (perhaps as an alternative to Landsat with far, far higher resolution) but the military got nervous and it was cancelled. Both Corona and Gambit were Agena-related.

Leonard Jaffe has an interesting history. Looks like he was involved in the NASA-NRO talks of 1965  about limiting Landsat resolution.


https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jaffe-leonard
« Last Edit: 04/10/2017 11:34 am by Chris Bergin »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #2 on: 04/10/2017 05:34 pm »
There were proposals to have NASA buy some of the last CORONAs. There were also proposals to mount multiple mapping cameras on a new spacecraft equipped with CORONA reentry vehicles. It is possible that the latter was "PERCHERON."

The use of a GAMBIT-1 optics system for Earth remote sensing was part of the LMSS/UPWARD program, so I don't think that could be "PERCHERON."


Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #3 on: 04/10/2017 05:41 pm »
Maybe NASA tried to got a civilian variant of either Corona or Gambit (perhaps as an alternative to Landsat with far, far higher resolution) but the military got nervous and it was cancelled. Both Corona and Gambit were Agena-related.

Allegedly they were going to give NASA spare Corona cameras for the Lunar Orbiter program, but then became concerned about giving away their resolution, so it was then decided that the existing (much lower resolution) cameras were good enough.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #4 on: 04/10/2017 06:13 pm »
Found a reference in a Google Books search, the reference is in the Geological Survey Circular 692, page 34:

General Electric Co., 1967a, Percheron suitability, application, "A", payloads: Gen. Elec. Co. Doc. No. 67SD4287. Prepared for Nat'l Aeronautics and Space Adm., Off. Space Sci. and Applications.

1967b, Summary report covering an analysis of spacecraft systems with physical recovery capability to perform earth oriented applications experiments: Prepared for Nat'l Aeronautics and Space Adm. under contract NAS-W-1691, 3v.

"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline whitelancer64

Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #5 on: 04/10/2017 07:21 pm »
Unfortunately, I can't seem to dig up anything more on either the General Electric or the NASA contract document.

But the citation does seem to suggest it was something along the lines of a pre-Landsat earth observation program, as Blackstar thinks. Perhaps a preliminary study or proposal that died fairly quickly?
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #6 on: 04/10/2017 10:43 pm »
Maybe NASA tried to got a civilian variant of either Corona or Gambit (perhaps as an alternative to Landsat with far, far higher resolution) but the military got nervous and it was cancelled. Both Corona and Gambit were Agena-related.

Allegedly they were going to give NASA spare Corona cameras for the Lunar Orbiter program, but then became concerned about giving away their resolution, so it was then decided that the existing (much lower resolution) cameras were good enough.

No. LMSS/UPWARD was the backup for Lunar Orbiter.

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #7 on: 04/10/2017 11:05 pm »
No. LMSS/UPWARD was the backup for Lunar Orbiter.

You're right, it was UPWARD and the cameras in question were from Gambit, not Corona. The NRO site has several documents uploaded detailing their reluctance to use Gambit cameras on lunar missions. In fact years earlier, they'd proposed giving leftover Samos cameras to NASA after the Program 101A satellites were cancelled, but nothing came of it.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #8 on: 04/11/2017 12:39 am »
You're right, it was UPWARD and the cameras in question were from Gambit, not Corona. The NRO site has several documents uploaded detailing their reluctance to use Gambit cameras on lunar missions. In fact years earlier, they'd proposed giving leftover Samos cameras to NASA after the Program 101A satellites were cancelled, but nothing came of it.

You're adding more confusion to this subject with each post.

There are many UPWARD documents available on the NRO site.

There was no real "reluctance" to use the GAMBIT-1 derived UPWARD system for lunar missions. However, once it was no longer necessary for lunar missions, NASA sought to mount it on Skylab and fly it in Earth orbit. This really annoyed the NRO.

To the best of my knowledge, no Samos cameras were offered to NASA after program cancellation. However, Samos technology was offered to NASA and incorporated into the Lunar Orbiter.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #9 on: 04/11/2017 12:41 am »
Found a reference in a Google Books search, the reference is in the Geological Survey Circular 692, page 34:

General Electric Co., 1967a, Percheron suitability, application, "A", payloads: Gen. Elec. Co. Doc. No. 67SD4287. Prepared for Nat'l Aeronautics and Space Adm., Off. Space Sci. and Applications.

1967b, Summary report covering an analysis of spacecraft systems with physical recovery capability to perform earth oriented applications experiments: Prepared for Nat'l Aeronautics and Space Adm. under contract NAS-W-1691, 3v.



Thanks for that. That is starting to make me suspect that this was the proposal for a mapping system that had several mapping cameras and a couple of reentry vehicles. The mapping cameras may have been the ones derived from CORONA (possibly the "DISIC" cameras), but I would have to look into it more deeply.

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #10 on: 04/11/2017 01:15 am »
There was no real "reluctance" to use the GAMBIT-1 derived UPWARD system for lunar missions. However, once it was no longer necessary for lunar missions, NASA sought to mount it on Skylab and fly it in Earth orbit. This really annoyed the NRO.

You're probably referring to the "NASA Use of the UPWARD Cameras in Earth Orbit" document which does say they planned on using them past LO and the NRO didn't like it. There are a lot of documents there and I should have been more specific.

To the best of my knowledge, no Samos cameras were offered to NASA after program cancellation. However, Samos technology was offered to NASA and incorporated into the Lunar Orbiter.

"A History of Satellite Reconnaissance" mentions the proposed use of leftover Program 101/101A components, but they were deemed unsuitable for lunar photography.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #11 on: 04/11/2017 02:47 pm »

"A History of Satellite Reconnaissance" mentions the proposed use of leftover Program 101/101A components, but they were deemed unsuitable for lunar photography.

In the attached, around page 172.

However, what this says is that the use of the hardware was "discussed." But it never got turned over to NASA, and it really was not suitable for it. What really happened was that the NRO signed an agreement (actually, this was done on the white side because the NRO was classified) to allow the use of Samos technology for Lunar Orbiter. That technology had to be adapted for the Lunar Orbiter requirements. Different lenses and so on. Later there were other proposals for transferring technology, as well as NASA consultation with NRO whenever NASA wanted to take photographs in space (so as not to give away what could be seen by the reconnaissance systems). There are a bunch of documents available on that subject.

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #12 on: 05/24/2017 06:13 pm »
There were proposals to have NASA buy some of the last CORONAs. There were also proposals to mount multiple mapping cameras on a new spacecraft equipped with CORONA reentry vehicles. It is possible that the latter was "PERCHERON."

The use of a GAMBIT-1 optics system for Earth remote sensing was part of the LMSS/UPWARD program, so I don't think that could be "PERCHERON."

Dwayne - did you check with Philip Horzempa? According to what is written in "Project Upward: hauling the NRO’s GAMBIT to the Moon" PERCHERON comprised the entire Gambit-1 Orbital Control Vehicle (OCV) for remote sensing from Earth orbit:

"At this time, General Electric approached NASA with an offer to sell Gambit-1 OCV modules to the agency. This was the Percheron concept, and it seemed to offer a simpler way for NASA to conduct Earth surveys."
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2596/1

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #13 on: 05/24/2017 10:18 pm »
Thanks for that. I have not heard from him since he wrote that article. But that helps tie things together.

It still leaves some questions. Was PERCHERON supposed to use the GAMBIT-1 optics, or simply the General Electric OCV with a different camera system? I would assume the latter, because NASA had no need for such high resolution as provided by the GAMBIT-1. So GE must have been proposing to pair the OCV with a new camera system.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #14 on: 05/27/2017 11:02 am »
Thanks for that. I have not heard from him since he wrote that article. But that helps tie things together.

It still leaves some questions. Was PERCHERON supposed to use the GAMBIT-1 optics, or simply the General Electric OCV with a different camera system? I would assume the latter, because NASA had no need for such high resolution as provided by the GAMBIT-1. So GE must have been proposing to pair the OCV with a new camera system.

Curiouser and curiouser.

I went back and reread Horzempa's article a little more carefully and think I have answered my question. PERCHERON was a GE proposal to use the GAMBIT-1 optics and the GE Orbital Control Vehicle. Apparently GE pitched this idea to NASA to compete with the existing NASA UPWARD program, which would have used GAMBIT-1 optics and an OCV made by Lockheed. So General Electric was basically trying to snipe business from Lockheed and undercut the existing program.

If this is correct, it explains a cryptic comment that I've seen in another NRO document which essentially refers to PERCHERON as a disaster, an example of how badly things can go in the NRO-NASA cooperation. They were apparently referring to contractors who lost NRO business then trying to sell their stuff to NASA instead.

(Or the simplest summary: PERCHERON was a competitor to the Earth-orbiting version of UPWARD.)

I read the Horzempa article when it appeared, and I read most of the source material he used, but somehow I forgot this aspect of the story. The UPWARD story is a complex one, and I think that even the declassified material does not fully cover the latter (Earth-orbiting) part of that program.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #15 on: 06/04/2017 10:34 pm »
I went digging through my notes and found that I had written down a number of things about PERCHERON. Here they are:

General Electric had never really given up its ambition to provide spacecraft for
continued use. In the fall of 1966 G.E. approached the Special Projects office of the NRO
with a proposal to explore the possible interest of other government agencies in continued
use of the GAMBIT-1 OCV. (The OCV for that purpose was known as Percheron.)

26 October 1966, General Martin received material on Percheron, suggesting possible
applications and G.E. experienced in spacecraft work. SAFSP approved use of briefing as
long at the office was notified in advance who was going to receive the briefing and
everyone had a secret level clearance. No mention of Program 206 and no discussion of
GAMBIT-1 details.

April 1967 GE proposed a briefing “Percheron suitability applications and payloads.”
Would show that it could meet NASA needs. “In April 1967 GE asked SAFPS to approve
a request for the use of the residual GAMBIT-1 inventory for application to their
Percheron proposal.

GE with Lockheed presented to NASA on 28 April 1967. GE claimed that the spacecraft
were available and USAF would launch them from VAFB, would operate them in orbit
and do the recovery. NASA and NASA photo working group were very interest. Could
get an Earth survey program going without having to await the availability of Apollo or
Upward equipment. Savings would be substantial.

Four complete OCVs remained at Vandenberg plus two incomplete OCVs at GE (which
were intended for use to supply spare parts if required.) GE had estimated that it would
cost $260,000 to sanitize the 6 vehicles to prevent their being moved… [confusing]

In June 1967 NASA was told by NRO of the “real circumstances” on Percheron: “only
two OCV’s really were available and they would have to be ‘sanitized’ before being
turned over to NASA.” NASA would have to supply its own Atlas rockets. No launching
pad existed for Percheron at Vandenberg. [Huh?] Launch and recovery assets were not up
to GE to negotiate. NASA losing interest in Percheron. Upward sounded better.



My comments will follow in the next post.


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #16 on: 06/04/2017 10:42 pm »
It appears that the chronology went like this:

-NASA started working on UPWARD for Apollo lunar observing purposes, UPWARD evolved into GAMBIT-1 optics plus a Lockheed spacecraft (OCV).

-GE had lost out on GAMBIT. Although they built GAMBIT-1, they did not get the contract for GAMBIT-3, so they were going to be out of the satellite reconnaissance business.

-NASA was also considering flying UPWARD in Earth orbit to do Earth observation

-GE proposed using the last two remaining GAMBIT-1 vehicles and repurposing them for NASA's Earth observation requirement.

-GE also over-sold the proposal, claiming that there was more leftover hardware in more completed status than there actually was.

-GAMBIT-1 was really designed to go almost directly from the factory to the pad, with minimal additional work (I think that this applied to later GAMBIT-1 vehicles, because I remember reading NRO complaints that General Electric was shipping incomplete vehicles to the launch site in order to beat their schedule milestone, then catching up on work at the launch facility).

-having lost out on GAMBIT-3, and having lost out on UPWARD, General Electric proposed that they could take existing GAMBIT-1 vehicles and fly them to meet NASA's Earth observing requirement. They called this PERCHERON. It is unclear if this was an NRO codename or something that was applied by GE.

-the over-promising, and the fact that GE seemed to be trying to use NASA to prop up its business after losing an NRO contract, annoyed NRO officials.

This last point is one that interests me, but so far I only have a single document that directly refers to it. There is also the official history (by Perry) that references NRO explaining the truth to NASA. But I would guess that there were probably a bunch of internal NRO memos where they complained about what GE was doing with PERCHERON.



Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #17 on: 05/17/2018 06:29 pm »
Been reading Perry history again. Some points are quite weird.

- no pad in Vandenberg ? for a close KH-7 derivative ? also no Atlas boosters to launch them, or more exactly NASA would have to pay for them.

Quote
PERCHERON was a GE proposal to use the GAMBIT-1 optics and the GE Orbital Control Vehicle. Apparently GE pitched this idea to NASA to compete with the existing NASA UPWARD program, which would have used GAMBIT-1 optics and an OCV made by Lockheed. So General Electric was basically trying to snipe business from Lockheed and undercut the existing program.

If this is correct, it explains a cryptic comment that I've seen in another NRO document which essentially refers to PERCHERON as a disaster, an example of how badly things can go in the NRO-NASA cooperation. They were apparently referring to contractors who lost NRO business then trying to sell their stuff to NASA instead.

- Sure, what G.E did was quite outrageous and opportunistic. Although we all know Lockheed was hardly a saint. That was one hell of a cluste***ck.

- In  bold: what a bizarre hybrid. KH-7-and-a-half
I suppose once again, the NRO did not wanted NASA getting their hands on the all-powerful KH-8.

- From Perry history however it seem that Lockheed soon pushed NASA in the direction of a full-blown KH-8, camera included, without G.E. 

- Yet it seems that Lockheed actually helped General Electric for their PERCHERON bid !
Did those two got a kind of pact to turn the NRO crazy ?  ???

- The NRO must have been quite enraged / angered (polite words), not only by NASA, but also by Lockheed and General Electric activism. WTH.

- the number of UPWARD is uncertain. Phil Horzempa mentions "five flights units", Perry has 6 (two test, four flight units)

- same for PERCHERON - G.E said 4 complete and 2 incomplete, yet NRO told NASA "only two"
Do we know if any KH-7 were left after 1967 - and KH-8 after 1984 ? 
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 06:40 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #18 on: 05/17/2018 06:54 pm »
Found a reference in a Google Books search, the reference is in the Geological Survey Circular 692, page 34:

General Electric Co., 1967a, Percheron suitability, application, "A", payloads: Gen. Elec. Co. Doc. No. 67SD4287. Prepared for Nat'l Aeronautics and Space Adm., Off. Space Sci. and Applications.

1967b, Summary report covering an analysis of spacecraft systems with physical recovery capability to perform earth oriented applications experiments: Prepared for Nat'l Aeronautics and Space Adm. under contract NAS-W-1691, 3v.



https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1974/0693/report.pdf   (page 20 of the pdf, plus figures page 59)
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 06:56 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: PERCHERON NASA/NRO
« Reply #19 on: 05/17/2018 07:35 pm »
Been reading Perry history again. Some points are quite weird.

- no pad in Vandenberg ? for a close KH-7 derivative ?

Because SLC-4 was now launching Titans and SLC-3 was now Thor.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0