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.
Quote from: Archibald on 04/10/2017 08:05 amMaybe 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.
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.
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.
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.
"A History of Satellite Reconnaissance" mentions the proposed use of leftover Program 101/101A components, but they were deemed unsuitable for lunar photography.
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."
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.
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.
Been reading Perry history again. Some points are quite weird. - no pad in Vandenberg ? for a close KH-7 derivative ?