Author Topic: MOL discussion  (Read 130306 times)

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1733
  • Liked: 467
  • Likes Given: 8375
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #380 on: 11/03/2015 05:50 AM »
New article is up:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2858/1

I don't know what you wrote in this article, but for some reason, I can't get it to open.  I hope you didn't put something still classified!  LOL.

I'm having the same trouble ...

EDIT:  just tried going to the main page via search engine -- still won't open.  Wonder if the site's down?  Anybody else tried the article link?
« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 05:57 AM by kch »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8272
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #381 on: 11/03/2015 06:34 AM »

New article is up:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2858/1

I don't know what you wrote in this article, but for some reason, I can't get it to open.  I hope you didn't put something still classified!  LOL.

I'm having the same trouble ...

EDIT:  just tried going to the main page via search engine -- still won't open.  Wonder if the site's down?  Anybody else tried the article link?

Same here can't get the link to open.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #382 on: 11/03/2015 10:00 AM »
Working for me... wonder if it was a temporary glitch.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2083
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 595
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #383 on: 11/03/2015 02:56 PM »
Let's be honest, guys -- once the program was canceled, the workshop hardware that was under construction was almost definitely scrapped.  Optics may have been recycled into other surveillance satellites, and installed electronic components and wiring may have been salvaged, but the pressure vessels, structural members, etc., probably went the same way as the LMs for Apollos 19 and 20 that had been started and not completed, i.e., into the scrap bins.

We do know the 72" primary mirrors where donated to NSF(?) and used for the MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona. They where removed in 1998 when a 6.5 meter spin cast mirror was made available by Roger Angel's team at UofA.
Let's be honest, guys -- once the program was canceled, the workshop hardware that was under construction was almost definitely scrapped.  Optics may have been recycled into other surveillance satellites, and installed electronic components and wiring may have been salvaged, but the pressure vessels, structural members, etc., probably went the same way as the LMs for Apollos 19 and 20 that had been started and not completed, i.e., into the scrap bins.

We do know the 72" primary mirrors where donated to NSF(?) and used for the MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona. They where removed in 1998 when a 6.5 meter spin cast mirror was made available by Roger Angel's team at UofA.

Not only on the MMT: looks like someone else was given one of the MOL mirrors and build his own private telescope around it
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23864.msg1090815#msg1090815

Offline Ronpur50

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1932
  • Brandon, FL
  • Liked: 758
  • Likes Given: 1506
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #384 on: 11/04/2015 09:47 PM »
Working for me... wonder if it was a temporary glitch.

It is working here now.

Edit: and a great article as well!
« Last Edit: 11/04/2015 10:50 PM by Ronpur50 »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9590
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #385 on: 11/04/2015 10:36 PM »
My point concerning the remaining hardware is really just to note that so far, I have not found a document describing the disposition of the completed primary structures, although there are many that concern various computers.

I also saw in the photos that a large machine that produced a corregated  material for primary structures was being used - I think such material was used on later Titan flights for interstages, so perhaps the machinery lived on.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #386 on: 11/05/2015 01:03 AM »

I also saw in the photos that a large machine that produced a corregated  material for primary structures was being used - I think such material was used on later Titan flights for interstages, so perhaps the machinery lived on.

Titan was made by Martin, so no.  Additionally, there is no corrugated material on Titan.  And further more, it would not be able to be used in the role as an interstage.  The loads are completely different.

Just because the hardware existed at one time, doesn't mean it was reused or saved.  It all could have been scrapped

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2460
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #387 on: 11/05/2015 01:07 AM »
The building that McDonnell built for MOL assembly later got used for (I think) Delta II. So the facilities lived on.

If you look at the comments in my article, one anonymous poster who may know some stuff says that the contract termination costs were pretty high, so a lot of money went to that.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9590
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #388 on: 11/05/2015 02:03 PM »
MOL was constructed in Huntington Beach in a building with at least 2 bays, one was used for MOL, the other for Skylab. The MOL bay was later used for DC-X.

Offline simonbp

Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #389 on: 11/05/2015 02:31 PM »
Let's be honest, guys -- once the program was canceled, the workshop hardware that was under construction was almost definitely scrapped.  Optics may have been recycled into other surveillance satellites, and installed electronic components and wiring may have been salvaged, but the pressure vessels, structural members, etc., probably went the same way as the LMs for Apollos 19 and 20 that had been started and not completed, i.e., into the scrap bins.

We do know the 72" primary mirrors where donated to NSF(?) and used for the MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona. They where removed in 1998 when a 6.5 meter spin cast mirror was made available by Roger Angel's team at UofA.

No, they were donated to the Smithsonian, which transferred them to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO). SAO had already been looking at multi-mirror telescopes, and so when the MOL optics became available in 1970, they started discussions with the University of Arizona about building what became the original MMT.

https://www.mmto.org/node/288

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #390 on: 11/05/2015 02:53 PM »
Thanks for the correction.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2083
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 595
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #391 on: 11/05/2015 04:10 PM »
So only four Gemini-B ? The last NASA Gemini mission was late 1966, so the four ships must have followed them closely in order not to interrupt McDonnell Gemini production line. Perhaps those four Gemini-B were build in 1967, then placed into storage, waiting for the other half of MOL that was never build
(first flight was planned for 1971, so that would be four years spent in storage ? is that reasonnable ?)

The unmanned MOL is somewhat bizarre - better to spent the money on KH-8s that are already operational since 1966 and provide equal resolution of some inches.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2015 04:12 PM by Archibald »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2460
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #392 on: 11/05/2015 05:51 PM »
So only four Gemini-B ? The last NASA Gemini mission was late 1966, so the four ships must have followed them closely in order not to interrupt McDonnell Gemini production line. Perhaps those four Gemini-B were build in 1967, then placed into storage, waiting for the other half of MOL that was never build
(first flight was planned for 1971, so that would be four years spent in storage ? is that reasonnable ?)


There is no indication of any flight Gemini Bs built other than the mockups.

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2814
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 357
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #393 on: 11/05/2015 06:25 PM »
Let's be honest, guys -- once the program was canceled, the workshop hardware that was under construction was almost definitely scrapped.  Optics may have been recycled into other surveillance satellites, and installed electronic components and wiring may have been salvaged, but the pressure vessels, structural members, etc., probably went the same way as the LMs for Apollos 19 and 20 that had been started and not completed, i.e., into the scrap bins.

We do know the 72" primary mirrors where donated to NSF(?) and used for the MMT on Mount Hopkins in Arizona. They where removed in 1998 when a 6.5 meter spin cast mirror was made available by Roger Angel's team at UofA.

No, they were donated to the Smithsonian, which transferred them to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO). SAO had already been looking at multi-mirror telescopes, and so when the MOL optics became available in 1970, they started discussions with the University of Arizona about building what became the original MMT.

https://www.mmto.org/node/288


I used the6-MOL-mirror MMT several times in the 1990s for spectroscopic observations of quasars. It was very
cool to watch the telescope operator sync up the mirrors every hour or so - on the video screen the six superimposed images
would whiz away from each other into a ring, then reconverge to a single point.

 We heard the scuttlebutt that the mirrors were from a USAF space program, but no-one here now seems to have been aware that it was MOL.
Probably Fred Whipple (director at the time) knew, he had connections with the DoD space folks dating back to his involvement
in the White Sands V-2 program. And Baker (of the Baker-Nunn) had CORONA connections so it's possiblehe was involved.

-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Offline kking

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Topmost, Kentucky
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #394 on: 11/05/2015 11:32 PM »
I am wondering about something. I just watched Astrospies again, I wonder how come we didn't training films on the NRO site along with the 3 minute film that is there. Plus I would love to see film or video of the November 1966 launch. If the NRO has it, I hope they put it online someday. The films would have to be declassified or it wouldn't be in Astrospies.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2460
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #395 on: 11/06/2015 03:00 AM »
I am wondering about something. I just watched Astrospies again, I wonder how come we didn't training films on the NRO site along with the 3 minute film that is there. Plus I would love to see film or video of the November 1966 launch. If the NRO has it, I hope they put it online someday. The films would have to be declassified or it wouldn't be in Astrospies.

There's more material available than what the NRO put out. But what they released is primarily new stuff, not things that were previously available.

I've got a ton of stuff that they didn't access and release. For instance, I've got several thousand pages of early documentation on the program that does not mention the optical system. Also a lot of photos of underwater stuff. And I don't think they released photos of the astronaut class. Los Angeles AFB should have some of that stuff and I don't think it made it into the NRO release.

What they released is great stuff. It's a really good and extensive collection. But there's other stuff that is out there to find. (Personally, I think one area deserving more attention is the work that went into the construction of SLC-6, including the land seizures. There's a story to be told there.)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2083
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 595
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #396 on: 11/06/2015 01:41 PM »
From the MOL compendium document

Quote
Subsequently, at Hubbard’s suggestion, NASA awarded a study contract to Eastman Kodak (20 January 1970) to undertake a rigorous analysis of what astronomical use could be made of MOL hardware.
The equipment, meanwhile, was stored at the Eastman facility pending NASA’s review of the study and its decision about a future approach.11

The mind wonder... what influence did the MOL (for example, the 72 inch mirrors) had on the Large Space Telescope (not Hubble yet) ?
Early on Hubble mirror was to be 120 inch (3 m) in diameter. Then it was downsized to 94 inch (2. 4 m)

Perhaps NASA briefly considered a "Hubble demonstrator" with a 72 inch mirror borrowed from the MOL ? (this echoes the 2012 FIA satellites to be turned into WFIRST)
« Last Edit: 11/06/2015 01:43 PM by Archibald »

Offline Hoonte

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #397 on: 11/09/2015 10:11 AM »
Where there any experiments done on one of the Gemini flights concerning MOL?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2460
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #398 on: 11/09/2015 11:53 AM »
Where there any experiments done on one of the Gemini flights concerning MOL?

At least some of the experiments that were originally planned for MOL, such as the maneuvering unit, were transferred over to Gemini. I don't know when or why all that happened, but it may be in the documents that were released.

Offline Hoonte

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #399 on: 11/09/2015 01:40 PM »
Where there any experiments done on one of the Gemini flights concerning MOL?

At least some of the experiments that were originally planned for MOL, such as the maneuvering unit, were transferred over to Gemini. I don't know when or why all that happened, but it may be in the documents that were released.

Aah. I had always wondered why the AMU flew on 9a. Was this already a long known fact that it was linked to MOL or did this just came public on the recent release of MOL documents?

Tags: