Author Topic: MOL discussion  (Read 156884 times)

Online Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 874
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #440 on: 05/10/2018 03:45 PM »
http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/769.pdf

Looks like NASA was interested in the ATS- Acquisition and Tracking Scope - for Apollo, lunar and Earth missions. Resolution would have been 9 ft in Earth orbit, and 2.5 ft around the Moon. That was in 1969, after MOL cancellation.
... that ackward moment when you realize that Jeff Bezos personal fortune is far above NASA annual budget... 115 billion to 18 billion...

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #441 on: 05/12/2018 12:23 PM »
Around same time
McDonnell-Douglas try to sell MOL to NASA as Civilian Space craft

As NASA orbital laboratory for 30-60-90 days  mission
proposed were Astronomy instruments or Earth resources scanning
or as Resupplied Vehicle for space station

source:

PSAC Briefing
NASA-MOL
T.J.Gordon
July 20,1968

Online Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 874
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #442 on: 05/12/2018 02:55 PM »
Those unfortunates NRO generals must have grown ulcers and got many sleepness nights, with Lockheed, General Electric, McDonnell douglas and NASA activism.
... that ackward moment when you realize that Jeff Bezos personal fortune is far above NASA annual budget... 115 billion to 18 billion...

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11162
  • Liked: 2615
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #443 on: 05/12/2018 03:44 PM »
Around same time
McDonnell-Douglas try to sell MOL to NASA as Civilian Space craft

As NASA orbital laboratory for 30-60-90 days  mission
proposed were Astronomy instruments or Earth resources scanning
or as Resupplied Vehicle for space station

source:

PSAC Briefing
NASA-MOL
T.J.Gordon
July 20,1968

I've got the presentation slides. Need to dig them out of my files. I suspect that NASA was not too happy about that--they were focused on Apollo and AAP, and they didn't need another contractor coming in and pitching an entirely different system and spacecraft.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11162
  • Liked: 2615
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #444 on: 05/16/2018 04:04 PM »
And I'll confess that I don't know the history of the NIIRS scale. I assume somebody has written about this in a photogrammetry journal, and I assume that before there was a NIIRS scale there was something else.

The history of US reconnaissance satellites has an interesting side-story around 1963-1965 when the CIA (under Bud Wheelon) sought to codify the relationship between resolution and what you could learn from it. There are actually quite a few documents about this, but I have not looked at them closely. Wheelon told me way back in the mid-1990s that when he started battling with NRO, one of the things he wanted to find out what what photo-interpreters could see at different resolutions, so he started a study project to assess that. Some of those documents have been declassified. But what I don't know is the broader context of that. For example, I assume that since there were photo-interpreters during WWII, they had already established some scales/tables on this subject back then, and I don't know why Wheelon needed to do it in 1963. Maybe he simply was unhappy with the quality of the approach to the subject. He was a really smart guy and probably wanted some rigor applied to it.

Here is a timeline that shows some key developments in reconnaissance resolution. The CIA study involving photo-interpreters was convened by Bud Wheelon (Wheelon told me this himself many years ago). The results of their study may have been declassified. That material could be at NARA in College Park (I might even have a copy).


« Last Edit: 05/16/2018 04:25 PM by Blackstar »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11162
  • Liked: 2615
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MOL discussion
« Reply #445 on: 05/17/2018 04:21 PM »
Here is a document that delves into that issue of investigating what kind of resolution was required. That process led to the FULCRUM development, which then became HEXAGON.


Tags: