MOL

Has this following links been posted before?
Code: 
http://mikejennebooks.com/tech_drawings.htm
Ed Jenne formerly worked as an illustrator for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.
Click to expand...
I can't say which picture of them is real, or just fictional art for the "Blue Gemini" book series, published by his brother Mike Jenne.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Temistocle said:
Orionblamblam said:
probably asked and answered elsewhere, but... anybody know of a good way to download those hundreds of PDFs easily and quickly, rather than clicking on each one manually?
Click to expand...

Try HTTrack
Click to expand...

Nope. Mirrored the website, but the actual PDF files remained merely links.
Click to expand...

To get also the pdf files you need to add "+*.pdf" in the list of the "Scan rules" in the "Set option" window, as in the figure below

HHTrack.jpg
 
I found a file on the big SDIO mirror that they built in the late 1980s. This was a 4-meter multi-segment mirror. Apparently, after they built it and decided to not use it for SDI, they looked into other possible uses. I've got some information on that. I'll look at it and summarize. The mirror was on the cover of the November 23, 1987 issue of Aviation Week. Screen Shot 2020-10-23 at 10.36.22 AM.png
 
Last edited:
One of the things I want to do regarding MOL is develop a timeline for the unmanned version--when did it start? What was the design? When did the design change (i.e. number of reentry vehicles)? How many did they plan to launch? How did that number change over time?

The nominal unmanned version started out as 4 reentry vehicles, then went up to 6, with the possibility of 8. It seems like the number of vehicles was tied to the number of weeks they expected to fly the unmanned MOL--4 when it was a 30-day mission, then 6 when it was a 60-day mission (thus, one reentry every ten days), looking at the possibility of 8 (thus, one reentry per week).
 
That would be interesting indeed. If only because it completely contradicts the MOL raison d'être - a MANNED spysat.

"They started a manned spysat program, and soon, they turned it into an unmanned one".

I often wonder how did they justified the unmanned MOL versus the KH-8.

Probably saying the later was comparatively rudimentary, old-stuff ("only" a major update of the KH-7) or not VHR "enough" (Very High Resolution).

It also entered service "only" in 1967-68 and by this time the MOL was already pretty far along. And it established the VHR record of 2.3 inch only a decade later, or even more.

Those arguments were frail, and as the KH-8 improved pretty fast, they vanished. With the equally massive KH-9 and KH-11 coming, having a third "large" spysat was probably a little too much... Titan IIIs weren't very cheap.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
That would be interesting indeed. If only because it completely contradicts the MOL raison d'être - a MANNED spysat.

"They started a manned spysat program, and soon, they turned it into an unmanned one".

I often wonder how did they justified the unmanned MOL versus the KH-8.

Probably saying the later was comparatively rudimentary, old-stuff ("only" a major update of the KH-7) or not VHR "enough" (Very High Resolution).

It also entered service "only" in 1967-68 and by this time the MOL was already pretty far along. And it established the VHR record of 2.3 inch only a decade later, or even more.

Those arguments were frail, and as the KH-8 improved pretty fast, they vanished. With the equally massive KH-9 and KH-11 coming, having a third "large" spysat was probably a little too much... Titan IIIs weren't very cheap.
Click to expand...

I interviewed MOL astronaut Al Crews who said that as soon as he saw a KH-8 photograph, he knew that MOL was doomed. He said that the resolution was so good it called into question why they needed MOL.

Now early KH-8 resolution was probably about 12 inches, and MOL was aiming for 4 inches. But I can see his point.
 
I always had some sympathy for Al Crews. A good case could be make he was "most screwed wannabee astronaut in history". Dynasoar, MOL, transfer to NASA: all doors slammed shut in his face and he never went to space.
 
So a relevant question: when was unmanned MOL started? And how does that compare to the timeline for GAMBIT-3/KH-8?
 
Orionblamblam said:
Temistocle said:
To get also the pdf files you need to add "+*.pdf" in the list of the "Scan rules" in the "Set option" window, as in the figure below
Click to expand...

Oh, sure, *now* you tell me... after I manually downloaded all 900 or so files.
Click to expand...
I had the same problem the first time I used HTTrack, then solved it in a moment fixing the options.
 
Michel Van said:
blackstar said:
So a relevant question: when was unmanned MOL started?
Click to expand...
The first image and info are around 1966
Click to expand...

Looking through some of the documents, I find mention of unmanned MOL in November 1965. So it started earlier than that. The document also mentions "The overall system effectiveness for the configurations is: Manned - 0.89; Unmanned - 0.50."

Not sure what qualifies as "effectiveness." A document from August 1966 indicates that they had determined that the unmanned system would be as good as the manned system in terms of optical quality, so they had found ways to solve focusing, etc.
 
Last edited:
blackstar said:
Not sure what qualifies as "effectiveness."
Click to expand...
i guess is the issue to photographs the site of interest
with out clouds blocking the View, or better photos selection taken by Crew, compare to the Automatic system in that time.
 
Michel Van said:
blackstar said:
Not sure what qualifies as "effectiveness."
Click to expand...
i guess is the issue to photographs the site of interest
with out clouds blocking the View, or better photos selection taken by Crew, compare to the Automatic system in that time.
Click to expand...

Some of that could be calculated statistically. Some of it would have had to be subjective. For instance, the photo-interpretation experts eventually developed data on cloud cover over specific targets. If they knew, for instance, that Moscow was often covered 50% with clouds, then they could calculate the probability that the specific targets that they wanted to photograph in Moscow would be covered by clouds, and then fit that into the model of how the camera system worked with an astronaut running it. The astronaut could tell the camera to not photograph target A because there were clouds, but to photograph targets B and C because they were clear. That might have been useful.

But if the automatic system could photograph targets A, B and C, then you didn't need a person on board. If the automatic system could only photograph two out of the three, then a person would be useful to pick which two. But was the value of the astronaut so great in those few instances to justify the immense cost?

The subjective part would be the value of each target. Were targets A, B and C all equal value? Probably not, so somebody would have to rank them.

As you look through the whole MOL program history, you see how the value of astronauts for this mission was fading away. At first it was claimed that they had value to do things like: focus the camera and achieve optimum performance; repair malfunctioning equipment; pick out targets. Then, within a year or so, the focusing the camera and optimizing the equipment justification went away. It looks like the repairing equipment justification went away too. (And that was also a somewhat weak argument, because the astronauts would require equipment like life support systems that would also malfunction, so eliminating the astronaut meant reducing the equipment that could break down.) By the end, all they were left with was the argument that the astronauts could pick out the best targets. But even that is questionable, because you can compensate for that by carrying more film and staying in orbit longer and just photographing everything of interest, even if there are clouds.

It wasn't just that other robotic systems (GAMBIT, HEXAGON) were getting improved and developed faster than MOL/DORIAN. It was that even the technology for operating DORIAN automatically was improving rapidly. What it is starting to look like to me based upon my skimming of some of the later MOL documents is that unmanned MOL/DORIAN was more attractive than the manned version, but it was not optimized for unmanned operation. So people started to wonder if there was an even better way to achieve the very high resolution capability than unmanned MOL/DORIAN, assuming that this capability was desirable.
 
Last edited:
I remember that NRO "VHR" program - from the The Space Review. They looked for unmanned MOL, improved KH-8s, and tentative combinations of these two with the brand new KH-9 bus.
- Back then the KH-8 was only beginning and still a long shot from its 2.3 inch all time record.
- MOL had been planned for 4 inch.
- Seems they wanted 2 inch or less for VHR, but physics said "NO".
 
Archibald said:
I remember that NRO "VHR" program - from the The Space Review. They looked for unmanned MOL, improved KH-8s, and tentative combinations of these two with the brand new KH-9 bus.
- Back then the KH-8 was only beginning and still a long shot from its 2.3 inch all time record.
- MOL had been planned for 4 inch.
- Seems they wanted 2 inch or less for VHR, but physics said "NO".
Click to expand...

Yes, but there is more to say about VHR. I will be working on an article. That's one reason why I need to develop a timeline of the unmanned MOL proposals. It seems to me that unmanned MOL became one VHR proposal, and people in the community started to ask if there were other ways to do it. One method was the "HEXADOR" proposal, that would use the DORIAN optics and the HEXAGON spacecraft. Presumably, it would use the HEXAGON reentry vehicles too, but they would be overkill.

I think that VHR existed as a concept for only a short time. By the early 1970s it was clear that they could only have one new reconnaissance satellite, not two. They ultimately decided on ZAMAN, which was renamed KENNEN.
 
Not sure if legit' from period or done since:

73395316_408009063207257_1692364324628070400_n%2B%2B%2B%255Br%255D%2B.jpg
 
I'm pretty sure that somebody created that recently and jokingly. It is not from the MOL program.
 
Grey Havoc said:

A 1963 USAF report describes work on an emergency “space suit.” It’s meant to be something that can be worn as a normal outfit and then zipped up at a moments notice in the event of a pressure drop. This includes a flexible helmet with a flexible “faceplate.” the end result looks like something out of a bad 1970’s pre-Star Wars disco-era sci-fi flick. Note, though that the actual test item is substantially less Giant Polyester Leisure Suit Lapels and more Cheap Plastic Poncho.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
blackstar said:
I found a file on the big SDIO mirror that they built in the late 1980s. This was a 4-meter multi-segment mirror. Apparently, after they built it and decided to not use it for SDI, they looked into other possible uses. I've got some information on that. I'll look at it and summarize. The mirror was on the cover of the November 23, 1987 issue of Aviation Week.View attachment 642860
Click to expand...

I believe that is the Large Aperture Mirror Project 4m mirror for the space based laser program. It was donated to the USAF Academy Fast Tracking Telescope project.
 
publiusr said:
Over at Scott’s site, you can read how the fix was in against it being Apollo/Saturn derived. One more reason I despise the USAF

Look at page 111 of the document in question. The fix was in.
Click to expand...
As usual, your lack of knowledge on the subject matter and your bias leads you to the wrong conclusions. Almost everyone one of your points was off-base.
 
I've the feeling. the tone in this thread starts to get a bit too harsh.
Please calm down and regard this as a warning !
 
publiusr said:
The document speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
And It doesn't say there was a fix. Bold are the quotes that are misinterpreted as the "fix" or comments that are off base.

"The Allied officers were...skeptical of manned space flight"
The Allied officers were Army. The Air Force did not exist at the time. Also, they were right to be skeptical. It took 15 more years before manned flight happened.

MOL could generate additional meaningful payloads for Titan III (page 85)
And SLS critics talk about make-work payloads...
Not true. Make-work payloads are a fallacy when the launcher is expensive. There can't be make-work payloads for SLS, they would be too expensive. Europa Clipper, HALO, PPE, etc all leaving SLS because of cost.

Saturn IB could have launched MOL with a wider diameter (read mirror) one would think.
Bigger mirror wasn't needed at the time. And a wider MOL could have still been launched on Titan.

"It would be a great coup should Apollo/Saturn be selected for the MOL program" (page 109)
This is a NASA point of view. Not the administration's or DOD's. So what if NASA thinks it would have great, what mattered is that the NRO did not.

The MOL-Apollo task team quickly noted that not all information...was made available--(page 110)
Because NASA did not have the proper clearances, nor should it have.

The P-15 was withheld, nixing the MOL-Apollo effort (top of page 111)
This is where you don't understand the history and what was going on. MOL was really never about flying all those experiments (P-1 through P-15). That was just the cover story. MOL was to carry a large reconnaissance system. The crew may have had time to do some minor experiments but they were there to operate the camera, which would leave little time for experimentation. Also, the utility of the crew was still in doubt and there were unmanned versions of MOL proposed. Which begs the question: How can MOL be a space station if it were designed to be unmanned?
Also, Seamans and Webb were given the clearances and told why P-15 was withheld. That is why NASA never really objected to MOL after that.

Some griping with costs but "with slight modifications Saturn/Apollo could meet all requirements of the MOL program.
Not a gripe, there were substantial differences in cost

The decision "was prejudged 'in favor" of Gemini Titan. (Page 112)
This is blatant misrepresentation; you put your own words into the quote. There is no "was". This is nothing but biased opinion
These were the words "constraints' of pressurized volume and early flight schedules required in the interest of national security would tend to prejudge the hardware selection "in favor of Gemini B/Titan III".

On page 191--we saw that MOL launch dates were slipping--money could have been saved had Titan III been nixed.
Wrong. MOL was not the only Titan III payload. In 1965, Titan IIIB was flying on the west coast and Titan IIICs were flying DSCS I and soon VELAs.

Page 209 to 210 detail the Florida uprising. As if Saturn IB pads could'nt be built west.
That wasn't the issue. The issue why wasn't MOL launching from the Titan ITL on the east coast.

On page 245 we see more on Apollo tech--since NASA was already looking at "spent stages" (wet stage Skylab) see footnote 46 and bottom of page 249
And your point is? You still don't get it. MOL and AAP were not compatible. In public, the DOD had to treat MOL like a space station vs a manned reconnaissance platform. MOL and NASA requirements didn't mix.

On page 247 we see it was Titan III(C) that really spelled the Doom for MOL
No, we don't. Again, your misinterpretation. If you are referring to:
"the introduction of either the Titan IIIM launch vehicle or the Titan IIIM/MOL systems into the post-Apollo manned space flight program is neither technically desirable nor cost effective, and it could jeopardize the possible U.S. position in space by delaying by almost three years the low orbital application of proven U.S. space technology."
This statement is about the use of Titan IIIM/MOL for NASA and its goals. It has nothing to do with the use for DOD.

BTW, MOL used the Titan IIIM and not the Titan IIIC. Completely different vehicles.

Nixon kills MOL on page 291
Yes the Vietnam War and Nixon--not to mention perfectly useful unmanned systems--played a part in killing MOL--but I cannot help but see this paper as proof that--had Floridians been kept happy...MOL might have flown.
Wrong interpretation again. Hexagon KH-9 killed MOL. It was not external influences like NASA, AAP or "Floridians". It was an internal National Reconnaissance Program decision. The KH-9 was still in development at the time. Actually, KH-9 was canceled and that was reversed and MOL was cancelled instead. MOL couldn't fly from Florida anyways.

Hate against the Saturn I is also what wound up dooming MOL
Wrong. Another misinterpretation and lack of basic spaceflight knowledge.
MOL was announced in December 1963. Saturn I had already flown 4 times. Your wikipedia quote is from April 1959. MOL wasn't cancelled until 1969, long after Saturn I had flown out. They are totally unrelated. The Titan C referenced by Medaris was not the same as the Titan IIIC

Titan C

Titan C
www.astronautix.com www.astronautix.com

The shuttle showed that NASA and DOD should not work together on large projects. Each have unique requirements that often conflict. MOL would have been worse.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
publiusr said:
The document speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
And It doesn't say there was a fix. Bold are the quotes that are misinterpreted as the "fix"


The Allied officers were Army. The Air Force did not exist at the time.
[Too bad it didn't stay that way]
"It would be a great coup should Apollo/Saturn be selected for the MOL program" (page 109)
This is a NASA point of view. [So?]

The MOL-Apollo task team quickly noted that not all information...was made available--(page 110)
Because NASA did not have the proper clearances, nor should it have.

The P-15 was withheld, nixing the MOL-Apollo effort (top of page 111)
This is where you don't understand the history
The shuttle showed that NASA and DOD should not work together on large projects.
Click to expand...
Which is an admission that they could and did work together. The wisdom of that is not what I am questioning. I have seen images of art depicting camera packages on the nose of Apollo capsules-but that was never going to be as lucrative as MOL, manned, unmanned-whatever. And NOW is when data-sharing is an issue? The powers that be didn't hold back dictating how big shuttle would be. That was theirs, of course. No wonder Medaris howled. He seemed like an honest man to me. But a MOL called Al-I mean Salyut did fly atop something very like Saturn I-the UR-500 Proton. Now, the Chinese do MOL the best...a free flying scope near a small station. Experiments (if any) don't jiggle the optics-but help is near.
 
publiusr said:
Byeman said:
publiusr said:
The document speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
And It doesn't say there was a fix. Bold are the quotes that are misinterpreted as the "fix"


The Allied officers were Army. The Air Force did not exist at the time.
[Too bad it didn't stay that way]
"It would be a great coup should Apollo/Saturn be selected for the MOL program" (page 109)
This is a NASA point of view. [So?]

The MOL-Apollo task team quickly noted that not all information...was made available--(page 110)
Because NASA did not have the proper clearances, nor should it have.

The P-15 was withheld, nixing the MOL-Apollo effort (top of page 111)
This is where you don't understand the history
The shuttle showed that NASA and DOD should not work together on large projects.
Click to expand...
Which is an admission that they could and did work together. The wisdom of that is not what I am questioning. I have seen images of art depicting camera packages on the nose of Apollo capsules-but that was never going to be as lucrative as MOL, manned, unmanned-whatever. And NOW is when data-sharing is an issue? The powers that be didn't hold back dictating how big shuttle would be. That was theirs, of course. No wonder Medaris howled. He seemed like an honest man to me. But a MOL called Al-I mean Salyut did fly atop something very like Saturn I-the UR-500 Proton. Now, the Chinese do MOL the best...a free flying scope near a small station. Experiments (if any) don't jiggle the optics-but help is near.
Click to expand...
No, they didn't really work together. Both screwed each other over. That is why the DOD got off the shuttle so quickly and shutdown the Vandenberg launch site.

Point is that what NASA thinks regarding Apollo/Saturn hardware for MOL is meaningless. That they thought it would be a great coup doesn't factor into the decision making.


The Apollo in the nose was for NASA do to lunar and earth resources mapping. It was not for NRO and NRP needs. NASA would have used an older NRO system and it is contractors. The NRO would not be involved. There was no reason or need for the NRO to use the Apollo spacecraft with an attached camera. It would be an unnecessary expense and added complexity.

The issue is not "data sharing", it is working together is the issue. Hosting experiments/instruments on each other's spacecraft is not a big deal.Both NASA and DOD prefer not work together on large projects.


The "powers to be" White House and Congress forced NASA and the DOD together on the shuttle. If the DOD were to use the shuttle, it had to meet DOD requirements. The size of the shuttle was not just DOD's doing. DOD determined the payload bay length, but the width was NASA's doing. NASA needed a wide bay for station modules and high energy upperstages. NASA also would need the cross range for aborts in the end. the Chinese are not doing "MOL". The MOL crew wasn't there to "help" but to target the camera and make realtime decisions on exposing film. That is not needed anymore with the use of electro optical devices.

Medaris had nothing to do with the shuttle, he was long gone before any work started on it. Also, he was just a minor player and only dealt with the Army rockets. When he retired in Jan 1960, much of the space program overshadowed his work, Titan I, Atlas, Thor, Thor Able and Thor Agena were flying and a few months later so was Atlas Agena, Atlas Mercury, Thor Able-Star and Delta.

What the Soviets did doesn't mean it was right. There were only 3 Almaz and the program was short lived for the same reason MOL was canceled. And China is not doing "MOL". MOL's point was astronauts aiming and controlling the camera. China isn't doing that.
 
Last edited:
National Reconnaissance Office
December 5 at 2:55 PM ·
Today is #MOLMonday! MOL crewmembers planned to use a modified Gemini capsule to enter orbit and return back to Earth. This capsule had a hatch cut into the heat shield so the crew could enter the laboratory module once in orbit.
Click to expand...

Facebook

www.facebook.com www.facebook.com

National Reconnaissance Office

It's #MOLMonday! Once in orbit, MOL and its crew would complete a 30-day mission. To get there, the crew would be launched in a modified Titan IIIC rocket (dubbed Titan IIIM) built by the Martin Marietta Corporation.
Click to expand...

Facebook

www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom