MOL

[Michel Van]

No, MOL was small and originally used the 1205 boosters

Yes, until 1966, then became MOL bigger and heavier
So took UA1207 solids for Titan III that had lengthened stages (Titan 34)

in mean time USAF look option of bigger Titan rocket to launch future heavier MOL into polar.
What became in 1967 so called the Fat-Core Titan (180 inch) and improved engines, that use again UA1205.
in growth for more payload, they proposed follow changes:

-Replace Solids to US1207, lengthened first stage, then increase Second stage diameter to 180 inch
-Finally replace the Solids with new one with 156 inch diameter solids to bring 68000 lb. into 80° polar orbit

There is proposal called Titan IIIG that match this description, a LCD and two to four 156 inch diameter solids

 

[Flyaway]

I think when the early years of the KH-11 program finally get declassified that the program history will help fill in gaps with these earlier programs due to the progression and debate over switching to electro-optical systems from film.

 

[blackstar]

I found the best images I could of the manned and unmanned MOL vehicles. In both versions you can see the film supply reel in the same location. In the manned version, you see that the film runs up to the camera where it would have been exposed. It then would have been collected in canisters that the MOL astronauts would have stored in the Gemini for return. But in the unmanned version, you can see that there was a supply path going through the (empty) cabin and all the way forward to the eight reentry vehicles.

I think that for the unmanned version they would have added a much larger film supply reel, which the image does not show. What would have also made sense would be to add a larger field camera to take pictures of the area being photographed with the high-resolution DORIAN camera.

 

[Michel Van]

I think that for the unmanned version they would have added a much larger film supply reel, which the image does not show.

The NRO Documentation tell that Unmanned MOL had operation time of 60 days compare to 30 days of manned version.
NRO PDF nr°367 page 22 show image with eight film return capsules installed in Unmanned Version of 1967
While PDF 07-MOL_Titan on page 8 show how to storage 4 "data package" in Gemini B
and Page 9 of same PDF mention 6 return capsules installed in nose cone of Unmanned Version in 1966.

Let Return to discussion we had earlier why MOL got cancel
The program was run over by technological progress, special with KH-11 and 12
but there were another factor we have overlooked The SR-71
in same time MOL program was running, Lockheed completed the SR-71 and enter service 1966
I think the success of the SR-71 was another important step into cancelation of MOL and KH-10 system in total.

 

[blackstar]

I think that for the unmanned version they would have added a much larger film supply reel, which the image does not show.

The NRO Documentation tell that Unmanned MOL had operation time of 60 days compare to 30 days of manned version.
NRO PDF nr°367 page 22 show image with eight film return capsules installed in Unmanned Version of 1967
While PDF 07-MOL_Titan on page 8 show how to storage 4 "data package" in Gemini B
and Page 9 of same PDF mention 6 return capsules installed in nose cone of Unmanned Version in 1966.

Can you include the links? It's not really possible to follow what you are writing.

 

[blackstar]

Let Return to discussion we had earlier why MOL got cancel
The program was run over by technological progress, special with KH-11 and 12
but there were another factor we have overlooked The SR-71
in same time MOL program was running, Lockheed completed the SR-71 and enter service 1966
I think the success of the SR-71 was another important step into cancelation of MOL and KH-10 system in total.

No, there is actually pretty good documentation on this. Look at the official HEXAGON histories. You can also find it in the Hexagon Mapping Camera history as well. This is from that history:

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/HOSR/SC-2017-00006l.pdf

 

[Michel Van]

Can you include the links? It's not really possible to follow what you are writing.

Here again the NRO Completed list of 825 PDF about the MOL program

MOL

 

[blackstar]

Can you include the links? It's not really possible to follow what you are writing.

Here again the NRO Completed list of 825 PDF about the MOL program

MOL

Right, and you wrote:

"While PDF 07-MOL_Titan"

Which doesn't show up on that page.

 

[Michel Van]

Which doesn't show up on that page.

Oh Dam i forgot that link
NRO has TWO home page with MOL data

DORIAN

and

MOL

 

[Archibald]

Never quite realized there were two different pages. NRO archive is a little clunky.

 

[blackstar]

Never quite realized there were two different pages. NRO archive is a little clunky.

NRO archive is more than a little clunky. They have put a tremendous amount of declassified material on their website, but navigating to it is a pain because often they deleted the listings to the collections. For instance, they have huge document collections on CORONA, Discoverer, Samos, and Midas (collections that were assembled in 1967), but it's not easy to find them.

What they really need is a single page that lists all their different historical collections. It's a shame, because they did all this work to scan documents and make them publicly available, and then they made it impossible to find some of them.

 

[Michel Van]

PDF 494 and 660 from MOL

from 20 February 1968 and 9 January 1969
Unmanned version of MOL with 8 return capsules

 

[Michel Van]

PDF 678 from MOL

Had this Launch schedule for MOL

Year quarter
1970 4th unmanned Titan IIIM qualification launch with mass simulator
1971 3th unmanned Titan IIIM launch with MOL qualification
------4th Manned MOL mission 1#
1972 2th Manned MOL mission 2#
------4th Manned MOL mission 3#
1973 1th unmanned MOL
------3th unmanned MOL

No further information on future flight in PDF but this note:

I. Present MOL program
II. Manned-Only MOL Program
III. Unmanned VHR Program:
-- 1. Unmanned MOL system
-- 2. MOL camera/Hexagon Spacecraft
-- 3. MOL camera/New Spacecraft
IV. MOL camera System Only
V. Terminate all VHR Activities
VI. reduce VHR Goal

 

[blackstar]

PDF 678 from DORIAN

Had this Launch schedule for MOL

Year quarter
1970 4th unmanned Titan IIIM qualification launch with mass simulator
1971 3th unmanned Titan IIIM launch with MOL qualification
------4th Manned MOL mission 1#
1972 2th Manned MOL mission 2#
------4th Manned MOL mission 3#
1973 1th unmanned MOL
------3th unmanned MOL

No further information on future flight in PDF but this note:

I. Present MOL program
II. Manned-Only MOL Program
III. Unmanned VHR Program:
-- 1. Unmanned MOL system
-- 2. MOL camera/Hexagon Spacecraft
-- 3. MOL camera/New Spacecraft
IV. MOL camera System Only
V. Terminate all VHR Activities
VI. reduce VHR Goal

You provided the wrong link again.

When you cite a document like that, it would help if you also included the year, and the page number that you refer to. This document is from February 1969, so pretty late in the program. That schedule is therefore a late one, but may not be the latest before the program was canceled in June 1969.

The MOL launch schedule slipped and changed a number of times, and you can find that in those documents. As I wrote about a few years ago, one of the MOL astronauts suggested getting rid of the qualification tests and promising that the first launch would be manned, which had the effect of slipping the schedule even more. He conceded that was a mistake.

 

[blackstar]

PDF 495 and 660 from DORIAN

from 20 February 1968 and 9 January 1969
Unmanned version of MOL with 8 return capsules

Note that you actually linked to the wrong collection. Also, two of these illustrations show 6 reentry vehicles and one shows 8. So it would help if you made clear what date and document is associated with which illustration.

Thank you. I've been thinking of writing an article on the unmanned MOL, and I had not seen one of those illustrations. I don't understand why they did not pursue it, other than expense. The Nixon administration entered office in January 1961 really wanting to cut budgets, and MOL and HEXAGON were two big, expensive space programs. If you look at how much the administration wanted to cut back on NASA, you can see that they came in with a heavy budget-cutting agenda.

 

[Michel Van]

Note that you actually linked to the wrong collection

i corrected the Link

Also, two of these illustrations show 6 reentry vehicles and one shows 8. So it would help if you made clear what date and document is associated with which illustration.

the First two Image labeled "PDF495 unmanned Mol" are from PDF 495 dated 20 February 1968
the Third is from PDF 660 dated from 9 January 1969

 

[Michel Van]

Except that you labeled them PDF494, not PDF495, and you referred to PDF495.

After the correction i need Aspirin...

 

[Archibald]

The Nixon administration entered office in January 1961

(evil grin)

 

[Michel Van]

PDF 736 from MOL

Re-useable MOL configuration
And MOL launch systems, note: two thing on that:

1. Lockheed Starclipper
remember this ? IV. MOL camera System Only, seems they had idea to put in re-useable Spacecraft what became shuttle.
I just speculating here, but can it be that remaining KH-10 Camera system had to be launch in classified Shuttles mission from VAFB ?

2. a USAF Space Stations to serving MOL in orbit.

 

[Archibald]

Seems that Lockheed FDL-5MA and STARclipper were part of long term MOL developments. The former existed in two variants: one unpowered and launched by a Titan III-M and another one like a miniature STAR-Clipper with drop tanks and fluorine aerospike AMS-1. Note that STAR-Clipper also used RHEINBERRY XLR-129, itself a direct SSME ancestor.
So in a sense, from MOL to RHEINBERRY all these projects indirectly relates to each others...

 

[Michel Van]

Seems that Lockheed FDL-5MA and STARclipper were part of long term MOL developments. The former existed in two variants: one unpowered and launched by a Titan III-M and another one like a miniature STAR-Clipper with drop tanks and fluorine aerospike AMS-1. Note that STAR-Clipper also used RHEINBERRY XLR-129, itself a direct SSME ancestor.
So in a sense, from MOL to RHEINBERRY all these projects indirectly relates to each others...

It looks more like "unite our efforts" that USAF Lifting body program needed justification to be launch some were.
Lockheed STAR clipper 1968 was so far i know, nowhere close to a Flourine aerospike engine
it use three LOX/Hydrogene RL-20 engines, (first version not later NASA proposal )
it's payload bay is 40x9x9 ft or 12.19 meter x 2,74 meter ø that's is roughly the Dimension of MOL camera system.

 

[blackstar]

The Nixon administration entered office in January 1961

(evil grin)

Heh heh heh...

 

[blackstar]

PDF 736 from MOL

It might help if, when you reference a document, you also include the date. That helps to understand what is going on. For instance, the above document you link is dated June 6, 1969. Perhaps by no coincidence at all, MOL was canceled on June 7, 1969. So it is possible that this briefing set was created to show to somebody when the program was being considered for cancellation. To be honest, if the program is facing cancellation because of budget pressures, showing up with briefing slides that illustrate all the cool things you could do with even more money is probably a bad move.

 

[blackstar]

PDF 736 from MOL

It might help if, when you reference a document, you also include the date. That helps to understand what is going on. For instance, the above document you link is dated June 6, 1969. Perhaps by no coincidence at all, MOL was canceled on June 7, 1969. So it is possible that this briefing set was created to show to somebody when the program was being considered for cancellation. To be honest, if the program is facing cancellation because of budget pressures, showing up with briefing slides that illustrate all the cool things you could do with even more money is probably a bad move.

Something from the above document. Note that MOL's mirror was 72 inches in diameter. There's a relatively simple formula to work out what that equates to in resolution from a given orbit.

This page notes that the mirror diameter could be increased. We know that the diameter of the Titan was 10 feet (120 inches). So this number has to be less than that. I would guess a maximum of 8 feet (96 inches). One could apply the formula to that diameter too.

 

[blackstar]

PDF 495 and 660 from DORIAN

from 20 February 1968 and 9 January 1969
Unmanned version of MOL with 8 return capsules

Note that you actually linked to the wrong collection. Also, two of these illustrations show 6 reentry vehicles and one shows 8. So it would help if you made clear what date and document is associated with which illustration.

Looking at document 494 (page 37 of the 59-page pdf) explains things a bit better. The nominal baseline unmanned mission was 4 reentry vehicles for a 40-day mission. The extended duration version that they studied was a 60-day mission and could carry either 6 or 8 reentry vehicles. There are a number of illustrations of 6 and 8 RV spacecraft, so it seems like they decided to go with the extended duration version (although I'd have to go through the documents more carefully to be sure). The RVs would be of the Mk V design, which was used on later GAMBIT and (I think) CORONA vehicles.

 

[Archibald]

PDF 736 from MOL

It might help if, when you reference a document, you also include the date. That helps to understand what is going on. For instance, the above document you link is dated June 6, 1969. Perhaps by no coincidence at all, MOL was canceled on June 7, 1969. So it is possible that this briefing set was created to show to somebody when the program was being considered for cancellation. To be honest, if the program is facing cancellation because of budget pressures, showing up with briefing slides that illustrate all the cool things you could do with even more money is probably a bad move.

Something from the above document. Note that MOL's mirror was 72 inches in diameter. There's a relatively simple formula to work out what that equates to in resolution from a given orbit.

This page notes that the mirror diameter could be increased. We know that the diameter of the Titan was 10 feet (120 inches). So this number has to be less than that. I would guess a maximum of 8 feet (96 inches). One could apply the formula to that diameter too.

View attachment 642404

Well, 94 inch is KH-11 mirrors... and Hubble, too. Note that the later was to be 120 inch and was cut for costs reasons. Thanks senator Bolland in 1975, for that.

NASA certainly draw from spysat experience when planning Hubble lightweight spaceborne mirrors; basically they knew that Perkin Elmers, Kodak ( and Itek eventually) could grind such mirrors. Because NRO.

In turn this bring an interesting question: was the KH-11 94 inch the upper limit (and thus Hubble had to follow) or did the military pushed to 120 inch ?

Make no mistake, I do know no spysat ever flew with 120 inch mirrors, not even KH-12 or FIA (= WFIRST 2012 donation to NASA): the later still being 94 inch.

I wonder about test mirrors; experimental ones. Did the NRO ever pushed to 120 inch diameter ?

 

[Michel Van]

I wonder about test mirrors; experimental ones. Did the NRO ever pushed to 120 inch diameter ?

There is indication they try or planned 120 inch ø mirror or reuse MOL camera system:
USAF insist on Space Shuttle that the Payload bay size is 60 ft long and 15 ft in diameter, also launch from Vandenberg AFB.
I think they had planned Shuttle mission were MOL like camera system is installed in Payload bay.

but final answer on that we get around year 2025-2030, if first document on USAF/NRO Shuttle missions studies are released to the public.

 

[Archibald]

John Logsdon briefly wonders about such hypothesis in his book After Apollo.

 

[blackstar]

I wonder about test mirrors; experimental ones. Did the NRO ever pushed to 120 inch diameter ?

There is indication they try or planned 120 inch ø mirror or reuse MOL camera system:
USAF insist on Space Shuttle that the Payload bay size is 60 ft long and 15 ft in diameter, also launch from Vandenberg AFB.
I think they had planned Shuttle mission were MOL like camera system is installed in Payload bay.

but final answer on that we get around year 2025-2030, if first document on USAF/NRO Shuttle missions studies are released to the public.

No, the shuttle length was set by HEXAGON--it had to be able to carry that. Width was set by NASA requirement, not NRO.

 

[blackstar]

1-Well, 94 inch is KH-11 mirrors... and Hubble, too. Note that the later was to be 120 inch and was cut for costs reasons. Thanks senator Bolland in 1975, for that.

2-NASA certainly draw from spysat experience when planning Hubble lightweight spaceborne mirrors; basically they knew that Perkin Elmers, Kodak ( and Itek eventually) could grind such mirrors. Because NRO.

3-In turn this bring an interesting question: was the KH-11 94 inch the upper limit (and thus Hubble had to follow) or did the military pushed to 120 inch ?

Make no mistake, I do know no spysat ever flew with 120 inch mirrors, not even KH-12 or FIA (= WFIRST 2012 donation to NASA): the later still being 94 inch.

4-I wonder about test mirrors; experimental ones. Did the NRO ever pushed to 120 inch diameter ?

1-Good point. So I would just assume that 94 inches is what they considered for the expanded MOL.

2-It was Kodak that built the KH-11 mirrors. Perkin-Elmer did not have the ability to build the larger mirrors until Hubble came along. I remember back in the 1980s reading an article that I think was in Scientific American where a reporter visited P-E and a manager was saying that the NASA Hubble contract enabled them to build equipment for polishing larger mirrors, which he said would make them competitive for other programs. I wish I had that article. At the time it indicated to me that P-E probably did not make the KH-11 mirrors.

3-They seem to have been making 2.4-meter diameter mirrors since the 1970s now. It makes you wonder what is so magic about that number.

4-There was a multi-mirror project funded in the 1980s that was unclassified and part of the SDI program. I forget the name, but you can look it up. Big thing. I think it's on display at a military facility in Monterey. Moved there in the last decade.

 

[Archibald]

So they went multi-mirrors... just like the MMT, which was made of MOL mirrors, the irony.
And of course Aden Meinel was familiar with the NRO world. And the MMT. Also NASA.
Meinel name reapetedly features in the 09-1969 documents where NASA is interested in MOL technology.

 

[blackstar]

So they went multi-mirrors... just like the MMT, which was made of MOL mirrors, the irony.
And of course Aden Meinel was familiar with the NRO world. And the MMT. Also NASA.
Meinel name reapetedly features in the 09-1969 documents where NASA is interested in MOL technology.

No. I think they considered multi-mirrors. I think they stayed with 2.4-meter mirrors. Note that NRO pursued the Future Imagery Architecture program and then it flopped. When it did, they offered two mirrors to NASA, and they turned out to be 2.4-meter mirrors. I'll repeat this because it's just so interesting: the failed replacement for the KH-11 had the same diameter mirrors. That's worth pondering.

Now bigger mirrors in the same low Earth orbit don't actually improve anything. There's an atmospheric limit to resolution. The only thing that bigger mirrors allow you to do is fly in higher orbits. That can increase lifetime, but it may not be all that attractive. My suspicion is that mirror technology improvements have been in things like mass and other properties (like how they respond to thermal differences). The diameter seems to be a constant.

 

[Archibald]

they considered

That's the appropriate word, indeed. Typing too fast at times. Just like cats, sometimes caffeine has some weird effects on my little self.

The NRO mirrors in the end, kind of come in three sizes
- GAMBIT, 48 inch
- DORIAN, 72 inch
- KENNEN, 94 inch

And then they stopped at 94-inch. And they have stayed there since the mid-70's.

I often wonder (just for the fun of it) : did NASA ever considered a 48-inch, GAMBIT derived space telescope ? They had some kind of "taste" of what these mirrors looked like, since Project UPWARD had them. Put otherwise, I wonder if NASA ever considered UPWARD for astronomy ?

We know that KH-11 and Hubble are loosely related.

We know that there were talks of DORIAN 72-inch mirrors for spaceborne astronomy (plus the MMT later, although ground based and unrelated to NASA).

Might be fun if an "UPWARD for spaceborne astronomy" memo existed somewhere - NASA, Bellcomm, NRO... who knows.

 

[Michel Van]

PDF 760 until 825 from MOL
Deals with Termination of MOL program - Kodak had to stop working on Camera later pay to prepare the MOL Camera for storage
from here the document deals with late reports that "run over" by the cancellation or what to do with hardware or give to NASA
Like PDF 769 that figure out how to use the MOL Acquisition Tracking Scope and other hardware in the Apollo Application Program

PDF 805 deals with MOL Technology use in a "second Skylab"

Also mention of OAO satellite in PDF 771

 

[blackstar]

The NRO mirrors in the end, kind of come in three sizes
- GAMBIT, 48 inch
- DORIAN, 72 inch
- KENNEN, 94 inch

GAMBIT came in two flavors.

 

[Orionblamblam]

NRO has TWO home page with MOL data

DORIAN

and

MOL

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?

 

[Michel Van]

but... anybody know of a good way to download those hundreds of PDFs easily and quickly, rather than clicking on each one manually?

There are software tools for that

 

[blackstar]

PDF 736 from MOL

It might help if, when you reference a document, you also include the date. That helps to understand what is going on. For instance, the above document you link is dated June 6, 1969. Perhaps by no coincidence at all, MOL was canceled on June 7, 1969. So it is possible that this briefing set was created to show to somebody when the program was being considered for cancellation. To be honest, if the program is facing cancellation because of budget pressures, showing up with briefing slides that illustrate all the cool things you could do with even more money is probably a bad move.

I've printed all these out, but have not looked closely at them. However, I did look at this one again and the heading indicates that it was created to show to the Space Task Group that was set up to look at the future of the US space program. That's the same STG that recommended a human mission to Mars, which came out when the Nixon administration was considering dramatic cuts to the NASA budget. Given that, the document is more understandable. Presumably the STG wanted to know what other things MOL could do and how it could be expanded.

Of course, as I noted above, MOL was canceled the next day. My guess is that this briefing was never given to the STG.

 

[Temistocle]

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?

Try HTTrack

 

[Archibald]

PDF 736 from MOL

It might help if, when you reference a document, you also include the date. That helps to understand what is going on. For instance, the above document you link is dated June 6, 1969. Perhaps by no coincidence at all, MOL was canceled on June 7, 1969. So it is possible that this briefing set was created to show to somebody when the program was being considered for cancellation. To be honest, if the program is facing cancellation because of budget pressures, showing up with briefing slides that illustrate all the cool things you could do with even more money is probably a bad move.

I've printed all these out, but have not looked closely at them. However, I did look at this one again and the heading indicates that it was created to show to the Space Task Group that was set up to look at the future of the US space program. That's the same STG that recommended a human mission to Mars, which came out when the Nixon administration was considering dramatic cuts to the NASA budget. Given that, the document is more understandable. Presumably the STG wanted to know what other things MOL could do and how it could be expanded.

Of course, as I noted above, MOL was canceled the next day. My guess is that this briefing was never given to the STG.

Wow, didn't noticed that document until now. It is somewhat "historical" - because it stood at crossroads between MOL (soon to be cancelled), STG, and the coming Space Shuttle.
And Skantze is a name with all kind of interesting credentials in its career. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_A._Skantze