is a SNAP reactor, Label on reaktor US AEC = United States Atomic Energy Commission,Barrington Bond said:Could be a SNAP reactor - I have a cutaway I can scan and post later.
Model 176 ?avatar said:in all this we must also pay our respects to Model 176 that would have served to replenish the MOL.
that new for meavatar said:the follow on from FDL-7MC ... that is what model 176 was
i prefer the good old escape tower on top of Gemini Bavatar said:yeah but bailing out at that altitude .. all the way to earth or to our space glider .. which one would you prefer?
The orientation is wrong. The camera did not look out the side, it looked straight down the tube. That way they did not have to carry a large heavy reflecting mirror. Think telescope, not periscope.archipeppe said:Really interesting, and also previously unseen, pictures.
Many, many thanks Barrington!!!
As usual, I enclose my personal contribution to this topic.
I was referring to the nice illustrations by Mr. Chiarra. They are based upon the drawings on the GlobalSecurity website, which are wrong. GS assumed an image reflecting mirror, but none was needed for MOL. An image reflecting mirror was only required when there was something preventing the camera from looking straight out the end of the spacecraft. For instance, additional reentry vehicles or the upper stage.Barrington Bond said:Considering these are mostly the public image of MOL and not it's actual mission then perhaps a bit of misinformation is likely?! :
19651967 March 20
- MOL project delays, cost growth. -
Weight growth of the MOL station forced the Air Force to consider upgrading of the Titan booster. Stretching of the booster core or use of 156 inch solid rocket motors was considered. The Air Force also dithered as to whether to compete the Titan booster contract. Eight months were spent making the decision, and at the end of it all the first manned MOL flight was delayed to 1970 and the projected total cost increased from $ 1.5 billion to $ 2.2 billion.
blackstar said:I was referring to the nice illustrations by Mr. Chiarra. They are based upon the drawings on the GlobalSecurity website, which are wrong. GS assumed an image reflecting mirror, but none was needed for MOL. An image reflecting mirror was only required when there was something preventing the camera from looking straight out the end of the spacecraft. For instance, additional reentry vehicles or the upper stage.
MOL was built like Hubble.
Responding to each of your points:archipeppe said:Let me disagree with you in some points:
First of all MOL was not "built" (at the actual level of knowledge) but it was only realized in mock-up unit.
Second the Globalsecurity drawings are by Charles P. Vick really exstimeated and serious professional very well prepared researcher and, last but not least, a skillfull drawer.
Third, the MOL optics technologies was heavily based upon the KH-8 satellite, who had a mirror reflector to acquire images.
Fourth, what you refer is that the last generations of "KeyHole" (KH) satellites are closer to HST (Hubble Space Telescope) or, better, the last one is based upon KH technology.
can it be that the Agena was used for reboost the Spysat during its 275 days lifetime ?The KH-8 required an image reflecting mirror because the spacecraft had an Agena at one end and a satellite recovery vehicle at the other end (later versions had two SRVs).
The image reflecting mirror was required to bring light into the tube. But if you take off the end of the tube, you can look straight out.
1-Yes. KH-7 started with a General Electric developed Orbital Control Vehicle (or OCV), but still used the Agena as an upper stage to put it in orbit. During the first few missions (four, I believe) there was some concern about the ability of the OCV to perform the mission, so the Agena was left attached for the operational stage, then detached, and OCV did all the attitude control. This was a bad omen for General Electric, because it demonstrated that the Agena was capable. However, the real issue was whether the Agena could provide the pointing accuracy required. Lockheed demonstrated that it could, and during the upgrade to the KH-8, the OCV was eliminated and the Agena provided not only boost into orbit, but also on-orbit attitude and control as well as support (power, telemetry, etc.). Over the years, the KH-8's lifetime was increased, primarily through modifications of the Agena. Agena was vital for the KH-8 mission.Michel Van said:can it be that the Agena was used for reboost the Spysat during its 275 days lifetime ?
(its Low orbit is 100 miles by 150 miles)
so it need reflecting mirror because there a Agena in the back
So far i know was MOL a Manned version of KH-9 Spysat aka KH-10