CLEARANCE: Top Secret
- Sep 26, 2008
- Reaction score
Most of that refers to satellite-to-satellite photography. That's the capability that they deleted. I'm 99% sure that the MMU sentence they deleted refers to its ability to be used to inspect Soviet satellites close up. The MMU got transferred to NASA's Gemini program instead.Michel Van said:Thx for Link, George Allegrezza
It Interesting to what is Blacked in Text
of course the Resolution of MOL optical system, because it was used on next generation spy sats
but this quite puzzling
P-7-- Remote Maneuvering Unit. To evaluate the astronaut's ability to control the Remote Maneuvering Unit (RMU) the rest of sentences is black out
mention of A memo Between Generals about MOL, but the File reference number in black out
A name of a NRO Comptroller is black out in the entire text.
Department of Defense would undertake to develop MOL with a BLACK OUT capability, either manned or unmanned.
They also agreed that a flight demonstration of the unmanned system would be conducted nine months after the first manned flight.
MOL, it said, would produce photos containing sufficient detail to determine the performance characteristics, capabilities and
limitations of important enemy weapons. It also could provide intelligence of BLACK OUT and contribute "to the monitoring of any arms limitaticn agreement."
Steve Pace said:It's kind of funny how fast the Skylab orbiter was thrown together and how it became a MOL of its own. -SP
I quote byeman, the end of Apollo programme was essentially a political issue (due too complex reasons to be explained now).Byeman said:
On Monday look at The Space Review. I'll have an article there about MOL's cost overruns and schedule slips. It was started as a $1.5 billion program, but by 1969 one estimate was that it would cost $3.1 billion. And the launch date for the first manned flight had slipped by 3.5 years to mid-1972.archipeppe said:I quote byeman, the end of Apollo programme was essentially a political issue (due too complex reasons to be explained now).Byeman said:
The start of MOL was also a political issue wanted by McNamara to cease the X-20 programme, while the end of MOL was due essentially to technical reasons (the unmanned satellites CORONA and the upcoming HEXAGON) had almost the same performances of MOL/DORIAN without the complication (and the the cost) of having manned crew on orbit rather than having a good ground segment with skilled operators on Earth.
There is no sense repating the same question all over again and again.
Byeman said:No it would not, just stop with this. Why do you keep repeating this?
Because i have write this at the beginning,BEFORE that i have remember that was an other topic on this subjct (that I went to resume).archipeppe said:There is no sense repating the same question all over again and again.
Right.Was a proposal,but NASA was not interested.
MORL was two very different proposals mind you. One was based on using the MOL as a basis and a Titan as a launch vehice, (with the assumption it would 'compliment' the USAF MOL program) and the other was actually a Saturn-1 (Apollo Lunar Adapter Module section being a 'dry' lab and using part of the SIVB as a 'wet' lab expansion) based system that NASA prefered. One major reason being that the Saturn MORL could use either Gemini or Apollo for servicing and crew transfer while the Titan MORL could use Gemini but not Apollo without extensive, (and expensive) modifiction.MORL was from begin a dry workshop and to be launch with Saturn IB (Saturn V for higher orbit or Mars fly by)
it had to use spent S-IVB stage either as counterweight for Rotation for artificial Gravitation experiment or as test bed for wet workshop.
What happen to MORL is unclear to me, but NASA switch to S-IVB Wet workshop under AAP, i think it's because Apollo hardware since MORL used Gemini hardware
Eh, not so much really. Consider for a moment that the MOL was "low-cost" BECAUSE it was also low capability compared to what the Saturn/SIVB system. Whereas Skylab hosted three crews over 24 weeks between 1973 and 1874 ONE (1) Titan MOL/MORL would have supported only ONE (1) crew for around 20-30 days before having to return to Earth and expend the Titan-MORL.It's interesting speculation what had happen if NASA took MOL as "low cost" Alternative to AAP after Capitol Hill cut founding in 1967 budget.
but that for section for What If and Speculations in this forum