MOL documents declassified!!!!!!!

Earlier this month, the NRO declassified many MOL documents, pictures,
videos, and etc.

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html

I've not had much time yet to look at the gory details, but suffice it
to say that MOL was much more a manned spy satellite than any previous
documents ever indicated. All previous pictures and drawings were
deliberately altered to make the station appear to emphasize other uses.
Some drawings even showed twice the interior (pressurized) volume of MOL
to obscure the fact that most of the station was actually unpressurized
to make room for the very large optics needed for its main mission.
Example reference (from my bookshelf) is Guardians, Strategic
Reconnaissance Satellites by Curtis Peebles, published in 1987, chapter
13, Manned Orbiting Laboratory (i.e. MOL).

The single pressurized section of MOL was occupied mostly by spotting
telescopes (two, one for each astronaut) and work stations for them.
The main film camera, developing equipment, and even a microscope (set
up to compare developed film to reference images) seem to have taken up
much of the pressurized volume.

I encourage all space history buffs to have a look at the recently
released pictures, video, and documents. The documents number 825
scanned PDFs with very little redaction (IMHO based on the few documents
I've skimmed so far).

Any references to the resolution of the large telescope are redacted (as
the NRO has done previously for all other declassified documents).
Although this is quite silly since the theoretical resolution can easily
be calculated based on the information in the documents and a few
assumptions. The resolution of the spotting telescopes (which are much,
much smaller) is listed and depicted in at least one illustration. Its
maximum resolution is measured in feet (3.5 feet being the smallest
resolution I remember seeing on the illustration) so that targets can be
assessed and signed a priority. The computer on MOL would then image
only those targets given a high priority in order to conserve film and
to focus on any "interesting" targets.

Jeff
p.s. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the lecture at the USAF Museum
earlier this month that was the kick-off event for this massive
declassification. I was at my youngest daughter's choir concert that
night. :-)
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Jeff Findley wrote:
p.s. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the lecture at the USAF
Museum earlier this month that was the kick-off event for this
massive declassification. I was at my youngest daughter's choir
concert that night. :-)

Priorities man, priorities

rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 6:11:23 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
I've not had much time yet to look at the gory details, but suffice it
to say that MOL was much more a manned spy satellite than any previous
documents ever indicated.

USAF version of Almaz!

Any word about an on-board machine gun? Pat would've loved that!

Dave

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 6:11:23 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
I've not had much time yet to look at the gory details, but suffice it
to say that MOL was much more a manned spy satellite than any previous
documents ever indicated.

USAF version of Almaz!

Pretty much. It's too bad there isn't much MOL hardware that survives
to display in the USAF Museum. They do have a Gemini B on display (with
a hatch in it, for use with MOL), but the only other piece of real MOL
hardware that I've seen on display there was a food dispenser (not
terribly exciting since it was little more than a fancy metal can
storage and dispensing mechanism), which I've not seen on display since
they moved the Gemini B to its current location.

When my daughter and I were there a week ago, we overheard some museum
employees talk about moving the space exhibits that are currently in a
hallway that will soon be opened up since it connects to the newly built
fourth hangar.

Any word about an on-board machine gun? Pat would've loved that!

Nothing that I've seen so far.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
p.s. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the lecture at the USAF
Museum earlier this month that was the kick-off event for this
massive declassification. I was at my youngest daughter's choir
concert that night. :-)

Priorities man, priorities

Yep. I've read a summary of what was discussed and it didn't sound
terribly exciting, but it would have been interesting to see the actual
people on stage talking about the program (e.g. Bob Crippin, Richard
Truly, Karol Bobko, and Albert Crews).

According to the link below, the audio from this was recorded and will
be made available online, so I'll have to make time for that.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Lectures.aspx

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer