Center for the Study of 

National Reconnaissance

JANUARY 2015
ii

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

Editorial Staff

Editor Robert A. McDonald, Ph.D.

Managing Editor Patrick D. Widlake

Editorial Support Sharon K. Moreno

Design and layout Charles P. Glover

The Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance (CSNR) publishes National Reconnaissance—

Journal of the Discipline and Practice for the information, education, and use of the broader national 

security community, especially those government and contractor personnel who are involved with national 

reconnaissance. Our objective is to promote dialogue among these professionals and to identify lessons for 

them by facilitating a synthesis of the technical, operational, and policy components that define and shape the 

enterprise of national reconnaissance.

Disclaimer: The information in National Reconnaissance may not necessarily reflect the official views of 

the National Reconnaissance Office, the Intelligence Community, the Department of Defense, or any other 

U.S. Government entity. Nothing in the content should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government 

endorsement of the factual statements or interpretation.

Contributions: We on the editorial staff invite authors from the NRO and the extended Intelligence 

Community—both current government and contractor employees, as well as alums—to submit scholarly articles, 

commentaries, and book reviews for publication consideration. Your articles for National Reconnaissance may 

address any doctrinal, theoretical, operational, or historical aspect of the discipline and practice of national 

reconnaissance. 

Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance (CSNR): The CSNR is an independent NRO research 

body that reports to the NRO Deputy Director, Business Plans and Operations. Our primary objective is to 

ensure that NRO leadership has the analytical framework and historical context to make effective policy and 

programmatic decisions. We accomplish our mission by promoting the study, dialogue, and understanding of 

the discipline, practice, and history of national reconnaissance. We chronicle the past, analyze the present, 

search for lessons for the future, and identify models of excellence that are timeless.

Correspondence: You should direct all correspondence related to National Reconnaissance to:

National Reconnaissance Office 

Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance 

14675 Lee Road

Chantilly, VA 20151

703-488-4733

Internet: csnr@nro.mil
1

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

Solving Problems on the “Edge of What was Possible”: Conceiving 

Solutions to the Most Difficult Intelligence Challenges—the 2011 Pioneers of 

National Reconnaissance

Patrick D. Widlake

Author’s Note: On February 3, 2012, the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office 

(DNRO) Bruce Carlson honored Dr. Thomas A. Brackey, Dr. Michael N. Parker, Col. Joseph 

J. Eash, III, Dr. John W. Shipley, and, Mr. Richard C. Van Wagoner as the 2011 Pioneers of 

National Reconnaissance. In a ceremony held at NRO headquarters in Chantilly, VA, Carlson 

presented each of the Pioneers with an engraved plaque and Director of National Intelligence, the 

Honorable James Clapper, gave the keynote speech. At the ceremony’s conclusion, the organization 

affixed medallions for each honoree in the NRO’s Pioneer Hall, which now pays lasting tribute to 

88 engineers, scientists, and program managers who have earned this highest honor in the field of 

national reconnaissance. “Pioneer Day” 2012 culminated the NRO’s commemoration of its 50th 

anniversary since Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric and Acting Director of Central 

Intelligence Charles P. Cabell co-signed a Memorandum of Agreement on 06 September 1961 that 

established a National Reconnaissance Program (NRP) and a covert NRO to manage it. Clapper 

saluted the 2011 Pioneers by observing that 1961 was the year when newly inaugurated President 

John F. Kennedy called on Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what 

you can do for your country,” words the Pioneers “clearly took to heart.” The DNI called them 

“innovators” and “risk takers.”

Established in 2000, the Pioneer of National Reconnaissance recognition event is an annually 

recurring ceremony for individuals who have made significant and lasting contributions to the 

discipline and practice of national reconnaissance—pioneering innovations that changed national 

reconnaissance’s direction and scope. The selection process is rigorous, with a selection board of former 

senior leaders and subject matter experts winnowing as many as a dozen or more final nominations 

down to typically two or three recommended Pioneer candidates for the DNRO’s consideration, 

ensuring that the DNRO selects only the best of the best. The Director of the Center of the Study of 

National Reconnaissance (D/CSNR) Robert A. McDonald—whose organization manages the NRO 

Pioneer Recognition Program—called the collective impact of the Pioneers “beyond measure,” for their 

contributions enabled “spectacular mission success and made it possible for the U.S. government and 

military to obtain critical intelligence information not otherwise available.”

In addition to a formal ceremony, Pioneer Day activities include interviews with the Pioneers and 

their attending family members. The 2011 Pioneers’ interviews discussed their careers and specific 

programs they supported—the names and details of which remain classified—and the significance of 

their contributions to U.S. national security. They also reflected on lessons from their careers and 

experiences that helped shape them as individuals. 
2

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

I based the following article on the Pioneers’ recollections and insights expressed in their oral 

interviews and other written material they provided.

The 2011 Pioneers of National Reconnaissance—Dr. Thomas A. Brackey; Dr. Michael 

N. Parker; Colonel Joseph J. Eash, III; Dr. John W. Shipley; and, Mr. Richard C. Van 

Wagoner—conceived and developed innovative solutions to some of the most difficult 

intelligence collection challenges the U.S. faced from the Cold War era of the 1960s 

to the ’80s, all the way through the post-9/11 years. Working alongside teams of space 

industry contractors and government program managers, these five individuals produced 

unique technological capabilities to answer some fundamental intelligence questions of 

senior United States leadership—e.g., What are the military capabilities and intentions of 

the adversary? Where are the adversary’s forces located? The systems and applications the 

Pioneers produced dramatically improved U.S. national reconnaissance capability and 

bolstered the country’s national security. Presented with a daunting challenge, but also 

given the rare opportunity, to create systems that were state-of-the-art and beyond—as 

Shipley observed, “to work on the edge of what was possible”—the 2011 Pioneers made 

groundbreaking contributions that forever changed the direction and scope of national 

reconnaissance as a discipline and had a lasting impact on the National Reconnaissance 

Office (NRO) overhead reconnaissance mission. Their accomplishments continue to 

influence NRO system development and capability in the second decade of the 21st century.

The 2011 Pioneer Contributions 

As a newly minted Ph.D. engineer working for Hughes Aircraft Company in Los 

Angeles, California, Thomas Brackey pioneered critical breakthroughs in space-based 

communications technology, including first-of-its-kind hardware, to make possible the 

collection and dissemination of space-based intelligence in near real time. As chief of 

the NRO’s “Special Staff,” Joseph Eash pioneered the innovative application of special 

technologies and led the way in the development of new, highly sensitive NRO missions 

for aircraft and satellite systems. In the early-to-mid-1970s, while “moonlighting” on 

“interesting projects” (Parker, 2012) at the Electromagnetic Systems Laboratories (ESL, 

founded by former Secretary of Defense William Perry), Michael Parker pioneered 

tracking and geolocation techniques—demonstrating the first use of time difference of 

arrival/frequency difference of arrival geolocation from space, a technology at the center 

of 21st-century intelligence collection missions (Pioneer citations, 2012).

Long-time Harris Corporation engineer John Shipley pioneered the concept 

development, architectural approach, and initial system definition—applying his expertise 

in antenna design, adaptive signal processing, and structural dynamic modeling—for 

successful development of a revolutionary space-based NRO collection system. Finally, 

a manager of and subject matter expert for the NRO’s space-based signals intelligence 

(sigint) collection systems, Richard Van Wagoner pioneered antenna and system design 

and the evaluation of system performance critical to the NRO sigint mission (Pioneer 

citations, 2012).
3

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

Models of Intellectual Curiosity and Creativity, with the Drive to Push Beyond

Frontiers of Space Technology

Although a unique group of individuals who accomplished unique technical 

breakthroughs, the 2011 Pioneers possess some similar, significant personal characteristics 

and had related professional experiences that affected their technical approaches and 

contributed to their success. They all have had a life-long interest in engineering—which 

they chose to explore in the focused, specialized national security environment—and are 

expert problem solvers. They are highly educated and technically creative, which enabled 

them to conceptualize pioneering designs and to propose new applications. In making 

program decisions, they were unwaveringly focused on their technical goal and unafraid 

to take risks, for they possessed unshakeable faith in the ideas that no task was impossible, 

no technical challenge too difficult to overcome, and even seemingly impossible programs 

presented an opportunity to make a contribution. As team leaders and managers, they 

harnessed the talents of other dedicated individuals to accomplish a unified mission. 

The 2011 Pioneers are even connected by their similar ages and professional experiences. 

They were all born between 1935 and 1943—depression and war-era babies—and each 

began his national reconnaissance career within an 11-year span from 1969 to 1980, 

a decade or so after the beginnings of strategic national reconnaissance. They rightly 

belong not to the first-generation of national reconnaissance founders and pioneers, but 

to a successive generation of innovators who built upon the legacy of proven success left 

by their predecessors and the advances of formative national reconnaissance programs. 

By expanding upon well-honed engineering processes and following creative inspiration 

in their own programs, the 2011 Pioneers engineered revolutionary technological 

breakthroughs that re-defined space-based intelligence capabilities (McDonald, 2002).

Individuals Who are Expert Problem Solvers Capable of Conceptualizing Unique 

Solutions 

Brackey, Eash, Parker, Shipley, and Van Wagoner were individuals who enjoyed 

tackling complex technical challenges. They were motivated by a thirst for knowledge 

and a relentless drive to find innovative technological solutions. All five were educated 

and trained as engineers, and they effectively led—and in some cases managed—teams of 

engineers and scientists, all of whom were tasked with transforming a set of intelligence 

requirements into a unique space or aerial payload capable of reliably delivering signals 

or imagery data, for example, for analysts’ exploitation and ultimately decisionmakers’ 

consumption. Brackey observed that his hardest challenge—“pushing the boundaries of 

the state-of-the-art” (CSNR Reference Collection)—also gave him his greatest satisfaction. 

Another NRO Pioneer Paul Mayhew (class of 2000) could have been speaking for the 2011 

group when he wrote, “Like most engineers, my goals were to solve problems, to create 

and design systems, and to build something of use and significance” (2002, p. 117; CSNR 

Reference Collection). 
4

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

Individuals with Higher Education and Specialized Knowledge—Supplemented by 

Fundamentals—Critical for National Reconnaissance Success

Three of the 2011 Pioneers hold Ph.D.s and all five have at least master’s degrees in 

engineering fields. They all acknowledge that to even understand, let alone conceive 

and contribute to, complex national reconnaissance technologies, one must have a high 

degree of expertise in very specialized fields. In addition, the 2011 Pioneers credited their 

success to more basic developmental factors and influences, i.e., fundamental educational 

competencies and principles, and for some the benefit of having a career mentor. Shipley 

recalled he took many math and physics classes to immerse himself in fundamental skills 

and concepts that must be second nature to provide the analytic framework for solving 

the toughest engineering problems. Brackey advised young engineers contemplating 

an assignment with the NRO to acquire a “down-to-earth technical background.” Eash 

stressed the importance of having a mentor who could manage one’s career for him, 

freeing the individual to concentrate on the program’s requirements rather than its impact 

on promotion (CSNR Reference Collection). 

Individuals Who are Goal Oriented and Regard Every Job as an Opportunity

The 2011 Pioneers’ fundamental natures are such that they are not daunted by uniquely 

difficult work. They refused to concede the possibility of failure on their programs—even 

when confronted by challenges for which there was little precedent, no parallel, and 

tremendous uncertainty over whether a solution was possible at all—and concentrated 

their entire efforts on accomplishing national reconnaissance mission goals. In Beyond 

Expectations—Building an American National Reconnaissance Capability (ASPRS, 2002), 

Robert A. McDonald cited the Pioneers’ tendency to be goal oriented as one of their 

principal characteristics. The Pioneers, McDonald wrote, “consistently focused on the 

goal in a resolute way,” (2002, p. xxv), and they believed absolutely in their ability to 

solve any problem they encountered. The 2011 Pioneers steadfastly believed in success 

for which, like their predecessors, they were willing to make risky decisions because the 

intelligence stakes were high and the reward was worth jeopardizing their professional 

reputations. The Pioneers’ credo might best be described as “failure is not an option.” 

They understood how critical their work was to U.S. national security. They believed that 

failed program initiatives put the country at greater risk. Despite being in a situation that 

would cause most people inordinate amounts of stress, the 2011 Pioneers—like many of 

their colleagues—instead felt privileged to have been given the opportunity. Brackey noted 

that the “psychic income [of his work] is extremely high”; Eash saw every job he had as “an 

opportunity to make a contribution”; and Shipley, in accepting his Pioneer honor, said 

“the opportunity...that, in itself, is honor enough” (MSC, 2012; McDonald, 2002; CSNR 

Reference Collection).
5

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

Individuals Who Leveraged Their Merit with Teamwork and Benefitted From Astute 

Management 

Although the 2011 Pioneers were honored for individual discoveries and accomplishments, 

they could not have achieved complete success independently. All worked at some time or 

other with teams of other individuals—both government and contractor employees—and 

leveraged the strengths of individuals within the team. In The 17 Indispensable Laws of 

Teamwork Workbook (2003), New York Times bestselling author John C. Maxwell labels this 

approach “the law of the niche:” on the most successful teams, all team members have 

a place, and the manager or team leader places team members in positions where they 

have the most value. In addition to leading by their brilliant examples, the 2011 Pioneers 

benefitted from the astute direction of able Program Managers and accomplished senior 

leaders and scientific advisors.1

 Parker attributed his achievements to “the contribution 

over a number of years of brilliant people, both contractor and government”. Eash said “... 

[I] could not have done what I did without the support of some really great leaders, like 

the DNRO, who backed me to the hilt” (MSC, 2012). Eash also noted the NRO gave him 

staffing flexibility to surround himself with “the smartest, most energetic, most wonderful 

people” with whom he believed he could not fail (CSNR Reference Collection).

Individuals Who Made Revolutionary Advances by Building on Past Organizational 

Successes 

It has become cliché to quote Isaac Newton’s observation “If I have seen further, it 

is by standing on the shoulders of giants,” but having the first-generation Pioneers’ 

models of success undoubtedly contributed to what successive generations of NRO 

Pioneers were able to accomplish. In national reconnaissance, like so many areas in life, 

success demonstrably breeds success. The 2011 Pioneers all came of age as space-based 

intelligence collection was born; each was between 18 and 26 years old in 1961 when 

the country established the NRO. These individuals gravitated toward nascent national 

security programs more than a decade after seminal events in the 1950s had spurred their 

predecessors to seek careers in space: e.g., the surprise outbreak of the Korean War in 

1950; the U.S.S.R.’s development and testing of a hydrogen bomb in 1953, years ahead 

of Western predictions; the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956; the world’s first ICBM 

launch in August 1957, which blasted off from Tyuratam, not from the Pacific Missile 

Test Range or Cape Canaveral;2

 and, finally, the satellite launches of Sputnik I and II 

in October 1957. Those events had galvanized a 1950s generation of U.S. engineers and 

scientists who would ultimately develop and operate American space programs, and make 

lasting national reconnaissance and intelligence contributions. That generation was the 

1 The NRO programs for many years benefitted from the advice and guidance of very accomplished individuals in 

scientific and engineering disciplines, larger-than-life personalities like Edwin Land, Richard Garwin, Sidney Drell, 

and others, who met periodically as part of the National Reconnaissance Panel of the President’s Science Advisory 

Committee (PSAC)—informally referred to as “the Land Panel”—to review the technical merits of proposed national 

reconnaissance programs (McDonald, 2002).

2 U.S. launch sites in California and Florida, respectively. The Air Force later renamed the Pacific Missile Test Range 

Vandenberg Air Force Base.
6

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

genius behind the earliest groundbreaking satellite programs: Corona, Grab (Galactic 

Radiation and Background), Poppy, and Gambit, to name a few.3

 The 2011 Pioneers built 

upon the capabilities and proven engineering processes established in those programs. 

Van Wagoner said he and the other 2011 Pioneers got there “on the backs of everybody 

we worked with” (MSC, 2012).

The 2011 Pioneers exemplify the NRO’s historical ability to attract, recruit, and develop 

some of the country’s best and brightest engineers and managers, but their intellectual 

curiosity and powers might not have been enough had they not also possessed an uncommon 

set of personal attributes that enabled them to succeed in the demanding, pressure-packed, 

high-risk, high-reward, national security environment. Unlike professional skills gained 

in maturity through training and on-the-job performance, there are more fundamental 

traits that individuals develop in their formative years: a strong work ethic; belief in the 

value of diligent study, meticulous preparation, and prudent time management; loyalty to 

people and institutions beyond one’s self; and an optimism that manifests in the desire 

to fix things and solve problems. These five individuals, though they came from different 

walks of life, appear to have developed their unquenchable curiosity and desire to solve 

problems, and their tenacious ability to focus on a mission goal, while growing up as 

children of what some have labeled America’s “greatest generation,” the generation of 

parents who instilled in their children the belief that every opportunity was rare and 

special and not to be squandered. 

The next section relates some of the Pioneers’ life events and early lessons learned that 

set them on a path toward a career in national reconnaissance.

The Formative Years

Dr. Thomas A. Brackey—Values instilled through manual labor carried over into 

national security work.

Thomas A. Brackey was born 11 June 1938 on his family’s farm near Nortonville, 

Kentucky, and raised in the surrounding, quiet farming community. The outbreak of 

World War II separated Brackey from his parents, who both supported the war effort—his 

father in the U.S. Army, and his mother as an administrative assistant in war materiel 

plants—and young Tom lived with his grandparents, seeing his mother only every couple 

of weeks during those years. Upon the war’s conclusion, the family reunited and Brackey 

lived with his parents until he finished school. As a youth, he worked on the family 

farm, which though successful, was remarkably old fashioned in its setup and operation, 

and thus in diametric contrast to the high-tech world in which Brackey would eventually 

distinguish himself. He recalls milking cows and planting and harvesting vegetables in 

fields that on his family’s farm they tended with a team of mules. The manual labor, 

3 Corona was the unacknowledged program name of the world’s first photoreconnaissance satellite—the scientific 

world knew it as Discoverer; Grab, which collected electronic intelligence (elint), was the first reconnaissance 

satellite and had an unclassified solar radiation mission, SolRad; Poppy was Grab’s much more advanced follow-on 

elint satellite; and Gambit was the first high-resolution imagery satellite. 
7

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

Brackey believes, instilled in him “an early understanding of the value of work and of 

meeting one’s commitments,” and the planting and harvesting schedule taught him 

“concepts of time management and the necessity of flexibility and prioritization” (Brackey, 

06 August 2012 email communication with author).

After graduating high school, Brackey attended Ohio State University, where he earned 

a bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering, achieving distinguished 

graduate status along the way. “[I had] extraordinarily deep and broad training at Ohio 

State,” Brackey recalled. “I could not have taken a better curriculum for coming to work in 

the space industry than [if] I had planned it, which I didn’t” (CSNR Reference Collection). 

While at college, Brackey gained his first exposure to classified, national security work, first 

in a summer job as an engineering intern at the Pike County, Ohio uranium enrichment 

facility—directed by the Atomic Energy Commission and for which job Brackey was 

required to pass a complete background investigation—and later as a graduate student 

when he obtained a secret clearance to do research work. He wrote, “I learned a great 

deal...about the means necessary to protect sensitive elements of our national priority 

programs” (Brackey, email communication with author, 06 August 2012).

With his advanced degrees in hand, Brackey interviewed for engineering positions. One 

company, the Hughes Aircraft Corporation, impressed him with the professionalism of 

its employees that he met on his interview visit. Despite some misgivings about moving 

to Los Angeles—home to traffic, smog, and Hollywood, and a very different environment 

from his Midwestern upbringing—he eagerly accepted a job with Hughes. He did not know 

at the time how Hughes’ work supported the national security of the country. Neither did 

he realize the career he was about to embark upon and the extraordinary opportunities to 

advance technology that awaited him (CSNR Reference Collection).

Col. Joseph J. Eash, III—Rigorous academic study a preparation for a future career.

Joseph J. Eash, III, was born 15 January 1938 in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. He 

recalled growing up in a heavily industrialized area that nevertheless featured open land 

with hills for climbing, and rivers and streams for swimming and playing in. It was an 

enjoyable place to spend one’s childhood, and Eash lived there until he was 13, when his 

father accepted an engineering job in Beaver, Pennsylvania and moved the family there. 

Eash’s father had overcome multiple challenges: Joseph J. Eash I, Eash’s grandfather, 

had died when Joseph Jr. was just 14. At the time of his only child’s birth, Joseph Jr. 

worked as a chauffeur while attending night school to study engineering, eventually 

earning his degree through Carnegie Tech. Eash later followed in his father’s footsteps—“I 

probably picked engineering because he was an engineer and that was all I knew” (CSNR 

Reference Collection)—by studying Electrical Engineering at Grove City College, a small 

institution in western Pennsylvania with rigorous academic standards that prepared him 

well for his future career. Grove City had one other important component to Eash’s career 

development: an Air Force Reserve Officer Training Course (ROTC), through which Eash 

joined the U.S. military (CSNR Reference Collection).
8

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

During Eash’s years at Grove City College (1955-1959), an event happened that would 

affect not only his future career, but also would impact U.S. national security concerns 

and help shape the future direction of the American space program: the Soviet Union 

successfully launched the world’s first satellite, Sputnik I, on 04 October 1957. Eash 

remembered “everyone was concerned with Sputnik and [that] the Russians were going to 

beat us” [in the space race]. With the formation of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) in 1958, the country committed to a civil space program that 

President John F. Kennedy predicted in 1961 would land a man on the moon within 

the decade. By the time of the Apollo 11 mission in July 1969, there was another space 

sector that had already achieved success throughout the decade: the national security 

space sector, at the apex of which stood the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). Even 

before Kennedy’s inauguration, this American space program had successfully launched 

and operated four intelligence satellites—two sigint satellites in the Grab satellite program, 

and two imagery satellites in the Corona film-return, photoreconnaissance program. Like 

the public in the formative years of national reconnaissance, Grove City College student 

Joe Eash knew nothing about intelligence satellites, but that was soon to change. In his 

sophomore year, he obtained a job with the Westinghouse Corporation in one of its 

nuclear power-generating plants, for which he required a security clearance, giving him 

his first exposure to classified material and the national security environment in which he 

would work for much of the remainder of his career (CSNR Reference Collection). 

Dr. Michael N. Parker—Small-town supportive community spurred accomplishment. 

Michael N. Parker was born 10 January 1943 in St. Augustine, Florida. Like Brackey, 

Parker grew up in a small, farming community with “only one stop light in the entire 

[Flagler] county” (Parker, 2012). Having experienced the challenges of depression-era 

Alabama as children, Parker’s parents had relocated to Florida as adults, and worked as 

rural letter carriers in a close-knit, conservative community.

Parker’s parents encouraged and supported him in his education, and he read 

voraciously, developing an avid interest in science fiction, obtained a ham radio license,4

and generally excelled in school. One summer during Michael’s high school years, his 

parents sent him to study electronics at the Mary Karl vocational school, where he was a 

classmate with “Korean War vets on the G.I. bill” (Parker, 2012). His mother and father 

later funded his university education (and his brother’s) at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology (M.I.T.), at a considerable cost burden for two public sector employees.

“I did not realize how lucky I was and how supportive this small farm community of 

modest means had been until later when my children were in school,” Parker wrote. “The 

1960 graduating class for the entire county was only 22 seniors. . .[but] when several of us 

requested a calculus class and were able to recruit 8 students, the school board authorized 

the class” (Parker, 2012). It was the first time the Flagler County school system had offered 

calculus as part of its curriculum, and it demonstrated the supportive nature of Parker’s 

classmates and the school administrators. He would discover years later at a reunion that, 

4 After Sputnik I launched, Parker tried for hours with his home equipment to hear the satellite’s innocuous—yet 

earthshaking—20 MHz beeps. 
9

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

of the 22 graduating seniors, nearly all had gone on to college, two had earned Ph.D.’s 

in science, one had earned a master’s degree in electrical engineering, one had become a 

lawyer, and two others had become licensed nurses.

After Parker earned a bachelor’s of science in Electrical Engineering (E.E.) at M.I.T., 

he furthered his education at Stanford University, earning an E.E. master’s degree in 

1966. His first foray into Intelligence Community (IC) work was as an analyst with 

the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Langley, Virginia. After nearly two years, he 

realized his true calling was engineering, and he resigned from CIA to take a job with 

ESL in Sunnyvale, California, where he analyzed the Soviet antiballistic missile (ABM) 

radar systems (Parker, 2012). 

Dr. John W. Shipley—A brother’s advice helped establish a solid educational foundation.

John W. Shipley was born 23 December 1942 in Washington, D.C. His father was an 

instrument maker at the Department of Agriculture Experiment Station in Greenbelt, 

MD, and his mother was an elementary school teacher. John spent much of his youth 

analyzing and trying to fix the motley collection of boats, cars, and motorcycles that his 

two older brothers managed to acquire. These activities spawned his early interest in 

engineering that became his life-long passion. Shipley believes that, had he been forced to 

study any other discipline, he likely would not have gone to college at all (Shipley, 31 July 

2012 email communication with author).

As it was, he enrolled at the Georgia Institute of Technology (now Georgia Tech 

University—known by alumni as “the M.I.T. of the South”), where he originally planned 

to study to be an aeronautical engineer. Shipley’s older brother, Bill, who was a manager 

at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL),5

 persuaded him that he would benefit more from 

studying a discipline with as much math and physics classes as he could handle. Bill 

Shipley reasoned that companies would pay to train their employees on how to design 

something, but would not pay educational assistance for additional classes in the “basics.” 

John Shipley consequently changed his major to Engineering Science and Mechanics, 

which allowed him to take more math and physics classes than would be required of a 

standard engineering course of study (Shipley, 2012 email communication to author). 

“My education,” Shipley said, “gave me a view of things that was much different from 

most people. As you synthesize, you can analyze” (CSNR Reference Collection). 

5 The JPL is a major National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) laboratory located in Pasadena, California, 

specializing in advanced sensor development for deep space research. The JPL began in the 1930s as a series of test 

launches in the Pasadena area by some rocket enthusiasts, including Frank Malina, a student at the California Institute 

of Technology’s (CalTech’s) Guggenheim Aeronautical Lab, who would one day direct JPL. A Caltech professor, 

Theodore Von Karman encouraged the group, and in 1943, the group obtained funding for the first JPL facility; Von 

Karman became its first director. Initially, the laboratory’s biggest “customer” during World War II was the U.S. Army 

Air Corps. In 1957-58, JPL collaborated with the U.S. Army’s Ballistic Missile Agency in Huntsville, Alabama to 

assemble a 4-stage rocket used to launch the first U.S. satellite, Explorer 1, on 31 January 1958. In December of that 

year, the Army formally transferred JPL to NASA, then the newly created civil space agency (JPL, 2012). 
10

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

Shipley earned his Ph.D. at age 27, and in 1971 he began his professional career with 

the Martin Company in Orlando, Florida, where he did detailed analysis and simulation 

on the Patriot missile program. Although related to his future space work, Shipley found 

missile analysis to be different from his later satellite analysis because, with missiles, “your 

whole life is over in about a minute”. Shipley stayed with Martin for nine years before 

joining the Harris Corporation where he launched—no pun intended—his still continuing 

career in national reconnaissance (CSNR Reference Collection).

Mr. Richard C. Van Wagoner—Engineering appeal proved stronger than interest in flight.

Richard C. Van Wagoner was born 18 June 1935 in Washington, D.C., and he and his 

brother grew up on a tobacco farm in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. His father was a naval 

veteran who worked multiple jobs to support the family, and who could design, build, 

or repair just about anything. He designed and installed a generator and wiring to bring 

electricity to their farm, which was more than a mile from the nearest power lines. “I got 

this desire to pursue engineering as a result of working with my father,” Van Wagoner 

(Van Wagoner, 2012; 13 August 2012 meeting with author) recalls.

Van Wagoner’s family moved to Northern Virginia, where he attended Fairfax High 

School, excelling in math and science courses. Although he originally enrolled at William 

and Mary College on a scholarship to major in physics, Van Wagoner decided he preferred 

engineering and consequently transferred to the University of Virginia (UVA), where he 

earned a B.S.E.E. in Electronics in 1958. Like Eash, Van Wagoner joined the Air Force 

ROTC while an undergraduate. The Air Force accepted him for pilot training, but Van 

Wagoner eventually declined, choosing instead to concentrate on engineering. Upon leaving 

UVA, he served a three-year tour as an Air Force Radar Maintenance Officer. In 1962, he 

went to work for Emerson Research Lab as a research engineer, but left to join a just-forming 

company, Radiation Systems, Incorporated (RSI). For the first few years, RSI flourished, 

growing from just 12 employees to 260, but a late 1960s slow-down in government-funded, 

contractor research and development convinced Van Wagoner it was time to move on, and 

he accepted a position as a Navy civilian employee at the Naval Research Lab (NRL), which 

could be assured of a more consistent funding stream. Although one of NRL’s residents was 

NRO Program C, Van Wagoner did not work on national reconnaissance programs in his 

years there. His NRO work would ensue after another change in employer, this time to the 

CIA (Van Wagoner, 2012, CSNR Reference Collection). 

Five Decades of National Reconnaissance Innovation

Brackey, Eash, Parker, Shipley, and Van Wagoner comprised the 12th class of Pioneers 

of National Reconnaissance since the NRO established the recognition in 2000. Since 

2000 six different Directors of the NRO (DNROs) have selected nominated individuals 

to be Pioneers. Being named a Pioneer is the highest award in the discipline, comparable 

with the Charles Stark Draper Prize, which the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) 

annually bestows to individuals whose innovations have a beneficial impact in our daily 
11

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

lives.6 As the NRO 50th Anniversary class, the 2011 Pioneers of National Reconnaissance 

constitute a special group even within the august company they now keep with 83 other 

NRO Pioneers. Rather than select two or three Pioneers, as is customary in most years, 

DNRO Bruce Carlson selected for the anniversary commemoration five Pioneers, one 

for each decade of the NRO’s existence, and the largest class since the first one. Though 

their contributions were continuing at the time of their induction into Pioneer Hall—

except for Colonel Eash, who already had retired—each of the 2011 class’s pioneering 

accomplishments is loosely tied to the decade that he represents. Collectively, their stories 

provide a broad brushstroke view of NRO systems’ evolution over time. 

Of course, the still-sensitive nature of a majority of even historical or legacy NRO systems’ 

breathtaking technological capabilities and programmatic details prevents a detailed 

discussion in open literature of what the Pioneers accomplished. The general technical 

challenges they confronted, and high-level goals of the NRO’s leadership, which the NRO 

has publicly released, provide a means to place the 2011 Pioneers’ accomplishments in the 

context of their representative decade.7

The Challenge of Evolving and Improving U.S. National Reconnaissance Capability 

When they began work on their programs, the 2011 Pioneers sought to improve, 

extend, and enhance U.S. national reconnaissance capability to address a vital intelligence 

requirement; indeed, all 88 Pioneers of National Reconnaissance had similar goals on their 

respective programs. Throughout its history, the NRO, first through its program offices and 

later with its functional directorates, has conceived and developed technological solutions 

as a response to an intelligence requirement or need. In the formative years of “peacetime” 

strategic national reconnaissance—a concept credited to National Reconnaissance Pioneer 

Richard Leghorn, who first articulated it in 1946—the fundamental requirement was 

to obtain “reliable information of force levels and technological capabilities...to reduce 

temptations for surprise attacks, and to reduce the dangers of an arms race resulting from 

mistrust and potential misperceptions of capabilities and intentions” (Leghorn, 2002, 

p. 237). At first, the U.S. and its allies attempted aerial reconnaissance, the pinnacle of 

such capability being the U-2 high-altitude, photoreconnaissance aircraft, but because 

such missions violated target nations’ internationally recognized airspace sovereignty, they 

put pilots’ lives in grave danger and risked international incidents. The advent of spaceborne intelligence collection removed the threat of both: satellites were “piloted” from 

the ground, and there were no international treaties or conventions forbidding satellite 

reconnaissance of denied areas.

6 National Reconnaissance Pioneers Sam Araki (2004) and Edward Miller (2005), in addition to former DNRO 

James W. Plummer were among five individuals to win the Draper Prize in 2005 for their work on the Corona 

Program, the CIA-U.S. Air Force program that became the world’s first photoreconnaissance satellite.

7 For more detailed comments from former DNROs, see Directors of the National Reconnaissance Office at 50 Years,

a booklet of reflections from the 17 individuals who had served as DNRO through 2010, published by the NRO 

Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance (CSNR) in July 2011. 
12

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

Once satellite reconnaissance proved both viable and valuable, the NRO, through the 

diligent efforts of its pioneers and program managers, worked tirelessly to improve and 

expand the capability. The many NRO innovations and system enhancements are too 

numerous to list here, and many remain classified, but some areas where the NRO’s 

pioneering programs advanced state-of-the-art include: computer simulations for design; 

digital signal processing; gallium arsenide technology; three-axis spacecraft; enhanced 

optical systems; thermal design; pointing and attitude control; design and analysis tools; 

and the development of solid state recorders that greatly increased time on orbit for 

satellites. The NRO also pioneered innovative program management techniques, creating 

the mechanisms to fund and manage these complex programs to keep them, as much as 

possible, on schedule and within cost (Mayhew, 2002).

The 2011 Pioneers’ challenge, as then DNRO Carlson stated at the 2012 Pioneer 

ceremony, was to first conceptualize a unique, innovative solution—i.e., a space mission—

to “the toughest problems on earth” (MSC, 2012), and then determine how to transport 

that solution into space. Often, it was a daunting proposition; working with teams of 

contractors and government managers, the Pioneers were trying to do things that had 

never been demonstrated even in a lab or testing environment. System conceptualization 

involved many hours of brainstorming, deliberations, and discussions, and after arriving at 

a proposed solution, the most difficult challenge yet remained: building the space payload, 

a spacecraft to house it, acquiring a launch vehicle to get it into orbit as an integrated 

space system, and then testing and refining that system to maximize performance, all while 

keeping to schedule and cost. Such was—and remains—the challenge that NRO pioneers 

confronted on their programs.

The 2011 Pioneers’ Innovations

All of the 2011 Pioneers had lengthy careers and supported multiple programs and 

contributed to the success of multiple intelligence missions, but the accomplishments 

for which they were honored correspond to specific programs in a distinct time period. 

Acknowledging that their specific contributions—and names of and in-depth details on 

the programs they supported—remain beyond the scope of this article, I can discuss the 

generic achievements along with the goals of the NRO directors who served during the 

Pioneers’ period of contribution, and provide context for the innovations of Brackey, 

Eash, Parker, Shipley, and Van Wagoner.

Dr. Thomas A. Brackey—Enabling Near-Real-Time Imagery From Space 

Brackey was a relatively inexperienced engineer when he arrived at Hughes Aircraft 

in 1969. He had next to no exposure to the country’s national security programs and 

absolutely no knowledge of the compartmented national reconnaissance programs. 

Although his education at Ohio State had been “extraordinarily deep and broad,” Brackey 

still had much to learn on the job. In retrospect, he wonders at the amount of responsibility 
13

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

the company entrusted him with at that time, and he remains forever grateful that he 

was given an opportunity to “in a small way, personally contribute to some remarkable 

successes” (CSNR Reference Collection). 

Dr. John McLucas was NRO director from March 1969 to December 1973. In his 

reflections in “Directors of the National Reconnaissance Office at 50 Years,” McLucas 

recalls his tenure as the “golden age” (2011, p. 18), a period in which the NRO was 

developing the second generation of reconnaissance satellites and the infighting between 

NRO alphabetic programs A and B8

 had been quelled by a reworked NRO charter9and 

the decision by his predecessor, Alexander Flax, to divide program management 

responsibilities for the Hexagon program between the two program offices. The NRO’s 

focus was on evolutionary improvements in its major systems, with one exception: a 

planned development of a revolutionary near-real-time system that promised to be not 

only more capable, but also more reliable than existing systems (CSNR, 2011).

The space-based communications technology that Brackey and Hughes developed was 

an essential element for near-real-time intelligence collection from space. The development 

of a more time-responsive imagery satellite system than Gambit and Hexagon film-return 

satellites was at the forefront of NRO Program B (CIA’s Office of Special Projects at that 

time) activity, so much so that the program office transferred on 1 July 1973 most of its 

Hexagon program responsibility to NRO Program A (Office of the Secretary of the Air Force 

for Special Projects or SAFSP) to concentrate efforts on the follow-on system. Ironically, the 

concept for electronically down-linking image data had originated not with CIA, but with 

the Air Force, whose WS-117L program in the mid-to-late 1950s funded programs including 

the Samos family of satellites that included systems that electronically scanned film negatives 

and transmitted the data to the ground. Although Samos’s “read-out” technological approach 

would have been a more time-responsive system than film-return, it also returned a lowerquality resolution, and so the program was cancelled in 1961.

Brackey led a team of engineers who were really pushing beyond technological 

boundaries: no one had ever launched and operated such a system before. Hughes 

personnel had to build first-of-a-kind hardware and develop new operational concepts. 

They had to overcome many challenges in getting the spacecraft ready and launched: the 

initialization procedures were behind schedule, and because they were building an entirely 

new system, they had to compile on-orbit test procedures “basically from scratch”. In the 

months leading up to the first launch, the Hughes Corporation took the unprecedented 

step of transferring Brackey to full-time assignment at the ground station, a sign of how 

8 For the first 32 years of its history, the NRO was organized as separate program offices, Programs A through C 

(there was also a Program D until the Air Force absorbed it in 1974), the “alphabetic program offices,” each of 

which developed national reconnaissance assets primarily for the needs of the “parent” entities who staffed and 

resourced them. Program A was staffed by the Air Force and reported to the Office of the Secretary of the Air 

Force for Special Projects (SAFSP) and the Secretary of Defense; Program B was staffed by the Central Intelligence 

Agency’s Office of Development and Engineering (OD&E, a sub-office within the Directorate of Science and 

Technology, DS&T) and reported to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI); Program C was staffed by U.S. 

Navy civilians and military personnel who worked at the Naval Research Lab (NRL). 

9 The 4th NRO charter, effective 11 August 1965, effectively served as the organization’s principal authority document 

for five decades. 
14

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

critical the system was to mission success. Brackey recalled that he had about 35 people 

on his team there, including software engineers, and a hardware and software person 

working shifts 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Brackey participated in training users in 

the nuances of the new system (CSNR Reference Collection).

Even after the NRO successfully launched the satellite and it settled into orbit, the 

ground station experienced problems receiving data because of faulty readings caused 

by a telemetry database error. Once major problems were resolved, the system became 

one of the NRO’s most celebrated success stories. “Those were heady times,” Brackey 

recalled. He said that his greatest satisfaction came from starting with little more than an 

idea, and having “the ability to look ahead. . .[and] understand what the possibilities were 

and figure out ‘how could we do that’”. Brackey’s first-of-a-kind hardware made possible 

the collection and dissemination of data in near-real-time, a truly “game-changing” 

capability whose importance cannot be overstated. The new architecture eliminated the 

country’s dependence on film-return systems and provided a persistent global information 

perspective that supported decisionmaking on emerging crises. It also moved the country’s 

satellite intelligence capability closer to being able to support tactical military operations 

(CSNR Reference Collection).

Col. Joseph J. Eash, III—Innovative Applications for Overhead Systems

By the time he took an assignment with the NRO in 1979, Eash had already had “some 

very, very, interesting jobs in the Air Force,” including being a nuclear weapons project 

officer, the director of contractor independent research and development technical 

evaluations, and director of engineering in the Air Force Satellite Data Systems (SDS) 

program office. “The most exciting thing in my career,” Eash recalled, “was being able 

to go to Christmas Island and watch nuclear weapons go off over our head.”10 During 

this period when he was an Air Force captain or major, Eash received the legion of merit 

and consequently found himself being offered assignments typically given to colonels or 

generals. In one such “career-broadening” assignment, Eash worked for a supervisor who 

saw great potential in his mid-level officer and arranged the SDS job, in which Eash was 

responsible for the design, manufacture, testing, launching, and operation of multiple 

communication and relay satellites, work clearly similar to the NRO mission (CSNR 

Reference Collection). 

From there, Eash became director of systems and technology at the NRO, where from 

1979 to 1983 he managed a staff of about 30. Their major focus was spacecraft system 

design tradeoffs, cost analysis, and budget preparation. Not many specific details of what 

Eash and his staff did can be acknowledged, because the contribution for which he earned 

his Pioneer recognition remains sensitive and classified. What I can publicly acknowledge 

is that Eash became Chief of the NRO’s “Special Staff,” where he led the development of 

new NRO missions for reconnaissance systems. The focus was on accelerating development 

of technologies using unique materials. 

10 The U.S. conducted thermonuclear testing around and above Christmas Island in 1962 as part of Operation 

Dominic. 
15

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

The NRO Director during this period was Mr. Edward “Pete” Aldridge, the longesttenured DNRO ever (he served from August 1981 until December 1988). For the NRO 

to be successful in its mission, Aldridge emphasized providing advanced collection 

technologies for intelligence and warfighter needs, and providing credible cost and 

performance estimates for its systems, so that the NRO could deliver on its promises. 

Aldridge had to confront two major issues: 1) a space launch policy that required all U.S. 

national security, civilian, and commercial launches to be on the Space Shuttle, which first 

flew in April 1981; 2) the competition between NRO program offices that with budget 

reductions in the mid-to-late 1980s was becoming counterproductive. To resolve the first 

issue, Aldridge, with others, successfully lobbied for a policy change to a “mixed fleet” 

strategy, and, for the second issue, he commissioned an internal study that recommended 

the collocation of NRO program offices (CSNR, 2011).

Eash and his staff assisted the DNRO in realizing his organizational goals. They allocated 

tasks, technologies, and missions to all three NRO “Alphabetic Program Offices”—NRO 

Programs A, B, and C—in pursuit of vital intelligence applications. In some cases, these 

programs had no precedent in either the NRO or the wider IC. It was the special staff’s 

responsibility to efficiently allocate funding and then monitor its effective use. To protect 

these highly sensitive activities, Eash defined the requirements for a new security system 

that would cover all the activities being managed by the Special Staff; three decades later, 

this security system is still operating effectively. By encouraging innovation and creativity, 

balanced with accountability, Eash and his staff motivated and led three diverse program 

offices to deliver highly successful programs that advanced the role of space reconnaissance 

in intelligence gathering (Pioneer citations, 2012).

Dr. Michael N. Parker—Tracking and Geolocation From Space

Working as an intelligence analyst with the CIA for about two years, Parker began his 

career as a user of NRO-collected data, but when he left to join ESL in January 1968, 

he became a processor of signals data, and later served as project engineer for analyzing 

antiballistic missile (ABM) radars and telemetry in support of ABM treaty negotiations. He 

installed a Cesium clock system for precision timing at geographically divergent sites. The 

ESL made Parker director of a signal processing laboratory, “my ideal job” (Parker, 2012). 

The most important intelligence mission the lab supported was the tracking of Soviet 

missiles. Sometime around 1970, by his own recollection, Parker developed a system that 

used time difference of arrival (TDOA) for tracking Soviet vehicles, which provided useful 

experience for his later TDOA/Frequency Difference of Arrival (FDOA) measurements 

using NRO systems (Parker, 2012).

Although Parker began his seminal work a few years earlier, it was the priorities of the 

DNROs of the late 1970s and early 1980s, Drs. Hans Mark (August 1977–October 1979) 

and Robert Hermann (October 1979–August 1981), that were representative of the goals 

supported by the capability Parker would innovate. Mark’s principal priority was developing 

space systems for monitoring and verifying compliance with the provisions of negotiated 

arms control treaties (in his time, the second major Strategic Nuclear Arms Limitation 
16

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

Treaty or SALT II). Hermann, who had served for years in the National Security Agency, 

presided over a significant expansion in NRO signals intelligence capability and worked 

to establish concepts and mechanisms for NRO support to tactical military operations 

(CSNR, 2011). 

A briefing from his Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) started 

Parker on the path that would eventually make him a Pioneer of National Reconnaissance. 

The COTR told several ESL employees about a new, very innovative NRO system: “It was 

far more ambitious than any unmanned spacecraft that NASA was doing at that time, and 

for many years later,” Parker recalled. The COTR was concerned how to accurately analyze 

the data to know whether it was related to ABMs or other intelligence targets. On the 

spot, Parker suggested an approach by making signal externals measurements that could 

track missiles by reconstructing their altitude and answer multiple intelligence questions. 

Later, the head of ESL, William Perry, asked Parker for his analysis of a paper that had 

been presented to the government. The paper theorized that equipment signals could be 

located by measuring TDOA and FDOA. Parker reviewed the paper and pronounced the 

approach as sound. Extrapolating from his earlier experiences and system development, 

Parker later incorporated similar concepts to NRO systems, along the way inventing 

techniques for multipath echoes for tracking (Parker, 2012). 

He recalled, 

The concept of TDOA/FDOA geolocation was suggested by several people 

over the years, often in the context of measurements from aircraft. Because 

of my background in radio astronomy, I was aware of work imaging cosmic 

emissions using Very Long Baseline Interferometry, tracking the lunar rover 

from earth, and proposals to make extremely precise measurements to track 

spacecraft with sufficient precision for aerodynamic re-entry at Mars.... I was 

fortunate to be performing experiments on these [NRO] spacecraft that gave 

me access to calibration sources and spacecraft data. Consequently, I was able 

to demonstrate the first TDOA/FDOA geolocation from space using spacecraft 

configurations and target signals that were considered impossible at the time. 

(Parker, 2012)

Interestingly, Parker found that his breakthroughs were not instantly exploited—“for about 

5 years, nobody was interested,” he said—but the combination of satellite enhancements 

and a series of global events that cost the U.S. some collection sites and capability made 

such measurements more accurate and more critical. In the 21st century, space-based 

geolocation techniques are at the forefront of a variety of intelligence applications.

Dr. John W. Shipley—System Definition for a Revolutionary Collection Asset

Shipley’s first assignments with Harris were on NASA programs, i.e., open, unclassified 

programs, but after obtaining access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI), he 

began work on NRO antenna programs, including one very critical and long-lived sigint 

satellite program. He recalled the moment when he realized his job’s significance to 
17

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

national security: in discussing one program, a colonel quipped, “When [Soviet Premier] 

Brezhnev farts [sic], we hear it,” a colorful comment on both the capabilities of and the 

targets for such systems. Shipley participated on some signal processing and performance 

studies the NRO funded in the 1980s and later received tasking to do analysis aimed at 

overcoming the noise-like effects that impede intelligence collection. His work took him 

into technical areas in which he had little background in his education.

In considering the conceptual and analytical work he was performing in those years, 

Shipley recalled. “I took a course in communications theory...in random signals noise, but 

it wasn’t until I started getting into that [analysis] that I started learning [that technology]” 

(CSNR Reference Collection). 

Mr. Martin Faga (September 1989–March 1993) directed the NRO during its transition 

to being a publicly acknowledged and consolidated organization no longer functioning as 

three separate alphabetical program offices developing satellite reconnaissance capabilities 

primarily for parent organizations. His tenure immediately preceded the critical period of 

Shipley’s pioneering work. Faga’s vision for the NRO included incorporating the needs 

of the tactical military users into NRO system design and operation, an issue that became 

paramount after the first Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm in 1991), in which satellite 

assets assisted with targeting, earning the conflict the sobriquet of the “first space war.” 

Faga’s tenure saw the continuation of a trend of an enlarging NRO system user base in 

parallel with decreasing funding and increasing Congressional oversight. In an observation 

that indirectly salutes the Pioneers’ accomplishments, Faga wrote, “The best intelligence 

is the intelligence the other side doesn’t know you can get or, even better, doesn’t even 

believe is possible by the laws of physics” (CSNR, 2011, p. 30). 

The Gulf War had spotlighted the need for additional satellite reconnaissance capability, 

in particular the applicability to military operations of space-based, battlefield synoptic 

coverage. Shipley conceived a revolutionary idea and began work on a one-of-a-kind system 

using a groundbreaking new antenna design to address multiple intelligence needs. The 

subsequent antenna development progressed as a group effort in which Shipley’s role 

was to write up analysis and specifications, and then give it to the team to work through 

the problem of producing a practical design. Unlike more contemporary developments, 

the specifications were not developed with dynamic, automated engineering allocation 

processes, but redrawn repeatedly from the project start date to the time of critical design 

review. There were budgetary challenges: the government management was encouraging 

the contractors to “design to zero margin”, but there were too many elements to predict 

in advance what margin would be needed as the project progressed (CSNR Reference 

Collection).

The major challenge came from having to reduce complex technology into something the 

NRO could build relatively quickly. The antenna was an extraordinarily complex payload, 

the design for which needed to include the ability to place it into a stowed, launchable 

configuration, and have it deploy once on orbit to within very tight mechanical and 

surface tolerances, thermal control, and forming techniques. Shipley’s contributions to 
18

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

the concept development, architectural approach, and system design were key to moving 

this unique capability from the drawing board to an on-orbit reality. The resulting system 

dramatically improved the nation’s satellite reconnaissance capability.

Richard Van Wagoner—Pioneering Antenna and System Design for High-Quality 

Sigint Collection

While vacationing in Alaska in 1979, Van Wagoner received a call from a representative 

of NRO Program B. The program wanted him to work on an extraordinary new satellite 

program. The CIA recruited Van Wagoner after learning of his work on an antenna that 

he had designed and built while employed years earlier at RSI. He accepted and became 

the payload division chief responsible for the development of several hi-tech satellite 

collection subsystems, developing the concept for and managing the conduct of their 

deployment and verification. It would be the beginning of a distinguished 15-year career at 

the Agency, during which Van Wagoner was named as the very first CIA Federal Engineer 

of the Year in 1985 (CSNR Reference Collection).

Although he became payload manager, Van Wagoner maintained close, day-to-day 

involvement with the technical aspects of national reconnaissance satellite systems. He 

was instrumental in “bringing extremely broadband antennas, the first high-powered, 

solid-state downlink transmitter, and...monolithic microwave integrated circuits to the 

spacecraft program” (Van Wagoner, 2012). From Van Wagoner’s perspective, the late 

1970s into the 1980s represented the era of risk-taking in the NRO, when the organization 

had consistently large budgets, very little oversight, and the Office of Development and 

Engineering (OD&E—CIA’s NRO Program B component) had the credo: don’t let the 

possibility of failure interfere with progress. Executing the programs on schedule and 

within cost was of paramount concern, and consistent with that, Van Wagoner believed—

and continues to believe—it was “better to ask for forgiveness later, but don’t delay to ask 

for permission” (CSNR Reference Collection). 

It is more difficult to pinpoint the DNRO whose priorities and vision are most related 

to Van Wagoner’s accomplishments because of the nature of his contributions, although 

the other 2011 Pioneers also made multiple contributions over long careers. In keeping 

with the intent to have one 2011 Pioneer to represent each decade, however, Van Wagoner 

would have to be associated with the first decade of the 21st century, and DNROs like 

Mr. Peter Teets (December 2001—March 2005) and Dr. Donald Kerr (July 2005—October 

2007). Teets, the first DNRO in the 9/11 aftermath, emphasized putting into orbit more 

capable and user-friendly systems that would support intelligence collection and the 

needs of the warfighter. Kerr strived to redefine the NRO not simply as an acquisition 

organization, but an intelligence agency. At a time when the IC was being restructured in 

response to the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, Kerr sought to 

retain for the NRO its unique role in delivering integrated intelligence toward providing 

global situational awareness (CSNR, 2011).
19

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

In his career, which was continuing at the time of his recognition, Van Wagoner had 

pioneered antenna and system design across a range of NRO sigint capabilities, resulting 

in a number of patents—some classified and, by his estimation, three “that are worth 

talking about”—and setting a new standard for space antennae and power supplies. His 

development of groundbreaking technology contributed greatly to the high-quality sigint 

satellite collection capability available to the NRO and its mission partners. Moreover, as 

both a government manager and contractor consultant, Van Wagoner served as a systems 

engineering mentor to others, helping to build a cadre of experienced, knowledgeable, 

sigint workforce (Pioneer citations, 2012; CSNR Reference Collection).

Lessons from the 2011 Pioneers—Areas Critical to Their Success

In addition to recognizing individuals for innovative breakthroughs that made a lasting 

impact on the discipline of national reconnaissance, another objective for the NRO 

Pioneer Recognition Program is to capture the Pioneers’ insights and record some of 

the lessons they learned--in Eash’s words, “to see if there’s some keys, something in the 

Pioneers [experiences] that maybe is not remembered or that needs to be emphasized.” 

Through recognition of their accomplishments and documentation of their recollections, 

the Pioneers serve as models of excellence and recommend styles of leadership for the 

contemporary workforce. To that end, the NRO, through the CSNR, conducts interviews 

with the newly honored Pioneers before each Pioneer Day ceremony. In developing their 

innovative systems, this 2011 class of Pioneers—Brackey, Eash, Parker, Shipley, and Van 

Wagoner—overcame difficult technical challenges, encountered roadblocks, dealt with 

setbacks, and learned important lessons along the way (CSNR Reference Collection). 

A few lessons that they noted in their interviews, some common almost to all of 

them, include the following: 1) Be honest with the customer; 2) Ensure NRO engineers 

can support programs “cradle-to-grave”; 3) Know when you’re going down the wrong 

development path and then have the courage to change direction; and 4) Take risks, but 

also define all your risks.

Be honest with the customer. As a group, the 2011 Pioneers all stressed the importance 

of being completely honest with the program managers overseeing the development of 

any system. For the contractors, such as Brackey, Parker, and Shipley, this translated to 

“be honest with the customer.” This was critical to maintaining trust between government 

and the contractors, which was essential to overcoming the many challenges during long, 

difficult developments. Brackey noted that his company, Hughes, “didn’t know any better” 

than to tell the customer everything, good, bad, or indifferent. Parker advised would-be 

engineers to “never lie,” and affirmed that “it is better to overachieve than to promise 

more than you can deliver” (Parker, 2012).

Ensure NRO engineers can support programs cradle-to-grave. The 2011 Pioneers 

were unanimous in decrying the modern-day practice at the NRO of “short tours,” i.e., 

young engineers or acquisition officers assigned for two years and then rotated to another 
20

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

assignment elsewhere in their organization. Parker believed that assigning personnel 

to programs long term built and retained strong corporate memory that contributed 

to success. He said “the military model that rotates people through assignments every 

few years guarantees mediocre performance even from brilliant and dedicated people”. 

Van Wagoner bemoaned what he sees as a decrease in experienced managers, saying 

that programs don’t recruit and hire people with 20 years of experience any more, while 

emphasizing that “short tours are a problem,” because it takes at least two years to even 

begin to make a contribution to a system, so on a short tour, “all anyone can focus on is 

process” (CSNR Reference Collection).

Know when you’re going down the wrong path and have the courage to change 

direction. With the Pioneers, in many cases, trying to do things for which there was little 

to no precedent, it was inevitable that they would sometimes take the wrong path toward 

finding an innovative solution. They stressed that when that happens, one should not 

be afraid to change technical direction. “Indecision is the biggest enemy of progress.” 

“Re-planning is probably more important than planning... We were a lot smarter about an 

issue or a problem after you had tried a few things that didn’t work.” Brackey saw another 

component to this issue. He noted that one has to be prepared, first to understand and 

recognize what is technically possible, but then also to recognize when development work 

is not going well and it is time to change direction. “You need to be flexible...use different 

people, another lab...but always keeping the objective in mind,” Brackey said. 

Take risks, but also define all your risks. Echoing many past Pioneers of National 

Reconnaissance, the 2011 class all praised taking risks. Without the ability to take risks 

an organization will be unlikely to produce groundbreaking innovations, they believe. 

Van Wagoner perceived the decades of the 1970s and 1980s as less risk averse, in part 

because of reduced oversight compared with the post-9/11 NRO. Parker recognized that 

the modern systems are very complicated, but advised that the NRO should not be afraid 

to take risks on its programs. Shipley agreed, but also recommended that program offices 

define all risks, “which you do through analysis.” He noted that “as you define a new 

system, you’ll find other things you don’t know...so you better not have to spend time 

on things you could have identified first and gotten out of the way” (CSNR Reference 

Collection). 

The Legacy of the 2011 Pioneers

What was my impact on national reconnaissance? The spacecraft reflectors and 

my so-called structural brilliance were significant achievements, but they were 

not the things of which I am most proud....The thing I am proud of is my 

success with the process of taking a set of requirements and coming up with a 

spacecraft and associated launch components, as a system, and then trying to 

achieve maximum efficiency and performance.

—John T. Bennett, TRW Engineer and 2000 Pioneer of National Reconnaissance in 

sigint spacecraft (Bennett, 2002, p. 53)
21

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

The noted California Institute of Technology professor Theodore Von Karman once 

tried to draw a distinction between scientists and engineers. “A scientist studies what is,” 

Von Karman said. “An engineer creates what never was” (Petroski, 2010, p. 20). The 2011 

Pioneers, all of whom were accomplished engineers, validated one half of Von Karman’s 

definition. They conceived and innovated national reconnaissance capabilities that had 

not existed before, to solve some of the most difficult intelligence challenges, leaving to 

social scientists and historians the task of assessing the significance of their achievements. 

Their contributions enabled the NRO to provide the critical data that, during the Cold 

War, helped maintain the occasionally fragile balance of power—and kept the superpower 

rivalry between the U.S. and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) a non-shooting 

standoff. Some of the systems they produced continue in the 21st century to provide nearreal-time information to keep senior decisionmakers well informed (and forewarned) and 

support U.S. warfighters and other military and IC professionals stationed around the 

globe. Much of the data collected by the systems the Pioneers helped to create and develop 

is unobtainable by any other means, particularly in the quality and quantity NRO systems 

consistently acquire. The 2011 Pioneers’ outstanding examples of success serve as models 

of excellence for the modern IC and national security workforce (MSC, 2012).

The importance of recognizing and honoring pioneering individuals and remembering 

the examples they set should not be underestimated, particularly in a time of budgetary 

austerity. Through such efforts, organizations can capture and preserve lessons and best 

practices, so that they are not forgotten amidst an increasingly risk-averse management 

environment, and a leadership team challenged with greater scrutiny, increased 

transparency, and expanded oversight, and coping with budget reductions. The 

combination of such factors calls into question whether it will be possible again in the 

future to produce groundbreaking systems that change the direction and scope of national 

reconnaissance. In Closing the Innovation Gap (2009), celebrated entrepreneur Judy Estrin 

discussed “the five core values of innovation: questioning, risk taking, openness, patience, 

and trust” (p. 11). The 2011 Pioneers exemplified these values, as well as the spirit and 

dedication to work at a problem until a solution was found, never giving up. It is to be 

hoped that the next generation of NRO engineers embodies similar qualities, to continue 

the agency’s specialized mission “to develop and operate unique and innovative overhead 

reconnaissance systems and conduct intelligence-related activities essential for U.S. 

national security” (NRO, 2012) for decades to come.

23

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

Brief Bios of the 2011 Pioneers

Dr. Thomas A. Brackey 

Major Contribution to National Reconnaissance: Pioneered critical breakthroughs, 

including first-of-a-kind hardware, in space-based communications technology and 

operational concepts that enabled near-real-time collection and dissemination of data.

National Reconnaissance Career: 1969–Present (2014)

Career Highlights:

• Chief Technical Officer for Navigation and Communications System, Boeing 

Space and Intelligence Systems Division

• Major Program Manager

• Systems Engineering Laboratories Manager

• Chief Scientist

• Hughes Chief Technologist

• Technical Director

All positions with Boeing and Hughes Space and Communications Company

(formerly Hughes Aircraft Corporation)

Professional Credentials:

• Member, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board

• Member/Chairman, NASA National Advisory Committees

• Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers/AFCEA Military 

Communications (MILCOM) Conference Board

• Founding Chair, Industrial Board of Advisors, The Ohio State University

• Distinguished Graduate, The Ohio State University

Education:

• Ph.D., Electrical Engineering, The Ohio State University

• M.S., Electrical Engineering, The Ohio State University

• B.S., Electrical Engineering, The Ohio State University
24

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

Colonel Joseph J. Eash, III 

Major Contribution to National Reconnaissance: Pioneered the application of special 

innovative technologies to the NRO overhead mission. In his position as Chief of the 

NRO’s “Special Staff,” Col. Eash led the way in the development of new, highly sensitive 

NRO missions for both aircraft and satellite systems.

National Reconnaissance Career: 1979–1987

Career Highlights:

• Chief Scientist for computational social science modeling in the Center for 

Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Advanced Systems & Concepts), Office of 

the Secretary of Defense

• Principal Research Engineer, Georgia Tech Research Institute

• Senior Vice President, GRC International

• President and CEO, SWL, Inc. (GRC International subsidiary)

• Senior Vice President, Engineering Research Group, SRI International

• Director of Systems and Technology, National Reconnaissance Office

• Air Force Office of Research

Professional Credentials:

• Member of the Defense Science Board Study on 21st Century Strategic Technology Vectors

• Member of Senior Advisory Board for the Air Force Center for Operational 

Analysis at the Air Force Institute of Technology

• Chairman of the Platforms Panel of the Defense Science Board Study of Global 

Surveillance

• Board Member of Grantham University

• Member of the Board of the David Sarnoff Research Center

Education:

• M.S., Nuclear Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology

• B.S., Electrical Engineering, Grove City College
25

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

Dr. Michael N. Parker

Major Contribution to National Reconnaissance: Pioneered tracking and geolocation 

techniques based on precision signal externals measurements. In the 1970s, he developed 

missile tracking techniques that directly supported arms limitation treaty negotiations. 

He also demonstrated the first time-difference of arrival (TDOA)/frequency difference 

of arrival (FDOA) geolocation capability from space, a technology at the heart of satellite 

intelligence collection.

National Reconnaissance Career: 1968–Present (2014)

Career Highlights:

• Chief Technical Officer, Rincon Research Corporation

• Chief Executive Officer, Rincon Research Corporation

• Project Engineer and Department Manager, ESL, Inc.

• Independent Consultant (advised government and prime contractors on space 

and signal-processing topics)

Professional Credentials:

• Member of the Advisory Board of Arizona’s NASA Space Grant Program

• Member of University of Arizona’s Physics Advisory Board

• Member IEEE and AIAA

• Author or co-author of two dozen classified technical papers

• Founding Member of TAPR

Education:

• Ph.D., Electrical Engineering, Stanford University

• M.S., Electrical Engineering, Stanford University

• B.S., Electrical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
26

Natio n a l 

R e c o nn a iss a nc e 

Dr. John W. Shipley

Major Contribution to National Reconnaissance: Pioneered the concept development, 

architectural approach, and initial system definition that led to the successful development 

of a revolutionary NRO collection asset. His unique beam-forming design led to proven 

on-orbit performance and critical collections that have exceeded expectations.

National Reconnaissance Career: 1980–Present (2014)

Career Highlights: Nearly 30 years with Harris Corporation

• System Engineer for Space Deployable Antennas and Structures

• Radar Systems Engineering

• Advanced Signal Processing and ECCM

• Engineering Manager 

Professional Credentials:

• Member of SENTINEL Joint Working Group

• Developed distributed Radar architecture used in SBR development study and 

DARPA Innovative SBR Antenna Technology (ISAT) program 

• Conceived control of flexible structures (COFS) in space experiment for NASA

• Patents for inventions in COFS technology area include:

– Inflatable antenna structure with a precision mesh control

– Linear DC motor with accelerometer feedback for control of flexible structures

– Linear DC motor incorporating active vibration control

– Carbon-Carbon mirror technology

Education:

• Ph.D., Georgia Institute of Technology

• M.S., Engineering Mechanics, Georgia Institute of Technology

• B.S., Engineering Mechanics, Georgia Institute of Technology
27

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

Mr. Richard C. Van Wagoner 

Major Contribution to National Reconnaissance: Pioneered antenna and system 

design and the evaluation of system performance critical to the successful execution of 

the NRO sigint mission. His ground-breaking development of innovative technology has 

resulted in the high quality sigint collection available to the IC and DoD.

National Reconnaissance Career: 1979–Present (2014)

Career Highlights:

• Payload Division Chief, NRO Program B (CIA)

• Deputy Director for Collection Systems (CIA)

• Independent Consultant to multiple NRO program offices

• Microwave Power Tube Section Head, Naval Research Laboratory

Professional Credentials:

• Federal Engineer of the Year, CIA

• CIA Career Intelligence Medal

• National Reconnaissance Office Superior Service Medal

• Technical Program Chairman of IEEE MTTS International Microwave Symposium

• Author of 19 technical papers presented at symposia or published in technical 

journals

Education:

• M.S., Electrical Engineering, George Washington University

• B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Virginia

29

Solving problems—

Pioneers of national reconnaissance

References

Bennett, J. T. (2002). “System Design from Requirements to Launch: Conquering 

Technical Feasibility.” In R.A. McDonald (Ed.), Beyond Expectations—Building an American 

National Reconnaissance Capability: Recollections of the Pioneers and Founders of National 

Reconnaissance (pp. 53-64). Bethesda, MD: American Society for Photogrammetry and 

Remote Sensing.

Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance (CSNR). (2011). Directors of the National 

Reconnaissance Office at 50 Years. Chantilly, VA: Center for the Study of National 

Reconnaissance, NRO.

Estrin, J. (2009). Closing the Innovation Gap. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). (2012). Jet Propulsion Laboratory History. Accessed 24 

August 2012 at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/jplhistory

Leghorn, R.S. (2002). “Enhancing Stability Through Strategic Reconnaissance: U-2 

and Corona.” In R.A. McDonald (Ed.), Beyond Expectations—Building an American 

National Reconnaissance Capability: Recollections of the Pioneers and Founders of National 

Reconnaissance (pp. 237-248). Bethesda, MD: American Society for Photogrammetry 

and Remote Sensing.

Maxwell. J.C. (2003). The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork Workbook. Nashville, TN: 

Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Mayhew, P. W. (2002). “System Integration and Design: Meeting Requirements with 

Innovation.” In R.A. McDonald (Ed.), Beyond Expectations—Building an American 

National Reconnaissance Capability: Recollections of the Pioneers and Founders of National 

Reconnaissance (pp. 117-127). Bethesda, MD: American Society for Photogrammetry 

and Remote Sensing.

McDonald, R.A. (Ed.) (2002). Beyond Expectations—Building an American National Reconnaissance 

Capability: Recollections of the Pioneers and Founders of National Reconnaissance. Bethesda, 

MD: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.

Media Services Center (MSC). (2012). 2012 NRO Pioneer Day. Video on demand. Media 

Services Center, Management Services & Operations, National Reconnaissance Office.

National Reconnaissance Office. (2012). NRO Fact Sheet. Accessed 10 July 2012 from 

http:\\www.nro.gov/about/nro/NRO_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Parker, M. N. (2012). Draft biographical manuscript. CSNR Reference Collection. 

Petroski, H. (2010). The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone will not Solve our Global 

Problems. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Pioneer Citations. (2012). CSNR Reference Collection.

Van Wagoner, R. C. (2012). Draft biographical paper. CSNR Reference Collection.