•"7", 77, "7.7.",1-7 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

• RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 •-■ 

5 September 1967 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

SUBJECT: PSAC Review of MOL Program 

The Reconnaissance Panel of PSAC conducted a review of 

the MOL Program on 29 August 1967. The meeting took place 

at the offices of Dr. Land, Chairman of the Panel, in 

Cambridge, Mass A list of members of the Panel in attendance 

is shown in Attachment #1. 

Representing the MOL and Gambit programs were various 

members of the DoD, Air Force, Aerospace Corporation, EK and 

GE. A list of attendees is shown in Attachment #2. 

After a brief introduction by General Stewart, the program 

proceeded according to the Agenda shown in Attachment #3. The 

presentation material used during the review is available in 

SAFSL under separate cover. 

The briefing on Gambit-3 was received with a considerable 

amount of discussion. Although it was scheduled to be completed 

in one hour and fifteen minutes, the Panel took more than two 

and one-half hours for the subject. The Panel was obviously 

displeased with the inability of the program to reach its expected goal of resolution on the first series of flights. 

The problems encountered by that program were traceable to the 

inability of the contractor to properly manufacture the stereo 

mirror, to test the optical quality during manufacture, and 

consequently to establish a well-defined plane of best focus. 

Although EK indicated that they_ expect to reach the required 

system performance within twenty flights, Dr. Land stated that 

at this stage he had little confidence in EK reaching that 

goal. He didn't see any indications that they knew how to get 

there. This impression was slowly dispelled as the briefing 

progressed and the testing capabilities offered by the Dorian 

program were more thoroughly understood. 

The highlight of the Panel discussion was EK's demonstration of the plans and current activities in expanding their 

test facilities. Near the end of the review, when the subject 

) GA iiDELIT 

' 

Copy__Lofi_copias 

SAF-SL ControliaCe;,21 &CY 7 

1 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

- RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

of the Acquisition and Tracking Scope and its ability to aid 

the astronaut in seeing active targets was discussed, Dr. Land 

suggested that an image-enhancing device be added to the viewing 

scope so that the constrast ratio could be improved. If this _ 

device were to be incorporated, he believes the man in the MOL 

would, indeed, have become a useful contributor. In view of 

that, Dr. Land was much less negative on the use of man in the 

MOL than he was at previous meetings. 

Rather than discussing the entire review in detail, it 

might be more appropriate to paraphrase some of the more significant questions and statements raised by various members 

of the Panel in a sequence following the Agenda. Most of the 

questions were factually and adequately answered on the spot 

and none required a return to the Panel with more detailed information. 

Garwin to Quinn: What is the status of the focus sensor? 

Why didn't you stop the Gambit-3'program to improve the optical 

quality? Who made the decision to cancel G and to proceed on 

to G-3? This is a display of poor management for not having a 

planned slack in the program to allow for perfecting the product. 

(Later in the day Gen. Stewart provided a proper reply in terms 

of total NRP context, operational requirements and funding considerations). 

Steininger to Stewart: Can the unmanned Dorian system be 

flown before the.manned? When do you order the Support Module? 

Land to Panel: We should remember that we are trying to 

improve a near-perfect product and that we have the best capabilities in the country gathered to solve these problems. 

Garwin to Spoelhof: Why don't we conduct a Zero-G test by 

means of dropping the entire Camera Optical Assembly from a tall 

tower? Why don't we at least use parabolic flight in airplanes 

for optical testing? 

Garwin to Passman: Why must we have a stiff beryllium 

.structure? Why don't we put an accelerometer on the mirror to 

provide close loop control with a less stiff structure and thus 

save several hundred pounds? 

Garwin to Passman: There is an inconsistency between two 

charts in which you show test results on bearing ripple under 

1-G and 0-G conditions. (Difference between single set of test 

data and summary of all data. 

GAMBIT 

r- 7'777 " 1-,! 2 

p. 7-7°) .ri3:711 

sS, :7; 1:. • 

Copy_...7evf_Z_cppies 

SA::+--SL Controlta 6) — C 7 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

' RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

GAMBIT 

Garwin to Tennant: Can man track at light levels lower 

than the IVS? What is the residual INC improvement provided 

by the IVS? How long does it take to capture a target while 

the structure is still in a settling process? The spatial 

frequency of the IVS which is listed at a minimum of 10 ft. 

and a maximum of 500 ft. is marginal at best. Isn't there a 

double focus created by the presence of the pellicle? Isn't 

the counter-rolling of the spacecraft in reaction to mirror 

roll causing a rotation of the image on the film which is not 

compensated? 

Land to Tennant: In reference to Dr. Garwin's question on 

spatial frequency, the Panel would like to note that it is 

unhappy about the relationship of the IVS time constant and 

spatial frequency resolution. Can man see activity at low 

constrast? Have you simulated low constrast viewing conditions? 

Why don't you have a small TV in the ATS eyepiece to enhance 

constrast? Couldn't we add a delayed phosphor disc in one eyepiece to provide stereo viewing through the ATS? 

Shea to Bernstein: Can't we use communications satellites 

to aid in diagnostic procedures and aid verbal reporting? 

Garwin to Bernstein: What kind of devices does the astronaut have on board for aiding in the diagnostic process? He 

should have a lot of simple instruments -- like microscopes 

and viewers. Is it possible to have quartz elements in the 

Ross corrector? It would be a shame to miss a supernova while 

a large telescope like Dorian is in space. 

Land to Stewart: It is most important that all effort be 

made to assure achieving resolution on the first flight 

of MOL. Certainly MOL should not be launched with a known 

optical quality - deficiency just to satisfy a present schedule. 

(Gen Stewart and Mr. Kirk agreed). 

Post Script: A subsequent discussion with Dr. Steininger 

revealed the following comments or opinions the Panel had after 

the briefers departed: 

1. Dr. Purcell had additional ideas about Zero-G 

testing and would like toget in touch with someone from the 

program to discuss them. (Dr. Leonard has been requested to 

talk to Dr. Purcell). 

'11 

GAMBIT 3 

3 -of 

Copy_,71z.-cr C.cf40 5. 

Coatro1E-x.4%-(' / ;2_ ;•• 
GAMBIT 

MICHA I. ARYMOVY 

Techni al irector 

MOL Program 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

... 

2. Dr. Steininger would like to be informed by a 

brief note to be written a few months from now on the status 

of the image-enhancing device suggested by Dr. Land and the 

Zero-G test concept suggested by Dr. Purcell. 

3. The Pnnpl has some doubt that MOL will, indeed, be 

able to produce resolution on the first flight. 

!t. The Panel is disappointed at the apparent lack of 

imagination that has so far been shown in using man in a diagnostic role. .It is Dr. Steininger's opinion that, if pressed 

hard, Dr. Land would still maintain that man in MOL is not 

worth the cost. 

5. The Panel is disappointed with the deletion of the 

Readout System since this action greatly reduces the utility 

and flexibility of the manned mode. 

6. According to Dr. Steininger, Dr. ,and will not 

write a report to Dr. Horning concerning the results of this 

review as he had done in the past. 

3 Attachments: 

a/s 

GAMBIT Page__C_lof_i_paass 

Copy_a-af_2_c7opios 

SAP-SL Contrail:14 -e ;2 /,42, - 

4 
vi• .,,••••■ • 

GAMBIT 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 GAD/UHT 

1 1

-r.7311 ' 

L% 

RECONNAISSANCE PANEL OF PSAC 

MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE 

Dr. Edwin H. Land (Chairman). 

Dr. Edward M. Purcell 

Dr. Sydney Drell 

Dr. Marvin L. Goldberger 

Dr. Richard L. Garwin 

Dr. James Gilbert Baker 

Dr. Donald P. Ling 

Dr. Allen E. Puckett 

Dr. Joseph Shea 

Dr. Donald H. Steininger- (Executive Secretary) 

• 

• 

Fase_of_ 

Copy__Ze-of_f_copies 

SAF—Sla Control 1.2 ti 

/ 
. NRO APPROVED FOR GAY31T -

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 „4. 

v?-;74•Cr.-7 

ATTENDANCE LIST FOR PSAC 

1. SAFSL 

Gen Stewart 

Gen Bleymaier 

Dr. Yarymovych 

2. SAFSS/SAFSP 

Gen R. Berg 

Cdr Robert Geiger 

Col Bernard Quinn 

3. DDR&E 

Dr. Fink 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Koslov 

4. Aerospace 

Dr. Leonard 

Mr. Samuel Tennant 

Mr. Harry Bernstein 

Dr. Donovan 

5. EK 

Herman Waggershauser. 

Arthur B. Simmons 

John Sewell 

Stuart Lambers 

Charles Spoelhof 

. .6 6. GE 

Richard Passman 

John Gispan 

George Stocking 

A. G. Steinmayer 

GAMBIT 

Faso_ 1_4:ye_ ,y,!--, S 

Copy_ Zetcf_ 7 c9pies 

SAF—SL C ontro154 Ze% 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 GANBI,T 

PY:NA‘i 

U;L:Wth 

PSAC REVIEW OF MOL PROGRAM 

29 AUGUST 1967 

AGENDA 

1. Review of Advanced Gambit Performance 

a. Flight Results 

2. Advanced Technology Cdr Geiger 

(SAFSP) 

Col B. Quinn 

(SAFSP) 

b. Problems and Solutions Mr. S. Lambert: 

(EK) 

a. Cer-Vit and ULE Status 

b. High Speed Polishing Techniques 

c. Large Advanced Optics 

3. Program Status Summary 

a. Program Overview 

b. Identification of System 

Segments 

c. Contractors' Progress 

d. Master Summary Schedule 

4. Payload Status Review 

a. Optical System Review 

b. Work in Progress 

c. Testing and Manufacturing 

Techniques 

Gen Stewart 

(SAFSL) 

C. Spoelhof 

(EK) 

J. Sewell 

(EK) 

k-v*T-rz7V-1 GAMBIT 

vi2 2YTAN (4\ 

Pase__.7_of 

COPY--/-ei."-e conies 

Cont7o'k (/ 2 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

GAMBIT 

rPrel:rt vie% via 

d. Testing and Manufacturing 

Facilities 

e. Subsystems and Components 

5. Tracking Mirror Control and Other 

Payload Systems 

a. Tracking Mirror Bearing Desing 

Test, Validation and Subsystem Integration 

b. Image Velocity Sensor 

R. Passman 

(GE) 

S. Tennant 

(Aerospace) 

c. Acquisition and Tracking Scope 

6. Utilization of Man in Development M. Bernstein 

Phase (Aerospace) 

a. Manned Diagnostic Techniques 

b. Active Target Selection 

c. Results of Static Simulations 

d. Aircraft Simulation 

Pag3- 0 -Of pages 

7 

SA.P—SL Contrail.) k: -4 / 

2 

!.1 

:13-.111