NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DEC.LASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This proposal addresses the effort requested by the customer of sse in support 

of the recovery' of RV #3 from the ocean bottom off Hawai~. It documents .the 

effort, on the part of SSC, which has been performed to date and provides a 

description of remaining effort to support the task of recovering the lost RV 

and the information it contains. 

The recovery sequence for RV #3, after successfully completing its on orbit 

mission requirements wherein the take-up was loaded to its nominal capacity 

of 52,000 feet of exposed film from primarily high priority operational sequences, 

commenced on JClLY to, 1971. After proceeding successfully through most 

of the recovery sequence and entering the atmosphere within the expected impact 

area, a failure in the primary parachute system prevented normal aerial recovery 

and allowed the RV to fall, unsupported, into the ocean at a velocity estimated 

to be 307 (450 ft/sec) miles per hour. 

Preliminary reports, rumored to be from the recovery task force, indicated that 

a visual sighting of the RV on the surface of the ocean for a short period after 

impact have been found to be erroneous. The confusion seems to have been the 

result of a spurious signal, generated by one of the recovery aircraft in the 

area, which was similar to the normal output of the beacon on the RV. There 

were, however, reports that a spot in the expected impact area exhibited evidence, such as bubbles and a discoloration of the water which could have been 

caused by the high velocity impact of the RV with the water. 

It is estimated that the impact point of the RV with the· water can be determined to an accuracy of about I tJ square miles. The film manufacturer, 

Eastman Kodak, has indicated that there is a high probability that if the 

spools can be recovered without significant exposure to light, and if maintained "wet", that a good percentage of the imagery can be recovered. 

The problem then, is how to locate and retrieve the spools from the bottom of 

the ocean at a depth of 14,400 feet. 

I-I 

.j 

j 

~ 

I 

! 

j 

i 

j 
RO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

ECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

ECLASSIFIED ON: 25 .JULY 2012 

11. BACKGROUND 

1 A. Preliminary Planning 

preliminary planning meeting was called at Headquarters on 27 July 1971 

(Ref. BYE 109733-71). At this meeting a review of the information retrieval , 

potential confirmed the value of attempting a recovery from the ocean bottom. 

Consultation with the Navy revealed that the deep submergence vehicle Trieste II 

could be used to penetrate the ocean depths if the payload could be located. 

They (the Navy) indicated that a search vehicle, operating out of the Scripps 

oCeanographic Institute, commanded by Dr. F.N. Spiess is experienced in and 

capable of locating such objects on the ocean floor. The technique employed 

in locating an object on the ocean bottom is to search the target area with 

a ship towing a sensor "fish" suspended on a 30,000 foot cable. The primary 

sensor in the "fish".is a high resolution scanning sonar system having a cross 

track range of 1000 feet reported to be capable of locating objects smaller 

than 5 feet cubed at the operating depth. 

Once located, and confirmed by television pictures, a camera is lowered and 

pictures are taken of the payload. If confirmed to be the RV, a transducer 

will be lowered to the site to mark the target location. The Trieste will 

then be located over the transducer and subsequently lowered to the bottom 

for the recovery operation. 

The meeting identified several areas of investigation required to implement 

the recovery. SSC was requested to: 

1.· In cooperation with K'lC assess the probabie damage to the RV and 

take-up to aid in identifying the ~onfiguration of the unit on the bottom. 

2. Define the probable configuration of the unit and devise a means to , attach the recovery cable from the t4nch on the Tr.ieste. 

3. Investigate the illumination levels at approximately 120 feet depth 

to determine the vulnerability of the film to exposure at that level. 

4. Investigate the availability of a suitable shipping container for 

the return of the payload to the despooling facility while maintaining it 

II-I 

· (\ 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECU\SSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 .JULY 2012 

1mIDel;'sed in watel;' and protecte.d from light exposure. 

I 

s. Coordinate with Eastman Kodak and provide technical liaison concerning disassembly of the damaged take-up and adapting a despoolinS apparatus. 

The meeting also established a "recovery team" consisting of representatives 

from the various organizations involved as well as established communication 

channels for information flow between parties. 

. B. First Working Session 

Immediately following the meeting at Headquarters a working Bession was held 

at KlC to·:.discuss the probable configuration of the payload after impact with 

t~e water. Although there is no positive means, other than by recovery of the 

payload or by duplicating the impact situation, of determining the·final (after 

impact) configuration concensus of opinion of those most faml1ar with the hard.;. 

ware is that the unit will be in one piece. 

A means for attaching the payload to the lifting cable on the Trieste was discussed. Several approaches presented were: 

1. The use of a net, which could be laid on the ocean floor with long 

cables which are attached to the recovery hook on the Trieste's wench was considered. 

2. The use of "Vise-grip" type pliers or clamps, attached to the 1 !fUng 

cables which could be fastened to the parachute bridle straps was discussed. 

3. A plunger, inserted into the eu:ipty ;! drogue~ morter-canister was considered. 

4. A ''Hay hook" type of device which has arms large enough to encircle 

the entire payload was suggested. 

The meeting adjourned with the recommendation that either the net or the ''Hay 

hook" approach be considered further. Discussion of these approaches with the 

Operations Team was recommended so as to assess the compatibility of the hardware available and the experience of the crew. 

1I-2 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED Off: 25 .JULY 2012 

c. Second Working Session 

. A working meeting was held t& .Uzsee", with Navy personnel at the Pentagon) f()r 

the purpose of discussing the proposed recovery technique and to define the 

hardware interfaces involved. 

Participants at the meeting. were: 

L. B. Molaskey 

(Navy) , 

(Navy) 

(HQS) 

(SSe) 

presented slides of the Trieste II showing the overall configuration. He did not, however,· have detailed information· and lor drawings which are 

required to interface the proposed hardware. 

A review of the proposed recovery technique indicated that·t;he scheme appeared 

to be compatible with the capability of the Trieste and in some ways vas preferable being investigated by the Navy. A significant point 

brought out _stha~ the use of a Det or other sling type of 

device would undoubtedly stir up the sediment on the ocean floor to the ex- • 

tent that the operator's yisibility would be reduced essentially t~ zero for 

periods of up to an hour. A technique which did not disturb the botta.until 

after the payload was secured, such as the hook technique proposed, therefore, 

would be far less time consuming.· 

icated that the Navy is considering the use of a purse net 

'which could be dragged along the bottom. If the payload is not imbedded too 

deeply into the mud the net would cause the unit to tumble into its pocket· and 

when lifted would completely surround the unit. It could be transferred to 

the support ship in the same manner as originally proposed. 'J.'bia technique, 

however, has a potential light exposure problem at the 120 foot transfer depth 

if the unit has any large holes and i. held at that depth for any length of 

time. 

. . 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

. DECLA~SIFleDBY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 .JULY 2012 

IN1£}'!,t:II':.~ . 

indicat·ed that he would request thel'informatiOn'required as it 

was now understood. He suggested that we review the drawings and get together 

with his office personnel again. He also suggested,that we continue with the 

hook concept layouts and design but prior to cOrilmitting the hardware to fabrication that: we contact and visit·with the crew and inspect the vehicle (at 

San Diego). He indicated that such arrangements could easily be made from his 

office. (Ref. BIF 007-1266-71 -. MES2 Trip Report - Recovery of RV 13) 

d. Recovery Hook Design 

During this period of interface and requirements definition SSC has undertaken 

a design effort to convert the hook concept into manufacturable hardware. The 

design process has, in turn, revealed additional operational requirements. 

Four primary considerations for successful implementation are: 

1 •. Simplicity of Operation - The design should be capable of performing with a min-imum of control required of the operator." A purelymechanical device is preferable (no built-in electrical, hydraulic or other power 

source should be considered). The device will be activated by the manipulator 

on the Trieste II. 

2. Reliability - The device must be as fool-proof as possible. I·t 

must be capable of multiple operation (open and clos4) while at the operating 

depth. 

3. Flexibility of Operation - Because of the uncertainty of the 

payload status after water impact and its position on tbe ocean floor ,the 

hook must be capable of accoamodating whatever the combination of configurations. 

and penetration into the mud may be • .. 4. Cost and Schedule - The fabrication cost and time required to 

build, assemble and test the apparatus. must be minimhed. Solidification of' 

design requirements and firm interface~oristraints mu8t be achieved a8 800n a8 

possible to provide adequate fabrication and test time. The goal, ofcour8e:, 

18 to have a fully operational device on station on October lj 1971. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

111. RECOVERY PLAN 

As a result of the first two meetings and subsequent effort and discussions with 

Headquarters the following recovery plan is proposed: 

1. The Navy, with cooperation from the Air Force, determine the impact 

area as accurately as possible. Investigation of all available sources such 

as, from tracking data, telemetry, recovery ship position logs, recovery air 

craft flight recorders, etc. should be undertaken. The above data should be 

cross-checked against an analysis of the trajectory for compatibility. (It 

is assumed that this process is underway). 

2. Using the above impact point as a reference and with the estimated 

water descent rates provided by SSC and MWC (see ME-45 dated 2 August 1971) 

and the Navy provided sea current information a prediction of the payload 

location on the bottom should be calculated~ 

3. The search vessel, after ~~king whatever modifications to its instrumentation may be required, should be dispatched to search the area starting from the predicted resting point. The total area to be searched will 

depend largely upon the accuracy of the predicted water impact point. The 

drift of the payload in the water during descent is negligible as compared to 

th~ above accuracy. (D = VT = .5 ( 1~o2) = .14 nautical miles = 865 feet). 

4. Once the payload has been located, photographs and/or televison 

imagery should be acquired so as to assess its condition and configuration. 

SSC proposes to support this on site assessment to verify the identification 

of the payload and to determine the compatibility of the retrieval plan and 

equipment with the remainder of' the operation. 

s. Assuming that the payload is essentially intact as predicted, the 

Trieste 11 will descend to the spot homing in on the marker transducer. 

6. Using the manipulator on the Trieste II the payload will be~:extracted 

frOm the soft surface of the bottom. (It is predicted that the payload will be 

imbeded up to 80% in the soft silt of the ocean bottom). 

III-I 
RO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

ECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

ECLASSIFIED ON: 25 ~ULY 2012 

7. The Trieste II will then be positioned so as to locate the ''Hay hook" 

over the payload and the hook lowered and actuated to encircle the payload. A 

Itrial lifting test should then be performed within view of the crew to determine 

the adequacy of the hook grip on the payload. The gripping procedure can be 

'repeated by opening the hook, droping the payload a short distance ( 6 - 8 feet) 

and repeating the gripping process. When it has been established that the payload is secure the curtain will be released protecting the unit and its contents from further exposure', 'as the Trieste is raised to the surface. 

While playing out the cable on the winch the Trieste II will be raised approximately 120 feet off the bottom. The payload will then be lifted by the cable 

and will ascend with the Trieste II suspended about 120 feet below the witlch. 

8. When the .Trieste II reaches the surface a support ship will come 

alongside and divers will descend 120 feet to the suspended payload. ,.-

operation for this phase is required - hence the'- -,. - .J 

the payload. The d·ivers will first secure the bottom of the tubular curtain 

to completely enclose the payload into al --- bag having appropriate 

drain tubes to allow the sea water to escape when lifted above the surface. 

The divers will transfer the payload from the cable of the Trieste II to a net 

suspended from the wench of the support ship. The unit can then be lifted out 

of the water and onto the deck of the support ship. 

9. In order to.minimize the size and weight of the recovery shipping 

container, it will be necessary to remove the lifting hook from the payload. 

This can either be accomplished on deck. • or in a , -, enclosure 

within the ship. A one ton crane, with appropriate ropes or slings will be 

required to open the hook and remove the curtain. 

10. The payload can then be lifted I and placed into the 

waiting shipping container which is partially filled with sea water. The container will then be completey filled with sea water and a fungicide added to' 

prevent bacterial growth during the trip to the despooling facility. This action 

is required to preclude the need for maintaining the unit temperature below 40°F 

for the entire trip. Assuming the shipping container to be 64 inch diameter by 

III-2 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

61 inches high (a typical container which has been located by SSe) the estimated 

shipping weight loaded is 8,100 pounds. If the hook and curtain, etc. were" 

not removed prior to loading into the container the volume of the container, 

and hence the weight of water required to fill it would be doubled. 

11-. The container is then sealed and transported via ship to Hawaii 

where it is loaded onto an awaiting Air Force aircraft for its flight to 

<€cli~~~ . 

.-

12. At the r . 'facility the sealed container will be moved to 

the despooling area and the sea water drained and saved for use in the p-~ 

__ ~ operation. The container can then be opened --- and the 

payload lifted clear. Suitable cranes and handling equipmemt, of course, will 

be required. 

13. It is expected that the pressure canister will have to be cut"'away 

from the payload. Manual shears are planned. It is expected that since the 

shaft is br~ken, the mounting clamp need not be removed. The electronics 

in the shafl: will be cut away and the RV equipment· shelves pried apart with a: 

special hydraulic spreader designed for the purpose by~. The 4 : will be 

separated from the structure of the RV and set up for removal of the TU structure"from the stacks. This hardware also will be cut off using high strength 

shears. A hole, approximately 1 inch in diameter, will be drilled through the 

remaining electronics in the shaft. An axle will be inserted and the 

manually rotated for' 

stack periodically. 

The sea water will be used to wet down the 

(. ,., '. 

14. The remainder of the recovery and processing operation will be 

accomplished manually by removing the t _ ' in 2000 to 3000 foot lengths, maintaining the unit saturated with sea water and delivering the material, wet, 

for, 

I.I1-3 

. ,:.:-::T;l":~ ••.. ". '" .. .... " .'" .. " .......................... -~ .. -.. -~ ....... -.. ~, ....... --•.... -... ,----',-, ... _ .. -........ . 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 .JULY 2012 

IV • STATEMENT OF WORK 

Perkin-Elmer proposes to support the recovery plan outlined in Section III of 

this proposal by providing the manpower, material, and facilities to: 

1. Attend and provide technical liaison to planning and operational 

discussion meetings required to define the details of the recovery hardware 

herein proposed. 

2. Provide technical support for the determination"of the probable conf_~guration of the payload as it rests on the bottom of· the ocean • 

3. Design, fabricate and test a 1 ifting hook for use in the under-water 

recovery operation. Interfacing and operational details required to assure the 

compatibility of the hardware design with the Trieste II will be provided by 

HQS. The hook will be capable of: 

A. Multiple operation (open and close) at the operating depth 

estimated to be 14,400 feet~ 

B. Lifting and containirig the payload and its major internal 

components. 

C. Protecting the contents from significant exposure to sunlight 

as it is raised to the surface of the water and installed into 

the s~aled,· shipping- container. 

4. Investigate the availability of a suitable shipping container for 

transporting the payload, immersed in sea water, to the despooling facility. 

The cost of such a shipping container is not included in this proposal. 

S. Provide on-site technical support during the recovery operation. 

This effort will include evaluation, from photograph~ taken of the hardware 

on the ocean bottom,of the compatibility of_ the recovery method proposed. 

Identification of the payload and assessment of damage thereto prior to 

attempt1.ng actual recovery is assumed necessary for a successful operation. 

6. Coordinate with the operation's force and provide instructions as to 

the operation of the hook ; and the scheme to ·transf~r th~,-payloadfrOiD' the Tries'te 

-II' lifting -cable. to the: net of the support -ship. 

IV-l 
f

RO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

ECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

ECLASSIFIED ON: 25 ~ULY 2012 

I 

7. Provide technical liaison and information to EKin support of the, dis~ssembly 

of the take-up structure and installation of an ~ppropriate despooling ~xle. 

8. Provide a summary report of the overall operation with emphasis on 

the affectivity of the technique employe~, the hardware used, and the survivability of the photographic data recovered. 

9. The schedule for the above effort shall be ·from July 27, 1971 to 

November 30, 1971. Milestones are as follows: 

A. Initiate planning 27 July '71. 

B. Hook design complete 27 August '71. 

C. Complete fabrication of hook 23 September '71. 

D. Complete hook test 27 September. 

E. Commence on-site operational support 1 October '71. 

F. Complete recovery operation 15 October '71. 

G. Complete technical liaison at despooling facility 29 October' 71. 

H. Complete final report 30 November '71. 

IV-2 
" 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 ~ULY 2012 

v. TASK DESCRIPTIONS 

1.0 OPTO-MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Opto-Mechanical Engineering Department will direct, coordinate, and .manage 

all of the activity herein proposed.' It will also perform the necessary customer, co-contractor, and other agency interface tasks. It"Ul provide the 

"on-site" personnel required for the recovery operation. Within its operation 

it is also responsible for engineering, layout, and ,release of all the hardware 

involved. 

1.2 .OPTO-MECHANICAL ENGINEERING TASKS 

1.2.1 Provide technical liaison to planning meetings as required. 

1 .2.2 Engineer, design, and release for fabrication the ''bay hook". 

1.2.3 Provide technical support for the fabricatidn and inspection of the 

hardware. 

1.2.4 Prepare test plan and supervise testing of the hardware. 

. . 

1.2.5 Coordinate shipment of the hareware to the operational site. 

1.2~7 Provide on-site technical support for the recovery operation. 

1.2.7 Provide technical support at desPQ~ling facility. 

1.2.8 Write final report. 

1.2.9 Investigate availability of appropriate shipping container. 

2.0 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Systems Engineering Department will provide analytical support for the 

design of the hook hardware and recovery operations. 

V-:-I 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 ~ULY 2012 

2.2 SYSTEM ENGINEERING TASKS 

2.2.1 Calculate descent rate of payload after impact with the water. 

2.2".2 Perform force flow analysis to determine loading of hook components. 

Several hook concepts will be analyzed. 

2.2.3 Perform detailed stress and weight analyses of selected hook design. 

2.2.4 Document the above analyses for incorporation into the final report. 

, 

2.2.5 Support test planning and witness testing of the hook. 

3.0 MANUFACTURING 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Manufacturing Department provides the necessary manpower, materials and 

facilities to fabricate and assemble the hardware. 

3.2 MANUFACTL~ING TASKS 

3.2.1 Fabricate and/or purchase all detail parts and hardware as described in 

the released ''hook'' drawing set. 

3.2.2 Assemble the hook hardware. 

3.2.3 Provide appropriate shipping crate. 

3.2.4 Arrange for shipment to the operational site. 

4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

One hundred percent inspection of parts is not proposed for this one "of a kind 

hardware fabrication task. Therefore, the hardware will be inspected at the 

assembly level only. Quality Assurance will, however, participate in the hardware testing. 

V-2 
RO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

ECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

ECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

r.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE tASKS 

14.2•1 Inspec t hardware for compliance with the intent· -: of the. design layout 

~rawing (NOTE: The design layout drawing will be used as the final assembly 

drawing. Detail parts and components will be described by appropriate auxiliary 

views and/or separate drawings as required to facilitate fabrication and assembly ~ 

~) 

4.2.2 Review and approve test plan. 

4~2.3 Witness hook testing. 

s.o TEST DEPARTMENT 

S.l . INTRODUCTION 

The Test Department will provide the manpower and equipment required to perfrom a simulated, in ajr, loading test of the hook. 

S.2 TEST DEPARTMENT TASKS 

5.2.1 Prepare written procedures for test to be performed. It is anticpated 

that the tests to be performed will consist of a simple demonstration of the 

load carrying capability of the hook. The test procedures, therefore, will 

be simply a list of steps and/or operations to be performed using an appropriate 

load and crane. 

6.0 TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION 

6.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Technical Documentation Department is responsible for publishing the propOsarand .. fine 

report. They provide typing, editing, and illustrating support to the engineers 

who actually write the report. 

6.2 TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION TASKS 

6.2.1 Edit, Type, and illustrate as required, the proposal and the final report. 

V-3 

", .',,"~, -.""! . ~.:~'~'~."- ,. "'.~:;r'.: ,-, 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY:C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 .JULY 2012 

6.2.2 Print and distribute the proposal and final report bi accordance with 

security regulations. 

6.2.3 Incorporate interim reports of the project activity into the monthly DMR • 

... 

V-4 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

VI. COST INFORMATION 

.,,,~,,.~ ' ... 

VI-l 

:~ 

.' ., 
'. RO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

ECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

ECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

ATTACHMENTS 

jfhe attached illustrations show various hook concepts investigated during the 

design process _ 'l1le recommended configuration shown in Figure I provides the 

best combination of simPlicity of operation, minimum size and weight, fabri- , 

cation cost and load carrying capability_ It incorporates the desirable feature 

of increased gripping force with increased load _ 'Ittis is achieVed through the 

use of a simple "ice tong" mechanism employing a pivit for the arms which 1s 

located so as to cause the lifting cable tension tend to close the hook. A 

latch arrangement is used to hold the hook in the open position and a spring 

force, . released by the latch to' close the arms. 

VII-l 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

.1