4411111111111.11r 'y EAN:f sALENT.KEyHoLE 

CONTROL 

-.) - 77m1r 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 I NTLY 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

JUN 1 1968 

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. FLAX 

SUBJECT: (3ECRET-BYEMAN) Deferral of Development of the 

Unmanned MOL System 

At the $500-520 million level in FY 69, it does not 

appear possible to avoid slippage of the first all-up manned 

=== m=mmc launch in the present MOL Program from August 1971 until 

 sometime in 1972, plus an increase in Phase II costs to more 

 than $3 billion. In my opinion, this will result in the 

 program position being even more precarious than it is 

 already. 

In order to minimize slippage beyond August 1971, keep 

any future single-year fund requirement below $600 million, 

and hold Phase II total costs comfortably below $3 billion, 

I recommend that serious consideration now be given to 

deferring the development of the unmanned MOL system until 

a Block II buy. In view of the budget limitations and 

technical uncertainties in at least two areas essential to 

successful operation of the unmanned system, such a scope 

 reduction in the present program appears reasonable and 

 justifiable. 

 feasibility of unmanned "automatic" operations and convertimissions). The present baseline manned configuration would 

be developed without change to permit verification of the 

Program be established (two unmanned, non-payload qualification launches; plus four manned, all-up 30 day reconnaissance 

More specifically, it is proposed that a six launch MOL 

 bility to an unmanned system if that should become a 

 necessary or desirable future option. At a $525-530 million 

 level of funding in FY 69, the first all-up manned launch 

 should be possible in November 1971, and with subsequent 

launches on approximately five-month centers, the total 

Phase II cost would be at least $100 million less than the 

/4 - 

present program. 

nnnlr, 71 utlxcj,/ GAMBIT Page _I_ of _4) pages 

Copy of 4( 

SAFSL Control 

, 1 Bye. (attest 

MIIMSM 

EEM 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN-TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY 

_:,,, °^A■ rZ 
N HANDLE VIA r.r..Tn 

1,1 

BYEMAN-TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS 4OINTLY 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

a1,1 A /GAMBIT 

HANDLE viiv 

TEMAN.TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS 401NTLY. 

Page 4:2_ of IQ pages 

Copy _1 of 4_ 'co 

SAES', Control 

2,7*--485Aitt - 44 

The following sections deal briefly with what appear to 

be the pertinent factors associated with a change in scope 

from a seven launch manned/unmanned MOL Program to a six 

launch manned-only program. 

COST-SCHEDULE CONSIDERATIONS 

The present program schedules the first manned launch in 

August 1971 and the final unmanned launch in Jan/Feb 1973_ 

The cost estimates associated with this program are as 

follows: 

(Millions) 

FY68 

& Prior FY69 FY70 FY71 FY72 FY73 Total 

$722.3 600 600 485 350 83 $2840 

A reduction of $50 million in the present program in 

FY 69 would result in a 3-4 month slip in the first manned 

launch date and an increase in total cost of approximately 

$100 million. A reduction of $100 million in FY 69 would 

result in a 6-7 month slip in the first manned launch date and 

an increase in total cost of at least $200 million. 

In the present program, the two unmanned launches are 

estimated to cost somewhere between $300 and $400 million 

(nonrecurring plus recurring costs -- it is difficult to 

identify all of the subtle nonrecurring efforts). Of that 

total, some $25 million in nonrecurring costs will occur in 

FY 69 and approximately $50 million (both nonrecurring and 

recurring costs) in FY 70. 

To be conservative in estimating the cost of a six launch 

manned-only program, subtract the lesser figure quoted above 

for the two unmanned systems in the present program 

($300 million) from the total cost. Add $100 million for a 

fourth manned system. Assuming a $525-530 million funding 

level in FY 69, the first manned launch would be scheduled in 

November 1971, and the fourth in March 1973 (one month later 
irdfl',/GAMBIT 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN-TALENT-:(EYHOLE 

CONTROL SY3TEMS JOINTLY 

Page 2_ of 1.42 pages 

Copy of -64 co 

IA. M Control 

4iT5..24-64 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN-TALENT-KEYHOLE 

'ONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

than the second unmanned launch in the present program). 

Additionally, about $75 million more should be added to cover 

an overall cost increase in the program (resulting mostly 

from slipping the first manned launch). The total estimated 

cost for a six launch manned-only program would then be as 

follows: 

(Millions) 

FY68 

& Prior FY69 FY70 FY71 FY72 FY73 Total 

$722 530. 575 450 305 128 $2,710 

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 

None of the Gemini, spacecraft or booster subsystems or 

components for either the manned or unmanned systems appear 

to be critical technical items. Progress in all of these 

areas seems to be regulated only by dollar availability. 

In the camera subsystem, most components and areas appear 

to be making satisfactory progress, for example: 

1. The early engineering models and brassboards 

of the Itek camera-back (manned version with secondary platen) 

have demonstrated the feasibility of all components, and 

the first engineering model should be delivered to EK on or 

very near schedule late this year. 

2. The engineering models of the test chambers in 

Rochester have verified that EK will be able to measure flats 

and aspheres to the required accuracies. 

3. The most recent Gambit-Cubed mirrors appear to 

be about 1/15 wave and are still improving, giving confidence 

in the future ability of EK to produce 1/20 wave mirrors for 

MOL. 

4. It appears that the latest Gambit-Cubed will 

have an Optical Quality Factor well above 60 percent, and the 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

HANDLE VIA 

BYENIAN-TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS ,JOINTLY 

70 percent range in the near future, giving confidence that 

MOL will meet its 63 percent OQF specification on the first 

production articles. 

5. The ULE flat at EK has passed all tests to 

date and gives every indication that this mirror material will 

be available for the first all-up mission, thus greatly 

reducing potential thermal problems. 

6. General Electric has demonstrated the adequacy 

of the bearings and torque motor drive for control of the 

tracking mirror (indications are that these will perform 

better than specification). 

7. Simulations and zero-G tests have verified 

astronaut capabilities to point and track, load and process 

film, transfer film, etc. The visual-optics bench model at 

EK is performing better than specifications. 

Two areas in the camera system, however, have not yet 

made satisfactory or reassuring progress; these pertain to 

pointing and tracking with the large flat. A brief discussion 

of these two areas follow (also attached is a paper which 

elaborates on them). 

A total allowable pointing error of 2,000 feet has been 

established for the unmanned system. Total pointing error can 

be considered as including three general error sources 

(vehicle attitude/alignment error; ephemeris prediction error; 

and geodetic error). We have just completed a fairly detailed 

evaluation of the pointing error situation, with conclusions 

as follows: 

1. Attitude/Alignment Error: The allowable 

pointing error in this general area is 5.9 arc minutes (about 

800 feet on the ground from 80 miles). This appears reasonable, 

achievable, and not worth the cost of attempting to significantly improve it. 

2. Ephemeris Prediction Error: Today, the STC 

can predict ephemeris in-track position two orbits ahead with 

„1111. /GAMBIT 

V!A 

DYED/IAN:fa:cliff-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS .JOINTLY, 

Page _X. of 111 pages 

Copy of 41 

sox. Control 

S (a. $4 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

HANDLE VIA 

OYCMAN-TALENT-KEYK. 

CligiNfhOL SYSTEMS =WI " 

4,000 to 8,000 feet accuracy. In-track prediction error is 

only about 600 feet and not bothersome. Via SGLS, a new 

atmosphere model, a new math approach to ephemeris prediction, 

and a low-G accelerometer in the MOL vehicle, it is hoped to 

improve in-track prediction accuracy to about 1800 feet. 

However, the ability to do this will not be verified before 

mid- to late 1970. 

3. Geodetic Error: Target geodetic positioning 

errors today range from a few hundred feet in Western Russia 

to as much as several thousand feet in Central China. In some 

target categories, locations are known more accurately. For 

example, of approximately 2100 SAC missile targets, about 

35 percent have geodetic errors estimated at less than 

450 feet, about the same percentage have geodetic errors 

between 450 and 750 feet, with most of the remainder 1000 feet 

or less. However, great attention has been focused on these 

targets, and their locations are known more accurately than 

the majority of the Sino-Soviet Bloc photographic targets. 

About 500 feet geodetic positioning accuracy (750 feet as an 

upper limit) is needed for MOL. Progress is being made in 

this area, but it is slow. 

With regard to tracking, the Image Velocity Sensor is 

absolutely essential to the unmanned MOL (and also highly 

desirable for the manned system to fully exploit man's capabilities and measure his potential in space). The estimated 

capability to ground-program the tracking mirror rate is 

expected to be not better than about microradians per 

second. This, of course, is far above the allowable smear for 

tracking mirror rate errors. Either the IVS or the crew 

members must reduce this to or less, 

or else the desired resolution can degrade to as much 

as Early tests of the three IVS approaches 

under development indicate that all sense input velocities 

correctly only for certain scenes, all have center of power 

(rather than the specified center of format) tracking characteristics; all are very sensitive to scene detail and light levels; 

and all apparently will have problems coping with clouds. This 

is a very high risk area, and it will be another year or more 

before we really know whether or not one of these devices may 

be suitable for unmanned use. 

t-i!..L.E VIA r, ET BYEMAN- fALENT-KEYHOLE v:4) 

CONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY i it 

Page ,17: of igei 

Copy _4_ of _ 

SAFSL Control 

kV S. 2.4114144, 

pages 

copies 
1 

/GAMBIT 

1".".NDLD V!A 

BYET.,1A1-1-TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY 

Page .6_ of .L pages 

Copy of 

SUM Oontrol 

as al 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 11 1 HANDLE V!A 

BYEMAN-WALE=EYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY. 

On the other hand, simulations have verified the ability 

of the astronauts to manually point and track well within the 

desired limits. 

A conclusion which could be drawn, then, is that the 

feasibility of all critical technical areas for the manned 

MOL has been established, but not for the unmanned system. 

Answers to the pointing and tracking questions probably will 

not be available for 1-211 years. 

WHY MANNED RATHER THAN UNMANNED? 

The reasons set forth in the past for developing and 

flying the manned MOL photographic reconnaissance system 

first (e.g., assurance of meeting resolution goal at the 

earliest reasonable date; acquisition of a worthwhile intelligence product at the outset; earlier maturing of the unmanned 

system; increased quantity and value of photography in the 

manned system through cloud avoidance techniques and/or the 

selection of targets with a momentary increase in value; the 

accomplishment of certain tasks such as alternate films, 

visual reconnaissance, 

selective readout, it desired, etc., not now practical or 

reasonable for inclusion in the unmanned system; etc.) are all 

still valid. 

However, some of the above-noted advantages of developing 

the manned system and flying it first can diminish or vanish 

altogether if the first manned launch is delayed too far into 

the future. For example, if the known and potential technical 

risks now associated with the unmanned system were ignored, 

it would be possible to develop and launch an unmanned system 

by mid-1971 (either MOL hardware or a spacecraft from another 

program) for considerably less than $500 million in FY 69. 

In such a hypothetical program, several launches would be 

possible before the first launch in the present program if the 

latter is delayed considerably. I would not recommend such 

a program, however, believing that if the manned system were 

canceled, we should enter into a period of analysis and 

evaluation (proceeding only with the camera) prior to 

embarking on any unmanned-only program. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN-TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY 

The manned MOL system, on the other hand, in addition 

to offering an operational test bed for other possible manned 

military space missions or experiments (sea surveillance, 

radar reconnaissance, etc.), also will provide the necessary 

means for even better photographic resolutions in the future 

using the present basic camera system. We have been informally 

investigating this possibility for the past several weeks, and 

the results are sufficiently promising to warrant some 

contractor-funded study efforts in FY 69. Modest future 

resolution improvements (beyond norm) should be expected 

as a matter of growth through improved Optical Quality Factor, 

more precise control and drive of the tracking mirror, faster 

film, etc. The use of an eliptical tracking mirror (for 

fuller aperture) also appears feasible and would further 

improve resolution. 

An even more significant improvement in resolution 

appears feasible through an increase in focal length, a 

different Ross corrector lens arrangement, and a relocation of 

the platen. The trade-off here, of course, is the willingness 

to accept an even smaller field of view (perhaps, only 

3-4,000 feet diameter on the ground) than the present system; 

this would make the pointing problem almost prohibitively 

difficult in an unmanned system. It appears, that such a 

system could be incorporated in the present manned MOL system, 

in addition to the basic camera, with some rearrangement of 

the pressurized compartment, and with either the normal or 

reduced field of view selectable in flight. 

From all the above, the present MOL camera system (flown 

no lower than 70 miles) probably could be "grown" by the 

mid 1970's in the manned system from the present to 

approximately a resolution system. Further by adding 

a 3-4 foot "wafer" to the present forward unpressurized 

compartment and increasing expendables in the present spacecraft, plus utilizing the large-diameter core TITAN IIIM (or 

some other booster if available), lifetime of the manned 

system could be increased to 50-60 days for modest cost. 

POLITICAL/PUBLIC CONSIDERATIONS 

From the general Congressional and public view of MOL, 

a change in scope from a manned/unmanned to a manned-only 

/GAMBIT 

HANDLE VIA 

E MAN-1 ALE NT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY 

r".s. prig Page _7_ of / pages 

Copy of _ es 

111"AffAS 
BYEMAN-TALENT-KEYHOLE 

Page SI of la pages 

copy 4. of 

won Control 

fra.5 - 

kij /GAMBIT 

11ANr)LE VIA 

CONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY 

7.713.,77,,rn.r1M 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN-TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY 

program would not be apparent. The reduction from seven to 

six launches could be explained in terms of financial 

austerity, increased technical confidence, etc. If we can 

preclude slipping the first manned launch into CY 1972, we 

can also avoid the accusation that MOL has been slipped 

"another year" and is now "four years" behind the President's 

1965 announcement of the first launch in late 1968. Further, 

it would be refreshing to advise Congress during the FY 70 

budget hearings that, despite a modest slip in the first 

manned launch caused by FY 69 fund limitations, the total 

estimated cost is now lower than before. 

For the Congressional Committees and individual Congressmen and Senators knowledgeable on all aspects of MOL, the 

full explanation of budget limitations, desire for minimum 

program slip and minimum total program cost increase, plus 

technical uncertainties still associated with the unmanned 

system, should provide an acceptable justification. 

In the DoD, Mr. McNamara and Mr. Vance apparently were 

the primary unmanned system advocates. How the current 

incumbents feel is an unknown factor to me; however, at least 

some of the DDR&E Staff would support a change in scope to a 

manned-only program. Several points should be stressed, 

however, if a manned-only program is advocated. If a follow-on 

MOL Program to either the present or a manned-only program is 

approved, and no great gap in launch capability is desired, 

follow-on funding must be started in FY 71. Since the unmanned 

MOL system is already well-defined, it would be possible to 

start in FY 71 and produce the first Block II vehicle as 

either a manned or unmanned system. Further, the time interval 

of two years between now and when the Block II systems would 

have to be started would permit further analyses and verification of the feasibility and desirability of an unmanned MOL 

camera system (either in a MOL spacecraft or one from another 

program). 

Outside the DoD, Dr. Hornig and Dr. Land's PSAC Panel 

appear to be the only reasonably strong advocates of the 

unmanned system (except Mr. Schultze, in 1965, for purely 
4 

-72 ,-, "7-, 7•7■ 715111 

1 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN-TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Page of 1‘..2 pages 

Copy of 

SAM Oontrol tra4- 441 

financial considerations). In advising them of a scope 

change to a manned-only program, the points should also be 

emphasized that the spacecraft would retain all of the 

features of the present configuration to demonstrate the 

feasibility of unmanned operations, would mature any unmanned 

system sooner, be relatively easy to convert to an unmanned 

spacecraft, etc. 

DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION 

Past circumstances and decisions have led to the 

current situation (e.g., hardware status, sizable contractor 

team and facility capability, future schedule, etc.) wherein 

the program apparently cannot be stretched-out further in 

any reasonably efficient manner. Additionally, another 

significant launch delay beyond the Fall of 1971 can strengthen 

the arguments of those who question the advisability of 

proceeding with the present program and may place it in even 

greater jeopardy than it is at present -- if that is possible. 

A change in scope to a six launch manned-only program would 

appear to decrease considerably the impact of a sizable 

reduction in the FY 69 appropriation. 

A point not made before, and worth noting, pertains to 

the short time interval between the first possible unmanned 

launch in a stretched-out version of the present program and 

that possible in a Block II follow-on buy to a manned-only 

program. If the present program were funded at the $500 million 

level in FY 69, the first of the two unmanned launches would 

take place in about March 1973. In the manned-only program 

described earlier, if funded at the $525-530 million level in 

FY 69, the last manned launch would be made in about 

March 1973. If a Block II follow-on buy to this program were 

approved, a first unmanned launch, if desired, could be made 

in June or July 1973. A Block II buy to either a stretchedout version of the present program or a manned-only program 

would have to be funded starting in FY 71. 

In my opinion, the Secretary of Defense could approve 

a change in scope to a manned-only MOL program, as described 

beNtlIGAMBIT 

HANDLE VIA 

DYEMAN-TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS .101NTLY, 
HANDLE VIA 

BYE M.A.: I-TALE NT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL SYSTEMS JOINTLY. 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 TOP SERT3 

earlier herein, without abrogating the commitments Mr. McNamara 

made to the President in 1965 when he recommended approval of 

the program. Additionally, it should be noted that work on the 

unmanned MOL system could be reinitiated at any time in FY 69 

or FY 70 with the impact being either additional funds needed 

in that Fiscal Year or a schedule adjustment to accommodate the 

unique unmanned efforts within whatever level of funding was 

available. 

Although, it appears that the Secretary could approve such 

a change without outside coordination, he should so advise the 

President, National Space Council, Dr. Hornig, and the BoB at 

an early date thereafter. 

I have briefly discussed this proposal with General Ferguson 

and he concurs in the basic recommendation. 

In light of all of the preceding, I recommend that the Air 

Force advocate to OSD a change in the scope of the MOL Program 

to a six launch manned-only program, to fund it at a level of 

$530 million in FY 69, to schedule the first manned all-up launch 

in November 1971, and request approval by June 15 to proceed 

accordingly. 

JAMES T. STEWART 

Major General, USAF 

Vice Director, MOL Program 

Atch: 

a/s 

rl 

1•„,-..c_Ajl. VIA 

BYE rvv; N- TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CONTROL. SYSTEMS ,LOINTLY1 

Page _AO_ of 1.77 pages 

Cop7 of C 64 

td,i .us 444 S Control 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Hardie fria 

Corircl 

EFFECTS OF POINTING AND TARGET TRACI(ING 

ON DORIAN-PHOTOGRAPHY 

If the smear free, or Otatio, resolution of a system, is 

better than the design goal, smear can be tolerated up to 

the point that the dynamic (with smear) resolution equals the 

design goal. For the Darted System the an-axis tolerance in 

terms of angular rate is radians/second (2 sigma). 

Although many factors are involved, the key item in achieving 

this specification is the reduction, of the residual smear 

attributable to tracking errors to about radians/ 

second (2 sigma). 

While this tracking error-and the associatednoise are 

the mein contributors to sMear, pointing accuracy is also'a 

major concern, since any deviation of the target from the, 

center of format produces smear which degrades the photography. 

Pointing errors of More than of arc will exclude 

a target entirely from the9000' diameter field of view. It 

is evident then that accurate pointing is critical to-both 

acquisition and reduced smear. 

There is high confidence.that man can point the system 

well within the specified limits, 'since by use of the acquisia. 

tion and tracking scope he csii compensate for ephemerie-and 

target location errors. TO achieve this same goalantomatically with an Image Velocity.Sencak will take a great deal: 

of effort and success depends on several .current and proposed 

projects to be successfully completed and demonstrated in the 

next 2-3 years. 

The Smear Budget 

The first step in establishing the smear budget is to 

identify the direct-causesiotsmear and apportton the total 

smear tolerance among the direct causes on the basis of their 

2-sigma variabilities. On-axis smear is caused by steadystate angular velocity errors in tracking the central point of 

the target (tracking rate error), random perturbations about 

• 

Page _L r-aas 

Copy of = conies 

&MI/ 0012tra.1 ,2T-7, 

. ' 
NRO AFIPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2915.,,e,". L. 

the steady-state tracking rates (tracking jitter), and 

vibrations of the camera platen and the optical elements. 

The current smear rate tolerances allocated to tracking-rate 

error and vibration and jitter in microradians/second (2 sigma) 

are 

Manned/ 

Automatic Automatic 

Navig/Control 

Vibration 

Image. Motion 

Pointing and Tracking are asseciated directly with 

Navigation/Control and ImageMotion and are the subject of 

the succeeding paragraphs. While:Vehicle Vibration is also 

(' very important it will not be considered here. 

Pointing 

The Dorian System will achieve its goal of collecting 

resolution photography only under specified,Conditiona,. 

One of the prerequisites is that the:selected target be 

acquired in the center of the photographic format. Any 

deviation from thiS degrades :the resolution from The 

problem of where the selected targetsHWill:be.in:theformat 

(9000' diameter at nadir oh*he:earth from SON.X.) and therefore what resolutions will)*,aOhieVed will be in part 

determined by how well the MOT, system is able to point at the 

target. Pointing accuracy ie:a:- function of target:position 

-accuracy, orbiting vehicle poeition- ACcuracv and the MOL 

.system electro-mechanical-pointing accuracy;- 

Each of the three, rtme contribOtors to the pointing 

problem (geodetics, ephemeris; AVE) will bediactiSsed 

individually; then- in a ayatemscoritext;.- Results from 

latest (1 April '68) MisSien Payload ystem 80gment Performance 

7:! 

Page of _i patios 

Copy of _ co ieS 

SIAFSL Oolitrel 
Figure la shows the smear that results from target 

position errors.- Noting that the root sum squarA exv14^1° 

budget for the Navigation and Control System is radian 

second and assuming that the'allocation to target error would 

be comparable, it follows that the.target location should be 

within or better if this error source is not to 

produce excessive smear. 

Extensive effort has been devoted to establishing 

accurate geodetic positions for missile targets. SAC has 

identified 2077 targets and his designated 1406 as "Bard" 

sites and 671 as "Soft" sites. Hard sites require horizontal 

position accuracies of 450 ft (90% CE), 'while soft ,sites have 

a requirement for 1000 ft (90% CE). As of 29 Dec 1 67; ACIC 

reported the following status on these targets: 

Horizontal Uncertainty lir. of Targets 

(90% CE) 

0-450' 

451' 750' 

751' 1000' 

732 

792 

498 

1000, 55 

rI I !I 

fef44or pages 

Copy 43. or .41 co 

Mai Oontrol — 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 29.15 

Analysis Progress Report (mkt=100) will be used in assessing 

the total system pointing capability. 

Target location (geodetics). The main optical system 

has a half angle field of view of approximately 0.54° (4500' 

at nadir from 80N11) which establishes the upper bound for 

allowable target position error for the automatic MOL system. 

Although acquisition is the first and paramount requirement, 

accuracy of positioning the target within the field of view 

has an important impact on resolution. This is true primarily 

because all rate nulling systems assume that the target is in 

the center of the format. 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

100 

(DOR IAN),A, 

b. DUE TO TARGET LOCATION ERROR 

.01•••••■■•••• 

80 

Milmi•■■••••• 

0 . 4 t 8 12 16 20 

TARGET LOCATION ERROR -,400 FT 

Figure 1a Residual image Motion After IMO (2 a) 

80 a. DUE TOIINTTRACK POSITION ERROR 

r••4 60 

.c4 

40 

0

0 

z 20 

0 

0 1 I 2 3 4 

Figure 1b IN-TRACK, POSITION ERROR 1000 Y1 

-----1- 

SEC:IIET (DORIAN) 

I I 
NRO•APPROVED F 

RELEASE 1 JU1 F2015 

The positioning accuracieffliscussed above pertain to 

only the SAC missile targets which. have the highest priority. 

Intelligence targets for satellite photography are located 

by many agencies, using various methods, and in most instances 

much less accurately than these missile targets. The large 

fields-of-view of current photographic satellite systems do 

not require very accurate target locations to insure that the 

\target is within the frame. Most important to MOL, however, 

is that even among the highest priority targets there area 

large number whose locations are not known within the 

limit necessary to achieve the MOL photographic design goals. 

In most of the Eastern Eurasihn landmass, target location 

accuracies even approaching those in the SAC missile target 

deck are not available. ACIC'indicates that using DAFF 

CM-5) photography accuracies from 1000 to 2000 ft in these 

areas are achievable but not necessarily programmed. 

Investigations to date indicate the following in regard 

to target positions: 

1. There is no standard method of defining a 

reference point for the center of a collection requirement 

target. 

2. Target coordinates are not referenced to the 

same datum. 

3. The accuracy of the target coordinates 

presently used by Imagery Collection Requirements Sub-Panel 

(ICRS) is not known. 

4. The accuracy of target location varies with 

geographic location. ACIC estimates that by 1970 most 

targets of interest will be in, areas where source material 

will give them the capability to provide locations within 

about 750 ft. to 1000 ft. 

The seriousness of this problem to the automatic •unmanned 

MOL becomes evident when it is realized that all necessary 

improvements to the geodetic situation must occur in the 

next 2 to 3 years. No large scale effort to dramatically 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

improve in, this time frame is currently evident, although 

the capability to do so ii said to exist. 

Ephemeris Prediction 

The solution to this:problem is primarily the responsibility of the Satellite Control Facility which will provide 

the ephemeris to the MOL. The MOL Computer will interpolate 

the ephemeris table prOvided and with the aid of inputs 

from the low G accelerometer will refine its predicted 

positions against time. 

The MOL specification to meet precision acquisition and 

smear requirements reauires the navigational capability of 

the system to be in-track, and altitude 

and cross-track, with desired capabilities about one third of 

the required values. (For the effects of in-track error on 

smear see Figure lb.) The numbers quoted are two sigma, and 

assume error propagationpf 2.5 orbit revolutions. These 

requirements imply something substantially beyond the capabilities of current ground tracking and orbit prediction. 

These accuracies require:such things as employment of a low G 

accelerometer (LGA), a much improved atmospheric model, 

improved tracking capabilities and advanced orbital prediction 

techniques. 

Current estimates of navigation prediction accuracy 

after 2 orbita,:bated.ongroUnd tracking and computation alone 

are given below:: 

ILT-TRACK ERROR .fiwp sum, FT), 

(NO LOA Rader 'Data 'Only) 

No Drag 

Current Low ActiVity 

High Activity 

internal To 

Data Fit 

(No Predict) 

1600 

1800 

3600 

1.6 pages 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2 

It should be noted that the current capability is only 

marginally adequate to acquire the targets in the 4500 foot 

radius allocationand that during periods of high solar 

activity that the targets would not be acquired at all. 

The estimated prediction.eapability for the 1970 :72 

time period not using the law G a::!,3elerma,:ter is shown in 

Figure 2. This estimate is based on the space Ground Link 

System (SGLS) and the Advanced Orbit Ephemeris System :(AGES) 

reducing the current conservative in-track prediction 

estimate of about 8800 ft. to about 6000 ft. The improved 

atmospheric modeling based on LOGAX data to further reduce 

the error to 3000 ft, and the Combination of these in con 

function with the lowG_accelerameter to Ultimately equal or 

better the specified is Shown in Figura 3. Figure 4 

is an error budget table for 1970 - 72 based on all the . 

above improvements contributing properly and utilizing the 

low G accelerometer. 

While these accuraciesimq.be aehieved there is,great 

dependence on several largeiMprovementa occurring In series. 

In Any case the feaSibilityLand practical deMbnatratiOn of 

these combined innovations will not OCOUr:initill970 at the 

earliest. • f-/ 

AVE 

The mechanical pointing or AVE pointing requirement of 

of arc appears to.be reasonably achievable based 

on analytical and test data to date. The task is demandin 

but considered well withia the •state of art. 

System Pointing 

An analytical estimate! of pointing accuracies achievable 

in the 1970 - 1972 time period is provided as Figures 5 and 

6. These estimates are based on the following assumptions: 

a. Target location accuracies less than 

b. All improvements to the ephemeris prediction 

system operating properly (AOES, ADS,,-SGLS, Improved 

Atmospheric Model). 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

S EC RC T (DOR I A 1\11, 4%- 

tu 

Estimated Vehicle Position Errors, No LGA, 2 aPropagation Revs .1.25 2. 5 3.5 

In-track Error Ft 

1. Drag + Geopotential 

2. Ephemeris Interpolation 

3. Attitude (1%)* 

• 

Altitude 

1. Drag 4- Geopotential 

2. Ephemeris Interpolation 

3. Attitude (1%)* 

Cross-Track 

1. Atmospheric Rotation + Geopotential 

2. Ephemeris Interpolation 

*Allocations 

raga of pages 

Copy of 

SUSI, Control 

SECRET (DOR IAN Handle via BY .MAN 

Contiol Syst-1 t II, 
,to 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 5 tal 

.\k ON IT I 0 N OF EI:1-1E/4ERIS- if I H. 

2-SIGMA IN-TRACK FOR 2.5 REV PREDICT SPAI 

(1000 ft) 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

CURRENT 

SGLS AOES 

,04:$ 

LOGAX 

SPEC 

SGLS AOES 

LOGAX LGA 

.Figure .3 

Fare. 1_6 

d '41 COWLES 

CvAtiol: 

Handle via BYEMAN 

SECRET. Control 
I 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 201 

In-Track Error - Ft 

1. Geopotential 

z. 

Estimated Vehicle Position Errors with LGA, 2 a 

PrOPa'eti011 "'"f Revs 1.25 2.'5 3.5 

2. Position Estimation Procedure .(1%)! 

3. Ephemeris Interpolation. 

4. Attitude Control Rotations 

5. LGA Systematic Errors (1%)* 

6. LGA Random Errors (0.1%)* 

Altitude 

1. Geopotential 

2. Ephemeris Interpolation 

3. Position Estimation Procedure (1.%* 

4. LGA Systematic Errors (1%)*. 

'Cross-Track(Same as Figure 2 

*Allocations 

s.e- ,ZZ pages 

f COes 

DMZ. Goatro 

SECRET (DOR IAN) 
SCCFiET CDORIAN)4, NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

TWO SIGMA POINTINGERROR(ARC YIN) 

0 AUTOMATIC MODE.- INCLUDES EPHEMERIS. AND TARGET LOCATION 

ERRORS WITH NO LEARNING EXCEPT LOW G ACCELEROMETER 

• 

SPEC REQUIREMENT - EXCLUDES EPHEMERIS AND TARGET 

LOCATION ERRORS 

POINTING ANGLES DERIVED FROM ATS 

SAME AS 1 BUT EXCLUDES LOW G ACCELEROMETER 

Figure 5 

II_ of. 

Copy 

SAYSL aantroJ. 

DOR IAN) 
U Un I TA INI 

\\70 APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

4

ne-of-Sight Pointing Error 

Automatic Mode (A Mode) Pointing Error* 

(2 Sigma) 

Including all errors without LGA 

.Including all errors with LGA 1 

Neglecting vehicle ephemeris' and, 

target positions error 

Pointing Angles Derived from ATS 

With ATS boresighting on two targets 

With ATS horesighting On three targets. 

ATS Pointing Error (Automatic Mode, 

after boresighting) 

Including all errors without LGA 

Including all errors with LGA 

Neglecting vehicle ephemeris and 

target positions errors 

(2 Target Boresighting) 

(3 Target Boresighting) 

* Assumes uniform target density on the ground 

Pr#Oary optics scan field 

1Q140° 

-30 < E < 20° 

ATS scan field' 

I S21 < 45° 

0 < E < 70o Page 2.2 of 

CopiN,3_ of 

SIAM Dontrol 

,SECIIET (DOR IAN) 

Ij 
4%- 

NRO APOROVEUDR--- 

RELEASE .1-dtitY 2015 

c. AVE pointing:error •Of no more than minutes 

of arc. 

It is important to emphasize that large improvements in 

target location and emphemetis prediction are mandatory for 

the unmanned system but are:only desirable for the manned 

system. This is true since man, using the acquisition and 

tracking scopes to point and track targets, effectively 

eliminates the navigation and geodetic errors. 

Image Motion Compensation 

Smear due to.image motion ubich would result in photographic degradation comes from-two sources; 

1. Changing relationships between the orbiting 

vehicle and the ground target and 

2. Tracking rate errors. 

In the first case the-seene. appears to expand and turn 

about the nulled axis (the tiacked point) as the target is 

approached and the reverse action takes place as the target 

is passed. 

At extreme lodk-anglesl igeomettic image motion near the 

periphery of the format can -be as much,as 7.5 times the 

budgeted on-axis smear rate Of radian/see (2-sigma 

The effect of this off-axii smear At. the edge of the format 

is to degrade the ground resolution to a value three-timea 

the on-axis ground resolution (for the nominal exposure ..time 

With a focal plane shutter, only a narrow strip of.the 

format is exposed at a given'instant. , If the image motion 

within this strip canlbematched by moving thefilm,.the 

,smear occurring in, the area,of the slit can be eliminated 

'without effecting smear of points beyond the slit. This 

technique is called across-the-farmat IMC (X-format IMC). The, 

nulling of this motion is to be achieved by manipulating the 

platen and the solution seems quite feasible at. this time. 

/3 _...aaaGes 

4057/ Contro3„ 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR,...,*".""61111..."-- 

RELEASE 1 JULX2015 

The more serious and currently assessed as more 

difficult motion compensati+= i* that of nulling in..track 

rates. 

Reduction of the tracking-rate error is accomplished in 

two control steps: preprogrammed computer control followed 

by fine control by either a;crewman or an Image Velocity 

Sensor (IVS). The tracking-rata error allowed by specification 

in programmed rate control is radians/second, 

2 sigma. The crewman or IVS is required to reduce the trackingrate error from this level to about radians/second 

or less. radianFasecond smear would yield photography on the order of assuming a set of conditions 

which would yield photogr-a-pb5r with a residual tracking rate 

error of radians/second. 

It is therefore evicent, that without man or the IVS the 

very high resolution goals for 1101, cannot be achieved. 

Extensive simulation test, runs by the crewmembers 

provide a high degree of confidence that the specified levels 

of residual smear can be easily achieved. The same confidence 

for the IVS accomplishing this job is not enjoyed at this time. 

It is too early in the IVS testing program to state that 

the specified rate nulling job cannot be accomplished 

automatically in the necessary time frame. It is, however 

safe to say that much redesigning, testing, and perhaps 

re-inventing must be done before a confidence factor approaching 

the current confidence in man's ability is achieved. 

Recent evaluations of the contenders for the IVS 

production contract were given the following general evaluation 

by General Electric (direct qUotes): 

I - 

a. All sensors correctly sense input velocities 

for some scene conditions. 

b. Al]. sensors have Center of power tracking.. 

.characteristics. 
NRO APR FOR 

SE 1 JULY 2015 Ct= 

c. All sensors sensitive' to scene detail. 

d. All sensors have light:level'problem. 

e. All sensors have "cloud" problem. 

On the basis of this test program which was quite comprehensive one vendor was recommended for elimination and the 

other two were "sent back to the drawing board" to try to 

eliminate the deficiencies noted.in their hardware. 

There were two basic deficienCids evident in all 

contenders. One was thdt they;foCuSed on *haz...-C,E. terms .

"Center of Power" (the ares'inthe format providing the most 

Stimulus to the sensor). ThisHMeani that the veloCity of the 

"Center of Power" rather than the degired center Of fOrmat 

will be measured and compensated for. The otherandMore 

serious problem comes from the fact.that all sensors centered 

on clouds when they were present... This characteristic 

introduces significant errors the Mapitude of.which depends 

on the altitude and veloCitr Of:- :the cloud deck and the percent 

of cloud cover. .It is estiMnted 3f tx :2;o:7s.aor mOns0t0.1i 

* OT0nd VA(lusv ChAn tho 

410,01: or 4lionu 

4t‘q0,44 it4 U41: r,41:4 

.7 Careful stu oc 

1r, 

ta - 

atl , 

The abilLty of the MOL system to providallilor better 

rs3o17.ticn 7.--;erciflad tar zeta det,eltleq 6101. AW, 

-LT-a-am= 

agenciec A.C-- and the Arscr. Without considerable 

improvement in geodetic and ephemeris prediction accuracy in 

the next 2-3 years, the photographic resolution desired, and 

.; -2... 

) 

1 TT lit 
1■1R0 APPROVED 

RELEASE 10.14.112Y1 15 

; 

evan automatic target acqUisitia4 -in Many cases is in 

doubt, This fact coupled with the develOpment:and testing 

difficulties and. uncertainties associated with the IVS.mattes 

the unmanned version of 144 appear as a rather high risk 

- development at this time. There -.is consolation however in 

the fact that man can essentially elimliate most of the 

difficultiei associated with tracking aid pointing4 ;hid 

fact provides confidence in the manned version as an'. 

operational reconnaissance sYsterif: asi well as .4 test bed 

available for developing snore`- sophisticated automatic sy