rv\ty," 

4-4'<! H'' '.../ .'111",10 •\1 ;0:11 

% 04- 

WFSCopy A of //Copies 

Pages: c_C 

• .1 

NRO-O.PROVED FdiR 

'REIASte'1 JULY 2045 

CONTRIBUTIONS OF MAN 

IN THE 

MOL/DORIAN SYSTEM 

October 1967 

Prepared By 

Aerospace Corporation 

2350 E. El Segundo Blvd. 

El Segundo, Calif. 

APPROVED BY 

Harry Bernstein 

Assoc. Group Director 

Operations Directorate 

MOL/SEO 

r. p,I;krd 

, • 

t- 2727 

4Ve7 
- • ' 

• NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE4"1 JULY 2015 

s. 

11 FL:1 ir 71 91 R, 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. 

II. 

INTRODUCTION 

CREW'S ROLE IN SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

Page 

4 

5 

A. Reliability Projections 5 

. B. Vehicle Design Philosophy 6 

C. Crew Functions 8 

D. Diagnostic Functions 9 

1. Poor Resolution 11 

2. Pointing Error Bias 14 

3. Summary 14 

III. CREW'S ROLE IN RECONNAISSANCE MISSION ENHANCEMENT '15 

A. Active Indicator/Weather Avoidance Mode 15 

1. Rationale 15 

2. Concept of Implementation 16 

.3. Simulations 19 

a. Description 19 

b. Simulator Contrast Setting 21 

c. Aircraft Simulation 23 

d. Simulation Results .24 

4. Mission Enhancement due to Active Indicator Mode 26 . 

5. Assessment Plan 29 

6. Active Indicator/ Weather Avoidance Mode Summary 30 

B. Other Reconnaissance Mission Enhancement Functions 30 

1. Verification 30 

2. Visual Reconnaissance 31 

3. Special Films 31 

IV. ADDITIONAL SYSTEM CAPABILITIES AFFORDED BY CREW'S 

PRESENCE 32 

A. Astronomy 32 

B. 33 

V. SUMMARY 35 

S 

 !rig' 47t 7 ?'.'"" • ' ,-.-, ■—..s, ,-.*- -,-,.. r.. ^ r• . ri " ',L "I ;4r - L.-.„.-i,,..;r iyii ,10,!7)ri lif\k,,firP 

!,, ,4 tiv,_, uwJiL,./,:.1,,,uv,0 
MIROAPPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 _cage 

FORWARD 

This report documents a briefing, "Contributions of Man in the 

MOL/Dorian System", given to Dr. Land's Panel of the PSAC 

on 29 August 3967. The briefing was prepared and presented 

by Mr. Harry Bernstein, Aerospace Corporation, and reflects 

the work of many people within Aerospace, the MOL SPO, and 

the MOL Flight Crew. 
(11 iNri-r1 

4'..1 L-4:5 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

. RELEASE' 1 JULY 2015 

0. 

(k) r 

c‘Nt;f1 (:)U 

I-1 1 

I t4 k • Liru 

e 

,;! f■.n. n-7) it, 9 ;- 4? 0;1 ;,, 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The MOL/Dorian program has as its basic objective the provision of a 

resolution photographic reconnaissance capability. Additionally, this 

capability is to be provided in both the manned and unmanned configurations. 

In accordance with these objectives the baseline program includes seven 

flights, the first two of which are unmanned and associated with launch 

vehicle and spacecraft performance and integrity checks. These will be 

followed by three manned flights and two unmanned flights, all of which will 

incorporate all elements of the complete system. 

This document will address the flight-crew's role in the MOL/Dorian 

system and the results of investigations performed to date on their ability to 

perform assigned tasks. In a gross sense it is possible to separate the areas 

of the crew's contributions into three categories; namely, their primary role 

to aid in the realization at the earliest possible date of a mature_ system 

(both the manned and unmanned configurations), and their subsidiary roles 

of enhancing the value of the primary reconnaissance mission and providing, 

by virtue of their presence aboard manned flights, system capabilities in 

addition to those associated with the primary reconnaissance mission. These 

three categories will be discussed in some detail in Sections II, III and IV, 

respectively. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

a, Li L'a L-)) i.11 PAla 

II. CREW'S ROLE IN SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

One of the most significant roles that the crew will play on the 

early manned flights will be to assist in bringing the total system, 

particularly those elements of the system associated with the unmanned 

or automatic configuration, to a mature level at the earliest possible 

time. Experience on past and current unmanned programs in this • 

mission area has indicated that a considerable number of flights are 

generally necessary prior to achieving a fully mature operating system. 

The increased complexity of the Dorian system, as compared to these 

other programs, suggests that the flight crew can provide valuable 

services in terms of bringing the system to a mature status, while simultaneously permitting the gathering of a significant amount of high-resolution 

_photographic reconnaissance data. 

A. Reliability Projections 

The MOL/Dorian system consists of four basic segments: 

the Gemin-B, the Laboratory, the T-IIIM launch vehicle, and the mission 

payload. (In the unmanned configuration the Gemini-B is replaced by a 

support module, incorporating the data-recovery vehicles and those elements 

of the film-transport system associated therewith.) In making some overall assessments of the reliability situation with respect to these segments, 

the statistical estimates of reliability for the mature configuration are 

quite high due to the basic design philosophy of incorporating redundancies 

wherever possible in all of the system components. In particular, probabilities of mission success on the order of .95 for a 30-day mission have 

been projected for the Laboratory segment, and this figure has been substantiated both by contractor analyses of unmanned orbit-control modules 

incorporating substantially the same subs.ystems and designed for the same 

mission duration, and by analyses of the failure history of the 206-I program. 

With respect to the Laboratory segment, a relatively mature 

system is expected early in the flight program. This assertion is based 

on the fact that the Laboratory subsystems, for the most part, are derivatives of current technology as developed for Gemini and Apollo. Additionally, 

rrA FIT Jar► Ire 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE" 1 JULY 2015A 

1;,•,,,p7• 1.!= LtruU kJ LL3, , 

U 

the extensive amount of ground testing incorporated within the baseline 

program instills additional confidence in the Laboratory segment's 

achieving its estimated high level of reliability from the outset. 

Statements similar to the foregoing can also be made with 

respect to the Gemini-B and TIIIM segments; however, the situation 

with respect to the mission payload, segment is different. The precise 

resolution requirements for the Dorian system, plus the target acquisition 

problem associated with the 1

o field of view, necessarily result in a very 

complex mission payload incorporating, in addition to the large optical 

system, many ancillary devices required to accomplish such functions as 

image motion compensation, precise pointing, across-the-format image 

motion compensation, alignment, etc. While the statistical estimates of 

reliability for a mature mission payload segment are high, this again 

being due to the extensive redundancies incorporated in the design, many 

of the subsystems of this segment represent new technologies or extensive 

engineering adaptations of current technology components. (See Figure 1.) 

While all possible attempts will be made to achieve specified levels of 

performance for the mission payload on the initial flights, it would be 

prudent to expect instances of failure or out-of-spec performance situations 

on these flights. It is believed, therefore, that with respect to the mission 

payload, the crew will make its most significant contribution in terms of 

bringing the system to a mature level. 

B. Vehicle Design Philosophy 

The baseline system design must necessarily be compatible 

with the objective of both a manned and unmanned configuration resulting 

from the program. In addition, however, it must be assured that the 

design philosophy is compatible with the concept of crew contribution to 

the realization of early system maturity. Since the MOL/Dorian system 

must fly in both manned and unmanned configurations, a redundancy philosophy has been adopted in the design for the mission payload and all those 

Laboratory subsystems associated with the unmanned configuration. 

rzasiar3f-c

nsba

0.";' 

:I • 

a 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

. RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

A maintenance concept has been permitted on the life-support subsystem 

only, which is of course peculiar to the manned configuration. The baseline configuration does, however, provide for a backup manned switching 

capability in most instances where' subsystem or component redundancies 

exist. In the mission payload segment, the manned configuration incorporates all of the elements of the unmanned mission payload segment, with 

a single exception being those elements of the film-transport subsystem 

associated with the multiple data recovery vehicles. That section of the 

film-transport subsystem is, however, amenable to extensive ground 

testing. 

With respect to the major effort of diagnosis of failure on out-ofspec performance situations, the concept has been one of accomplishing this 

on the ground, and to this end, extensive instrumentation and telemetry 

capability has been incorporated in the baseline design. It is reasoned that 

the primary conduct of these efforts on the ground is desirable, due to the 

ready availability of extensive engineering personnel support. The crew 

will, however, contribute significantly, as will be illustrated later in this 

document, to such diagnostic efforts. Therefore, the manned configuration 

incorporates several features to facilitate their performance of such functions. 

• 

First, there is the malfunction alarm system which monitors 

approximately 100 Laboratory and 100 mission payload segment parameters 

giving aural and visual ques to the crew in the event of out-of-tolerance 

conditions on any of these monitored parameters and, in the event of such 

an occurrence, will immediately initiate the recording of telemetry data. 

However, in addition to this subsystem, several hundred instrumentation 

points for both the Laboratory and mission payload segments are displayed 

to the crew, and the crew has access to the telemetry data via the keyboard. 

This, plus the extensive switching capability provided, will allow the crew 

members to take corrective actions and/or perform diagnostic functions 

in most instances more readily than these. could be performed by the ground. 

Furthermore, many of the equipments provided for accomplishment of 

17t1Tr•-•''' 

ft 

LI SPFLIE, UTAK 1 rip,m 

..111\4SZ 
FRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

to I' 

r p ti-L!Lil 

17frL -[IT 1 :_rif-T 6 

mission or backup functions will be of utility in diagnostic procedures; 

for example, the acquisition telescope and the main optics visual display. 

And, finally, a secondary platen has been incorporated in the camera 

design and an on-board processor provided, which enable the flight crew 

to process and inspect the photography on the spacecraft. 

C. Crew Functions 

The crew's role in system development can be broken into 

three general categories. First, there is their basic ability to keep the 

manned vehicle operating on orbit for the maximum possible duration, thus 

permitting the obtaining of more operating data. This is facilitated by 

their ability to operate the system in a degraded mode, thereby circumventing many types of failure situations, their' ability to restore the system 

to a normal operating configuration more rapidly than can be done from 

the ground, and their ability to perform certain types of maintenance or 

parts interchanging. Second, the crew can perform health checks on 

functioning subsystems, primarily in the mission payload area, but also 

for the Laboratory segment, to assess whether they are performing up to 

specification. Third, in situations of either failures or out-of-spec performance, the crew can perform certain types of diagnostic functions to 

verify the telemetry and provide information to complement that attainable 

on the ground via telemetry. As will be demonstrated in the following 

section, these.diagnostic actions will in most instances permit identification/ 

isolation of the source of off-nominal performance quite rapidly, as opposed 

to the extended periods of time required for similar action if it were an 

unmanned vehicle being flown. 

'Analyses have been performed on many of the Laboratory and 

mission payload subsystems to assess where the crew could respond more 

rapidly than the ground in restoring a normal operating situation after a 

failure. Basically, this capability arises from the. redundancy implementation concept for the automatic operation; namely, in most instances 

where an out-of-tolerance condition is sensed on the unmanned configuration, 

the affected subsystem is put in a quiescent state and telemetry recorded 

. C1 ("1-15 7(:;1.1":+111 1111r;VY.pri 

Lt1.-biAt 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

'11/A

r,\KrW,L112n(tsi1,:Fl.h0:L)) Li Ai L-).) 

until arrival over a ground station. Upon receipt of the telemetry data 

on the ground, corrective actions are determined and appropriate commands sent to the vehicle. In the manned configuration, while similar 

deactivations of the subsystem take place, the crew upon observing their 

instruments can determine and take the necessary corrective actions 

prior to arrival over the ground station. While many specific examples 

could be given for these types of situations, this would not be particularly 

germane to the issue of the crew's role in system development, as these 

functions are associated with keeping the present flight operating as 

opposed to trying to determine the reason for the off-nominal situations 

for purposes of influencing future flight performance. 

Similarly, the crew can also correct off-nominal situations 

by operating the system in degraded modes, in some instances directly 

inserting themselves into the system. operation. This capability becomes 

of particular importance with respect to some of the mission payload subsystems in that, as discussed previously, they represent technology 

advancements and hence, higher risk development items. For these 

mission payload items, manned backup capabilities have been provided 

in the baseline design, as delineated in Figure 2. For example, if the 

image velocity sensor is inoperative or not operating properly, the man 

can perform the tracking function; or, if the star tracker (precise pointing 

reference) system has malfunctioned, the crew can perform the target 

centering function. The determination by the crew of when they should 

perform these backup functions can be based on either a failure indication 

or as a result of diagnostic procedures in out-of-spec performance situations. 

D. Diagnostic Functions 

As indicated in the preceding•section.s, there are many types 

of functions the crew can perform to restore normal operating conditions 

and/or circumvent many types of failure or off-nominal performance 

situations via degraded mode operations which are contributory, though 

in a secondary manner, to attainment of early system maturity. It is, 

•c.fr;T(79.7';'0[1.11n rt\nriFfi 
FJR0 APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

11.T 1:i LI 

J fti} rrirr[frial5 

U 

however, their abilities to perform diagnostic functions to assist in 

the isolation of sources of off-nominal performance which is of greater 

significance in this regard. Through such diagnostic operations, considerable data can be made available to the ground to complement that 

available, and, more significantly, at considerable savings in on-orbit 

operating time as compared to unmanned approaches. Additionally, since 

off-nominal situations, especially With respect to payload performance, 

can be detected early in the mission by the crew, corrective actions or 

degraded mode operations will still permit the gathering of better quality 

reconnaissance data during those early flights in which these diagnostic 

procedures may be utilized, than if the system were flown unmanned. 

The MOL/Dorian system is extremely sophisticated as corn-

-pared to prior optical reconnaissance systems such as Gambit and Advanced 

. Gambit (G3 ). In addition to basic problems of optical quality, there are 

those associated with such things as image velocity sensors, precision 

tracking mirror drives, across-the-format image motion compensation 

devices, focus sensors, precision pointing references, and alignment 

systems, all of which must function properly to achieve the specified performance. Additionally, the inability to effect a simulated zero-g complete 

systems test prior to launch precludes precise knowledge of the characteristics of the performance capability of a particular optical system and thus, 

for example, the ability to precisely determine platen position for best 

focus. .There are, therefore, a multitude of possible contributors to offnominal performance situations which could radically increase, as compared to past programs, the complexities of time requirements for diagnosis 

a.'nd correction, were a purely unmanned development approach attempted. 

Furthermore, even for a matured system, the limitations on ground testing 

may require crew peaking-up of the opticL system on attaining orbit to 

achieve best performance. 

(r7 7n1 tarl- rnahr)).rlarLPrl ib L.9 • 
• 

nn fr 

. P 

11.r111:.2 U ‘.■ 

r 

11,i7 N Lt.41 

IVRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

ttak..4) 6 • .‘)L1 12/Pal 

The preponderance of planning and design effort to date 

has necessarily been associated with providing crew capability for 

restoring normal operating conditions and degraded mode operations. 

such that operations could be safely maintained for as long a period as 

possible on a particular flight. More recently, analyses of crew con-. 

tributions in the area of diagnostics have been initiated at SAFSL/ 

Aerospace, with the initial objectives of defining a basic approach and 

establishing specific requirements for more detailed analyses. Thus, 

the discussion to be presented herein is offered to illustrate the approach 

and the type of thinking currently underway. Much work remains to be 

done, and in the near future these initial efforts will culminate in a 

briefing to be presented to the MOL/Dorian associate contractors to 

initiate their efforts in support of this work. 

By way of illustration of the basic approach, Figures 3 through 

7 present some typical diagnostic flow charts for two examples of offnominal mission payload performance; namely, situations in which poor 

photographs are being obtained and where targets are not being properly 

contained within the field of view. In both cases, a preliminary analysis 

has been made of the possible steps which crew members might take, in 

conjunction with the ground, in attempting to isolate the source(s) of these 

.performance degradations. While the data of Figures 3 through 7 are 

presented in flow chart form, this does not imply that these tests need 

be performed in the order indicated. On the contrary, these tests can 

in most instances be performed in any order, and in whole or in part, 

depending on the totality of clues available to the crew and the ground as 

tb the possible sources of the trouble. 

I. Poor Resolution 

Suppose, for example, that poor pictures are being 

obtained. As indicated in Figure 3, the crew would be aware of this by 

virtue of their having processed and inspected photographs from the 

secondary camera, and in certain limited cases from the primary camera. 
ti 

V,,Z( Cato • ('..1151r,7r;2 ^ r,vp ^ n n prirr)1,9 P 

-,irt414.3 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

1;,1% rA6i? • 4 :1 

Po, 12 

(By way of illustrating the time-saving features of this diagnostic 

approach, the crew would detect this degraded performance essentially 

on the first day of the mission, whereas if the system were unmanned, 

the degradation would necessarily go undetected until the first data 

bucket had been recovered and its film load piocessed.) Their inspections 

of these pictures could indicate whether the loss of resolution was due to 

a smear or to a general degradation of picture quality (blur), as, for 

example, might be associated with an.out-of-focus condition. 

If the problem is one of a smear degradation, possible 

diagnostic steps are illustrated in Figure 4. The asterisks indicate where 

some telemetry will be available, though in most of these cases the crew 

can significantly augment the information that *ill be derived therefrom. 

For example, is the smear across the entire frame or off-axis only? If 

off-axis only, the across-the-format image-motion-compensation devices 

are suspect, and the crew can check the platen and shutter drives. If 

this is, in fact, the source of the degradation, the crew can perform the 

,target centering function for the remainder of this mission, thus avoiding 

dependence on this device and retaining performance. 

If the smear is across the entire format, it could be 

attributable to an attitude control jet firing during the photographic operation, 

in turn due to failure of the inhibit signal to be properly transmitted. The 

crew would readily.detect this, due to the sound of and motions introduced 

by such jet firings, and if this were the cause, they could report this to 

the ground and manually inhibit the jets during subsequent passes. 

If it is not the attitude jets, the crew might investigate 

whether all of the frames of a stereo sequence are smeared or just early 

frames. If it just the early frames, there is a situation of an overly long 

settling transient attributable either to basic vehicle dynamics or a long 

time constant in the image velocity sensor control loop. The crew could 

observe the nature and time duration of the settling transient through the 

main optics eyepiece, both with and without the image velocity sensor in 

the loop, and if the settling time is- improved without the image velocity 

sensor, then its time constant is the problem. If not, the problem is 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 1AL • 

,ti udsf 

attributable to vehicle dynamics, though in either event the crew could 

determine a new, more desirable settling time for use in the mission 

planning software. 

If all of the frames of a stereo sequence are smeared, 

then the problem is attributable to the image velocity sensor. The crew 

could observe, again through the main optics eyepiece, the nature of 

the discrepancy (e.g., does the scene tend to drift in one direction only, 

or is the motion of an oscillatory nature?), and for the remainder of 

this mission can perform the tracking function, thus retaining resolution 

performance. 

If the problem is one of a general degradion (blur), similar 

diagnostic steps are illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. Has the optical alignment drifted out? The crew can check the optical alignment, realigning 

if necessary, and if this was the cause, attempt to correlate possible 

subsequent onset of misalignment with orbital events. The degradation 

may also be due to focus and to investigate this,:a series of secondary 

camera pictures may be made with the platen biased in incremental steps 

from the position predicted for best focus. Should a more desirable platen 

position be determined from an on-board inspection of these photographs, 

the crew can introduce the appropriate bias into the platen position for 

subsequent photography. 

The degradation could be attributable to an early onset of 

thermal deformation of the tracking mirror. To•investigate this, a series 

of pictures could be taken with varying door-open times to establish if 

necessary a new maximum time for use in subsequent target programming. 

If none of the foregoing is determined to be the source 

of the performance degradation, the problem may be one of basic optical 

quality or perhaps due to an induced high-frequency oscillation. In Figure 

6 the latter possibility is addressed with sequential steps to investigate 

ringing due to attitude control jet firing, bearing stiction or noise, highfrequency oscillations introduced by the image velocity sensor control loop, 

or mechanical vibrations somewhere in the system. 

P n 11,9, p■ r 
[2i 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

testi) 

1?) 

14 

2. Pointing Error Bias 

In another example of possible diagnostic procedures 

Figure 7 presents a representative flow chart for the case of a pointing 

error bias. If such a bias existed, targets would either not be contained 

within the field of view or generally be off to the edge. The crew would 

detect this readily, depending on the cause, via either acquisition scope 

observations and/or.from the processed secondary camera film. Since 

this problem could be attributable to erroneous ephemeris inputs from 

the ground, the flight crew would immediately request the ground to check 

these inputs, though simultaneously they could initiate steps as indicated 

in Figure 7 to determine whether the errors were due to vehicle equipments. In Figure 7, the possible sources of error attributable to vehicle 

equipments are indicated, along with the types of diagnostic and corrective 

actions which could be taken if the error sources were determined. In any 

event, if the error could not be corrected, the crew could perform the 

centering function for the remainder of the mission. 

3. Summary 

. As discussed previously, the foregoing discussion on 

diagnostic procedures was intended to illustrate the approach, and the 

data of Figures 3 through 7 should not be misconstrued as a final delineation of such diagnostic procedures for the particular problems addressed. 

It is apparent, however, that there is considerable potential for crew 

utilization in this area, and in the forthcoming period this work will be 

extended, leading to more definitive delineation of such procedures for 

these and other types of potential operating problems. This work will 

also include consideration of the technical feasibility (including human 

performance considerations of each step), the possible utility of special 

tools such as measurement devices to aid in diagnostic procedures, and 

techniques for the preparation of the crew to accomplish such tasks. 

Grs

.110 46; 4 

riJir Ds,!1,7,9111Trt,i, 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

1 

L.? 

1,3 ■JLL-2;Lii u \.11■,..-:,j 

III. CREW'S ROLE IN RECONNAISSANCE MISSION ENHANCEMENT 

Since the manned configuration incorporates all of those devices 

necessary to permit operation of the mission payload segment in an 

automatic fashion, this permitted examination of the total reconnaissance 

operation to identify crew functions which could be used to enhance the 

intelligence value of the MOL/Dorian photographic take. These considerations led to the development of a concept of operations referred to 

herein as the active indicator/weather avoidance mode, which will be 

discussed in some detail in the sections to follow. It will be shown that 

the manned flights of the baseline program, in addition to facilitating 

crew utilization in system development, will permit an evaluation of 

i. 

crew effectiveness of this mode. 

A. Active Indicator/Weather Avoidance Mode 

1. Rationale 

In assessing possible crew contributions to mission 

enhancement it was necessary to first address the question of the types 

of things of interest to a system capable of achieving resolution. 

Typically, these things tend to be the observation of as.fine detail as 

necessary to assess the performance capability (in its most general sense) 

of adversary weapon systems, both present and potential. Yet, the occurrence of situations at particular target sites in which such fine detail may 

be observed is highly transitory in time, for the objects on which these 

detailed observations are to be made are not always present at the sites 

or exposed. It was therefore reasoned that from a gross understanding 

of the operations at these sites, as derived from our present base of 

intelligence, certain indicators typified by those delineated in Figure 8 

could be defined, which if present could increase the probability that a 

photograph taken of that site at that time would, yield valuable technical 

intelligence information. These technical intelligence indicators, derived 

primarily from examination of Gambit photography, were defined consistent 

with expected crew observation capabilities using the acquisition scopes 

incorporated in the manned baseline configuration. 

• • -n■ nrm, wo7nqrAil r11," . 0 J ' 
NEW AIRCRAFT 

DISASSEMBLED AIRCRAFT 

VEHICULAR ACTIVIT Y 

ERECTION/LOADING EQUIPMENT EXPOSED 

UNUSUALLY CONFIGURED AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT IN UNUSUAL LOCATIONS 

GSE EXPOSED 

SILO DOOR OPEN --SPECIALVEHICLES 

MISSILES EXPOSED 

AIRCRAFTIN MAINTENANCE AREAS 

VEHICLE ACTIVIT YAROUND AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT SUBSYSTEMS IN OPEN 

VEHICLES PRESENT VEHICLE ACTIVIT Y 

ESTIMATED 

DECISION RESOLUTION INDICATORS PHOTO TARGET 

PECIAL HANDLING 

INDICATORS OF TRANSITORY INTELLIGENCE POTENTIAL 

H 

in 0 0 0 0 In LA tef 0 v-i .--.1 el In 0 0 to (A 0 fel in • 

—. .... ■•••I ...i I i 004 

•■•4 I11 ..-e r-ii 

fr) 

tt 

(D) SECRET - SPECIAL HANDLING 

AIRFIELDS 
61 

QM:4314;4 V. 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 201,5 

- ,- , i .1 -

4_:, ki v,.. t4,,g. .; 

of fli:%1;•., • 

Also of importance in assessing possible areas of 

crew contributions is the severe limitation imposed by the small (1°) 

field of view of the Dorian optical system. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 9, wherein comparisons of photographic coverage for 

a representative target complex attainable by Gambit, advanced Gambit 

(G3), and Dorian are made. It is seen that because of the wider field 

of view and the strip cameras incorporated in the Gambit systems, many 

target points can be contained within a single frame of photography, 

whereas the Dorian field of view, represented by the circular areas on 

the figure, generally permits the containing of but a single target in a 

frame. Our experience with the Gambit systems has indicated that in 

.many instances little information was derived.from the photographs of 

the pre-selected target about which the Gambit frame was centered, 

whereas other targets which appeared within the frame by virtue of its 

extent yielded considerable intelligence information. The limited field 

of view of the Dorian system denies to us these bonus targets, and this, 

combined with the aforementioned discussion of the transitory nature of 

the objects which it is desired that Dorian photograph, makes it particularly critical that the optical system be directed to the right target at 

the right time. 

The possible use Of the crew to examine pre-programmed 

.alternate targets in addition to the targets programmed for the main 

optical system and assessing in real time whether a deviation from the 

programmed main camera path would be desirable could, if feasible, 

enhance the probability of imaging the appropriate target at the right 

time. 

2. Concept of Implementation 

The use of the crew in accessing targets in addition to 

those programmed for the main camera system has been examined in 

detail, leading to a concept of implementation for the active indicator/ 

• •ciPrt7P11.1111.r-1.1Th WW1 fIR,11f'- ■ 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

weather avoidance mode. This is schematically illustrated in Figure 10. 

The manned configuration is provided with two acquisition scopes of 10-

inch aperture and having magnifications up to 127X. These telescopes 

are programmed independent of the main camera system against both thd 

main camera and alternate targets. As seen from Figure 10, while the 

main camera is photographing the previous target the crew uses the 

acquisition scopes to inspect the next main camera target and its 

associated alternates and makes decisions on the state of each target 

so inspected; i.e., is the target cloud covered, clear but in an inactive 

state, or clear and in an active state. These decisions are indicated by 

the crew member depressing an appropriate button permitting the onboard computer, based on a pre-programmed decision logic, to select 

the target to be photographed. 

To assist the crew in making proper determinations on 

target states in as fast a time as possible, a cue projection-system is 

incorporated in the baseline design wherein prior photographs of the 

:programmed target sites can be presented. This cue projector can be 

' , used on a pre-pass basis, to study photographs of the targets programmed 

for the next orbital pass and during the _pass itself while the acquisition 

scope is slewing to the next target. In addition, the acquisition scope 

contains provisions for cues to be displayed directly through its eyepiece, 

and forthcoming simulation activities will assess the desirability of this 

feature and types of cues (alpha-numeric vs. pictorial) to be utilized 

therewith. 

The targets programmed for both the main camera and 

the acquisition telescope are selected on the ground by the mission 

planning software, and this information together with value functions 

for each selected target, in both active and inactive states, are transmitted to the orbital.vehicle. In making such target selections, the 

mission planning software will take into account the kinematics of the 

system (e.g., orbital speed, mirror slew rates, settle times, etc. ) 

(jI5)17111 

t9A- Lt0:01, 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 ‘.7 )-. j 1L 

and will also evaluate the effects of interdiction decisions in favor of any 

active alternate on subsequent target programming, the latter to ensure 

appropriate choices of programmed alternate targets. In any event, 

if the crew members give no indications of activity at any of the programmed alternates the programmed main camera target will be photographed, it having been selected on the basis of the highest value in an 

inactive state as compared with other targets in the field. 

It is of course desirable, from the point of view of enhancing the number of active target photographs obtained, that the crew 

members be able to examine as many alternates as possible, particularly 

in dense target areas. Therefore, in the implementation of this concept 

of operations, considerable effort has been expended in an attempt tor 

optimize the man/machine interface. Admittedly, this process is not 

fully complete and future simulation efforts are directed at currently 

open issues. However; to assess the basic validity of the concept prior 

to proceeding too far in its implementation, an initial series of simulations 

has been conducted to verify that the flight crew is in fact capable of per- 

' forming the necessary target inspections. These simulations and the 

results therefrom, will be discussed in the following section. Before 

proceeding to do this it would be well to discuss the characteristics of 

the particular tool, namely the acquisition telescopes, which will be provided to the flight crew for accomplishment of this task. 

As mentioned previously, the acquisition telescopes are 

of 10-inch aperture and have a high magnification range from 63X to 127X. 

At 63X, the field of view of the acquisition telescope is 1°, which is equal 

to that of the main optical system, and necessary if automatic pointing of 

the acquisition scopes is to be accomplished. The associated apparent 

field of view is 60° and at 127X the real field of view is 1/2°. The minimum 

exit pupil at 127X is 2mm. The basis for selection of this particular design 

was a requirement that it provide 3-ft resolution or better against a highp 1 p rtnril* 

dirt\ 

."\rirn 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NUJ LU~JU~ lijidliYL-z1LarA 

t'age .0) 

contrast target from 80 n. mi. altitude. This requirement in turn was 

developed on the basis of the examination of Gambit photography and 

the definition of indicators for particular target sites established therefrom. With this level of resolution available to the flight crew, the 

defined indicators should be readily discernible, though, as will be 

discussed in relation to the initial simulations performed, the mere. 

visual detection of an apparent indicator is not in itself the total problem. 

3. Simulations 

a. Description 

An initial simulation has been conducted at SAFSL/ 

Aerospace to establish the level of flight crew performance in performing 

the active target detection function. This simulation also served the 

basic purpose of educating those involved, thus facilitating better future 

simulations in the more advanced and sophisticated simulators intended 

to be a part of the baseline program. In accomplishing this initial round 

of simulation, seven flight crew members were utilized as subjects, and 

a base of stimulus material was developed using Gambit product photography. 

The total sample available for these tests was 240 scenes plus an additional 

60 scenes which were used for trial runs. 

The simulator, illustrated in Figure 11, was built at 

the Aerospace Corporation and is a static simulator, in that no apparent 

motions of the scene due to erroneous tracking rates, for example, are 

present. The simulator, when used with Gambit material, simulates 

magnification of 60X and 120X, essentially the same as for the acquisition 

telescopes, but in discreet steps rather than with a continuous zoom 

capability. The apparent field of view was slightly less than that associated 

with the acquisition telescopes, but not significantly. Both monocular and 

biocular configurations of the simulator were utilized in these tests to 

establish any difference in performance due to this factor. Additionally, 

since the positive transparencies being utilized were processed to enhance 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015,r '4 

Y 

■Tt ("V 

1/23'4 : "J 

I tel f;\ 

I-OU 

\n• 71 - ^ fl rtr7i 

tl'AL 

U 

contrast, the simulator included a mechanism for the introduction of 

a flooding light into the scene to reduce contrast. The means for 

calibration of this flooding light and its effect on simulation fidelity will 

be discussed in the following paragraphs. In conducting these tests 

the crew members, taken two at a time, were given a two-day training 

session wherein they were exposed to numerous samples of Gambit . 

materials in an attempt to familiarize them with the types of scenes 

they would be viewing and the types of indicators associated with particular target classes. Subsequent to this, trial runs were made on the 

simulator to acquaint the crew members with its method of operation 

and to familiarize them with the amount of time to be given for each 

scene examination. It was necessary to establish a set of instructions] 

for the crew members, placing relative priorities on such things as 

accuracy and response time. In doing this it was judged to be preferable 

to emphasize accuracy as opposed to speed in this initial—series of tests. 

Therefore, in order of importance, their instructions were first to 

attempt to identify activity when it existed, second to minimize false 

alarms (the indication of activity when, in fact, it was not present), and 

third to respond in less than the maximum time allowed whenever possible. A maximum time of 12 seconds per scene was selected for these 

tests as being representative of the time between succeeding decision 

points in a dense target field. The basis for emphasizing accuracy rather 

than speed in these initial tests stemmed from the belief that with 

more training, as the crew members will experience as the program 

progresses, their ability to perform this task rapidly will improve. 

This simulator was not intended to be a complete 

representation of the orbital vehicle equipment. For example, it was 

not possible in the time available to simulate the cue projection system, 

and in these tests only verbal cues were given to the crew. This was 

done on a scene-by-scene basis with the test conductor indicating to the 

subject the class of target next to be presented in the viewing device. 

TiAir.$ I 4) 

k t 1 

, I: -....7.' t I. • 

trt 

Da)t.■ ) 4 

i. 

6 r 4/i r \-111-9\ 

,1/J\ it 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

.RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Car43'4.1.41 ,t6, id 

Due to the limited amount of pre-test training 

given to the subjects and the inherent inability to familiarize them in 

this short period of time with all of the types of indicators for various 

target classes, it was deemed desirable to permit (after a subject's 

examination of a particular target and a statement of his decision) some 

discussion between the subject and the test conductor as to the reason 

for his determination. This procedure was followed primarily in cases 

where the subject' s'response did not agree with the pre-scoring of the 

stimulus material. In such cases, an attempt was made to establish 

the reason for the subject's response in light of what he had been told in 

the training session. In certain instances allowances were made in the 

scoring where the test conductor believed that with better preparation ' 

the subjects would have responded more accurately, though the scorings 

are presented both with and without these allowed answers. 

b. Simulator Contrast Setting 

Due to the contrast enhancing processing given to 

the material which constituted the simulation stimulus, it was necessary 

to degrade the contrast in the simulation. This was done by using a 

flooding light introduced into the simulator light path. The concept for 

calibration of the flooding light is depicted in Figure 12. To perform 

this function, frames of Gambit photography taken of CORN (Coordinated 

Optical Range Network) targets in the Unites States were utilized. For 

certain of these frames, reflectance measurement of the black and white 

edge targets was made on the ground simultaneously with the photography 

from overhead by the Gambit satellite. The ground instrumentation 

values of target contrast were utilized with an atmosphere model in the 

computation of target contrast when viewed from above the atmosphere. 

To verify the contrast values thus computed, densitometer runs were 

made on the Gambit original negatives, and computations then made to 

account for the level of processing given these negatives to estimate 

the contrast level at the Gambit system entrance pupil necessary to 

produce the recorded image. Typical results of these computations 

4.1 
$ 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

(RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Par 22 

are shown in Figure 13, which indicates good agreement with the two 

sets of computed, above-the-atmosphere target contrasts. (The ground 

camera data is seen to have exhibited considerable scatter, with some 

contrast values above the 9:1 design value for the edge targets, and 

was therefore discarded in favor of the ground photometer data.) 

The balance of the procedure consisted of setting 

the positive transparencies of these CORN target photographs in the 

simulator and then adjusting the flooding light until the target contrast, 

as measured through the exit pupil, agreed with the calculated abovethe-atmosphere values (see Figure 13). This value of flooding light 

level was then utilized for the actual stimulus sample. 

The use of this flooding light technique to offset 

the effects of film processing to enhance contrast results in a conservative 

simulation because of two factors.-First,- within the frame containing 

the CORN target, an improper rendition of contrast over the entire frame 

results. This may be shown mathematically, and in particular it may be 

demonstrated that all points in the frame of lower contrast, as compared 

with the edge target, will be presented at less than their actual contrast 

when the edge target is properly displayed. Second, the frames containing 

the edge targets were generally taken under good weather conditions 

(little haze), and flooding light values derived therefrom and then used 

with stimulus material obtained under less favorable conditions results 

in a very conservative presentation. 

The only way to solve this problem is to get stimulus 

material which has been neutrally processed (no contrast enhancement). 

Since, however, the original negatives have been processed to enhance 

contrast, this can only be effected by processing the positive transparencies 

in a manner to offset this original negative processing. The Special Projects 

Processing Facility (SPPF) at Westover has been contacted on this problem 

and is working towards the delineation of appropriate techniques for providing such stimulus. To date, a small sample has been produced and 

. ti 

• 

Plt e. • 

(m1`,7(..r1Ft\ 9 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

'RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

delivered, is currently undergoing examination for quality, and is being 

compared with materials previously used. There appears to be reason 

for encouragement that such materials can be made available for sub, 

sequent simulations. 

c. Aircraft Simulation 

Simulations of the active target mode must 

necessarily be performed in ground-based facilities using photographic 

stimulus, and to this end such capabilities will be included in the Mission 

Development Simulator at General Electric and the Mission Simulator at 

VAFB. This approach is dictated primarily by the necessity to prepare 

the flight crews for this task using realistic stimulus depicting actual 

targets. As mentioned previously, the technical intelligence indicators 

-- have been defined based upon the best understanding of operations at 

. particular target sites, and are generally unique to these sites. To 

properly perform the detection task it is necessary that the crew members 

:become thoroughly familiar with the nature of these targets and the meaning, 

in terms of possible presence of technical intelligence information, of

various observed situations. Since it is not possible to find analogous 

situations at target sites within the United States, the use of photographic 

simulations is dictated. 

In adopting this approach, certain elements of 

simulation fidelity must necessarily be given up. For example, the 

stimulus material is in black and white rather than color, it is two- 

(dimensional rather than three-dimensional, and certain of the dynamic 

aspects, such as motion at the target, variation in haze with line-of-sight 

• 

'angle, etc., cannot be represented. Therefore, the use of an aircraft 

simulation to complement the ground simulation, primarily for qualitative 

purposes in familiarizing the flight crew with differences in viewing 

conditions between the simulator and the orbital case, has been recommended. 

Such a program, which would involve the7utilization of an aircraft incor- 

' porating an appropriately scaled acquisitiop telescope, is currently under 

definition. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

'RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

- ; 

t;:y.4 

igr! 

k2iV'i.161 

d. Simulation Results 

The results of the active target simulations with 

the flight crew members as subjects are depicted in Figures 14 through 

16 inclusive. In Figure 14 overall simulations scores are shown for 

each crewman and for all the crewmen taken together. For each of the 

seven crew members the left-hand bar presents the percent correct 

active target detections, that is, what percent of the time when the target 

presented was actually active did the crewmem successfully detect the 

activity. The right-hand bar presents the false alarm rate, that is, the 

percentage of time when the target was in fact inactive that the crewman 

indicated the presence of activity. In both cases, scores are presented 

both with and without the allowances made on ,the basis of subject de- • 

briefings. The data presented in Figure 14 includes the scores of both 

the biocular and monocular tests made with the crewmen on the simulator. 

Independent examination of results from these tests indicates no statistical 

difference in the scorings, thus further substantiating the choice of the 

monocular configuration for the orbital vehicle - acquisition telescope. 

The specific nature of the scenes comprising the 

stimulus base varied considerably. For example, in the case of those 

scenes which were pre-ranked to be active, there were instances of 

scenes in which many activity indicators were present making it highly 

improbable that the presence of these indicators could have been missed. 

On the other hand, there were scenes in which few indicators or very 

subtle indicators of activity were present. Similar statements can be 

made for those scenes pre-ranked to be inactive. Some attempt was 

'therefore made to divide the stimulus sample on the basis of the level of 

activity or inactivity contained in the particular scenes. In Figure 15, 

as a function of these activity level categories, the crewmen scores are 

presented in terms of percent correct active target detections and false 

alarm rates. The height of each bar again represents the variation in 

scorings due to the allowance of answers based on the debriefing of the 

crewmen. Considering the relatively small amount of training the 

,trrnc

;1.;n7 ■ ■ .,1 
r 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

• RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

t ti 6 qQ 

subjects had for this task, and hence their incomplete familiarization 

with the types of and subtlities of many of the indicator classes, those 

scenes in the stimulus sample which fell into the marginally active or 

inactive categories should best have been eliminated from the test. For 

the more clearly defined active or inactive situations, the crewmen's 

accuracy on these initial tests was quite good with a correct detect percentage of approximately 80% and,false alarm rate somewhat under 10%. 

It can also be noted from Figure 35 that the greatest variation due to the 

allowed answers occurred in the marginally inactive category. This is 

perhaps to be expected on the basis of the instructions given the crew 

members, that is, emphasis being placed on detection of activity. Since 

this was stressed more. heavily than the minimization of false alarms;. 

their tendencies in these cases were to respond that the target was 

active. 

As mentioned previously, time was not stressed 

in these initial tests and in most instances the crewmen took the maximum 

or near-maximum time to respond. As a function of the target activity 

levels described previously, mean times to respond va r y from approximately 7 1/2 seconds for the highly active cases down to about 11 1/2 

seconds for the inactive cases. This again was to be expected in that 

when the target was inactive the crewmen tended to wait out the full time 

making sure they did not miss any activity. In many instances the crewmen did respond in very short times, and it is of interest to examine accuracy 

attained for these rapid response cases. 'Figure 16 presents crewmen's 

accuracy as a function of target activity level for those cases in which 

,responses were made in 6 seconds or less. The numbers in the left-hand 

column represent the percentage of those cases in which responses were 

made in 6 seconds or less for the various activity levels. The numbers 

in the remainder of the chart indicate the levels of accuracy achieved by 

the crewmen, and it is encouraging to note that except in the middle categories 

of activity level the crewmen's responses were quite accurate in those cases 

when responses were made in 6 seconds or less. 

%Tas 1"14 

E.).'414.3S 

rrP n-r1 ,l11 f7,q Pr,.rlditt 

cb:: L1.0 L;;;!:,L, lalint,V.10,;)11.-.11110.23 
• - f 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

'RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

e 26 

In summary, the active target mode simulations 

conducted to date, while quite conservative in nature (e.g., contrast, 

no visual cues, limited training), have produced results which substantiate 

the belief that the flight crew can, with reasonable accuracy, 'perform the 

necessary target inspections. Furthermore, much information has been 

derived from these tests pertaining to the subjects' reactions to the 

problems of performing this task, the types of cues and other displays 

which would be deiirable to enhance performance, and the types of future 

training/simulation necessary. 

4. Mission Enhancement Due to Active Indicator Mode 

Several statistical calculations have been made to determine, in a quantitative manner, the nature of the mission enhancement 

attributable to active indicator mode operations. To perform these 

computations it was necessary to establish numerical values for the 

, percent of targets which were potentially active (i.e., for which indicators 

could be defined) and for the probability that a potentially active target 

would in fact be active at any given time. To establish these values, an 

Analysis utilizing information derived from the present base of intelligence 

data was performed. Statistics pertaining to various target classes were 

established and weighted averages developed therefrom to yield values of 70% 

potentially active and 6% probability of activity. These average values were 

used in all mission enhancement calculations. 

The results of these computations are presented in Figures 

17, 18 and 19. Figure 17 depicts mission enhancement factor, defined as 

the ratio of the number of clear active photographs obtained with a manned 

system to that obtained with an unmanned system, as a function of the crew 

performance parameters (% correct detections, % false alarms). These 

calculations are for an overall mission, including, within the computational 

approach, statistics pertaining to numbers of programmed targets per day 

(devised from runs uning Gambit software) and to the distribution of alternates with respect to programmed main camera targets (i.e., certain 

• . r , P, n ITT' rrir,T1 

111..i.n1U NJ LI J 
NRO APPROVED F: FOR 

-RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

'1 4 iho,v 

targets have no alternates available, certain targets have only one, etc. ). 

As seen from Figure 17, if the crewmen were perfect (100% correct 

detections, zero false alarm rate), an overall enhancement factor of 

2.75 would result. Superimposed on these parametric curves are the 

simulation data presented earlier, the lower region representing the area 

of crew performance based on the pre-ranking of the stimulus sample and 

the upper area representing crew performance with score adjustments 

based on the de-briefing sessions. Enhancement factors of 2 to 2.5 are 

still indicated, and it must be emphasized that this is performance attained 

with very little crew training for this task. 

While this overall mission enhancement factor is by itself 

significant, the effects of active indicator mode operations against representative target clusters are even more dramatic, and of considerable 

interest when it is recognized that operations against certain, relatively 

isolated, target clusters offer the potential of considerable technical 

intelligence yield. To illustrate this, two sets: of computations have been 

performed, the results of which are presented in Figure 18. In the first, 

a cluster of approximately 100 n. mi. extent was hypothesized. Within 

such a cluster, two main camera targets could be programmed with two 

discrete interdiction decision points. In such a case there is a 50% 

probability of an interdiction causing the loss of both primaries; namely, 

if the interdiction occurs at the first decision point. In the second case 

the cluster was assumed to be 50 n. mi. or less in extent, still with two 

programmed main camera targets. In this case, because of the timing 

involved, only one decision point would exist with an interdiction to 

'photograph a single alternate always causing the loss of both primaries. 

Enhancement ratios are presented in Figure 18, again as functions of 

the crew performance parameters measured in the simulations, for both 

of these cases; and it is seen that for operations against such clusters, 

ratios in the range of 3 to 6 are indicated for crew performance levels as 

derived from the initial simulation results. 

ti 
r7,112.311 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 EzM 

teii; 114 :14.44 rr

1,1.1....) F

irtiiA:1\ _ 1LCjiLuL ., iVQ* 

Another method of illustrating the advantages of activeindicator-mode operations is presented in Figure 19. Consider a situation 

in which there is an isolated cluster containing a large number of possible 

aiming points, four of which are associated with a particularly critical 

intelligence problem such that it would be extremely valuable to obtain 

photographs of these targets in an active state. Depending on the relative 

importance of photographing these four special targets, as opposed to 

collecting other intelligence within this cluster, varying targeting strategies 

can be delineated for unmanned and manned active-indicator-mode operations, in the latter case either of these strategies being compatible with 

the mission-planning software and on-board decision-logic approaches. 

Plotted in Figure 19 are the number of clear photos of targets, other than 

the four special ones obtained, vs. the, probability of obtaining at least one 

clear, active photo of each of the four special targets. The numbers on 

the curves represent the numbers of flights made. 

If the four special targets were of overriding importance, 

the unmanned vehicle could devote both of its programmed photographs on 

each pass to two of those four, attempting to gather no other intelligence 

within the cluster. For this case, the curve lies along the abscissa as 

seen in Figure 19. A manned strategy optimized for operations against 

the four special targets would, however, still yield some intelligence elsewhere within the complex, for if the crewmen did not observe activity at 

these targets but did so at other programmed alternate targets within the 

(complex, they could photograph these. The curve for this manned strategy 

is the first one above the abscissa, and it may be seen that for equal numbers 

.of flights the manned system has a higher probability of imaging the four 

special targets.' Conversely, for equal probability of imaging the four 

special targets, it takes fewer manned flights and hence less calendar time. 

Similarly, if it was desired that a better balance be maintained between attempts at photographing the four special targets and photographing other targets within the cluster, different strategies could be 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

'RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

ag e 

uu_-, 

developed for both the manned and unmanned systems (in the case of the 

unmanned system only one photo operation per pass would be devoted to 

the special targets with the other directed at one of the other targets 

within the cluster). The curves resulting from these calculations (which 

coincidentally fall on top of one another for the particular set of crew 

performance parameters assumed: probability of correct detection = 

80%, false alarm rate = 10%) again indicate that for equal numbers of 

flights the manned system has a higher probability of imaging, in an 

active state, the four special targets, while still gathering more intelligence elsewhere'in the complex. 

In summary, the manned system operated in the active 

indicator mode will provide, on a per mission basis, significantly more 

photographs of targets in which indications of activity are present and 

from which considerably more intelligence informa tion will be derived. 

Furthermore, the flexibilities afforded within this mode of operation, by 

I virtue of the mission-planning .software and on-board decision logic 

concepts, will facilitate the gathering of critical intelligence in a much 

more rapid fashion than an unmanned approach would permit. 

5. Assessment Plan 

The three manned flights of the baseline MOL program, 

and their associated operations concept, will permit post-flight evaluation 

of the effectiveness of the crew in performing the active indicator task. 

Additionally, it will permit, by examination of the resultant Dorian photographs, verification of the defined indicators (i.e., when the crew detected 

the presence of defined indicators at particular targets, did the photos 

in fact yield the types of intelligence data desired? --if not, perhaps a 

better understanding of the operations at that site should be developed and 

the indicators re-defined). 

The post-flight analyses, can be accomplished in that 

crewmen decisions on the state of all targets observed with the acquisition 

telescopes (which in almost all instances will include the target pre- 
. 

NRO APeROVED FOR 

iRELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

t.1 

programmed for the main camera) will be recorded and transmitted 

to the ground. Additionally, the crew can record voice comments on 

reasons for their determinations for similar transmittal. These data 

can be correlated with the resultant photography to develop statistics 

on crew performance and indicator validity, these correlations then 

being compared with statistics on crew performance obtained via preflight simulations. 

6. Active Indicator/Weather Avoidance Mode Summary 

Operations in the active indicator mode will significantly 

enhance the intelligence value of MOL/Dorian photography, offsetting 

operational difficulties due to a limited field of view, and will enable 

more timely gathering of critical intelligence information. The orbital 

---vehicle equipments and mission-planning software are being designed to 

optimize the crew's capability for effective operations in this mode. 

Initial simulation results have indicated that the crew is quite capable 

of performing the necessary target inspections. Furthermore, an 

assessment plan consistent with the system configuration and operations 

concept will permit a post-flight evaluation of the flight-crew's effectiveness in this mode. 

B. Other Reconnaissance Mission Enhancement Functions 

The crew's presence affords other means of enhancing the 

effectivity of MOL/.Dorian reconnaissance operations. These enhancement functions can be performed on a non-interference basis with activeindicator-mode operations and, 'in certain cases, are a natural by-product 

• thereof. 

1. Verification 

More efficient target programming can result in a manned 

operation due to real-time knowledge that programmed targets had, in fact, 

been imaged and were not cloud covered: Such information transmitted to 

the ground can permit countdown of targets for subsequent pass programming. 

This function is inherently performed when target inspections are made by 

the crew members in the active indicator mode. In the case of critical 

,N.I.l.li\P 7'9 Luker 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

targets, observations through the main optics visual display during the 

photographic sequence could also be made to verify determinations made 

on the presence or absence of cloud cover while looking forward with the 

acquisition telescopes. This latter approach would be most useful in 

cases of broken cloud cover. 

2. Visual Reconnaissance 

Intelligence data may be derived, even for those programmed targets not photographed by the main camera, by virtue of the 

crew's inspection of these targets in the active indicator mode. Their 

determinations on the state of the target, plus any voice commentary on 

their observations, will be recorded for transmittal to the ground, thus 

providing an additional base of data from which intelligence information 

may be extracted. 

3. Special Films 

The MOL/Dorian baseline system incorporates, in the 

manned configuration, a secondary platen in the camera back. The crew 

can insert, on command from the ground, a variety of special films (e. g. , 

color, IR, high-speed black/white) into this secondary platen. 

iPP: r07,-;f507, irA rirgira 
Fri fra 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 20.15 

1.4 

t 

at'31 41 rrifiliminr1 Page 32 

IV. ADDITIONAL SYSTEM CAPABILITIES AFFORDED 

BY CREW'S PRESENCE 

In addition to the flight-crew's ability to enhance the effectivity of 

the MOL/Dorian reconnaissance mission, additional system capabilities 

are afforded by their presence aboard manned flights. Specifically, the 

system, with no hardware modifications, can be used for astronomy work 

(visible spectrum photography of the planets) 

A. Astronomy 

The utilization of the MOL/Dorian system to accomplish 

visible spectrum photography of the planets, or other celestial objects of 

comparable brightness, has been subjected to considerable analysis; and 

the results of these investigations have indicated that, depending on the 

particular planet in question, surface resolutionS two to eight times better 

than achievable with ground-based telescopes can be realized, the greater 

improvements being associated with the closer planets (e.g., Mercury, 

Venus, Mars). In arriving at these values, tracking data as measured 

during simulations of this task, with the flight crew members as subjects, 

were used. The concept of operations requires that the vehicle be rolled 

to the appropriate altitude for directing the main camera system at the 

target planet (typically, only roll maneuvers will be required) and that the 

astronaut then acquire and track the planet using his main optics visual 

display. The timelines are such that this astronomy work can be performed 

on a non-interference basis with the primary mission. 

Calculations were first made to determine the required 

range of exposure times for planetary photography(approximately 1/1000 

second to 13 seconds for the various planets) and in the simulations of 

this task, crew tracking capabilities over this entire range were explored. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

This was done even though the present camera-back design provides a 

maximum exposure capability of only 0. 08 seconds, for an evaluation 

of the crew capabilities would be a necessary input to possible future 

considerations of increasing the exposure latitude of the camera. 

The tracking simulations were conducted at SAFSL/ 

Aerospace using an oscilloscope (cathode ray tube) display plus an eyepiece to simulate the apparent f. o. v. of the main optics visual display. 

Planet limbs were simulated on the scope face and scaled in diameter 

to be the same as the planets would appear when viewed at 1000X. Image 

MCniOng due to such error §QtIrce@ as vehiGie rate, vibratiPn§1 12P4riog 

noise and rate servo biases, were introduced. 

Utilizing the image displacement data developed via these 

simulations,- modulation transfer function analyses were performed to 

establish surface resolutions attainable against the various planets and 

these were compared with resolutions attainable from the ground. Significant improvements are indicated and, for example, in the case of Mars 

the 35 n. mi. resolution attainable is essentially equivalent to that 

achieved by Marine; though a single Dorian photograph of Mars would 

include the entire visible side of the planet. Present camera-back 

exposure limitations limit the range of possible operations to planets 

out to and including Jupiter; however, even for the more distant planets, 

the tracking simulations do indicate the possibility of significant resolution 

improvements should a future decision be made to provide increased 

exposure latitude. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE ,,4-LILY 2015 

1:1" • 

ct Fr° 047 

z,i)11„,a1W., 

r?'

Q9 

unr, [LT 

Rll 

Page 35 

V. SUMMARY 

The presence of the crew on the three manned flights of the baseline 

MOL/Dorian program will, by virtue of their abilities to perform switching, 

maintenance, backup, and in particular, diagnostic functions in situations 

of failures or off-nominal performance, significantly contribute to the early 

maturity of the Dorian system. This can be accomplished while the 'system 

is simultaneously gathering high-resolution reconnaissance data. Admittedly, 

analyses performed to date on possible diagnostic functions are of a cursory 

nature, and it is more the approach rather than the final solution which has 

been discussed. Yet it is apparent that there are many such functions which 

can be performed. During the forthcoming period, more detailed analysis 

of diagnostic functions will be made for both the Laboratory and Mission 

Payload segments to assess feasibility of the tasks, determine special tools 

which might be required, delineate procedures, and evolve crew preparation 

techniques. 

Simultaneously, other uses for the crew will be developed and explored 

via simulation and eventually actual flight, for it is believed that the presence 

of the crew can. significantly enhance the effectivity of MOL/Dorian reconnaissance operations. The use of the crew in the active indicator/weather 

avoidance mode can, in part, circumvent operational difficulties introduced 

by the transitory nature of intelligence at particular target sites and by the 

limited 1° field of view of the optical system, which is an unavoidable byproduct of optical disigns to achieve resolution from 80 n. mi. altitude. 

By accessing targets other than those programmed for the main camera 

And making real-time decisions on the relative desirability of photographing 

the programmed or an alternate target, the crew can significantly improve 

the intelligence value of the take. Additionally, the crew's performance 

of such functions as target verification, visual reconnaissance, and the 

loading of special films into the secondary camera, further enhances the 

overall effectivity of operations. 

f• F. Tr 

- -# - (.17, n ri PSI ril 

t •utt.. 

Y.•;,=.1!.1: * '-41$ 4 ',I 
esj 

Finally, the presence of the crew permits the utilization of the 

system for astronomy their abilities 

to perform the necessary acquisition and tracking functions. 

Initial simulations pertaining to the active target mode and the 

tracking function necessary for astronomy have provided sound evidence 

of the crew's capabilities to perform these tasks, and it is believed that 

with the additional training to be imparted between now and flight time 

their effectiveness in performing these tasks will show a marked improve- ' 

men t. 

a 

t.,A3 

it f 1 L • . LIP 
Cl)

z 

0 

21 a) 

Zl 

U) 

El 

z 

a, 

0 

21 

0 z 

Cl) 

ITEMS REQUIRING EXTENSIONS OF CAPABILITIES 

ACROSS FORMAT IMC 

0 

U) 

z 

MIRROR DRIVE SERVOS 

ALIGNMENT MECHANISMS 

MIRRORS 

1„,1 

El 

0 U) 

0 

z 

El 

21 

0 

ITEMS REQUIRINGENGINEERING ADAPTATION 

COMPUTER 

0 

El 

El 

U) 

El 

z 

rx1 

z 

0 

fx: 

fx1 

El 

z 

111 

41, N

21

El 

THERMAL CONTROL & DOORS 

El 

SENSOR STRUCTURE 

z 

z 

. ,T4 

a 

0 

21 

• 

Page 37 

I. 

1 

■ 
. i age Jo 

a) 

• 

z 

H 

4.4 

<4 

a 

a 

0 

N 

U 

o MISSIONPAYLOAD 

H 

z 

a 

a 

0 

>4 

a 

z 

H 

cI 

a 

U 

H 

0 

0 

5, 

a 

H 

A 

z 

<4 

z 

41 

U 

H 

KILLING 

TARGET RATE KILLING 

MANUAL FOCUS ADJUSTMENT FOCUS SENSOR AND SERVO 

U 

0 ACROSS THE 

SPECIAL HANDLING 
I • 

POORRE SOLUT ION 

- SPECIAL HANDLING 

Wr 

• Page 39 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

EXAMINE PICTURES 

c4 

vJ 
z 

a 

E-7 

c4 

o p, Z 

W 

SPE CIAL HAN DLING 

>-- 

a W 

Ga w 

U) 

. r4 X /.4 W H

U 

0 

X 

Ga 

rx4 

0 

MAN CENTERS 

INSTRUMENTED 
z 

.9, 

H 

xQ 

H 

• 

0 

1=1 

H W

• W

rzl C4 

0 

Z 

U 

Z Uv 

or 

W1 Ld Z, 

'Page 41- 

c4 

z 

a 

a, 

U) 
O 

H 

H 0 

Z Z H 

<4 < 4 

Y 

VIBRATIONS 

- SPECIAL HANDLING 

zw

" 

w 0 Z 

H

M 

z 

°0, z 

r=1 

A 

t:4 

<H ■-1 

0 

00 

• Page 42 

z. 0 

0 

cl4 

PI 

• Z 

0 

• 4 "

• 0 

ai 

C.1) 

Gti Z 

0 

FJ 

0 

cc) 

C:4 

r1=1 

0 

Pi 
WFS-1Z7 

Page 43 

WO E C.4 Z0 

z 

riu-lov) 

< 

u) Z C4 

.›.. 

0 0 co 

c:4 

H 

,.•40 

< Z 

u) 

-4— 

:;4 

0 U. 

C441 

o 

141'" 

0 

Q u)-- 

Z OH 

< 

o „ c7; rH „

- E-. 

0 0 Z 0 ti 

I W 0 

Z 

H 

(i) 

H 

C21 1:LI E

41-■ 0< 

UH F 

o 

w o 

O 

H 

z 

< 

z 

O 

Ai W 

REC'l 

0 

0 

H , 

H 

0 

H 

P4 

O 

P. 

r 

H 

w 

A 

wW Wx1 H A 

.-- 

BIAS SYSTEM 

- SPECIAL HANDLING 

N 

1.4 

A 

0 

H 0z 

a4 

H 

O 

va 

O 

P4 

‘I 
I 1 t 

L o ,Go, r 4` y,If. 

• IN /, 

• 

) I f 

I ; 

rx 

0 

• .. 

t, ,t,■ .1,1., 
. Page 46 

'0 

: E-4 

iA 

z 

pi U 

o z 

fL4 

H .1 

El 

z 

is 

iz

11 

H 

E-4 

a 

z 

<4 

0 

X 

z 

z 

0 

a, 

O 

a) 

;-1 

pi) 

17-1 
_ 
• 

C3 

4 Zr. 

re) 

,.. .■--. 

.....7_,-......„ -.< 

- •:;>.- - -.

a• 

,.■ ,..;. 

::...78"1:"” C, t.e...../'.....°./...":""- 't 

.. ';''''?i• , 0 1.7''■. 

. _. --;" ,...... 

..e.7.-r'"'• e.- l

• N.1:-.: '1:.: t'r)(= • 

...ts...: ,.., ........0 j 

. ;':::* i----- 

-.1-: • Li' 

- .. ... C) 

.,• i---- -1— \ •-• ,......, 

,12 

..... 

z•` — CL %-'. CC • 

• -% 03 

cz) 

:C 1 ..--..... 

__ 0 . . .... 4----..-:.- - i: -.:• •••••-•7- 

= ' .1". -.:=:—r-• ...fr—i. .7-.....* , — 

CD ----- ti .1, ....5) ,,„ i =-: _,. <=c 

c) 0- -......).3.:_r '1,. 

w , (----<-- -----,- . ---,--7::-.-4 ---1 

Cr)! 

LSI 

.- 

1 OL'S

" i„ Q 

• 

Z 

0 

I 1-4 

z 

i. 

• < 

tr) 

O 

CO 

• 

U. 

rt • - e CI 

... .„, • 

: F fi • CA ..." ' : ......•A14, 

4'. ':... -1 • -- • . 1....- )1- q t .. : ,.. • -.-...,■- • . - •:' 1, "' % !, ' ,- c ••••:.•,•-..7.-" . -;'i . P • b.-. .-'...V!. 

• '.., - ' ,.... ,..'i•-• . ',... :.--.'..!-•:.!' 

-- • .. :'''-'..-•'•••-•'S• 

4 • 

.,i5 C3 ;.•-z,- 

.J.11..) '.,.•.c.- i •-: . 

-.':'" Ct i %. 

. —V": • 7.•' • ! 

:..; 

• 

"N.... ...'''' 

r t 

;?: w 

, 

..., -.: .z..., ::7, ....,... ,...,...:.i..,.. t.. 1.:... .•:.1 

..)•., 5*' . tt.; .....,,,- • 1,-::..• --1 

1-i Cr) 11 < ..... • 4 1 . ,I. .1:::.4 .- s -.I ":7...:e.".: 

" .... . . . ,r 

..I• : ar.„.` 

i 

.14 ; ..„-,„..: • I! .... .. . --i• • 

.!4t. •`,..: i • 
v

▪ 

 ., 

E 

0 4, 

al al 

rd 

ctt 

0 

Z) 

• 0 

z 

z 

0 

PA 

z 

z 

P1 

* CONSIDERS ONLY VERY LIGHT HAZE 

-co cr, 

— 

• 

N • N 

E-4 

U) 

çr 

fx1 El 

<4 

(14 

E-4 

U) ; 

pq 

E-4 • 

0 

• • E-+ 

z 

o E 4 

E-4 

;21 E 

• ' 

El 

0 

Z 

4 

• 

: 0 

cn111 

• oo 

N Ln 

▪ . 

• 

N N 

• CO 

..■■■•■■•■■•■••■••■••■■•• 

• >- 

st) 

4-4 0-4 

N. 

N 

- SPECIALHANDLING 

■-444 J4 

-4 N re) 
N

OVERALL SCORES 

1 t 

O 

a 

% FALSE ALARMS 

1 

z 

z 

ELI 

Lc) 

CC 0 Z.—.4 

›— 

LLI 

0 

fa. w a_ cn < 

o ct 

z cc 

1 I I ■ I 

o 0 o o o o E-1 

O. a) 4 -4. N Q 

-4 11-1 

INaDliad Fn 

ill 

C/) 
P-ag e 51 

1 

0' 

O CO 

0 0 0 0 

1L Nao

-dad 

- SPECIALHANDLING 

• 4 U W 

H 

0 

< ° 

Z 

" 

?.4 .

H 

z 

4 

Zr, 

0-4 

6 < 

Z 

H to 

cq 

00 • 

Cr) 

z 0 

C.) H 

14 

fz-1 

c4 H O 14 

(,) 

I • 
Z 

ALLOWED 

FALSE 

ALARM 

to 

co 

to 

cn M 

to 

CD 

.0 

FALSE 

ALARM 

0. 0 

to 

0 

NI • 

CORRECT 

INACTIVE 

Tig 

N 

CT 

N 

.0 

0 

0.1 

ALLOWED 

IN CORRECT 

ACTIVE 

. 

1 

to 

00 

. 

0 0 

....................................... 

INCORRECT 

ACTIVE 

II to 

co 

. 

Tr o 

ACTIVITY ICORRECT 

LEVEL ACTIVE 

II

. 

...,--......--. 

• 

v 

tz 

Tr 

CO 

1 .0 

Cf•• 

--... g 

0 .-4 

ABSOLUTELY 

INACTIVE 

12% 

Ll• 

I---i t-.

o 

E-4 cf) 

V 

Z 

MARGINALLY 

INACTIVE 

5% 

MARGINALLY 

ACTIVE 

12% 

ACTIVE 

26% 

. HIGHLY 

ACTIVE 

35% 

0 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

RESPONSETIME 6 SECONDS OR LESS 

A CT IVITY 
Page 53 

0 

VS ACCURA CY 

- SPECIAL HANDLING 

0 

0 

E-1 

z 

z 

z 

C14 

0 

ce; 
Page 54 

- SPECIAL HANDLING 

ACTIV.E PHOTO ENHAN CEMENT FACTORS FOR CLUSTEREDTARGETS 

SMALLERCLUSTER(- 50 N.MI. ) LARGER CLUSTER (-100 N.MI. ) 

N N 

0 0 

0 0 PRIMARIES DECISIONPOINTS 

co • .o 

INaNaDN\THN2 0.1.01-1c1 anuov AVERAGE CREWMAN SIMULATIONDATA POINTS 0 - WITHOUT ALLOWED ANSWERS i1 - WITH ALLOWEDANSWERS 

0 

PROBABILITY OF DETECTING ACTIVITY 

CO Tr 

110,1,0V3 INaJAZ3ONVHN3 0,1,01-Id &ALLOY 

1 1 

• 
ID 

H 

0 H 

< H 

Z3 F - 2. 5 

W) 

• ;-1 

z 

(1) 

1?:1 

H 

H 

0 

4 SPECIAL TARGETS WITHIN CLUSTER 

MISSIONDURATION= 30 DAYS (4 OVERFLIGHTS) 

0 0 

Page 55 

11 41 

H 

• 

''-'-' 

ill cf) 

> 2 co 

• ti 4-1 0 

bZ (.) < 44 

..o < 15 A 

ii 0 .:4 Ell 41 

E-1 E:14 < 

cil 

'-' (.) r4 cl), ri 

H 

fx.1 En 

E-I 4 

0 

1=4 a 

t..) 41 < n o ›. 

• < rz) r., 0 '2 

41 

r=4 0 r., r 

0

i4 4.1 ., 

0 

O sez E. 41 

c. <4 .?, '. H a 

>4 Ln >4 >4 c4 H < _ .--, 

• II ,E44- -1 cr) H P-4 c4 H 

.--1 f:4 .-1 ..--1 H c/) 0 H 0 

F%1 N r'-1 EEi A >4 

co 0 

O < < 

0 41 0 . 41 c4 

PQ H 

O 

rEl 011 41 i Z `4 

/ 0 0 IL. 

z Z H 0 H 

OR'., c4 c4 < < Z L — co H ' 

a P4 P4 1.1 4 • c4 < . to <4 

---- , 

, 

O 0 1 0 

.-1 a, 

PQ , co Z W 

..-1 

 T4 

pa r_a 

4.1 

r:i. H r4 

Z 

Z cp < 

Z N_ Z sc) 0 0 I 

ti 

■-

• -

-4 0 

! c, 

t- o < 0 

c.,3 ; 4.3i E-4 

— L 0 

• .

8 

r..., n-.1 

O a, 

41 , in.. I 

—4 ....4 >4 0 

A H H > 

C4 

-: ,..E1 

a 

.4 

rx1 E-, o 1 

Z tn c. k

, 

6:10 • 

Z CI) .1: '‹ FL <4 41 .1 r (-43 

• P:1 O

0 < 

Z < —4 \ c4 41 

- 

(..) 

co 7 P4 4 

4-1 

<4 0 co 

• Pr4 .1 

1 

0 0 0 O O O 

0 CO 

S01,01-rd rIVID:HGTS Oz NOLLICCIV NY 

CESNIVISO SOI0Hc3 Inrarm 30 ItaawriN 

SPECIAL HANDLING