NRO-MOL_2015

Chapter X - THE MANNED/UNMANNED SYSTEM STUDIES 1965 - 1966
93
THE MANNED/UNMANNED SYSTEM STUDIES 1965 - 1966
Contract definition activities had scarcely gotten
under way when USAF and NRO officials found
themselves involved in several new studies, one of a
“wholly unmanned” system which some feared might
lead to termination of the “manned MOL” even before
engineering work began. It will be recalled that after
the President’s Science Advisor and the Director of the
Budget expressed interest— for different reasons—in an
unmanned system, Dr. Brown and Secretary McNamara
agreed the MOL also would be designed to operate
without a man. The question of an unmanned system also
was raised by Dr. Land of the PSAC Reconnaissance
Panel. On 18 August 1965, in a lengthy memorandum
reviewing the original USAF arguments for proceeding
with MOL, he informed Dr. Hornig that not enough time
had been devoted to exploring “alternatives to the use
of man.’’ Specifically, Land challenged certain Air Force
statements about the unmanned version. He said it
seemed to have assumed that a family of inventions was
required to make the unmanned navigation system work
and to eliminate photographic smear.* The PSAC Panel
was puzzled by these assumptions since it saw “quite
clearly” the feasibility of “adapting what is already known
in both of these domains for use within a vehicle.’’ He
said further :
A solution to these problems
would permit the unmanned system,
operating with essentially the same
camera, to achieve the same ground
resolution on prescribed targets as
the manned system. It would also
contribute significantly to the manned
operation by relieving the observer
of much of the routine tracking and
identification task, and making the
pointing and selection of area of
interest less critical.
* The USAF statement read: “...to get in an unmanned system the kind of
performance, in toto, that we expect of a manned system will take some new
inventions and will call for a photographic system of much greater complexity
than that needed when the man is present.” See Memo (TS-DORIAN/GAMBIT),
Zuckert to McNamara, 28 June. 1965, subj: Proposed MOL Program.
Figure 44. Edwin H. Land
Source: CSNR Reference Collection
The conclusion that an unmanned
vehicle would result in a lower
resolving power seems to us,
therefore, unwarranted † ; the further
implied conclusion that the solution
of the problems involved when a
man is not employed to direct the
telescope, would seriously delay
the program also seems to us
unwarranted. Indeed, it appears that
the limiting factor in the schedule
will probably be learning how to
design the mechanics of very large
mirrors so that they will retain
their shape in their mounts in space.
We, therefore, recommend... the MOL
system... Camera payload be designed
as a completely automatic system.
This device could then be flown with
or without a man depending upon a
national judgment on each occasion
about the need or desirability of
† The USAF memorandum stated, in part: “... From our knowledge of
man’s ability to point and track, and from our estimates of the better level of
adjustment that he can maintain, we conclude that the manned system would
statistically show a medium resolution of {better than 1 foot} against one of
{better than 1 foot} for the unmanned...We feel that a manned system will
get us an operational resolution of {better than 1 foot} more quickly and more
reliably than an unmanned.” See Memo, (TS-DORIAN-GAMBIT), Zuckert to
McNamara, 28 June 1965, subj: Proposed MOL Program.