NRO-MOL_2015

102 The Dorian Files Revealed: a Compendium of the NRO’s Manned Orbiting Laboratory Documents
Brown also referred to the potential of the manned
system to provide a superior intelligence content per day
on orbit. The results of operator-reaction tests conducted
on a laboratory- simulator showed, he said, that “crew
participation in target selection could yield almost three
times as many photographs of high-intelligence- value
targets as could be taken by an unmanned system
on the same mission.’’ The type of operations that the
crew could perform included locating significant military
vehicles, inspecting special radar equipment, detecting
a silo with an open door, detecting a missile being
moved, etc.
The Secretary said further than there appeared to be
distinct advantages in having a man select cloud-free
targets. He pointed out that, in a typical unmanned
mission, the photographic loss was 50 percent from
cloud cover alone. On a manned mission, the operators
could employ their spotting scopes—which would
have been pre-programmed against targets along the
path—to determine which targets were in the clear “and
then orient the main optics for photographing the clear
targets.” Other advantages of having the man in the
system was that he could decide the best viewing angle
from which a target should be photographed. If the MOL,
for example, approached a parked aircraft from the rear
and needed intelligence of its front end, the man could
wait until he had passed over and then snap a backward
looking picture. He also could, on command from the
ground, insert aerial color film, infrared and other special
film in the secondary camera so that their special
characteristics could be brought into play. Such films
might prove of value in detecting camouflaged targets or
in acquiring information on the nature and level of enemy
industrial plant activity.
Brown cited a number of additional advantages of
having man aboard. During times of crisis the MOL could
be transferred from its nominal 80-mile orbit to one of
approximately 200-300 miles. In this higher orbit the
system would have access to all targets in the Soviet
Bloc approximately once every three days and be able
to take photographs at resolutions of about one foot.
The crew could employ the acquisition and tracking
scopes, which would provide a resolution of about nine
feet, for intelligence by direct viewing. They could detect
the absence or presence of aircraft, ships in port, cargo
accumulations, parked vehicle build-up, railroad activity,
etc. The MOL could enter orbits of about 200 miles after
one to 21 days and still remain in orbit 30 days, permitting
daily reports of activities of significant value in determining
the posture and state of readiness of Soviet forces.
{...}The Secretary further stated that the MOL laboratory
module possessed sufficient flexibility to support other
missions besides high resolution reconnaissance, such
as communication intelligence or ocean surveillance,
should they be approved. The manned system in addition
had the potential of providing a unique laboratory
environment for conducting scientific experiments,
having 1,000 cubic feet of pressurized volume and up
to 3,000 cubic feet (8,000 pounds) of unpressurized
experiment space. 30
The Reconnaissance Panel
Briefing, August 1966
Much of the material contained in the above report Dr.
Brown sent to Foster also was presented in a day-long
briefing given the PSAC Reconnaissance Panel. At this
meeting, held on 13 August, were Drs. Land, Baker,
Puckett, Shea, Garwin, Steininger, and D. P. Ling of
PSAC. The Air Force representatives included Dr. Flax,
General Evans, Stewart and Berg, Dr. Yarymovych,
and Colonels Battle and David Carter. Mr. John Kirk
and Samuel Koslov represented DDR&E and Messrs.
Thomas and Fisher the Bureau of the Budget. The main
presentations were made by Mr. Michael Weeks, Samuel
Tennant, and Dr. Leonard of the Aerospace Corporation. 31
Mr. Weeks reported to the PSAC members on the
studies of the design of the baseline MOL, the steps
taken to provide automaticity, even in the manned mode,
and plans to provide for reliability through redundancy
rather than extensive on-board manual maintenance. His
report not unexpectedly was well received by the panel
since it reflected previous PSAC guidance. Mr. Tennant
then reviewed the ‘’wholly unmanned DORIAN system”
and the problems such an approach entailed. He was
followed by Dr. Leonard, whose presentation covered the
relative effectiveness factors of manned and automatic
versions of MOL and the wholly unmanned DORIAN
system. His statement that man could perform a better
function in weather avoidance was not challenged by
the panel; his argument that an added benefit of man’s
presence was target photography verification was not
accepted. Concerning this point, Dr. Garwin suggested
that the Itek image motion sensor mechanism could
lend itself very well to the verification task by means of
recording the output of the device.
Dr. Leonard’s major thesis for using a man in the
system was that he possessed the ability to detect
active indicators and enhance the intelligence “take”
by increasing the number of special photographs shot
on a mission. While the panel was interested in this
concept, doubts were expressed about the validity of