4 ms·
For those who don't know what this is, the Manned Orbiting Laboratory was a plan in the 1960s to create a manned space station with a large telescope in it, for
by trothamel 5y ago
For those who don't know what this is, the Manned Orbiting Laboratory was a plan in the 1960s to create a manned space station with a large telescope in it, for the purpose of reconnaissance. Essentially, a manned spy satellite.
The reason for this was that, at the time, spy satellites would take pictures on film, which would then be landed in capsules and interpreted - hence, there would be a significant delay between when a photo was taken, and when it could be used. The idea would be that the astronauts would be able to take pictures and interpret film on-orbit, and relay back the results.
As the ability to scan film in orbit was developed, and eventually electronic devices like CCDs, the MOL was cancelled before it became operation. Several of the MOL Astronauts transferred over to NASA, and eventually flew on the Space Shuttle.
- nickff 5y agoSmall correction and addendum: Bob Crippen was a MOL astronaut who flew on Skylab (via an Apollo capsule, and pre-shuttle), and also flew on the first shuttle launch.
- roywiggins 5y agoSee also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz (Almaz ended up being the direct ancestor of the core life support module of the ISS)
- CamperBob2 5y agoCrazy. I wonder why the ISS didn't get any cannons or missile tubes, since it seems those were de rigueur for the Soviet stations?!
- roywiggins 5y agoIt was the 90s, a new era of peace and friendship, and besides- who was going to shoot at who? The Americans (and Europeans, etc) are just down the hall.
- numpad0 5y agoBecause no one elects to manage those free-flying microliabilities
- misnome 5y agoI wonder if this was the original inspiration for Thunderbird 5?
- sandworm101 5y ago>> The idea would be that the astronauts would be able to take pictures and interpret film on-orbit That is a modern take on the problem. At the time, the astronaut's role was to interpret the situation and ensure the best photographs were taken. Getting a spy sat to point at the correct location, at the correct time, and take a good photograph was a huge engineering challenge. But a person looking through a viewfinder could ensure that every snap was useable rather than another picture of Russian trees. They were never going to sit in space with magnifying glasses and do actual image analysis, a process that takes hours and many different people. They would evaluate a target for the most interesting details and ensure those details made it into frame. And unlike satellites, a manned station could take photographs of targets of opportunity, targets that cannot be pre-programmed such as a moving ship.
- myself248 5y ago> They were never going to sit in space with magnifying glasses and do actual image analysis, a process that takes hours and many different people. They would evaluate a target for the most interesting details and ensure those details made it into frame. So does this imply that they'd still be packing film into some sort of reentry vehicle and booting it out the hatch periodically?
- sandworm101 5y agoWell, they wouldn't be throwing it away. It would have come back with them or via dropped pods.
- JKCalhoun 5y agoMOL, Dyna-Soar, Lifting Bodies, X-15 ... my favorite era of space exploration. Damn you, Robert McNamara: instead of Space Command we got a Vietnam "conflict".
- oh_sigh 5y agoHe was so smug about it too, even to the end (see The Fog of War, 2003 Errol Morris)
- trop 5y agoSo strange that the vision of an astronaut (or astronauts) high in orbit, operating cameras at the behest of NRO, seems so lonely and futile. Yet to be an astronaut on ISS and its predecessors seems more like worthy communal work. Why the shift is perception?