The Shadow Space Race

vm writes "NOVA's recent documentary, "Astrospies," was written and co-produced by journalist and NSA expert, James Bamford. It details the U.S. Air Force's orbiting spy station program begun in the 1960s, the Manned Orbital Laboratory. Designed from a heavily modified Gemini 2 capsule and launched from a Titan III booster rocket, MOL was basically intended to be a Hubble telescope pointed at Earth with the sole intention of collecting photo intelligence on the Soviets using an impressive array of optics and gyro balanced cameras operated onboard by specially trained astronauts. The lab was never launched, however, due to the competing Corona unmanned spy satellite program funded by NASA and the National Reconnaissance Office. Partly spurred by the success of the Apollo missions, the Soviets, meanwhile, sent cosmonauts to its own succesfully launched spy platform, the Almaz. In addition to an onboard film lab and a space-to-ground image relay system, it included an alarming first in manned space exploration; a 23mm aircraft cannon — which is rather ironic in light of Russia and China's recent attempts to ban space weaponry. At a time when we're still unearthing details about the post 9/11 domestic spying debacle, it's a fascinating look at the history of technology used to look over our neighbors' fences." There is more to the story but what these sorts of stories always make me wonder, is since this was the 60s, what are they doing NOW!

Not too far fetched

[usul294 (1163169)]

If you think about it manned space stations are rather unpractical (especially today). Photographic surveillance can be done just fine now with remote controlled, or even robotic systems. The US government has tracking stations all over the world, so that at no time is a satellite out of contact with America. I would be surprised if the US had any weapons on ships today. Weapons, ammo, and a remote firing mechanism take up precious space that could be used for better spying. Theres no threat of a Moonraker-esque space battle in the future, so having short range weapons seems kinda pointless.

Re:

[twrake (168507)]

I link from the article about hints that an agent in British Intelligence was also involved perhaps a Commander in the British Navy??

"No records were found for the other suit, identified with the spy- appropriate number 007. It still belongs to NASA, and the agency's plans for what to do with the spacesuit are still being determined."

Why Build new ones? Unless you want the Bigger...

[PYRILAMPES (609544)]

Why not drop a couple of listening devices on the other countries spy sat recievers, monitor their communications, steal their passwords, then secretly control what they think they are controlling when they are looking at us looking at them while they are pretending that they are not looking at us when we are looking at them looking at us looking at them. Then we could send their pictures of us to them from someone else with a note about us not liking them.

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

If they have good enough optics they could listen to enemies from space. All they would need was for the enemy to be in a room with a window. They could measure the vibrations of the window and turn the measurements into a reproduction of the sounds inside the room.

Speaking of which, how is it they found Saddam Hussein in a couple of months but they can't find Osama seven years later? I'm starting to suspect they don't WANT to find him. How many spy satellites do they have now? Haven't they known where Bin

Re:

[Gulthek (12570)]

Speaking of which, how is it they found Saddam Hussein in a couple of months but they can't find Osama seven years later?

Because he's dead and they know it [whatreallyhappened.com].

Re:Why Build new ones? Unless you want the Bigger.

[drinkypoo (153816)]

If they have good enough optics they could listen to enemies from space. All they would need was for the enemy to be in a room with a window. They could measure the vibrations of the window and turn the measurements into a reproduction of the sounds inside the room.

I don't think they in fact can do that. I think the length of an exposure and the necessary digital post-processing would pretty much knock it out. As far as I know we can't do that reliably with a terrestrial video camera today, because you need a long-range reflection to get adequate travel out of the signal. You need to use a laser.

Re:

[The Great Pretender (975978)]

They'll 'find' him, but not until a few weeks before the US presidential election.

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

I don't know how clean a signal you can get through the entire atmosphere.

Newer ground based telescopes can take as good a picture as the Hubble.

Re:Why Build new ones? Unless you want the Bigger.

[Schemat1c (464768)]

Then we could send their pictures of us to them from someone else with a note about us not liking them.

Or better yet we could send them pictures with their own toothbrushes up our butts!

China and Russia are only pushing

[Shivetya (243324)]

their currrent stance because.
1. The US can do it so much better
2. They will do it anyway and hope to hamper the US's ability to do it.

Better than Hubble?

[sm62704 (957197)]

a Hubble telescope pointed at Earth with the sole intention of collecting photo intelligence on the Soviets using an impressive array of optics and gyro balanced cameras operated onboard by specially trained astronauts. The lab was never launched, however, due to the competing Corona unmanned spy satellite

First, I doubt the summary. Hubble was launched thirty years after the discussed satellite. I'm supposed to believe that the technology for optics, electronics, gyroscopes, etc didn't improve between 1965 and 1995? It could hardly have been a "Hubble pointed at Earth".

If it wasn't launched because of a "competing" telescope, you can bet your ass the one they launched produced clearer pictures or some other, better capability.

I held a clearance in the USAF (1971-1975) and saw stuff that is still classified. I wouldn't doubt for a minute that today, decades after the Carona, they can point a satellite at your house and count the fleas on your dog while looking through your roof.

-mcgrew

Re:Better than Hubble?

[nagora (177841)]

First, I doubt the summary. Hubble was launched thirty years after the discussed satellite. I'm supposed to believe that the technology for optics, electronics, gyroscopes, etc didn't improve between 1965 and 1995? It could hardly have been a "Hubble pointed at Earth".

Actually, I remember that the week Hubble was launched (after many, many delays), it was described as "Basically an out-of-date spy satellite pointed the wrong way" by a scientist on the news. Obviously, though, Hubble has been upgraded since launch.

I held a clearance in the USAF (1971-1975) and saw stuff that is still classified.

That's what they told you!

TWW

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

held a clearance in the USAF (1971-1975) and saw stuff that is still classified.

That's what they told you!

They didn't tell me anything except that I could go to prison if I said anything. If some of the nerdy stuff wasn't classified, we'd have all heard of it by now.

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

Also, I suggest you check out the Veropedia.

I prefer the uncyclopedia [uncyclopedia.org]. I mean, neither Britannica nor Wikipedia have articles about asplosions.

Re:

[timster (32400)]

Your history is a little off. Hubble was launched in 1990, not 1995. And it was heavily delayed... launch was originally scheduled for 1983, and construction was actually completed in the mid 80s. Serious design work dates back to the 70s.

So I can totally believe that the military could have contemplated something similar in 1965. Whether it would have been successful is another question.

Re:

[Orleron (835910)]

[i]I held a clearance in the USAF (1971-1975) and saw stuff that is still classified.[/i]

That's because they're probably embarrassed about releasing info on rocket powered elevator shoes and inflatable life raft bell bottoms.

Yes, better than hubble

[imsabbel (611519)]

a) Hubble was mothballed for many years because of the challanger disaster. It was perfectly finished in the 80s
b) They made 5meter mirrors before that.
c) They had bigger lauch vehicles available (anybody know what a saturn 2, or even 5, could lift to a polar LEO?)
d) They could use film. Earth is plenty bright to that low quantum efficiency doesnt hurt, and they would have a person up there to handle it. Hubble is using a decade-old ccd technology (the original before the retrofit operation was a technology now a quarter century out of date). Because they had to (observing dim objects, need for fully electonic path even though the tech was still immature).

There are spysats around that are bigger than hubble, today, too. Just because we dont hear about them doesnt mean they dont exist. Hell, even the shuttle as we know was made to be as big as it is in order to lauch those spysats.

Re:

[DerekLyons (302214)]

There are spysats around that are bigger than hubble, today, too.

If there are - they aren't much bigger. We don't have an operational launcher that can hoist anything much heavier.

Just because we dont hear about them doesnt mean they dont exist.

That's the thing - we would hear something. It's impossible to hide a launch of a booster big enough to hoist a surveillance bird of any size. We might not know the exact orbit (though that can be found by other means [slashdot.org]. We might not know the exac

Re:Better than Hubble?

[Lord Ender (156273)]

I held a clearance in the USAF (1971-1975) and saw stuff that is still classified. I wouldn't doubt for a minute that today, decades after the Carona, they can point a satellite at your house and count the fleas on your dog while looking through your roof.

I worked for the USAF from 1971 to 1975. I was part of a team dedicated to developing rigged demos of sci-fi technology, demonstrating it to semi-technical and non-technical staff, and hoping they leaked just enough info to spook the ruskies.

Physics says no

[iamlucky13 (795185)]

The Soviet Almuz space spy stations, which were disguised as the Salyut research stations the USSR was also launching at the time, had a much smaller primary objective than the Hubble. There is no way they could have matched the Hubble's angular resolution. That's just journalists looking for some handy example of another telescope in space.

Resolution is limited by distance from the object, objective or mirror size, and wavelength. At visible wavelengths, for a satellite in a 500 km orbit with a 2.4 m diameter primary mirror like the Hubble, the best resolution possible is about 6 inches. Diffraction prevents you from doing any better (consider the famous single-slit experiment for a simple example). This optical limit has been established and understood for over a century, and the same physics apply for NASA, the Russians, the Air Force, and even consumer digital cameras.

Because of this, even though the Air Force is extremely protective of all details about their spy satellites, even about what orbit they're in (although some nerdy spotters have done a good job of tracking them), we still can get a pretty good idea of their capabilities. Both the Hubble and the Keyhole spy satellites were built by Lockheed and transported from assembly to launch facilities in similar containers. That constrains their size to be pretty close to that of the Hubble. In fact, there's some decent speculation that the basic geometry of the Hubble was copied from the Keyholes, meaning they would also have 2.4 m diameter mirrors.

So we know they can't count fleas on your dog, since they can only distinguish between objects 6 inches apart. This isn't the same as actually identifying objects 6 inches across (no, they can't read license plates). Supposedly it's good enough to distinguish between men and women based on proportion (is that Pamela Anderson?). It might be possible to do very slightly better using computers to compare multiple images of the same target, but the practicallity would be limited.

They also can't look through your roof. Visible light doesn't go through roofs. I believe some far infrared does, but because of the longer wavelength, the resolution is probably somewhere on the order of the size of the house itself, and the signal would no doubt be lost amidst the heat of the house.

The 6" resolution is also only under ideal conditions. That means calm, clear skies (incidentally, the Soviets liked to build smokey factories next to their submarine and strategic bomber bases...go figure) and filming straight down. Because changing the orbit to go directly over a target means burning precious fuel, a lot of shots are made obliquely, increasing the effective distance to the target.

Incidentally, most of the imagery from the 60's and early 70's was declassified in 2002. This confirmed that the early satellites had a resolution of about 20 feet (enough to spot airplanes, perhaps identify ships) and later versions of Corona could resolve at about 7 feet (spot the movements of military units, mobile nuclear missile launchers, identify planes). The first satellites with 6 inch resolution or close to that probably launched in the late 70's with improvements since mainly in guidance, manueverability, and low light sensitivity rather than resolution. Being already able to resolve people, it's not cost effective to go bigger from space on those rare occassions that you need to, when typically you can send in a Predator drone or a special forces team for a fraction of the price.

By the way, the Federation of American Scientists has an online primer on reconnaissance imagery. [fas.org] It's pretty interesting and shows samples of photos at differing resolutions. It really illustrates just how good 6" is from a strategic analysis viewpoint. At that scale, a good analyst can even tell what kind of missiles are hanging from a parked fighter jet (The plane in the sample pictures is MiG-25. The missiles are probably AA-6 Acrids).

Re:Better than Hubble?

[The Dobber (576407)]

I think you should take a look at the accomplishments of Ikonos / GeoEye / Nextview / World view. Commercial satellites capable of 6" resolution with optical systems 1/3 the size of the supposed goverment systems.

Then again, who knows what the goverment systems are truly capable of. Wiki Corona and follow the stories, amazing stuff.

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

I wonder how many fleas are on Osama Bin Ladens ass

I thought he rode camels?

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

I've always found it to be fascinating that the only ones the "secrets" were kept from was the US publicM

I found it not fascinating but sickening. Global warming is caused by the friction of the founding fathers spinning in their graves.

Re:

[chill (34294)]

I don't think that you can hide something like Area 51 from a spy satellite.

Area 51 is clearly visible on Google Earth. It is amazing how many roads and tracks lead straight into the side of a mountain. 37d 14' 41.57" N 115d 49' 12.33" W

Ignore the UFO parked on the tarmac with the BBQ grill.

Re:Better than that...

[CmdrGravy (645153)]

Screw that, thats nothing they've got systems now that can loop rays right around the sun and see the licence details of the car which will be in that lot 1 hour from now !

What are we doing now?

[mnemotronic (586021)]

Form: NRO-10977/A
From: Nasal Reconnaissance Office

What are we doing? Nothing. Nope. Nothing going on here. Move along. But I do have a request from the folks down in Monitoring Division: Please stop sneezing. It really shakes up the cameras. And for pete's sake, ask your girl friend to shave that thing.

Sincerely,
Your Friendly Government

Re:

[Gordonjcp (186804)]

I'm prepared to bet they really *are* doing nothing. We live in a wimpy, cost-conscious, risk-averse limp-wristed world. I wish the government would stop whining about terrorists like they've only just been invented and get back to funding space programmes and groovy high-tech fighter aircraft. Who cares if it's dangerous? If you get killed, just remember that you got killed *flying a spaceship!*

Soviet reaction

[elrous0 (869638)]

The lab was never launched, however

...forcing the Soviets to cancel construction of "F" and "K"-shaped buildings of their new large space complex, leaving only buildings "U", "C", "Y", "O", and "U" for use.

23mm cannon

[shafty023 (993689)]

Ummmm ok, so the satellite fires the cannon and the explosion blasts the satellite into outer space where we never again see the Russian probe. Did they consider in space firing off a cannon will accelerate the satellite in the opposite direction with the bullet not going very fast towards Earth? I guess if they had some counter thrust at the exact time they fired they wouldn't fly away

Re:

[z0idberg (888892)]

. The Soyuz VI was to include a recoilless gun for self-defence developed by the well known Soviet designer A E Nudelmanfrom

From the linked article about the Almaz.

23mm cannon AND missiles!

[ericferris (1087061)]

You missed the best part:

From TFA:

Almaz was finally successfully launched into space as Salyut 3 in June 1974. [...] The Nudelman cannon inherited from the Soyuz VI was retained as an active defence system in the event of an attack by an Apollo spacecraft. The cannon was supplemented with space-to-space missiles.

Now that is a juicy bit! They were probably aircraft-type ait-to-air missiles just like on a MiG fighter, not ballistic types.

So, while the Muppets were showing us their "Pigs in Space" segments, the Soviets were busy with their own "MiGs in Space"... (ducks)

I know this is cheating, but

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

I actually watched the show (Nova). Between the time that Francis Gary Powers got shot down and the advent of DIGITAL technology, there was a time window where all kinds of crazy stuff was tried, like satellites shooting film and parachuting the canisters back to earth, to be snatched from the sky by military planes. But without a preview available, lots of very very expensive pictures of cloud tops got taken instead. The MOL and Almaz were both efforts to put intelligent eyes behind the shutter button. But by the time they got built, technology had marched on. Almaz actually was radioing video images of the on-board developed film back to earth within hours of the pictures being taken. But by then, MOL had been canceled in favor of the NRO's satellite program.

parachuting the canisters

[wiredog (43288)]

Also known as "bucket dropping", this was the method used from the early 60's (Corona/KH-4) through the mid-70's (Big Bird/KH-9), when the digital KH-11 came online.

Re:I know this is cheating, but

[coolmoose25 (1057210)]

I watched too. The thing about Almaz that floored me was that the Russians were so paranoid about their station that they armed it. A 23mm cannon was attached to the station. According to the show, if any kind of satellite got too close, they would blast it with the cannon... The station could turn and swivel using gyros to keep a photographic target in sight, and could do the same thing with the cannon. They were afraid to fire it with men aboard, but they did fire the cannon with remote control. It worked and the station survived the vibrations caused by the cannon... Bottom line - the Russians were militarizing space before Ronnie ever conceived of Star Wars...

Explosives on Soviet space satellites

[ericferris (1087061)]

It has long been rumored that since the US started the Shuttle program, the Soviet recon sats were equipped with a small self-destruct explosive charge. The idea was that the charge would be a deterrent in case NASA attempted to grab one of the Soviet birds.

Re:

[trash eighty (457611)]

It may have been before that too, according to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyuzp.htm [astronautix.com] Soviet satellites had the self-destruct since the 1960s.

1960's vs. now

[Iphtashu Fitz (263795)]

I personally never do anything outdoors that I wouldn't want to be caught doing. Paranoid? Perhaps. Unrealistic? Definitely not.

My dad was an electrical engineer with advanced degrees from places like MIT. Back in the 60's he had a top secret security clearance and worked for Mitre [wikipedia.org], where he worked on projects that as few as six people (including President Kennedy) knew the full details of. He's spoken a few times about a series of photos he once saw, taken from a spy plane something like 10-15 miles up. It started out with a photo of the continental United States. The next one in the series was of a region within the US. The next one was of one particular state (I forget which). The next one was a town within that state. In the next one you could clearly make out a golf course. The next one was one of the holes of the golf course. The next one was the green on the golf course where you could see the flag (pin) in the hole. The last photo in the series showed a golf ball on the green and you could clearly read the name on the golf ball.

If that had that level of sophistication back in the 60's you can be sure they can do even better than that today, which most likely means the same or better level of detail from orbiting satellites.

Re:

[AsnFkr (545033)]

I personally never do anything outdoors that I wouldn't want to be caught doing. Paranoid? Perhaps. Unrealistic? Definitely not.

You want paranoid? I'll show you paranoid: What makes you think the man can't see through your roof, buddy?

Re:

[Iphtashu Fitz (263795)]

What makes you think the man can't see through your roof, buddy?

All my ceilings are lined with tinfoil.

That, and the fact that I live in an apartment with two units over me, and one of those people is more paranoid than I am, so he probably has both lead and tinfoil on his ceilings.

3" Resolution

[bxwatso (1059160)]

Actually the most interesting thing about the show was the public statement by a knowledgeable ex official that they had 3" pixels at the time. AFAIK, the NRO has never said what its resolution was or is.

I wonder what the theoretical maximum resolution is for a bird in LEO. The number of photons leaving a given surface area that reach an object 400 mi above is not infinite and therefore resolution is not unlimited. I suppose it is a function of: 1. the brightness of the object, 2. the distance, 3. Th

I wouldn't be surprised

[smellsofbikes (890263)]

There is speculation that the US had a military space program called Blackstar, that used a high-speed bomber to launch small orbital vehicles similar to the National Aerospace Plane [wikipedia.org] -- although this would be considered two-stage-to-orbit.
What Aviation Week & Space Tech has to say about it [americanthinker.com], claiming an modified XB-70 was used as the launch vehicle.
Another, more whackjob, account. [abovetopsecret.com]

I submitted this as a story when AW&ST originally broke the story but it as rejected. I was/am fascinated by the idea tha

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I thought the issue was the NSA listening to people making phone calls to remote regions of Ohio.

What a waste is right, why be so hard on yourself

[FUCK-U-MODS (1238216)]

"So many ways we could be utilizing space for the benefit of the human race...and this is what we come up with?"

Yeah, I can't believe we dared to try and develop high end optics, image correction software, gyroscopes, or any of the other myriad technologies that are required for a satellite like this. THE HORROR!

I wonder how many weather satellites have benefited from this "waste"...

Re:

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

My "argument" is that we could (and should) be doing a lot more than we are...nothing more. Your weather satellite example disproves nothing.

If you want to discuss this further, I'd be happy to. If, however, all you're interested in is picking a fight, then look elsewhere. It's too early for that sort of nonsense. I haven't even had a chance to drink my coffee yet.

Re:

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

You said "what a waste". That is in no way equivalent to "we should be doing more".

Failing to take advantage of the opportunity we have now is a waste.

I don't know if you were genuinely unable to grasp the above, or were merely being deliberately obtuse, but one thing is quite clear: you're not interested in discussing the subject...you're only interested in picking a fight. I don't know why I expected better of someone who goes by the moniker of "FUCK-U-MODS"...

I'm sure you're itching to unleash what you

Re:What a waste...

[sm62704 (957197)]

So many ways we could be utilizing space for the benefit of the human race

You never heard of the ISS?

We're not going to make it,

I never thought I'd reach 40. The world is now a far safer place than it was when I was young. For instance, kids today don't have "duck and cover" drills to prepare for Armagheddon like we did. Of course, you never had to go through a metal detector to get your license plates renewed, either, but that's just government officials' cowardice.

and we don't deserve to

Speak for yourself. I say we do, but if you say you don't I'll take your word for it.

Re:HA HA

[TrippTDF (513419)]

That reminds me- in jr. high, we had a bonus question on a science test: "What will be the first country to land on Mars?" The teacher warned us it was a trick question. The correct answer was, of course "Multiple countries will have to work together."

However, one very special girl answered "Countries can't move." She never lived it down.

Please state her name and location

[by Anonymous Coward]

I just found my 2nd wife ;-)

Re:

[Ioldanach (88584)]

That reminds me- in jr. high, we had a bonus question on a science test: "What will be the first country to land on Mars?" The teacher warned us it was a trick question. The correct answer was, of course "Multiple countries will have to work together."

By 'land on mars', did the teacher mean people or objects? Because the Soviets landed on Mars in 1971 though of the two probes one crashed and the other ceased transmission within moments of landing. The US made the first successful landing in 1982, and has

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

Ewe muss bee knew hear.