MSN 1115 PHOTOGRAPHIC EVALUATION INTERIM REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B03826A000500080043-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: January 4, 2017
• Sequence Number: 43
• Publication Date: October 15, 1971
• Content Type: CABLE

FORM 2820 Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP78B03826A000500080043-5 (aa1
12- 67
~~

FILE INFO
CLASSIFIED MESSAGE
~~ ~~~ SECRET NPr IZ~~c~:sra.r
(When Filled In)
REPRODUCTION PROHIBiTL�T 1~ 6 s~ PM'l~
A 1 6 it 16
2 7 12 17
3 8 13 18
4 9 14 19
5 ty1 15 2p1
. OllT:73242
iN
r
r
~ -
Y^
S'
~~
1 ~~
CORONA /,/ ~~~~~
REFS : A. lr '-
B.
C.
SUBJECT: MSN 1115 PHOTOGRAPHIC EVALUATION INTERIM REPORT
1. NUMERICAL SUMMARY:
MSN DATES: 1115-1, 10-17 SEPT 71; REC. 18 SEPT 71/02162
1115-2, 17-29 SEPT 71; REC. 29 SEPT ?1/20492
LAUNCH DATE/TIME: 10 SEPT 71/21342
VEHICLE N0; 1662
CAM SYST: CR-15
PAN CAMS: AFT LOOKING 330; FILM 16,300 FT 3414
Fts1D LOOKING 331; FILM 16,300 FT 3414
DISIC UNIT: 14
STELLAR LENS: PORT F/2.8; 1.5 SEC NO FILTER
STBD F/2.8; 1.5 SEC NO FILTER ~`~"~`
FILM TYPE: 3401 ~~_;.`;~�~
TERRAIN LENS: F/6.3 SHUTTER 1/500 SEC CFIXED W-12 FILTER9i= r-~;
FILM TYPE: 3400 ~~-��~""
REC REVS: MSN 1115-1, REV 115 ~"'=',-~;_--.
~`_~ ~~~,
MSN 1115-2, REV 309
LAUNCH WINDOW: 21302 TO 22102, 10 SEPT ?1 ~: ~~~~..__
2. CAM SETTINGS: ,.--
FWD LOOKING: W-25 GLASS 0.03? IN CPRIM) ~ _
W-25 GLASS 0.040 IN CALT) ~. ''
SLIT WIDTH: POS 1 0.144
POS 2 0.177 '----- r_
POS 3 0.242
POS 4 0.341
FAIL SAFE 0.250
AFT LOOKING: 1~-23 GLASS 0.037 IN (PRIM) _ __
W-23 GLASS 0.040 IN CALT> ~~~~
SLIT WIDTH: POS 1 0.116 F_' ` `
~- POS 2 0.144 `'-~~ ' __.
POS 3 0.203 ~
POS 4 0.287
FAIL SAFE 0.203
3. PERFORMANCE SUMMARY: PARTICULAR ATTENTION WAS DIRECTED BY THE
PET TO THE IMPLIED DECLINE IN SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPRESENTED BY THE
-2 MIP RATING OF 110 COMPARED WITH THE -1 MIP RATING OF 120. THE
QUESTION IS COMPLIC:4TED BY THE FACT THAT THE -2 MISSION HAD A NOTABLE
~ s~~~
Approved For Release 2009/06/11
CIA-RDP78B03826A000500080043-5
�
i,
�

25X1
Z~X1~ i
25X1
25X1 �
,.
.;

e
c
6
t
'p~1\s
'1
~r
~~
~`.
f
r
r
i

V~
c
e
6
c
c
~,~
~'
~~
r
~.
i
�i
r

`~
~ ~I

. FORM
92-67 2820
f"
�
~ ,:

FILE INFO
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP78B03826A000500080043-5
CLASSIFIED MESSAGE
SECRET
(When Filled In)
(aa)
REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
ACTION 1 6 11 16
2 7 12 17
3 8 13 18
4 9 14 19
5 1 j6 15 2pJ
~.'
~~
* LACK OF THE HIGHER CONTRAST, AIRFIELD/URBAN AREA SCENES THAT FACILI-
TATE MIP EVALUATION. FROM A CAREFUL COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL NEGATIVE
MATERIAL FOR BOTH MIP SCENES AS TELL AS OTHER AIRFIELD COVERAGE FROM
~ BOTH MISSION SEGMENTS, THE PET IS NOT ABLE TO DETECT ANY CHANGE IN ~
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE. MISSION IMAGE QUALITY REMAINED CONSISTENT
THROUGHOUT AiJD FREQUENTLY PERMITTED VIEWING AT MAGNIFICATIOIJ OF 100X.

PRELAUNCH TEST PROBLEMS THAT CAUSED A LARGER THAN NORMAL FILM
-,1 COiJSUMPTION CONTRIBUTED TO THE LACK OF ENGINEERING PASSES WHICH ~'~
MOST OFTEN PROVIDE COVERAGE MEETING THE SIX REQUIREMENTS FOR MIP
SELECTION. SINCE -2 SYSTEM OPERATION WAS NORMAL, ENGINEERING
OPERATIONS WERE OMITTED TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF OPERATIONAL
. COVERAGE. ~
THE FACT THAT THE 2 M SSION MATERIAL WAS PROCESSED BY D 25X1
RATHER THAN THE PRIMARY ~ FACILITY WAS CONSIDERED AS A POSSIBLE 25X1
� SOllRCE OF CHANGE, BUT NO EVIDENCE TENDING TO SUPPORT SUCH A
CONCLUSION WAS FOUND.
A FACTOR THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE TO MIP EVALUATION IS THE DIFFERENCE
. IN PRINT FILM PROCESSING METHODS AVAILABLE AT THE TWO FACILITIES. ,~
THE SO-192 FILM POSITIVES USED IN MIP EVALUATION APPEAR RELATIVELY
SHARPER ON THE VISCOUS PROCESSED -1 SEGMENT THAN ON THE SPRAY
PROCESSED -2 PORTION. THE COMPARATIVE PRINT SAMPLES NEEDED TO ~
QUANTITATIVELX EVALUATE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE
FOR PET USE.
� THE PET CONCLUDES THAT THE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE WAS COMP R B E
FOR THE TWO MISSION SE
~
GMENTS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT 25X1
'J
ACQUIRE MIP PRINT SAMPLES FROM MISSION 1115 PRODUCED BY BOTH �
?'~
. PROCESSES IN ORDER TO EVALUATE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PROCESSING TO THE
MIP RESULTS OF THIS i~ISSION.
4. PAN CAMERA ANOMALIES:
~ A. CHARACTERISTIC ANOMALIES HAVING A MINOR EFFECT ON PERFOR-
MANCE:
~ C1) RANDOM INTERMITTENT PLUS DENSITY SPOTS ARE PRESENT ~
ON FORMATS OF BOTH CAMERAS ON PASSES FOLLOWING THE RECOVERY ON
REV D115.
~ C2) CHARACTERISTIC FOG PATTERNS APPEAR ON THE STH AND 9TH ~
FORWARD FRAMES FROM END OF PASS AND 6TH AND 7TH AFT FRAMES FROM
END OF PASS. THESE SHADOWGRAPHS RESULT FROM FOREBODY LIGHT
~ LEAKAGE. .
B. PROBLEM: RAIL HOLES ON THE AFT CAMERA FILM ARE FAIi3TLY
IMAGED AT THE START OF SCAN THROUGHOUT BOTH MISSIONS.
. CAUSE: THE GEOMETRY OF THE RAIL LAMP MODULE AND RAIL SURFACE .
IS SUCH THAT REFLECTIONS ARE READILY GENERATED INTO THE ACTIVE
FORMAT. THIS CAMERA WAS ESPECIALLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO THIS PROBLEM `l
� DURING GROUND TESTING. THE RAIL LAMP INTENSITY WAS TURNED DOWN
~ Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP78B03826A000500080043-5 ~
FORM zezu Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP78B03826A000500080043-5
1 a-e7
`. CLASSIFIED MESSAGE
;..,
(aa)
~~
~ SECRET
'~ 1 FILE INFO (When Filled In)

REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
ACTION 1 6 11 16
2 7 12 17
3 8 13 18
4 9 14 19
5 1 j6 15 2pl
. TO DIMINISH THIS EFFECT t~JHICH RESULTED IN A LATE LAMP START-UP.
ACTION: NONE RECOMMENDED.
C. PROBLEM: A DIAGONAL TEAR WAS DETECTED DURING THE PRESPLICE
~ OPERATION OF THE AFT RECORD ON FRAME 190, PASS D104.
CAUSE: THE PET TEAM INVESTIGATION OF THE DIAGONAL TEAR IN THE
AFT RECORD OF PASS 104 AT THE TAKE-UP END OF FRAt~1E 190 RESULTED
~ IN THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS:
,M C1> THE TEAR COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED DURING FLIGHT OPER-
' ATION.
~ C2) THE OFF-SPOOLING OPERATION IS THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF
THE TEAR.
ANALYSIS OF THE TEAR SPECIMEN, OF WHICH ONLY ONE SIDE WAS
~ AVAILABLE, SHOWS PROPER EXPOSURE AND IMAGERY AND EXTENSIVE TENSIOtV
OR STRESS LINES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE TEAR.
THE SYSTEM CUT AND WRAP FUNCTION CINCHES APPROXIMATELY 100
. INCHES OF FILM THAT IS DOUBLE LAYERED AROUND THE TAKE-L`P HUB BY
PASSING THROUGH A SET OF HUB ROLLERS. SHOULD THE PROCESSING
FACILITY NOT BE AWARE OF THIS FUNCTION, ~4 STRAIN IN THE TAG END
~~
~i
4
i
�
OF THE MATERIAL CAN RESULT AS THE SPOOL ABRUPTLY REVERSES DIRECTION
TO RELEASE THE FINAL SECTION OF FILM. AGGRAVATED BY A CONSIDERABLE
DRYING PROCESS, WHICH OCCURS IN FLIGHT, THE FILM IS MORE SUSCEPTIBLE
TO BREAKING.
ACTION: NONE ASSIGNED.
D. PROBLEM: A FOG PATTERN IS PRESENT FROM THE LATTERoPART
OF FR 160 INTO THE BEGINNING OF FR 161 PASS D135 ON THE FORWARD
LOOKING CAMERA.
CAUSE: THIS IS A ONE-TIME ONLY PROBABLE LIGHT LEAK CAUSED
DURING HANDLING AND PROCESSING.
ACTION: NONE ASSIGNED.
E. PROBLEM: A FOGGED AREA EXTENDING 1.25 INCHES INTO THE
FRAME FROM THE TIME WORD EDGE ON FRAMES 112, 113 AND PART OF 114 OF
THE AFT CAMERA OF PASS D135. THIS FOGGING DID NOT DEGRADE THE
IMAGERY.
CAUSE: NO APPARENT CAUSE HAS BEEN DETERMINED FOR THE UNUSUAL
FOGGING. A POSSIBLE CAUSE COULD BE THAT A DARKROOM INSPECTION LAMP
SHONE ACROSS A SPOOL FLANGE WOULD SHADOW HALF THE FRAI"iE AND FOG
THE OTHER HALF.
ACTION: NONE ASSIGNED.
5. THE STELLAR AND INDEX CAMERAS PERFORMED SATISFACTORILY
THROUGHOUT BOTH MISSIONS. BOTH CAMERAS WERE EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAN AND
FREE OF ANOMALIES.
T O P S E C R E T
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP78B03826A000500080043-5
i
b 4 ;I'~
i~
r
~,
~~
i
~ ~
i
A ~
.~ ,~
r