EVALUATION OF CONTRACT(Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B04747A000200050005-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 23, 2002
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: August 10, 1966
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Re~9~9~(Q~RDP78B04747A000200050005-0
NPIC/P&DS/D/6-1512
10 August 1966
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Development Branch, P&DS
S[~JECT: Evaluation of Contract E:::::-::::=
Proposa "Automatic
e? rorrela ion," dated February 1964
REFERENCE: (a) .s
er
(b) Letter, Subject: "Proposed
Program for onstruction of Breadboard System
of an Automatic Stereo Correlti of succh aaSystem,"
of the Performance Capabilities
dated 31 March 1964
1
25X1A
25X1
25X1A
25X1A
subject contract is for the design and development of an
1. The sub, (b)) to determine the feasibility
it brerdbtd" (reference
of developing a relatively sim le automatic sterFiber-Opta~1R Roll operational Film 25X1 A
for incorporation into the
Stereoviewer.. to
in reference (a), the contractor proposed
2. Specifically a scanning slit approach in the
determine the feasibility of utilizing e of the right 2 5X1 the
ima Viewer. Two in ssnchronism with thathof t e eft frame.Two
evel
frame is scanned synchronism detection of the light
photomultipliers were also provided es are in correspondence, the relation-
of the slits. When the two imag
ship of the two slits is such that the slit of one image is leading
n to the other slit. The signals that are developed
in phase in relation a differenceamplifier
by the photomultipliers are then relayed ondence.
which ultimately control drive motors which correct for non-corresp
3. As indicated above, reference (b) indicates that"the result
of this program would be the opeasbofasuoch a system which report
25X1
which would detail performance parameter s stems.
sion in future viewing y
ufficient
t
l
^s
u
i2ht be procured for inc
act re conduc 25X1
y -performance capaui.,...s V 77 es s o etermine the a) and (b) were incorporated into the
system." Both references
contract.
through December 1964 indicate
4. The monthly progress reports (2B5 June 1964) to
that the period from the initiation Of tbreadontract board (Beginning in.
December 1964 was spent fabricating the d evaluating began.
Juanuary 1965, testng an beclass Review by NIMA/DOD
1, Nor?' i
Approved For Release 2002/rONPM~A 747A000200050005 0 adecnassfflcalj affd
 Approved For ReI(gf)A#bf(ZfALRDP78B04747A000200050005-0
25X1A
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Contract
of
of operation 5. The ProgressyRtport"Cdated d188ooarchSl965 gave Xhe first indication
made. Stereo correlation with a simple ptarget wastobtainedsovereaee
limited field of view. There are a number of problems to be solved
before reliable correlation is achieved."
6. In the Progress Re ort dated 19 May 1966 66
Work for Next Period," y 9 under "Projected
25X1A quantitative tests with simple targets n~-
that "l) Additional
at
i
"
2)
and
mages
were to be made. The same statement w)s madesin1tthehProgress phic
Report dated 15 June 1965.
g
7. In July 1965, the contractor submitted the final report dated
23 July 1965, which indicated feasibility had been positively established;
however, based on a demonstration of the system during an inspection
visit of 10 August 1965, a established;
complete because jsibility Went was made that the report was not
yet the breadboard. At that time, thesystem ecodet uld rcorrelate eovernonlyby
short distances in one axis using an extremely simple high contrast
target. Since feasibility had not been determined, the contractor was
told that he must make the facts (the feasibility demonstration)
agree with the final report. This could be done by either revising
the report to reflect the proficiency eve G,_ ,_
i
nn h
-
b
e
-
readboard to the standard reported Nf _w
2 5X1A Ua .
the latter
th course of action, that is to
chose
, continue
e validity of the conce-ot n~?i r __ L . e e or un i
25X1A
r
s effort has been below average in comparison
to other projects recently undertaken by him for this office. Although
8. On 10 November r 196 the
agreement was reached contractor was contacted and the
was expecd to demonstrat
automatic correlation of a high contrast co
arget_ co pensatinge
for X, Y, Q, and M (magnification) differences.
(I) could be held constant if they could show thathT light
variationstinsthis
parameter would not influence any of the other above-mentioned para-
meters. The objects used for correlation targets were to have an
area at least nine times larger than the total area of the optical
field and the correlator was to operate over this entire area.
9. After extensive rework of the breadboard, the contractor
finally has demonstrated that the basic concept of his Auto-Stereo
Correlator is feasible; however, this was not accomplished before
20 July 1966 -- eight months after the instructions for improvement
were given. The originally contemplated eight months contract has
required in excess of twenty-four months for completion.
10. This contracto
'
Approved For ReIM 1.1 VENT RDP78BO4747A000200050005-0
 Approved Forw2AtlA-RDP78B04747A000200050005-0
25X1A SUBJECT: Evaluation of Contract
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
feasibility was affirmatively proven, it was at best marginal with
regard to maintainability and reliability. Although correlation was
demonstrated in both the X and Y axes during the demonstration
periods frequent maintenance was required. The 9 axis was shown to
have a correlation function; however, it was not automatic and neither
the M nor I axes performed during the testing.
11. From the discussion it can be concluded the basic concept
of the Auto-Stereo Correlation device has been proven to be marginally
feasible; however, at this time it would not be feasible to incorporate
the device into the=Stereoviewer -- one of the goals of the
original effort -- for the following reasons:
A. The function of all five correlation axes -- X, Y, 9,
M, and I -- performing simultaneously has yet to be demonstrated.
Although it is felt that this deficiency is not a serious technical
hurdle, demonstration of system operation in the simultaneous mode
would be necessary before- incorporation of this correlation technique
could possibly be considered for the Viewer.
B. The contractor has demonstrated correlation utilizing
high contrast complex targets, but has failed to show that correlation
can be performed on extremely complex low contrast aerial photography.
It would be absolutely essential that this determination be made
before the technique could be considered.
C. The reliability of the breadboard would have to be
substantially increased before the concept could be introduced into
the viewer.
D. Emphasis must also be given to the unique optical con-
figuration of the~ sewer in relationship to the correlation
system. Unknowns sumac as incorporation of the extremely inefficient
(illumination efficiency) fiber-optic cable and complex mirror system
into the optical path of the correlation system create doubts as to
feasibility of the system in its present configuration. Certainly a
demonstration of the feasibility of the system utilizing the Viewer's
optical path components would be required.
12. From the above discussion it can be concluded that this
office has been extremely liberal in the interpretation of the original
performance specifications of this contract. The following reasons
justify this action:
A. This contract is another case of a fixed price contract
being applied to a research and development effort. Regardless of
where the fault lies in creating this situation, this office concluded
when it reached its decision on 10 August 1965 to reduce the
performance criteria that this would be the only equitable solutinn
Approved For Releas Q2/MUENJIF pP78BO4747A000200050005-0
 Approved For ReYe 'b T:I -RDP78B04747A000200050005-0
25X1A
25X1A
NW
25X1A
- ONO,
25X1A
25X1A
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Contract
to the c ontractor's financial situation -- extremely overexpended --
at that time. This was es eciall true in light of concurrent
contract overruns on other contracts. In relation
to the state-of-the-art o au omatic stereo correlators, it was felt
that an extremely high level of expenditure would be required to
technically satisfy the contract; however, this could not be justified
with the knowledge of the large degree of certainty that the Govern-
ment would bear a portion of these costs.
B. The reduction of the specification was the minimum
standard that would prove feasibility and in addition was an equitable
compromise. It was made in light of the intention to pursue auto-
matic stereo correlation elsewhere but the specifications were
not reduced to the point to defeat[;;: bbasic purpose of this contract --
to prove feasibility of the oncept of correlation.
The compromise was made after a eciaion a been reached not to
continue research in this field with this contractor.
C. The decision to reduce the performance did not in
reality reduce the potential value of the contractor's performance.
It was the only equitable solution to the situation and, as discussed
above, insistence on complete technical compliance to the contract
would probably necessitate additional (unreasonable) Government
expenditure.
In conclusion, it is recommended that further feasibility studies
on the subject correlation device not be undertaken
for the following reasons:
A. Other programs being undertaken by NPIC in the field of
stereo correlation -- namely Automatic Stereo Scanning Program
and, to a lesser degree, Auto Stereo Correlator (Exploratory
Development Laboratory Branc -- are technically superior to the
subject concept as applied to our operational materials.
B. The contractor's serious time delays have limited the
usefulness of the original concept because extensive further feasi-
bility studies would be necessary as indicated above before con-
sideration could be given to incorporation of the concept into the
existing viewers.
C. The Naval Air Systems Command Ihas
verbally expressed their intention to support an extensive effort with
o extend the basic concept demonstrated under the
subject contract. For this office to continue the program would be
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release'gN fIM-- Cf JFMP78B04747A000200050005-0
 'Approved For Release 2002/09/03 : CIA-RDP78B04747A000200050005-0
1 1, 6 CONFIDENTIAL
25X1A
25X1A
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Contract
a duplication of effort. In this regard, it is further recommended
that the existing breadboard, which remains at the contractor's
facility, be transferred to the Naval Air Systems Command for their
use in the new contract. It is of no use to us and would present a
storage problem.
Development rant , V&Db
Distribution:
Orig & 1 - Addressee
3 - P&DS/DB
Approved For ReleasedU~/~~~~~~~ D~ 8B04747A000200050005-0
 ENTER ROUTING SLIP
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
 Approved For Rele
 Approved For Release 2002/09/03 : CIA-RDP78BO4747A000200050005-0
25X1A
FORM n0. REPLACES FORM 10.101
1 AUG 54 IQ I WHICH MAY BE USED.
Approved For Release 2002/09/03 : CIA-RDP78BO4747A000200050005-0