CONTRACT INSPECTION REPORT PHASE I DESIGN STUDY AND DEMONSTRATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B04770A000200010036-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 1, 2004
• Sequence Number: 36
• Publication Date: March 8, 1966
• Content Type: FORM

1
SECRET Aoproveder ase 20 Mt4;1786070
0499848W 05A
0200010E/3614CLASS IF I ED
..
NEW "mow
CONTRACT INSPECTION
REPORT
CONTRACT
NO.
Nilir
TASK NO.
TO:
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION & SETTLEMENT
BRANCH/PD/OL
DATE
8 iiiii.TCh 1966
INSPECTION REPORT NO. (If final, so state)
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE
1 1,90.1 1966
NAME
OF CONTRACTOR
TYPE OF COMMODITY OR SERVICE
Phaala 1 Design Study
THE CONTRACTOR IS ON SCHEDULE
YES NO
THE CON ACTOR
FUNDS fu YES
OMMENDATION AND/OR
REVERSE HEREOF.
DITIONAL FUNDS
WILL PROBABLY
REMAIN WITHIN ALLOCATED
IS "NO" ADVISE REC-
OF SPONSORING OFFICE, ON
INDICATE MAGNITUDE OF AD-
ll NO IF ANSWER
ACTION
IF KNOWN,
INVOLVED.
PER CENT OF WORK COMPLETED - 1
PER CENT OF FUNDS EXPENDED - 1
10 HAS AN INTERIM REPORT, FINAL REPORT. PROTOTYPE, OR OTHER END ITEM BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE CONTRACTOR
DURING THE PERIOD? a YES 0 NO (If yes, give details on reverse side.)
HAS GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY BEEN DELIVERED TO CONTRACTOR DURING THIS PERIOD? YES [29 NO
(If yes, indicate items, quantity, and cost on reverse side.)
I NCENT I VES'
IS THIS AN INCENTIVE CONTRACT ID YES 0 NO
IF YES, CHECK TYPE
It] COST 0 PERFORMANCE 0 DELIVERY
NOTE:
USE REVERSE SIDE FOR COMMENTS.
FINAL REPORT MUST CONTAIN INCENTIVE EVALUATION.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTOR
I. OUTSTANDING
2. 0 EXCELLENT
IF OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTOR
REVERSE SIDE.
3. ABOVE
AVERAGE 5. BELOW AVERAGE 7. UNSATISFACTORY
6. BARELY ADEQUATE
IS UNSATISFACTORY OR BARELY ADEQUATE, INDICATE REASONS ON
4' L AVERAGE
RECOMMENDED ACTION
II/
ni CONTINUE AS PROGRAMMED
WITHHOLD PAYMENT PENDING
SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE
OTHER (Specify)
IS RECOMMENDED OR IF THIS IS A FINAL REPORT PUT COMMENTS ON REVERSE IN NARRATIVE
PERFORMANCE AND CERTIFY THAT ALL DELIVERABLE ITEMS UNDER THE CONTRACT HAVE BEEN
INCLUDE, WHERE APPLICABLE, THE FOLLOWING:
TERMINATE
IF TERMINATION
FORM ON CONTRACTOR'S
RECEIVED. THESE
ITEM
RECD
DOES NOT
APPLY
ITEM
RECD
DOES NOT
APPLY
PROTOTYPES
MANUALS
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FINAL REPORT
PRODUCTION AND/OR OTHER
END ITEMS
SPECIAL TOOLING
OTHER GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
DATE OF LAST CONTACT WITH CONTRACTOR
11. February 1.966 Declass Review by N
SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR
'DIVISION
For Release 2004/07/29 ? CIA-RDP78604770A000200010036-1
INSPECTOR'S EXTENSION
Approved
FORMan USE
.10- 65 10,97 PREVIOUS
EDITION
UNCLASSIFIED
J CONFIDENTIAL
SECRET
(12-36)
25
GA.
25
0 SECRET
CONFIDENTIAL
0 UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2004/07/29 : CIA
NARRATIVE REPORT
-RDP78604770A000200010036-1
5i] INTERIM IJ FINAL
?
?
The feasibility report on Phase 1 which vas received the later part
of December 1965 was evaluated and while most of report was yell pre*
minted, several important points seem to require further expansion.
On 13 February 1966, the monitor had a telephone conversation with
Ithe Project lissineer, in which was requested to provide
supplemental material to their feasibility report,
1. Informed I I that we are worried out the optimum erfoxnce
of the propamsdiriewer/Printer. The monitor requested more imucreation
on the combined response.
a. Reqaested graphs and explanatory text. On the graph plot
percent up the side and frequency across the bottom. Plot the MTV curve
and the S/R curve plus a combined response _curve for the following band-
widths 1, 5, 10, 20, 25 masacycles. If I I can find a better vay to
portray it . fine. 114 vont to show the total overall gain in the output
over input taking into consideration all factor's MT?, Of, loss
through ?rocessing, gamma control, etc.
b. The proposed Viever.Printer is based on 411 input of 100 lines/mm
or less. I Iva& told that they must plan on haellingsmAerial up to
200 lines/mm resolution.
2. The momitor requested any information had on the successful
application of the lmase disector and follow spot technique. They were
informed that APIC had an earlier contract for the prodction of an
instrument employing this technique but the contractor was unable to
deliver the item. They veva informed that the time respired per output
print was not a significent factor, but output quality is of prime
importance.
3. The report leaws
contrast are used in cox
that anything less than 10 stps is
supply odditional material on this
imprestion that only two steps of
image elements. Tbityvime informed
unacceptable. was requested to
tam.
4. The report mentions 1 mil or 1.5 soil a$ the spot size for
"painting on" the output. The monitor requested they supply material
indicating the spot use of the pickup referenced to the film plane.
5. The monitor asked if there would be interlacing of SCAn lines
in the order of 8 or 10 to 1 in order to get a 4000 line system? I
stated that he was not using this technique. In slay scan the proposed
printer would paint on one seen line at a time, side by side. The
monitor requested 4 wit, up of this be included in the report.
6. The monitor requested that supply addition material on the
dynamic range of illumination or the brightness range.
UNCLASS I FAIffruve Cibe 2?L1Ele70/N2F9IDENT-IAL ?
0 SECRET
25
25
25
25
25
1
?
?
f ?
Approvedef *se 2004/011r2g4CIA-RD137-8B111r04.0200010036-1
7. The monitor informed that Abe earlier contract had planned
to use Image Disector WX-30029 and 1111 plane on UL-23111. The earlier
study reported that to increase the Signal to Noise ratio they would
have to decrease the aperture area or increase the aperature width.
That contractor found that to decrease size by a factor of 3 to satisfy
the resolution requirement would reduce the S/N by 3 or require an increase
in illumination by 3. Operating around 20 megacycles would require an
illumination increase of 400 times, which was Impossible.
The monitor asked for backup materia. to indicate their instrument
would have the proper illumination.
8. WS requested to supply text to show that they could attain
the small spot size that the system would require.
9. With varying density of 3.0 to 0.1, the resolution would probably
be degraded somewhat in the order of up to 5 to 1. I 11404 asked if this
would mean that portions of their display would only be about 800 lines?
Further write up was requested on this subject.
stated they thought the study phase of this contract had
been completed and that it might take some time to getl Ipermission
to open the study again. The project monitor requested 1 Ito present
all the above requested material in the form of a supplement to their
Feasibility Study.
Approved ForReetyrpelisp9r:191A-RDP78B04770A000200010036-1
filL
ir-
25
25
25