Register here

Author Topic: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY  (Read 130128 times)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« on: June 09, 2006, 04:11:26 am »
Anyone anything about this stuff? More than this:

Isinglass: Mach 17, rocket powered, air-launched reconnaissance aircraft? part of RS-129 (Staged combustion hydrogen-oxygen rocket component development program)? wide usage of lightweight structures (diffusion bonded titanium honeycomb)

"CIA air-launched, rocket-powered high speed manned vehicle project of 1965-1968 that developed basic technologies used in later shuttle and reusable launch vehicle programmes.

Isinglass was a the code name for a heavily classified, rocket-powered, air-launched aircraft studied by the Central Intelligence Agency as an A-12/SR-71 successor in 1964-1968. It studied several technologies that would be used in later shuttle and SSTO programmes, including light weight structure and thermal protection system concepts, and diffusion-bonded titanium. A large scale test article was built and tested to prove these features.

The initial Isinglass concept was designed by General Dynamics based on work done on the B-58-launched Super Hustler, Fish, and Kingfish programs of 1958-1960. The new design would use modern avionics and hydraulics systems developed for the F-111 and be capable of air-breathing Mach 4-5 cruise at 30 km altitude. The General Dynamics feasibility study was completed in the fall of 1964. An alternative design completed by McDonnell Aircraft in 1965 was designated Project Rheinberry. This would be a rocket-powered aircraft launched from a B-52 and flying at a near-orbital speed of Mach 20 at 60 km altitude. For the CIA's reconnaissance purposes, neither of these concepts were found to have advantages in comparison to satellites to justify the high development and operating risk and costs. "

"...Office of Special Activities did briefly consider several possible successors to the OXCART during the mid-1960's. The first of these, known as Project ISINGLASS, was prepared by General Dynamics to utilize technology developed for its Convair Divisions earlier FISH proposal and its new F-111 fighter in order to create an aircraft capable of Mach 4-5 at 100,000 feet. General Dynamics completed its feasibility study in the fall of 1964, and OSA took no further action because the proposed aircraft would still be vulnerable to existing Soviet countermeasures. In 1965 a more ambitious design from McDonnell Aircraft came under consideration as Project RHEINBERRY (although some of the work seems to have come under the ISINGLASS designation as well). This proposal featured a rocket-powered aircraft that would be launched from a B-52 mother ship and ultimately reach speeds as high as Mach 20 and altitudes of up to 200,000 feet. Because building this aircraft would have involved tremendous technical challenges and correspondingly high costs, the Agency was not willing to embark on such a program at a time when the main emphasis in overhead reconnaissance had shifted from aircraft to satellites. As a result, when the OXCART program ended in the summer of 1968, no more advanced successor was waiting in the wings-only the veteran U-2."
« Last Edit: June 09, 2006, 04:23:46 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline dickie

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2007, 11:29:43 am »
hey, sorry to bring this post back to life after so long...

did you ever find your answer? i believe from the information i have seen that the ISINGLASS was an airbreathing mach 4-5 follow-on to the a-12 and the RHEINBERRY was the mach 17 rocket-propelled reconnaissance drone intended to be air-launched from a b-52.

hope that helps somewhat.

It would be really great to find additional information on these projects, and to know the status of the data collected by the supposed trials that GD put their concept through... still classified?
« Last Edit: May 05, 2007, 10:39:31 am by dickie »

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2007, 10:06:54 am »
You can make some idea about MDD proposal from this designs. First is dedicated technology demonstrator for investigating cruise flight from Mach 3 to 6 and later to Mach 9. Two turbojets are supplemented by one ramjet in the center. Turbojet air from the inlets would be diverted into the ramjet engine in the Mach 1. Second two pictures are artists impression of Incremental Growth Vehicle proposed for the Air Force flight research in high Mach regimes. Speed area was planned from Mach 4,5 to Mach 10.

AWST, Sept. 17, 1973, pg. 87 and 89

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline dickie

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2007, 01:16:00 pm »
excellent! thanks for those pics, Matej!

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2007, 01:43:31 pm »
More graphics of IGV.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline CFE

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2007, 09:37:05 pm »
Has any artwork of McDonnell's proposed successor to the SR-71, the Isinglass, ever been made public?  During the "Blackstar" brouhaha, Dwayne Day claimed that he was working on a historical article about the Isinglass program.  It appears that he's run into a brick wall of classification.  If that's the case, I'll keep on waiting patiently and eagerly until the classification is dropped on this exciting program.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2007, 06:49:14 am »
I'd posted a reply, but it disappeared... Rheinberry was a boost-glide McDonnell project, it was manned and its engine was the XRL-129, a 250.000 lbs of thrust LH/LO engine by P&W. Some info and photos (of the engine and of the McDonnell developed roll bonded titanium structure)  in the curiously overlooked book by Dick Mulready "Advanced Engine Development at Pratt & Whitney" published by SAE International.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 06:51:37 am by Skybolt »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2008, 04:29:13 pm »
I would love to see more of Rheinberry. You know, Bill Rose teased us with the picture in his book. Which wasn't even Rheinberry anyway, but a follow-on called Aerospaceplane, from the early70's.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2008, 07:54:46 pm »
Flateric,

Is that honeycomb also a type of TPS as well?  It looks a lot like McDonnell's roll-bonded TPS...


KJ Lesnick

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2008, 03:50:01 am »
Rheinberry was a boost-glide McDonnell project, it was manned and its engine was the XRL-129, a 250.000 lbs of thrust LH/LO engine by P&W. Some info and photos (of the engine and of the McDonnell developed roll bonded titanium structure)  in the curiously overlooked book by Dick Mulready "Advanced Engine Development at Pratt & Whitney" published by SAE International.

Hmm...hmmm...may be too naive, but what if?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2008, 03:51:38 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 921
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2008, 03:13:01 am »
Rheinberry was a boost-glide McDonnell project, it was manned and its engine was the XRL-129, a 250.000 lbs of thrust LH/LO engine by P&W. Some info and photos (of the engine and of the McDonnell developed roll bonded titanium structure)  in the curiously overlooked book by Dick Mulready "Advanced Engine Development at Pratt & Whitney" published by SAE International.

Hmm...hmmm...may be too naive, but what if?

Hmm. Looks like the motor takes up a significant part of the vehicle. Artistic licence - or were drop-tanks part of the project?

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2008, 10:39:51 am »
ah, the good ol' HGV. Hey, is it me or is the nose slightly raised from the rest of the craft's surface. It always had a notched appearance of sorts. I'm thinking of doing a 3-view of this beast, homework permitting (it's on the backburner with my X-37 model and few other little projects).

Moonbat
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 921
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2008, 06:00:39 pm »
ah, the good ol' HGV. Hey, is it me or is the nose slightly raised from the rest of the craft's surface. It always had a notched appearance of sorts. I'm thinking of doing a 3-view of this beast, homework permitting (it's on the backburner with my X-37 model and few other little projects).

Moonbat

Looks to me like the fuselage is just fattened out a little bit around that 'cowl' area close to the nose.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2008, 06:04:20 pm »
Ah, you see what I'm talking about too, eh?
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2008, 07:09:34 pm »
I just had an idea pop in my head. What if the raised cowl up front is a jettisonable heat shield for some kind of sensor window?
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 921
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2008, 06:04:17 am »
I just had an idea pop in my head. What if the raised cowl up front is a jettisonable heat shield for some kind of sensor window?

Wouldn't that require another shield if the craft was to be recovered. Perhaps it's a payload door that retracts back into the hull? Could just be an artefact of the model though - somewhere to stick a motor or attach electric or hydraulic lines to power moving surfaces?

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 921
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2008, 06:06:30 am »
ah, the good ol' HGV. Hey, is it me or is the nose slightly raised from the rest of the craft's surface. It always had a notched appearance of sorts. I'm thinking of doing a 3-view of this beast, homework permitting (it's on the backburner with my X-37 model and few other little projects).

Moonbat

Looks to me like the fuselage is just fattened out a little bit around that 'cowl' area close to the nose.

Then again, on closer examination the leading edge of the wing, coupled with the 'hole' on top may just be giving that impression.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2008, 05:57:34 am »
Number of GD Convair Div. documents from the mid-60s (1964-1968) contain information of full-scale, flightweight,  LH2 tank test article built for Mach 6 cruise hypersonic vehicle, of which just one image appears. Interesting to note that, as well as MDD hypersonic vehicles family shapes have close resemblence to each other since 1960s, seems the same case with GD stuff - one that pictured here, in spite of the fact that its much larger, looks pretty close to GD HGV concept from 80s (for example, its artist's impression has appeared in Bill Sweetman's Aurora).

You can judge the vehicle size from the tankage dimensions shown. Was it or not somehow related to Isinglass, remains quite questionable, but obviously it was a design that the same guys were working on.

Source
DESIGN, FABRICATION, AND TESTING OF A FLIGHT WEIGHT, 6,000 GALLON, LIQUID HYDROGEN TANKAGE SYSTEM FOR ADVANCED VEHICLE APPLICATIONS

John H. Heathman
Advanced Launch and Re-entry Systems
Convair division of General Dynamics
San Diego, California

Lawrence R. Phillips
Senior Design Engineer Aerospace Engineer
Structures Division
Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 05:59:41 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2008, 10:46:26 am »
Flateric wins the Internet Detective badge for this week.

I wonder what was at the other end of the fuel line from this thing? How about the giant ejector ramjet that was sitting in Marquardt's back-lot in the 80s and 90s?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2008, 03:46:52 pm »
...and 4500-nautical-mile, Mach 8 cruise mission dual-fuel vehicle from 1967

Engines were combo of turbojets/dual-mode cramjets, fuels studied varied "...from all LH2 to a combination of JP4 and LH2 corresponding to minimum LH2 for cooling."

PARAMETRIC SYNTHESIS AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF DUAL-FUEL HYPERVELOCITY CRUISE VEHICLES
H. GLENN BALL and E. I. GOMEZ
General Dynamics Corporation
Forth Worth, Texas
AlAA Paper # 67-559

« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 03:48:32 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2009, 08:50:29 am »
Isinglass document presented by Dwayne Day at nasaspaceflight.com forum:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18261.msg291469;topicseen#new

Seems mostly discussion memos, not much technical stuff... Don't know if there's much new there?

It seems I can't attach the pdf file, too bad, it's 2.4 megs.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2009, 09:18:16 am »
Flateric wins the Internet Detective badge for this week.

I wonder what was at the other end of the fuel line from this thing? How about the giant ejector ramjet that was sitting in Marquardt's back-lot in the 80s and 90s?

Did anybody happen to snap a picture of it?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 653
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2009, 01:51:03 am »
Hope this helps.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2009, 10:35:01 am »
Way cool stuff. New material on the intended timeline, and strong hints that either explanation for the demise of Isinglass - either problems with distortion caused by heat on the camera window, or the NRO winning a battle and getting full funding for KH-10 - could be accurate. And it had TWO XLR-129s in the back end. They were not screwing around there.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2009, 08:52:28 pm »
Way cool stuff. New material on the intended timeline, and strong hints that either explanation for the demise of Isinglass - either problems with distortion caused by heat on the camera window, or the NRO winning a battle and getting full funding for KH-10 - could be accurate. And it had TWO XLR-129s in the back end. They were not screwing around there.

I suspect that ISINGLASS' demise had more to do with the retirement of General Bernard Schriever.  Technical challenges may also have hurt it, but Schriever was apparently the program's patron on the USAF side.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2009, 09:07:32 pm »
Way cool stuff. New material on the intended timeline, and strong hints that either explanation for the demise of Isinglass - either problems with distortion caused by heat on the camera window, or the NRO winning a battle and getting full funding for KH-10 - could be accurate. And it had TWO XLR-129s in the back end. They were not screwing around there.

I suspect that ISINGLASS' demise had more to do with the retirement of General Bernard Schriever.  Technical challenges may also have hurt it, but Schriever was apparently the program's patron on the USAF side.

Any thoughts on McDonnell Douglas's GRM-29A?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2009, 03:21:59 am »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2009, 03:39:17 am »
Very interesting, Paul!
And to top it all, we learn that ISINGLASS was McDonnell's Model 192!

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2009, 04:40:21 am »
Any thoughts on McDonnell Douglas's GRM-29A?

What was that again?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2009, 05:28:52 am »
Any thoughts on McDonnell Douglas's GRM-29A?

What was that again?


The one there in the middle.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 653
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2009, 03:17:50 pm »

I suspect that ISINGLASS' demise had more to do with the retirement of General Bernard Schriever.  Technical challenges may also have hurt it, but Schriever was apparently the program's patron on the USAF side.

General Schriever was the central pillar of Air Force's project Forecast (1963-1964), which served as guidelines for R&D investments in the 1965-1975 period.
Project Forecast was a technology push and as such necessarily impacted positively projects such as ISINGLASS. Especially after the demise of Aerospaceplane.

More on project Forecast here:

http://history.nasa.gov/HHR-32/ch12.htm
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2009, 08:42:38 pm »
I think Schriever's involvement in pushing ISINGLASS was more direct (i.e. not simply working on Forecast).  I first learned about ISINGLASS and RHEINBERRY when I had lunch with a former senior CIA official in 1996 and he mentioned both names.  He said that CIA was only moderately interested in ISINGLASS, and that it was heavily pushed by Schriever.  I suspect that when Schriever retired, the project's sponsorship just fell apart.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2009, 07:52:34 am »
We may know the same guy. But ISINGLASS cancellation is also close to the point where it was decided to put the A-12s in mothballs and hand the mission to the CIA, which (according to the CIA's history) the agency resisted.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2009, 12:30:21 pm »
Has anyone seen a McDonnell Douglas proposed configuration for the Have Region program? I read that the MD entry was a scaled-up version of the Isinglass vehicle.

I'm curious if the Model 192 is the blended wing-body configuration often seen in MD NASP and scramjet paintings.

Also, has anything else come to light on the vehicle below:



The description is from "X-15 in Retrospect":

"A possible new research airplane system conforming to these and other X-15 guidelines is illustrated in figure 20. (Footnote: This is one of several systems receiving preliminary study in the United States.) It is a lifting-body cruise configuration designed for Mach numbers up to 12. Its acceleration engine is a hydrogen fueled J-2S rocket adapted from an upper-stage engine of the Saturn vehicle. Integrated into the lower surface is a research scramjet engine sized to paver the airplane in cruise. Following guidelines from our X-15 experience the vehicle is kept as small as possible, aboub 25 meters in length, and it remains in the Mach 12 environment only long enough for research purposes, about 5 minutes. As we have leaxned from the X-15, a new hypersonic research airplane system is likely to have a long lifetime of perhaps 15 years, during which many new unsuspected ideas for research and changes in configuration are likely to appear as the program develops. Accordingly, we are proposing here actually three different vehicle arrangements. We would start the program with the lifting-body rocket glider without the air-breathing research engine. Later, a delta-winged version using the same subsystems would be flown. And, finally, the integrated scranjet research engine shown here would be installed. Provision for structural cooling schemes including direct fuel cooling, air-film cooling, and other schemes likely to appear in these vehicles might also be made."

The J-2S is an experimental engine started in 1964 (as J-2X not to be confused with latest version), similar class of hydrogen rocket as the XLR-129, offering greater flexibility over the Saturn J-2, with a greater throttle range and an Idle Mode.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 01:44:45 pm by flateric »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2009, 01:00:28 pm »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2009, 01:53:28 pm »
Thanks Moonbat. I've seen the SERJ version of the X-15, but this propulsion selection (LH2 and LOX) for the unknown variant is different than the JP fuel and hydrogen peroxide oxidizer of the SERJ, which uses an ejector ramjet. The CIA/NRO documents on Isinglass recommend hydrogen florine for better Isp, but suggests LH2 and LOX to cut costs in half for the propulsion selection. Which is the type of system specified in the description of the unkown aircraft.

I also read that GRM-29A was developed by McDonnell Douglas under Science Dawn and that the Science Realm program was a test of structural articles from the Science Dawn designs. Have Region was the manufacture and test of Science Realms subscale structural test articles (as per the Anser Briefing documents). Therefore, if the GRM-29A configuration held up through the two studies to the Have Region program, then Isinglass should be of similar configuration. Its a long-shot, but not so long if someone has a drawing of McDonnell's Have Region vehicle.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 02:03:02 pm by Dynoman »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2009, 03:15:58 pm »
Funny, I was just going to ask about that.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2009, 10:08:25 pm »

I also read that GRM-29A was developed by McDonnell Douglas under Science Dawn and that the Science Realm program was a test of structural articles from the Science Dawn designs. Have Region was the manufacture and test of Science Realms subscale structural test articles (as per the Anser Briefing documents). Therefore, if the GRM-29A configuration held up through the two studies to the Have Region program, then Isinglass should be of similar configuration. Its a long-shot, but not so long if someone has a drawing of McDonnell's Have Region vehicle.

It would be interesting to know if ISINGLASS has GRM-29's water cooling.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2009, 10:16:44 pm »
I'll bet Prof. Czysz worked on GRM-29.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #39 on: September 25, 2009, 07:01:53 am »
Quellish, I don't know if Isinglass has the same cooling, but a document that has been circulated mentions GRM-29A as a water wick design (reducing weight of the TPS by 50% over a proposed "Advanced RSI").

Interesting to note that the chart representing ISINGLASS vehicle evolution titled, "Inter-relations of various Aerodynamic Reconnaissance Vehicles" from the CIA/NRO document has operational recon aircraft at the top, what looks like two classified vehilcles to the left, preceeding ISINGLASS, and a row of classified elements (I think are reconnaissance systems below it), and a line of evolutionary propulsion (i.e. turbojet, ramjet, and scramjet) units below that.

The document (of 1965) also mentions three vehicles of various ranges. The last one after ISINGLASS II looks like "Hypersonic Extended Range," a line item mentioned in the document as having a 24,000 nm range and to be operational between 1975-80.

The other two are a boost glide vehicle of 7,500 mile range and a rocket powered hypersonic vehicle of 12,000 mile range. The first vehicle says its in the "Early development stage" and the other in the 1970-75 forecast. I wonder if ISINGLASS is the 7500 mile range and ISINGLASS II is 12,000 mil vehicle?

ISINGLASS was projected to be Mach 20 at 200,000 feet, but the ANSER document lists it as Mach 17.

Also, the propulsion flow chart portion does not show a scramjet planned for the ISINGLASS vehicle until the Hypersonic Extended Range vehicle is developed (1975-80 time frame). Inferring that ISINGLASS had been planned as a rocket-based system until a future growth version developed. Which makes the above picture interesting.
 
« Last Edit: September 25, 2009, 08:48:58 am by Dynoman »

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #40 on: September 25, 2009, 10:42:52 am »
This is the case as per the CIA/NRO document:

ISINGLASS - Boost glide rocket - 7,500 mi range, Mach 20, 200,000 ft

ISINGLASS II - Hypersonic rocket powered - 12,000 mi range

Hypersonic Extended Range - Scramjet powered - 24,000 mi range
« Last Edit: September 25, 2009, 10:46:47 am by Dynoman »

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2009, 07:06:14 pm »
Quellish, I don't know if Isinglass has the same cooling, but a document that has been circulated mentions GRM-29A as a water wick design (reducing weight of the TPS by 50% over a proposed "Advanced RSI").

There appear to have been several recurring themes in DoD hypersonics work:
- Hypersonic cruise with scramjets. McD did a lot of this work, the GLOBAL REACH studies eventually resulted in the X-43 design. Today this effort continues with HTV-3X and it's successors.
- Boosted conventional weapons. The boost-glide vehicles and more recent Global Strike maneuvering conventional RVs like HTV-1 and HTV-2 fit here.
- Access to space. SSTO and TSTO vehicles like GRM-29A. The AMST, TAV, COPPER CANYON and later SCIENCE REALM and HAVE REGION programs all aimed to satisfy this need, and X-33 was at least somewhat of a spin off of this work. In parallel to the line of DARPA efforts listed, SDIO invested heavily in access to space projects during the late 80s and early 90s.

Because GRM-29 was an access to space vehicle, and as such was designed around carrying a lot of propellant, I would guess it's relation to ISINGLASS would be indirect. It is possible though that GLOBAL REACH is more directly related.

CIA on the other hand works differently. They basically go to the contractors with a requirement, rather than pursue aerospace projects with R&D investments over time like DARPA and USAF do.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #42 on: October 07, 2009, 09:02:16 am »
Hypertech mentions that the picture in the design is the result of a collaboration between McAir and Pratt & Whitney in the 1958-1963 time frame.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.msg61104.html#msg61104

The planform and basic configuration is similar to the GRM-29A (according to the ANSER document). This ties the planform back to the ISINGLASS development time frame. The ISINGLASS vehicle proposal was delivered in 1965 by McAir. My thought is that this is the Model 192 or a close variant of it.

The Pratt XLR-129 was to power the 'Mach 20 200,000 ft Altitude" Boost-Glide McAir vehicle. CIA Parangoski goes to Pratt in Mid-1965 to discuss the development of an engine to power this vehicle, resulting in the XLR-129 (according to book Adv Engine Development at Pratt & Whitney). The planned engine for ISINGLASS.

There were two versions based on the design: 1) Boost-glide with circumferential glide range (22,500 ft/s); 2) Mach 12 Cruiser, as per:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,722.msg52805.html#msg52805

According to the CIA/NRO document, ISINGLASS vehicles where to have two XLR-129 engines per vehicle. I don't know if one was a spare or both were to be mounted on the vehicle, but the picture in the post below maybe what the proposed vehicle was supposed to look like.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.msg30271.html#msg30271

However, considering the size of the XLR-129 and that the system would be airlaiunched from a B-52H it may have been more like the HGV.


« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 07:18:44 am by Dynoman »

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #43 on: October 08, 2009, 12:51:37 pm »
Scott seems to have a lot of data on GRM-29A, you can see some of it in one of his APR preview images here:
http://up-ship.com/apr/images/v5n2all.jpg
There are definitely similarities to the other McD hypersonic concepts as well as the McD mystery model with an XLR-129, leading all the way up to the X-43/GLOBAL REACH vehicles.

TWO XLR-129s? That seems a bit much for anything launched from a B-52, and even for a boost glide vehicle implies something fairly large, carrying a lot of propellant.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2009, 01:59:39 pm »
Quellish, I agree. My post is based on the CIA/NRO planning document that states that FY69 there was to be three test ISINGLASS aircraft with seven rocket engines and the initiation of production of eight operational aircraft for deployment in FY71 with sixteen rocket engines.

If you assume the first of the seven engines is a test article, that leaves two engines per aircraft. These 'second' engines could be spares or vehicle mounted similar to the HSVS picture in the link above.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2009, 07:00:04 pm »
Try this on for size

Here's the original thread: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.60.html
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2009, 06:44:06 am »
Thanks Moonbat. Looking at the Mach 12 Demonstrator yields some interesting and possible clues.
1) Mach 12 Demonstrator is of similar configuration to the GRM-29A.
2) Mach 12 Demonstrator is air launched, due to main gear landing skids. And falls in under the maximum weight for B-52H air launch requirements.
3) It is a rocket boosted system with out XLR-129. CIA/NRO documents indicates concern over the Pratt design and may have planned initial test flights of demonstrator with alternate engines. Both systems utilize LOX and LH2.
4) Mach 12 Demonstrator uses water wick insulation, similar in concept at least to GRM-29A.
5) As per the previous drawings, the Mach 12 Demonstrator may have flown in 1970. The CIA planning document has the test article flying FY1969. This places the Mach 12 demonstrator in the test period, prior to operational status of FY71.
6) TD Nickel alloy was developed in 1965-1966. The Mach 12 demonstrator document is dated 1970. A four year window that would have seen this vehicle designed during the same period as design work would have commenced for ISINGLASS (McAir ISINGLASS proposal delivered 1965).


Also, as an aside to this topic. I found an ineresting document. NASA's X-Press.
It lists Dan Vanderhorst as a pilot on the NB-52 for some launches. Vanderhorst holds the unofficial high altitude record and pilot of at least seven classified aircraft, one of which is Tacit Blue. Its not uncommon to fly in the NB-52 and then pilot an air dropped aircraft.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/105856main_vol_46-issue_11-Dec_04.pdf
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 08:42:39 am by Dynoman »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2010, 05:09:59 pm »
So, does anybody have a copy of this report on the XLR-129?

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0881744

I think there's also material about it in a P&W history book, but I cannot find my photocopy.  Anybody got it?

I'm doing something on the subject line of this thread.  You all will find it interesting.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2010, 06:24:30 pm »
So, does anybody have a copy of this report on the XLR-129?

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0881744

 ???

I suspect we all do, now that you've posted a link to it.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2010, 08:09:30 am »
That's excellent. Good hunting, BlackStar.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #50 on: April 12, 2010, 09:53:25 am »
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1602/1

A bat outta Hell: the ISINGLASS Mach 22 follow-on to OXCART
by Dwayne Day
Monday, April 12, 2010
 
Soon after the U-2 was flying in the latter 1950s, the CIA began work on a successor that eventually resulted in the A-12 OXCART, better known because of its more prominent offspring, the SR-71 Blackbird. The May 1960 shootdown of Francis Gary Powers over the Soviet Union threw ice water on plans to send more manned reconnaissance aircraft over the Soviet Union. Even though CIA officials talked about OXCART missions over the USSR, some of them even flying missions coordinated with satellites far overhead, both politics and the perceived vulnerability of the OXCART to sophisticated defense prevented this from ever happening. But by the mid-1960s the CIA began looking at a potential replacement for the OXCART, a Mach 22 rocket-powered glider known as ISINGLASS.

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #51 on: April 12, 2010, 10:25:33 am »
Great info. McDonnell specialized in those rocket gliders - I think Paul Czysz (?) mentioned here something in the vein how they designed only hypersonic air breathers if the customer demanded, and even then reluctantly.
They already tested a boost glider when the ICBM:s were developed in the late fifties - the Alpha Draco. Gliding of 300 km from an altitude of 30 km - that seems quite good - especially considering it didn't have wings and rolled for heat control. Have to read up on the physics / energy management / basic aerodynamics some day.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #52 on: April 12, 2010, 02:24:40 pm »
One question about Isinglass still puzzles me:  The engine seems huge for an air-launched vehicle. Mulready's book gives a loaded weight of 132,000 pounds, but that seems pretty massive even for a B-52, particularly asymmetrically carried, and still won't allow a lot of burn time on a 250K engine. And if you're launching at altitude, why do you need the two-position nozzle?

Is it possible that an early version of Isinglass was smaller and air-launched, but that it was ground-launched by the time the development work was under way?

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #53 on: April 12, 2010, 03:05:22 pm »
One question about Isinglass still puzzles me:  The engine seems huge for an air-launched vehicle. Mulready's book gives a loaded weight of 132,000 pounds, but that seems pretty massive even for a B-52, particularly asymmetrically carried, and still won't allow a lot of burn time on a 250K engine. And if you're launching at altitude, why do you need the two-position nozzle?

Is it possible that an early version of Isinglass was smaller and air-launched, but that it was ground-launched by the time the development work was under way?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992jann....1..599P

The AF contract number mentioned, "F04611-68-C-0002", can give you some very interesting search results. Across the speed and altitude range an ISINGLASS vehicle would be boosting through the nozzle would be very efficient, though wether it's efficient enough to justify the added complexity and mass is another thing.

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #54 on: April 12, 2010, 04:38:48 pm »
One question about Isinglass still puzzles me:  The engine seems huge for an air-launched vehicle. Mulready's book gives a loaded weight of 132,000 pounds, but that seems pretty massive even for a B-52, particularly asymmetrically carried, and still won't allow a lot of burn time on a 250K engine. And if you're launching at altitude, why do you need the two-position nozzle?

Is it possible that an early version of Isinglass was smaller and air-launched, but that it was ground-launched by the time the development work was under way?

So I have a few moments to do this.
Looks interesting !

Looking at BlackStar's .pdf from earlier (very quickly). Fig 29 says at altitude Isp is 440 secs at 30K-200K ft.
(booster config - think that is the two position nozzle config - not sure though - haven't read the whole thing yet - Thanks BlackStar!)
g = 32 ft/sec**2
Mf = Mass fully fuelled is 132,000 lbs (given from Mulready)
Me = Mass empty (structure, wings, electronics, dudes flying it, landing gear, etc) 40,000 lbs (just guessing).

DeltaV = Isp (secs) * g (ft/sec**2) * ln(Mf/Me) = DeltaV ft/sec
DeltaV = 440 secs * 32 ft/sec**2 * ln(132000/40000) = 16,810 ft/sec
Approx Mach 16.8
NotMach 22.We have to go lower for Me.

So what empty weight gives around Mach 22?

That would be around 27,650 lbs as:
DeltaV = 440 secs * 32 ft/sec**2 * ln(132000/27650) = 22,000 ft/sec= Approx Mach 22

So say you launch at 30,000 ft from B-52.
I think that this vehicle could add some lift (due to its lifting surface) and the rocket could
also potentially be burned if the B-52 could carry that extra fuel (they looked at this for the
M/D-21 as well). May burn the B-52's tail off though - :)

So you could go from essentially standstill (B-52's speed) to Mach 22 with the above Isp and
Mass Ratio according to the Ideal Rocket Equation (just a back of the envelope calc.)


Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #55 on: April 13, 2010, 07:44:28 am »
Most interesting - and since the primary structure (SPF/DB titanium) continued to be offered as a candidate for TSTOs and SSTOs, it could have offered the necessary weight characteristics.

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2010, 12:10:55 pm »

Interesting, agreed!

One of ISINGLASS's legacys seems to be light-weight structure and TPS concepts.

This is documented by the AIAA paper on the joint 2001-02 NASA-Air Force 120 Day
Reusable Launch Vehicle study, as discussed in AIAA 2004-3731, presented at
the 2004 Joint Propulsion Conference, where it was discussed that ISINGLASS was
indeed one of the legacy programs that was looked at to learn from.

I am attaching an image of the rocket plane design that came out of that program.

One key item is that they figured out that if they staged the TSTO system at 23,750 fps,
that gave them global range for the first stage booster !! In other words, you can launch
from location X, and then stage to orbit the payload and still the first stage has global
range and can return to location X to land.

One other little tidbit about why M22 is so interesting! You're almost there at approx 22,000 fps.


Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2010, 12:58:42 pm »
Shockonlip...Thats a great find! The authors of the AIAA paper of 2001-02 looks like they have applied 1980's and 90's stealth techonologies (e.g. faceting and leading-edge-alignment) to the what may have been the ISINGLASS configuration (if as you say they were inspired by the ISINGLASS vehicle).

The distinctive BWB fuselage with 'bulbus' aft section, twin verticle stabilizers, two engines, raised cockpit, and highly swept delta planform looks very reminiscent of some of the proposed configurations above.

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #58 on: April 13, 2010, 01:22:20 pm »

ISINGAS wasn't the only legacy program they took ideas from, they also took ideas
from: RASV, SCIENCE DAWN, HAVE REGION, NASP, X-33.

The paper I mentioned earlier:
AIAA 2004-3731 => The Formulation of a Near Term Stepping Stone to a Low Cost
                           Earth-to-Orbit Transportation System Based on Legacy Technology

Also check out:
AIAA 2005-4191 => A Near-Term Alternative for Space Access and Global Range
AIAA 2005-6745 => A Near-Term Alternative for Space Access and Global Range


Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2010, 02:03:29 pm »
One question about Isinglass still puzzles me:  The engine seems huge for an air-launched vehicle. Mulready's book gives a loaded weight of 132,000 pounds, but that seems pretty massive even for a B-52, particularly asymmetrically carried, and still won't allow a lot of burn time on a 250K engine. And if you're launching at altitude, why do you need the two-position nozzle?

Is it possible that an early version of Isinglass was smaller and air-launched, but that it was ground-launched by the time the development work was under way?

The NB-52 dropped the SRB-DTV, which was 48,000 pounds. That should be the heaviest thing it's carried on the pylon, and is right up to the aircraft's limits. The X-51 vehicle is pushing the 52H right up to the limits of its performance envelope as is.
So 132k does sound pretty big.

Offline martinbayer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #60 on: April 13, 2010, 02:14:23 pm »
This presentation has some related information: http://chapters.nss.org/ny/LongIsland/articles/ANSER.pdf

Martin
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #61 on: April 13, 2010, 03:42:53 pm »

Thanks martinbayer for the neat pdf.

Any idea on where we can get the videos?



Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #62 on: April 13, 2010, 04:14:37 pm »
One question about Isinglass still puzzles me:  The engine seems huge for an air-launched vehicle. Mulready's book gives a loaded weight of 132,000 pounds, but that seems pretty massive even for a B-52, particularly asymmetrically carried, and still won't allow a lot of burn time on a 250K engine. And if you're launching at altitude, why do you need the two-position nozzle?

Is it possible that an early version of Isinglass was smaller and air-launched, but that it was ground-launched by the time the development work was under way?

The NB-52 dropped the SRB-DTV, which was 48,000 pounds. That should be the heaviest thing it's carried on the pylon, and is right up to the aircraft's limits. The X-51 vehicle is pushing the 52H right up to the limits of its performance envelope as is.
So 132k does sound pretty big.

X-51 might be pushing it altitude-wise but it's fairly light compaed to mony of the items the B-52 has carried on it's pylons.  (It'd be facinatiing to see a comprehensive list of all things ever carried on a B-52 pylon.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #63 on: April 13, 2010, 04:24:05 pm »

Yes, I think X-15A2 was 53,000 lbs.

Some of the Pegasus (like XL) with payload are in the
same range as well. Not sure what the weight of the heaviest Pegasus
launched package a B-52 has carried is.

I agree that Mr Sweetman or Mr Day need to ask these questions on
what mods the B-52 launchers had as I suspect there were 2 or 3
B-52's they would have needed and they were probably heavily modded.

So just a back of the envelope says ISINGLASS was probably not fully
fuelled so that it stayed under the 53,000 lb pylon max weight.

They probably stripped the B-52 of it's normal bomber role equipment
including normal crew stations etc.

And the B-52 also carries around 300,000 lb of fuel, so some of that
can be reduced for ISINGLASS fuel. Remember that the B-52 can be
mid-air refuelled to get it to launch point or back home.

Just some rough ideas. Who knows what they were planning.

It will be fun to find out over time.


Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #64 on: April 13, 2010, 04:48:49 pm »

Yes, I think X-15A2 was 53,000 lbs.

So just a back of the envelope says ISINGLASS was probably not fully
fuelled so that it stayed under the 53,000 lb pylon max weight.

The X-15A2 numbers I was looking at were not (apparently) including the drop tanks - my dead tree X-15 manual is in storage. I have a question out to someone about what the max the pylon on the NB-52 could do. I suspect it's about 60,000 pounds, and this depends on the specialized pylon as well (mass of the pylon, what the pylon can hold, etc.).

And the B-52 also carries around 300,000 lb of fuel, so some of that
can be reduced for ISINGLASS fuel. Remember that the B-52 can be
mid-air refuelled to get it to launch point or back home.

100,000 pounds still seems awfully big for a drop from a B-52, I wonder if there were 2 variants, or if the vehicle evolved from rocket based air drop to something else. Or maybe the article built was actually for a notional launch vehicle rather than the CIA vehicle.

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #65 on: April 13, 2010, 05:20:35 pm »

Hey Dan!

I found the X-15A2 number online at:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-38/HTML/EC97-44319-8.html
Neat hanging X-38 picture by the way at that URL!
Later on same page:
"The heaviest load it carried was the No. 2 X-15 aircraft at 53,100 pounds."

>100,000 pounds still seems awfully big for a drop from a B-52,
I hear ya!
For this idea to work I'm expecting that the pylon latches never see more than
53,000 lbs even after the ISINGLASS is fully fuelled. In other words, the pylon is
designed so that the ISINGLASS is flying on the pylon and generating enough lift
for 60% of its weight when fully fuelled at 132,000 lbs. I mean, I don't know if
that is possible. It's interesting though and I intend to check it out some more.
You could certainly instrument the pylon to tell you what weight it is seeing and
could check that out during captive test flights. On the ground the vehicle
hangs at 53000 lbs, but as the B-52 gets going to .8 mach, the pylon registers
less weight as the ISINGLASS starts to generate lift. Hmmm. I guess there is
turbulence to think about too and B-52 wing flex. Anyway, may have to back off
the max weight some. It makes me want to talk to an Edwards flight test
engineer!

>I wonder if there were 2 variants, or if the vehicle evolved from rocket based air
>drop to something else. Or maybe the article built was actually for a notional launch
>vehicle rather than the CIA vehicle.
I guess time will tell. But I suspect that they were very serious, and it is amazing how
capable this thing would have been if they could have afforded to build it.

Kind of makes me think back to what I was doing in 1965 and then saying to myself,
guess what someone is working on !



Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #66 on: April 13, 2010, 05:31:32 pm »

Yes, I think X-15A2 was 53,000 lbs.

Some of the Pegasus (like XL) with payload are in the
same range as well. Not sure what the weight of the heaviest Pegasus
launched package a B-52 has carried is.

I agree that Mr Sweetman or Mr Day need to ask these questions on
what mods the B-52 launchers had as I suspect there were 2 or 3
B-52's they would have needed and they were probably heavily modded.


Hyper-X was the last program to use the venerable NASA B-52B -008, along with the X-15 pylon, before it was retired. This B-52 had a special wing modification to provide carrying the extra weight. The actual certified carrying weight of the of the wing/pylon was an issue for Hyper-X which led to the flight 1 HXLV/RV configuration which went out of control as it past through transonic at much higher dynamic pressure than the Pegasus was flown. Considerable effort was expended during return to flight efforts to determine the certifiable load limit of the wing/pylon. This was difficult given the state of documentation available. Eventually, a substantially heavier flight 2 stack was launched  from a higher altitude after  removing a fair amount of propellant from the Pegasus solid rocket motor. I believe the final weight weight limit might have been determined by the stregth of the drop hooks on the X-15 pylon.

Note the current B-52 being used for the X-51 program is an H model which does not have any wing modification and has different engines that allow it to fly to 50 kft. B-52B -008 used for Hyper-X was balls to the walls at Mach 0.8 and 40 kft.

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #67 on: April 13, 2010, 05:36:19 pm »

And the B-52 also carries around 300,000 lb of fuel, so some of that
can be reduced for ISINGLASS fuel. Remember that the B-52 can be
mid-air refuelled to get it to launch point or back home.


Don't forget the B-52 uses fuel weight to account for both asymmetrical loading of the carried vehicle as well as keeping the CG within stability limits.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 05:39:05 pm by DSE »

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #68 on: April 14, 2010, 03:02:38 am »

Thanks DSE !!

Good input!


Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #69 on: April 17, 2010, 12:57:43 pm »
Given folks interest in the X-15, I thought I'd point out this poster which is available,
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/X-15_Poster.html

Also, attached are some slides from a Czysx talk I heard which might provide some info on the source to the XLR-129 info and the water wick TPS.


Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #70 on: April 17, 2010, 04:25:19 pm »
Oh dude. You rock!! Thank you. Excellent find. Is there a link to the said presentation?

Key observation here: In your next to the last slide,Slide 84, STRUCTURAL ASSEMBLY, I noticed the upper surface of the hypersonic plane illustrated has a double notch at the aft end.

It's very similar to artwork posted by Airrocket, here about five posts down:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.15.html

Are the double nothches in this drawing meant for housing XLR-129's? Who knows? The are noticeable however. Is this drawing related to Airrocket's? Again, who knows? It could all be coincidence. But I thought I'd point this feature out.

Moonbat
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 12:41:43 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #71 on: April 18, 2010, 11:16:26 am »
Oh dude. You rock!! Thank you. Excellent find. Is there a link to the said presentation?

Key observation here: In your next to the last slide,Slide 84, STRUCTURAL ASSEMBLY, I noticed the upper surface of the hypersonic plane illustrated has a double notch at the aft end.

It's very similar to artwork posted by Airrocket, here about five posts down:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.15.html

Are the double nothches in this drawing for XLR-129's? Who knows? The are noticeable however. Is this drawing related to Airrocket's? Again, who knows? It could all be coincidence. But I thought I'd point this feature out.


It's tough to figure what relates to what in Czysz's presentations at times. Could also be space for tanks. No link to the charts, however video of the presentation is at:
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=9e186d8a-7960-4e7b-9778-ff6e3c14a299 see last 1/4 and
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=a78b7755-0f85-457e-ba50-a3b219527fc3

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #72 on: April 18, 2010, 04:49:30 pm »
It's tough to figure what relates to what in Czysz's presentations at times. Could also be space for tanks. No link to the charts, however video of the presentation is at:
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=9e186d8a-7960-4e7b-9778-ff6e3c14a299 see last 1/4 and
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=a78b7755-0f85-457e-ba50-a3b219527fc3

His bit starts at Slide 337 in the online video.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #73 on: April 18, 2010, 05:06:39 pm »
It's tough to figure what relates to what in Czysz's presentations at times. Could also be space for tanks. No link to the charts, however video of the presentation is at:
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=9e186d8a-7960-4e7b-9778-ff6e3c14a299 see last 1/4 and
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=a78b7755-0f85-457e-ba50-a3b219527fc3

His bit starts at Slide 337 in the online video.


Any way of getting the whole videos and slideshows in individual files to download without having to sit through the whole thing watching it realtime?   ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #74 on: April 18, 2010, 06:18:42 pm »
What would be great is if Prof Czsyz compiled a scrapbook of these slides and concepts for us. I'd buy that for a dollar!
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #75 on: April 19, 2010, 12:18:55 am »
Any way of getting the whole videos and slideshows in individual files to download without having to sit through the whole thing watching it realtime?   ???

Slideshows (with some difficulties) - yes. Note, that Prof. Czysz doesn't show (at least) some slides that are in the beginning of his presentation (FDL models set).

Have tried to grab Silverlight video with Orbit downloader, but with no success. Hidownloader(c) that seems to be able to grab Silverlight streaming media doesn't work with my Win7...

Needless to say that we MUST somehow save these for history...
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 01:35:31 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #76 on: April 19, 2010, 01:41:21 am »
Seems I'm able to download and save the video (.wmv, BTW). It'll take a couple of hours, when finished I'll put it somewhere on one of my usual places.
UPDATE: The proceeding is slooooow (no more than 23 Kbit/sec, and I'm a running on a fiber connection....).
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 09:08:42 am by Skybolt »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #77 on: April 19, 2010, 07:42:46 am »
It's a very, very extreme long shot. But maybe Prof. Czsyz could consider getting with Scott to put together some of this stuff as a special APR issue. And preserve it for posterity while we can. I'd definitely crack the piggy bank open for that.

Moonbat
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 08:55:58 am by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #78 on: April 19, 2010, 09:35:07 am »
SUCCESS ! Downloaded the 3 h 23 m of the first video ! Now on to the second one.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #79 on: April 19, 2010, 10:02:10 am »
Seems I'm able to download the slides, too. It takes a little (too much) but it can be done automatically. Will put the results on the usual place.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #80 on: April 19, 2010, 11:03:22 am »
SWEET!  Where is "the usual place"?   Will you post links when you're done?   ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #81 on: April 20, 2010, 11:18:49 am »
The NASA B-52H on loan from the USAF will be augmented to carry a 70,000 lb pylon mounted payload as per the article below:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/stories/083101/new_b52.html

The smallest vehicle in the PC lecture was 63,200 lb (31.6t) TOGW. I don't know if the NB-52A/B could be modified for that weight, but the B-52H, built in 1965, is apparently capable of supporting this payload. Its about a 20% increase over the X-15 No.2 vehicle.

Also, the vehicle is shown flying from a C-5. The plan may have been to fly the smallest vehicle from the B-52 and a growth version from the C-5 or possibly that the aircraft design weight grew too large for the B-52 and was switched to a C-5.

Notice both the "All Rocket" version and the "Modular Ramjet/Scramjet" versions have skids. This slide represents the smallest versions of the HYFAC vehicles, which may have been test articles for ISINGLASS. None have the XLR-129 engine(s), until the HSVS vehicle. PC also says that earlier design work and models were destroyed and that the data fed the next version (i.e. the black model with one, very large XLR-129).   

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #82 on: April 20, 2010, 01:18:10 pm »
Dyno,

I'd buy you some beers right now.

Moonbat
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #83 on: April 20, 2010, 01:25:38 pm »
Notice both the "All Rocket" version and the "Modular Ramjet/Scramjet" versions have skids. This slide represents the smallest versions of the HYFAC vehicles, which may have been test articles for ISINGLASS. None have the XLR-129 engine(s), until the HSVS vehicle. PC also says that earlier design work and models were destroyed and that the data fed the next version (i.e. the black model with one, very large XLR-129).   

You have to check the chronology there.  ISINGLASS was conceived in 1964 or early 1965 and was stone cold dead by 1968.  Your slide shows a date _after_ that, so it could not have fed into ISINGLASS.

By the way, somebody just contacted me with some more info regarding ISINGLASS and said that apparently the vehicle was technically feasible, but that they could not turn it into a recon vehicle because the shockwave made it impossible to use optics.  He is a former agency guy who got this directly from one of the CIA program managers back in the 1980s (guy had overseen it in the 1960s).

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #84 on: April 20, 2010, 01:35:41 pm »
Dynoman,

One can find top, side, and cross sectional views of the vehicles in your first slide in:

"Scramjet Propulsion"
Edited by: Curran amd Murthy

Chapter 16: "Transatmospheric Launcher Sizing" by Czysz and Vandenkerckhove

See pg 1050 for essentially Paul's slide.
The sequence I described above starts at: pg 1098

You will recognize many things Paul talked about.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #85 on: April 20, 2010, 01:43:59 pm »
With the C-5 launched variant, I knew something was up.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #86 on: April 20, 2010, 02:02:29 pm »
By the way, somebody just contacted me with some more info regarding ISINGLASS and said that apparently the vehicle was technically feasible, but that they could not turn it into a recon vehicle because the shockwave made it impossible to use optics.  He is a former agency guy who got this directly from one of the CIA program managers back in the 1980s (guy had overseen it in the 1960s).

There were some advancements in this area in the mid 80s, though not directly connected to ISINGLASS of course. People were still working the problem. By that time though, attention focused to using a radar.

What is curious to me is that few of these drawings, and the model, show the two position XLR-129 nozzle

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #87 on: April 20, 2010, 02:03:36 pm »
With the C-5 launched variant, I knew something was up.

Moonbat, remember Paul was talking about MOL not ISINGLASS.
C-5 didn't first fly until the late 1960's, from what I recall.


Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #88 on: April 20, 2010, 02:21:51 pm »
true
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline CFE

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #89 on: April 20, 2010, 09:16:42 pm »
Of course, the shockwave interference with optics isn't a problem if your trajectory takes you into the near-vacuum of space.  Pop off some photos once you're 62+ miles above the area of interest.  It certainly kills your resolution and limits your dwell time, of course.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #90 on: April 20, 2010, 09:30:27 pm »
Of course, the shockwave interference with optics isn't a problem if your trajectory takes you into the near-vacuum of space.  Pop off some photos once you're 62+ miles above the area of interest.  It certainly kills your resolution and limits your dwell time, of course.

Alternatively, chuck your camera overboard. Attach it to a good, stable aerodynamic decellerator; it slows way the hell down, drops like a stone, takes its photos, radios the message to the spaceplane (or overhead satellite), and self-destructs.

Expensive as hell, but possibly workable. If the cameras are small enough, the individual housings could be like miniature CAVs, and could drop quite low. An off-the-shelf digital camera with some commercial optics might not do half bad at Mach 1 and 25,000 feet over the target.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #91 on: April 21, 2010, 05:45:55 am »
Shocklip...you are right in that the operational version of the C-5 didn't fly until March of 1968, however design work started in 1961 on the CX-HLS with a contract awarded to Lockheed in September of 1965 for the C-5A. PC says in the video that the initial work began with the heavier vehicles and that "Dick Peterson and Tom Gregory" thought the designs were too heavy.

PC says during the HEI Vehicle Systems Day 2 video at 01:03:05 that they (MAC) proposed a lighter version to be airlaunched from a C-5! This is part of his discussion on Global Range glider.

Note also that the vehicle launching from the C-5 and the notional Mach 12 demonstrator have five engines abreast (counting the exhaust plumes from the C-5 Launch picture). And that he points out in the video that "this is the vehicle that would launch from a C-5" having to modify the outboard engine pylon/nacelle to incorporate the air launched vehicle on its pylon.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 05:48:44 am by Dynoman »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #92 on: April 21, 2010, 06:04:41 am »
Marco, any luck with downloading HEI lectures so far?
I'm not considering myself a complete idiot when dealing with PC, but so far all my efforts with Silverlight tech realtime media downloaders are complete fiasco...which one do you use?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 06:08:11 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #93 on: April 21, 2010, 06:34:12 am »
Grigory, see PM.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #94 on: April 21, 2010, 07:43:34 am »
Dyno,

I too, noticed that the M.12 demonstrator and the artwork both have five abreast engines.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #95 on: April 21, 2010, 07:51:46 am »
Moonbat...I agree. What is strange to me is why the picture has what looks like "NASA" on the vertical stabilizer. Was the plan to cover-up the test launches similar to the "NASA weather flights of the U-2" or to pitch the aircraft to NASA? Very confusing :-\

Also interesting to note is that PC indicates that two models were developed, what he remembers as just before 1960, that were associated with a highly classified program, and were later destroyed. These are the two models below. The bottom model looks alot like the Mach 12 demonstrator in planform and configuration. This may have been Model 192. Does anyone have a chronological list of MAC model designations and could isolate the date of Model 192?



« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 08:00:00 am by Dynoman »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #96 on: April 21, 2010, 08:12:34 am »
I don't. But I bet HyperTech could answer that.

In the meantime, I found an HEI presentation PDF. It's the last of 11 such briefs. Brief #1 is not found, oddly enough.


Here you go: http://research.nianet.org/~grossman/Fundamentals/Hypersonic%20Systems%20Integration/11-HEI%20SysIntegration.pdf

I couldn't find anything actually ISINGLASS-related like in Dyno's post. But here's brief #4. It's got some stuff from one of Professor C's earlier presentations tossed in.

http://research.nianet.org/~grossman/Fundamentals/Hypersonic%20Systems%20Integration/4-HEI%20SysIntegration.pdf
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 08:42:27 am by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #97 on: April 21, 2010, 09:51:51 am »
BlackStar - I think the shockwave story is in The Wizards of Langley, by Richelson.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #98 on: April 21, 2010, 10:18:47 am »
BlackStar - I think the shockwave story is in The Wizards of Langley, by Richelson.

Yeah, it is.  Apparently he and I heard it from the same person.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #99 on: April 21, 2010, 11:26:37 am »
Blackstar, I'm wondering if any additional data on hypersonic optical cameras and windows are available. I've read that the X-15 experimented with these issues and that the photographic data was remarkable. The tests were done in 1963 on X-15-2, flying around Mach 5 and over 140,000 ft. This information can be found in "Progress of the X-15 Research Airplane" dated 1965, on NASA's tech server.

Also, this section on X-15 reconnaissance systems tests, from the link below:

"4) Aerial Photographs. Optical degradation experiments determined that the shock wave, boundary-layer flow, and temperature gradients across windows caused negligible degradation to visual, near-IR, and radar aerial photography to Mach 5.5 and 125,000 feet. However, improved photographic equipment and much faster-speed films may very well invalidate these findings, hence the need for renewed flight testing. Toward the end of this experiment several tests of near-IR color photography produced the first successful inflight use of color films. Such were later used in reconnaissance work over Southeast Asia where colored emissions could denote enemy activity under dense foliage. ERDA now uses this technique via satellites to study the earth's resources."


http://history.nasa.gov/hyperrev-x15/ch-7.html
 
I've also read that over Mach 6 the thermal-thicket becomes a much more difficult problem. I'm wondering if ISINGLASS would be high enough in its profile, over the target, so that a retractable shield over the optical sensor window could be used, without significant effects. 

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #100 on: April 21, 2010, 12:22:24 pm »
Well, ISINGLASS was intended to fly _much_ faster than the X-15, Mach 22 versus Mach 5.

As for the issue of a retractable cover, the person who contacted me specifically referred to that in his message.  He said that the program manager said that the problem was that the opening in the vehicle resulted in a small amount of ingestion of the airflow and shockwaves inside the camera compartment.  End result was the same.  (I'm paraphrasing because I read the message yesterday and didn't just look at it again.)  I've asked him for further information on the ISINGLASS.

I still have quite a few documents on the program, some of which I posted to the www.nasaspaceflight.com website and which somebody re-posted here last year.  I think I scanned in about 1/3 to half of what I have.  I have not gone through them closely, but the majority of them are programmatic, with only limited discussion of technical issues.  My suspicion is that although CIA is not opposed to declassification of ISINGLASS, they a) have made no special effort to declassify records regarding it, and b) in their normal declassification activity they have not yet gotten to the bulk of ISINGLASS records.*  My goal is to take the article that I just ran on TSR and expand it using my other material and publish it in Spaceflight magazine.  I'll probably ask Giuseppe to illustrate it.

The Wikipedia entry for this program is still a mess.  General Dynamics didn't work on the vehicle, and it had no connection to FISH or KINGFISH.  It was a McD project all along.  I'll have to go correct that.


*The CIA has a project to declassify certain records.  From my long experience with this process it is clear that there is no systemic approach to their declassification, they are simply working down the shelves in some classified warehouse.  So my guess is that eventually they'll reach a shelf containing the retired records of somebody who oversaw the ISINGLASS program and start declassifying them and eventually we'll suddenly get a big influx of material.  I've seen that happen before.  Several years ago I suddenly started seeing a bunch of records that were obviously part of Richard Bissell's files, which included a couple of very interesting documents that linked Bissell to the concept of "freedom of space" (i.e. freedom of overflight) that Stephen Ambrose, Walter McDougall, Cargill Hall, Mike Neufeld and myself have all written about over the years.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 12:29:09 pm by blackstar »

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #101 on: April 21, 2010, 12:49:13 pm »
I'm looking forward to the article Blackstar! The optical distortion and window integrity would certainly be linchpins in the programs' success. The General Dynamics/Convair references must have eminated from the CIA document "The U-2's Intended Successor: Project Oxcart 1956-1968" page 40.

I've reproduced the page below. It states that GD's Convair division worked on a proposal that took technologies from FISH and the F-111 (assuming they mean its variable geometry wings) and created a Mach 4-5, 100,000 ft recon aircraft. I've spoken with a sizing specialist from Convair and he believes the design work may have been done in Fort Worth, TX, however, I haven't seen or read any confirmations of this.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #102 on: April 21, 2010, 01:03:34 pm »
Beat me to it!  :D

Well, here's link anyway:
http://www.paperlessarchives.com/a12.html

As far as using F-111 tech, could that be interpreted to mean swing-wings for low speed approaches? If so, maybe GD was brought in to consult on that aspect of ISINGLASS

It just a theory.

Moonbat
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #103 on: April 21, 2010, 01:17:02 pm »
Moonbat...I found a good history of Convair and GD.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/convair/Aero36.htm

Convair became a division of GD in 1954. I suspect that after loosing Super Hustler and FISH, and later Kingfisher to Lockheeds A-12, that they were attempting to stay in the manned reconnaissnace game with the ISINGLASS. My theory is that they proposed something that looks like the VL-3A, which can be found elsewhere on Secret Projects.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 01:18:50 pm by Dynoman »

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #104 on: April 21, 2010, 03:00:38 pm »
Shocklip...you are right in that the operational version of the C-5 didn't fly until March of 1968, however design work started in 1961 on the CX-HLS with a contract awarded to Lockheed in September of 1965 for the C-5A. PC says in the video that the initial work began with the heavier vehicles and that "Dick Peterson and Tom Gregory" thought the designs were too heavy.

PC says during the HEI Vehicle Systems Day 2 video at 01:03:05 that they (MAC) proposed a lighter version to be airlaunched from a C-5! This is part of his discussion on Global Range glider.

Note also that the vehicle launching from the C-5 and the notional Mach 12 demonstrator have five engines abreast (counting the exhaust plumes from the C-5 Launch picture). And that he points out in the video that "this is the vehicle that would launch from a C-5" having to modify the outboard engine pylon/nacelle to incorporate the air launched vehicle on its pylon.

Hi Dynoman.

I don't believe that Paul was discussing ISINGLASS at all, except for a few jabs at 'classified' shapes and
then it isn't clear what program he 'might' have been talking about, with such references, as MOL was
very classified as well. I'm sure there were others as well.

Remember that ISINGLASS was gone by the late 60's, from what we currently know.

Paul was explicit that he was talking about a vehicle for support of the MOL mission.

C-5A could have been in the mix for the 1970's.

An interesting question is, is it up to Paul to disclose ISINGLASS?
I have not heard Paul announce anything new about ISINGLASS.
Therefore, ... .
And if it is not up to Paul to disclose it, he won't!

I'm sure he may be waiting for the disclosures himself.

I am quite sure that as more disclosures become available, he will have
quite a few interesting anecdotes.

>" having to modify the outboard engine pylon/nacelle to incorporate the air launched vehicle on its pylon. "

Outboard pylon?





Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #105 on: April 21, 2010, 03:41:07 pm »
The General Dynamics/Convair references must have eminated from the CIA document "The U-2's Intended Successor: Project Oxcart 1956-1968" page 40.

I've reproduced the page below. It states that GD's Convair division worked on a proposal that took technologies from FISH and the F-111 (assuming they mean its variable geometry wings) and created a Mach 4-5, 100,000 ft recon aircraft. I've spoken with a sizing specialist from Convair and he believes the design work may have been done in Fort Worth, TX, however, I haven't seen or read any confirmations of this.


Yeah, that's apparently where it is from, but it's wrong.  The writer must have made a mistake.  The interview I have, plus the other documents, indicate that ISINGLASS was a McD project, not GD.  GD may have been working on something of its own, but ISINGLASS was not it.

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #106 on: April 21, 2010, 04:53:41 pm »
The NASA B-52H on loan from the USAF will be augmented to carry a 70,000 lb pylon mounted payload as per the article below:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/stories/083101/new_b52.html

The smallest vehicle in the PC lecture was 63,200 lb (31.6t) TOGW. I don't know if the NB-52A/B could be modified for that weight, but the B-52H, built in 1965, is apparently capable of supporting this payload. Its about a 20% increase over the X-15 No.2 vehicle.

Unfortunately, this was in the day when NASA's NGLT at MSFC had the X-43B (TBCC & RBCC variants) and the X-43C (along with the USAF HyTech scramjet with a new NASA variable geometry inlet) programs in the works. These were the next programs slated to use the H-model and were looked at to fund the wing mod/pylon. When these programs went away, so did the funding source. I don't believe the mods/pylon were ever done.

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #107 on: April 21, 2010, 05:51:11 pm »

In the meantime, I found an HEI presentation PDF. It's the last of 11 such briefs. Brief #1 is not found, oddly enough.

Here you go: http://research.nianet.org/~grossman/Fundamentals/Hypersonic%20Systems%20Integration/11-HEI%20SysIntegration.pdf

I couldn't find anything actually ISINGLASS-related like in Dyno's post. But here's brief #4. It's got some stuff from one of Professor C's earlier presentations tossed in.

http://research.nianet.org/~grossman/Fundamentals/Hypersonic%20Systems%20Integration/4-HEI%20SysIntegration.pdf

Note the date. These are from an earlier course, back when it was the K. Bowcutt show. What I posted came from the June 10-12 2008 course.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #108 on: April 22, 2010, 06:25:46 am »
Just to clear up some confusion :) Day 2 of the lecture presented in this thread, PC says:

HEI Day 2 Time: 1:03:14
Model to be flown on a C-5. Refering to the smallest vehicle of the HYFAC designs.

HEI Day 2 Time: 1:03:29
Outboard pylon had to be moved. The outboard pylon supporting the engine and nacelle, had to be moved away from the test vehicle.

Also his discussions on Day 1 referred to the Boost Glide vehicle "whose name I can't tell you about (PC)," although he has mentioned MOL, Model 176, and other programs before. He does not make any reference to this boost glide design and MOL. The Pratt and Whitney book on the XLR-129 specifically mentions the Boost Glide reconnaissance program using the engine, and that is was developed for a MAC boost glide recon aircraft.

As far as the credibility of the authors of the CIA, U-2 and Overhead Recon, both are CIA Historians who were long time employees of that agency dating back to 1960. I'm only posting what I can verify with documentation. Where speculation exists, I say is theory on my part.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #109 on: April 22, 2010, 06:39:07 am »
Question, since I don't have my copy of Mulready's book at hand: Does he talk about B-52 launch? I don't remember.

If not, is our only source for B-52 launch that CIA Oxcart history, with its rather confused Rheinberry/Isinglass reference?

It still seems to me that an XLR-129-powered vehicle is just too big for a B-52 and that Isinglass more likely took off vertically with external tanks.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #110 on: April 22, 2010, 06:42:37 am »
As far as the credibility of the authors of the CIA, U-2 and Overhead Recon, both are CIA Historians who were long time employees of that agency dating back to 1960. I'm only posting what I can verify with documentation. Where speculation exists, I say is theory on my part.

The author of the history that you posted is also the person who conducted the interview of Cunningham that I used in my article--that interview contradicts the history.  And as I also noted, I have additional documentation on ISINGLASS that indicates an McD connection and not a GD connection.  So I'm pretty confident that the history contains an error and the other documents are correct.  I'd also add that based upon a long familiarity with declassified official histories of programs, they do contain errors, perhaps more than you normally find in unclassified histories (because they do not go through a review and checking process for accuracy).

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #111 on: April 22, 2010, 09:05:06 am »
Sounds like they need a good fact-checker.

In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #112 on: April 22, 2010, 10:53:41 am »
Sounds like they need a good fact-checker.



The problem is that when these histories are written, they are so highly classified that only a few people are allowed to read them.  This allows for mistakes to go unchecked.  It is possible that some of them go straight from the writer to the safe.  People may notice mistakes later on, but that is after the history has been finished.

I'll also add that there are no guarantees.  I work for an organization that has an extensive and detailed review process for its reports.  The point is to find and eliminate errors.  However, errors can still get through the process.

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #113 on: April 22, 2010, 12:02:47 pm »
Question, since I don't have my copy of Mulready's book at hand: Does he talk about B-52 launch? I don't remember.

If not, is our only source for B-52 launch that CIA Oxcart history, with its rather confused Rheinberry/Isinglass reference?

It still seems to me that an XLR-129-powered vehicle is just too big for a B-52 and that Isinglass more likely took off vertically with external tanks.

I'll check tonight via my copy, unless someone beats me to it.

Paul certainly showed boosters attached in the HEI lectures to what we expect
(but aren't sure - remember the switch blade wings?)) are similar vehicles but only
for MOL support. But again this is for 5-10 years earlier.

But say you are right LO.

Then is the launch point fixed? Or, do you transport the pieces somewhere and assemble
them (and get permission frm the local gov't) and launch them for your secret recce
mission? Or do you use a ship (old cargo ship, or old seaplane tender perhaps, or even
mothballed WWII aircraft carrier with suitable mods) and do it that way (there IS a
great plot device here for a military action novel).

It's a heck of a lot easier to fly it and launch it from the air. Plus you get the benefit
from the altitude, etc.

But, it certainly is interesting !


Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #114 on: April 22, 2010, 03:07:33 pm »
From Mulready . .

P. 104:

. . . It was to be dropped from the wing of a B52 [sic] at an altitude of 35,000 feet . . .

. . . Provision was made for loading the propellants from the B52 after its climb to altitude.  The weight-carrying capability of a B52 from a wing pylon was limited to approximately 167,000 pounds.  Using oxygen/hydrogen propellants, McDonnell staff had calculated a required glider weight of 132,000 pounds and would need an engine with 225,000 pounds of thrust at 35,000 feet.

Edit: corrected typo (mode s/b made).
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 07:20:51 am by GeorgeA »

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #115 on: April 23, 2010, 07:09:36 am »
Thanks for clearing that up.

What one tends to forget is the B-52's mindboggling useful load fraction, with an OEW of 175000-180000 pounds and an MTOW of 488000-505000 pounds, according to source. There are even more spectacular numbers here: 

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/B52S05.pdf

The next question is designing a pylon (an advantage would be that you wouldn't have to use it very often) and figuring out the asymmetric loadings - even with the inboard pylon I should think there would be some WHOA BETTY! moves from the '52 on release.

I wonder if 132000 pounds is the clean glider weight, with another 35000 pounds in ETs?

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #116 on: April 23, 2010, 07:19:38 am »
Propellant burn of the XLR-129 was 541 lb/sec at 5:1 per the P&W final report.  Anybody have REDTOP handy?

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #117 on: April 23, 2010, 09:19:10 am »
So at 5:1 LH2/LOX ratio, and shockonlip's calculation (around page 4 above) of 27650 lb OEW to get the required Delta-V... That's 104000-some pounds of fuel... 87000 pounds of LH2 at 4.23 lb/cu ft... 20500-some cubic feet or around 10250 cubic feet in each of two tanks, so if the tanks were about 12 feet in diameter they'd be 80 feet long.

There would be some LH2 in the vehicle itself, which would cut down the tank size. But I think you'd definitely need externals, and you can see where you might have to move the B-52's inboard nacelle.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #118 on: April 23, 2010, 10:47:17 am »
So at 541 lb/sec. that would be (gross numbers) a 192-second burn.  Given Isp of 415 retracted and 450 extended, is that enough delta-v for Mach 20/350,000?

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #119 on: April 23, 2010, 10:54:53 am »
Belay that last message. Impeccable source says that Isinglass was VTHL in all its forms. Launched vertically with external tanks.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #120 on: April 23, 2010, 11:00:59 am »
Belay that last message. Impeccable source says that Isinglass was VTHL in all its forms. Launched vertically with external tanks.

Does your source know if there's any relation between Isinglass and the GRM-29A?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline prolific1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 450
    • Aviation Design Boneyard
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #121 on: April 23, 2010, 11:14:29 am »
Any more info on the MDD entry? I'm feeling a profile/3 view in the works. ;D
Windows/PCs/anything Microsoft sucks.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #122 on: April 23, 2010, 11:22:38 am »
Belay that last message. Impeccable source says that Isinglass was VTHL in all its forms. Launched vertically with external tanks.

That contradicts what was in the Cunningham interview, as well as what was in the Pratt & Whitney book.  Plus, what's the launch site?  And it did this with how many engines?

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #123 on: April 23, 2010, 12:17:20 pm »
Yah. Is there anything concrete to go on. I feel like we're just grasping on shreds sometimes.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #124 on: April 23, 2010, 01:06:21 pm »
Seems like ground launch would negate all of the operational advantages (e.g., all-azimuth launch).

Could it be that there were two applications for the same basics airframe?

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #125 on: April 23, 2010, 01:28:43 pm »
Seems like ground launch would negate all of the operational advantages (e.g., all-azimuth launch).

Could it be that there were two applications for the same basics airframe?

Possibly.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #126 on: April 23, 2010, 01:32:08 pm »
Ooh, the Toss-Back booster! Keep it coming, DSE! Now we're cooking!

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9589.0/highlight,toss-back+booster.html

Prof C has some good ideas.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 01:35:14 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #127 on: April 24, 2010, 09:56:35 pm »
Hey Dwayne? Has there ever been any mention of the number of crew ISINGLASS was to have carried? And now for the real kicker.

Something just occurred to me in the shower. We do have clues to ISINGLASS's configuration at hand.

It's a safe bet that being LH2/O2 powered, the fuselage would have a broad cross-section. Whether the tanks are tandem or side-by-side is anybody's guess. Let's leave that open. From there, we can assume you'll have:

A-The XLR-29's in the aft end
B-The LH2 tankage
C-The O2 tankage
D-Some kind of Q-bay
E-The avionics bay
F- The cockpit up front. Whether the cockpit is flush or raised, again, is an open question.
G- Anything else not covered

Knowing what we DO know from all the documented info we have on McDonnell's hypersonic designs, Professor Czysz's lectures and occassional input on here, and the scant bits of hard info on ISINGLASS, I think we could come up with a reasonable composite of ISINGLASS's configuration.

What do you think?


« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 09:58:06 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #128 on: April 25, 2010, 03:54:33 am »
Has there ever been any mention of the number of crew ISINGLASS was to have carried?

No.  But the documents do indicate that it was definitely supposed to be manned.  They also indicate that it was McD (not General Dynamics).  You can see that by downloading the pdf posted earlier in the thread and looking through them and you'll find McD's name, not GD.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #129 on: April 25, 2010, 05:57:43 am »
A-12 and U-2 were both single-seat. And mission endurance would not have been a big problem here.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #130 on: April 25, 2010, 09:07:45 am »
Yeah, it is McD. How GD's name got mixed up in this is anybody's guess. Hey, it even got me there, for a moment.

I guess it's like old "telephone" game where a message starts out one way and gets completely changed by the end of the game.

So this mixup of ISINGLASS's maker has become very widespread.

In fact, I was just going back through Bill Rose's still outstanding SECRET PROJECTS book on military space tech and even he writes about the "General Dynamics" ISINGLASS (Hey there's always second editions).

Not mention the Wiki page on the project. One day it'll all be put right.

So as far as what I was talking about in my last post, I think we, as a forum, have just enough info on ISINGLASS to make a reasonably informed guess on how the plane looked. Just a guess. But an informed guess. Short of full declassification, this would have to do.

Maybe some of our artists on here like Giuseppe or Prolific can cook up something.



« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 09:16:19 am by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #131 on: April 25, 2010, 09:21:27 am »
On a further note, and here's where I need a professional opinion, would ISINGLASS's tankage have been in tandem? Or would it have been in side-by-side lobes, ala X-33?

Given what we know of design standards of the era, which one would have been more feasible for ISINGLASS?
 
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #132 on: April 25, 2010, 11:50:32 am »
Yeah, it is McD. How GD's name got mixed up in this is anybody's guess. Hey, it even got me there, for a moment.


That's from the CIA history.  Look a little earlier in the thread where we discuss it.

On another note, I have a document that clearly indicates that ISINGLASS was supposed to be launched from a B-52.  So that settles that it was not vertical launching.  It will take me a little while to scan it and post it, however.

My plan is to take my TSR article and revise it and add in the various sources that I have (several dozen documents, although some of them are redundant/repetitive) and then publish it.  I may update the Wikipedia page in the interim, although Wikipedia annoys me.  A few years back I wrote an article about Blue Gemini, which was NOT the name of the Gemini for MOL.  I then updated the Wikipedia page, only to have somebody "improve" it a few months later by introducing all kinds of errors.  It's proof that the Wikipedia assumption that over time bad articles will get better is wrong--it is just as likely that over time good articles will get worse as people who don't know what they're talking about "correct" things that don't require correction.  It's just regression towards the mean in action.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 11:53:55 am by blackstar »

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #133 on: April 25, 2010, 12:25:03 pm »
On a further note, and here's where I need a professional opinion, would ISINGLASS's tankage have been in tandem? Or would it have been in side-by-side lobes, ala X-33?

Given what we know of design standards of the era, which one would have been more feasible for ISINGLASS?

Well given the trapezoidal cross section, I'd assume a large cylindrical hydrogen tank in the center and two smaller cylindrical oxygen tanks in the low corners. But this might be totally wrong - AFAIK not even good three views of the FDL-7C/D for example have been posted? Is the center fuselage widening aftward significantly or not? What are the angles? IIRC only the nose bottom ramp's 3 or 6 degrees or something has been mentioned as a number.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #134 on: April 26, 2010, 08:57:02 am »
Belay that last message. Impeccable source says that Isinglass was VTHL in all its forms. Launched vertically with external tanks.

Your source must be thinking of a different project, not ISINGLASS.  There are at least a couple of declassified documents that indicate that ISINGLASS was air-launched (and a McD project, not GD as stated in the CIA history). 

"The ISINGLASS system is an advanced boost-glide vehicle.  It is launched at about 25,000 feet, from a B-52 or equivalent aircraft, boosted by a Pratt and Whitney high pressure liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen rocket engine to an altitude [deleted]"

Another document states:

"Dr. McMillan then questioned the validity of the claimed quick reaction capability with a four to five hour flyout time for the B-52 plus a one hour mission time and another 12 hours to get the film back to Rochester or some other place."

Also interesting:

"Dr. McMillan also questioned to what extent studies had been conducted on 'throw away' boosters reminding [deleted] that you could have a reuseable vehicle without a reusable booster."

Although they're discussing disposable boosters, this implies to me that the ISINGLASS design did not include disposable elements like fuel tanks, although I find that hard to believe.


Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #135 on: April 26, 2010, 05:03:35 pm »
Could it be that Impeccable's source confused the Toss-Back Booster for ISINGLASS? They're both from the McDonnell hypersonic stable.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #136 on: April 26, 2010, 05:43:37 pm »
That's possible.  All that I know is what ISINGLASS was.

Now to figure out RHEINBERRY...

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #137 on: April 26, 2010, 09:49:40 pm »
Ah, yet another engima. Sometimes I feel like we're looking for the aerospace equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster or Yeti.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #138 on: April 27, 2010, 05:45:09 am »
Ah, yet another engima. Sometimes I feel like we're looking for the aerospace equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster or Yeti.

Not at all.  There is real evidence on ISINGLASS to be uncovered, as you can see by starting at the beginning of this thread, and I'll be publishing an article on it soon.  We still don't have any illustrations of what it looked like, but they certainly exist and will be released.  But consider what we do know:

-when it started
-who developed it
-what it was supposed to do
-how it was supposed to work
-the fact that it was not government funded
-the type of engine it used
-when it ended
-why it ended

We only have general information on most of these questions, but that is far better than what we initially had, which was not only short and vague, but wrong (see the discussion of the CIA history earlier in this thread).

There is almost nothing on RHEINBERRY, but I suspect that is primarily because there was less done on that project.

So at least ISINGLASS is no longer a mythical beast, and we'll probably get better with RHEINBERRY as well.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 06:07:38 am by blackstar »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #139 on: April 27, 2010, 06:09:52 am »
I stumbled across something else last night.  It is a reference to a visit by Cunningham to NASA in January 1965.  He wanted to know what NASA's experience was working with Pratt & Whitney.  Were they a reliable contractor re cost and schedule and things like that?

The clear implication of this is that it must have been soon after CIA learned about McDonnell's proposal for ISINGLASS and their idea of using a Pratt & Whitney rocket engine.  So CIA wanted to know about a contractor that they had no experience with.  It gives a good indication of when the program was first started.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #140 on: April 27, 2010, 07:53:45 am »
I stumbled across something else last night.  It is a reference to a visit by Cunningham to NASA in January 1965.  He wanted to know what NASA's experience was working with Pratt & Whitney.  Were they a reliable contractor re cost and schedule and things like that?

The clear implication of this is that it must have been soon after CIA learned about McDonnell's proposal for ISINGLASS and their idea of using a Pratt & Whitney rocket engine.  So CIA wanted to know about a contractor that they had no experience with.  It gives a good indication of when the program was first started.

As I recall, didn't the CIA work with P&W on the J58? (And Suntan as well?)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #141 on: April 27, 2010, 10:01:53 am »
Maybe these were different parts of P&W?  Rockets vs. jet engines.

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #142 on: April 27, 2010, 02:54:05 pm »
Maybe these were different parts of P&W?  Rockets vs. jet engines.

Can't speak to back then, but these days P&W is very much segmented, not just in regard to products but also programmaticly/technically.

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #143 on: April 27, 2010, 03:05:55 pm »
Well, back then, after RL-10 and before SSME, P&W had not been making rocket engines for long. Nowadays it even owns the former Rocketdyne... But perhaps Mulready's book or something...

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #144 on: April 27, 2010, 03:14:33 pm »
RL-10 and XLR-129 work was done at Florida R&D in West Palm Beach (actually closer to Jupiter).  Not sure about J58, although Florida would have provided better security than E. Hartford (lovely swampfront vistas vs. exit 56 off I-84 right next to the Burger King).

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #145 on: April 27, 2010, 03:39:07 pm »
J58 testing was done down there.

Edit: As well the test runs of the Suntan powerplant. Here's a PDF of Dr. Bob Abernethy's presentation on the J58 that talks about testing it in Florida. I'm sure I found this referenced elsewhere at Secret Projects. He was re-assigned to work on the RL-10 after the J-58. It's a very enjoyable read.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 07:32:49 pm by Sundog »

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #146 on: April 30, 2010, 04:33:25 pm »
It's tough to figure what relates to what in Czysz's presentations at times. Could also be space for tanks. No link to the charts, however video of the presentation is at:
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=9e186d8a-7960-4e7b-9778-ff6e3c14a299 see last 1/4 and
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=a78b7755-0f85-457e-ba50-a3b219527fc3

The first video presentation from the course:
    *  Hypersonic vehicle design challenge (Bowcutt)
    * Abbreviated hypersonic historical design-perspective (Chudoba)
    * Flight vehicle classes and characterization (Chudoba)
    * Product development life-cycle and generic development process (Chudoba)

http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=e1020dec-8de1-443d-a193-7273d1ab6ca4

and the next one following Czysz's videos:
# Hypersonic vehicle design requirements (Bowcutt)
# Aerodynamic design and analysis (Bowcutt)
# Propulsion flowpath design, integration & analysis (Bowcutt)
# Vehicle multidisciplinary design optimization (Bowcutt)

http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=56e8b97a-a724-4507-a478-a0d6f4f98edd

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #147 on: May 05, 2010, 05:30:39 pm »
It's tough to figure what relates to what in Czysz's presentations at times. Could also be space for tanks. No link to the charts, however video of the presentation is at:
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=9e186d8a-7960-4e7b-9778-ff6e3c14a299 see last 1/4 and
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=a78b7755-0f85-457e-ba50-a3b219527fc3

The first video presentation from the course:
    *  Hypersonic vehicle design challenge (Bowcutt)
    * Abbreviated hypersonic historical design-perspective (Chudoba)
    * Flight vehicle classes and characterization (Chudoba)
    * Product development life-cycle and generic development process (Chudoba)

http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=e1020dec-8de1-443d-a193-7273d1ab6ca4

and the next one following Czysz's videos:
# Hypersonic vehicle design requirements (Bowcutt)
# Aerodynamic design and analysis (Bowcutt)
# Propulsion flowpath design, integration & analysis (Bowcutt)
# Vehicle multidisciplinary design optimization (Bowcutt)

http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=56e8b97a-a724-4507-a478-a0d6f4f98edd

I guess there is little interest in these or the rest of the video, so there is no need to post the links.

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #148 on: May 05, 2010, 07:10:22 pm »
There is, I just don't have Microsoft Silverlight!

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #149 on: May 06, 2010, 01:48:44 am »
Let me see what I can do.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #150 on: May 06, 2010, 05:25:42 am »
Just curious...

James A. Cunningham, of IDEALIST fame, mentioned that the vehicle was supposed to be an RL-20 engine (cited in the reference below). Pratt was conducting research on an evolutionary engine at the time, known as the RL-20 P-3. Many of the technologies in the RL-20 end up in the revolutionary XLR-129 (as per Mulready). Just wondering if Cunningham, who admits to having left before ISINGLASS got rolling, was involved in intial talks where the RL-20 may have been the initial proposed engine? Food for thought. Dick Mulready's book mentions that the engine was in development in 1963 and that it was shown to many high level government and DoD executives. It was also in the same thrust class as a J-2 (which was the proposed engine for the NASA hypersonic research model for a manned vehicle found earlier in this thread).


Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #151 on: May 06, 2010, 05:49:24 am »
Also, can anybody cite the references for RHEINBERRY? The only two I know are the CIA document from the U-2 and OXCART histories, and the Bill Rose Military Space Technologies book. Are there any others?

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #152 on: May 06, 2010, 07:19:43 am »
Wait, what really is the RL-20? It's amazing that something completely new like that pops up. This is an awesome forum.
Expander engines are a strangely little explored path - only really done in the USA and lately in Japan. And they are not limited to small thrust or low chamber pressures.

The RL-10 had roughly 10 tonnes of thrust (100 kN). Hence naturally the RL-20 could be 20 tonnes (200 kN). The Saturn J-2 had 100 tonnes (1 MN). The XLR-129 was in the J-2 class.

I think there certainly exists a "hole" or "niche" for an RL-20. Though the use of dual RL-10 Centaurs later speaks against it being developed...

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #153 on: May 06, 2010, 08:06:33 am »
Go down to reply #51 from Mark. Notice how that last piece of artwork is reminiscent of the NASA J-2 powered aircraft referenced by Dyno earlier.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.45.html

However, in reply #57, Prof. Czsyz describes it as "a XLR-129 powered hypersonic glider with a 25,000 nautical mile glide range circa 1958"

Moonbat
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 08:11:01 am by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #154 on: May 06, 2010, 11:33:48 am »
Also, can anybody cite the references for RHEINBERRY? The only two I know are the CIA document from the U-2 and OXCART histories, and the Bill Rose Military Space Technologies book. Are there any others?

A former senior CIA official mentioned it to me in a lunch conversation back around 1996, which I think was before the OXCART history was declassified.  Actually, he mentioned both ISINGLASS and RHEINBERRY.  Later, when I asked him about RHEINBERRY, he couldn't even remember the name.  My suspicion is that he learned about the latter only casually, although he knew about the former firsthand.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #155 on: May 06, 2010, 12:23:23 pm »
For MZ...RL20 with deployable skirt.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #156 on: May 06, 2010, 01:16:18 pm »
I may take some heat for this, but I think it may be on the minds of some already and I just want to throw it out there for debate ::)

The only vehicles that we know of that uses the XLR-129 engines are the two below. CIA U-2/OXCART history document says that the ISINGLASS project by MAC evolved into RHEINBERRY. Both of these vehicles are MAC XLR-129 powered vehicles (the first is a BGV). The CIA documents posted by Blackstar shows ISINGLASS I, ISINGLASS II, and Extended Global Range (EGR) vehicles. What if ISINGLASS I is the boost-glide version, ISINGLASS II is the single XLR-129 version, and EGR is the HSVS version or the final RHEINBERRY vehicle?

This is the case as per the CIA/NRO document:

ISINGLASS - Boost glide rocket - 7,500 mi range, Mach 20, 200,000 ft

ISINGLASS II - Hypersonic rocket powered - 12,000 mi range

Hypersonic Extended Range - Scramjet powered - 24,000 mi range
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 01:20:34 pm by Dynoman »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #157 on: May 07, 2010, 07:54:54 am »
All we need is some commentary from the good Professor himself.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1475
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #158 on: May 07, 2010, 11:07:52 am »
All we need is some commentary from the good Professor himself.

Emh.... why he can't join us here??  :D

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #159 on: May 07, 2010, 01:11:49 pm »
Mulready's book describes the RL20-P-3 as a 250,000-lb. thrust, 3000 psia, staged combustion LOX/LH2 engine for reusable launch vehicle applications, with a projected TBO of 10 hours.

A mockup of the engine was displayed at the United Aircraft Corporation Exhibition at the LA Coliseum in 1963 and the Air Force Association meeting that same year.  A brochure describing it was published by P&W in September 1963, and is reproduced as an appendix in the book.

Mulready describes the RL20 as a forerunner of the XLR-129.  One major difference between the two was the two-position nozzle.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #160 on: May 20, 2010, 12:35:04 pm »
Got more info from a former senior CIA official, working from memory.  Here are some of the details:

-the rocket engine was only for the boost phase.  After that, a scramjet would take over.
-General Schriever was particularly interested in the scramjet.  He could not get that technology funded by the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, so he was hoping that the CIA would pay for it.
-it's not clear that there was ever a final configuration of the craft.  McDonnell may have gone through a bunch of iterations, just like for OXCART.
-project was sponsored by the airplane side of CIA, without the endorsement of the Directorate of Science and Technology.
-CIA was not convinced that it was possible to solve the window problem.  They had faced a major challenge to get the window to work on the OXCART at Mach 3, and ISINGLASS would have had to fly much faster.  Although it would have been at a higher altitude, there would be major problems in this area.
-the project was too expensive to be funded by CIA alone.  Because DoD was opposed, there was no way that it would get funded.
-CIA had to inform McDonnell that it was not going to happen (because of DoD opposition) and they should stop spending internal funds.
-another major problem was the operational utility.  ISINGLASS could essentially only fly in a straight line and could not maneuver.  This really limited how it could be used.  For example, you had to pick a starting point and an ending point (friendly airfield) and could only photograph targets along that line. If what you wanted to look at was off that line, it was too bad, you were SOL.

This will all go into the article that I'm writing on the program based upon previous documentation.

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #161 on: May 22, 2010, 11:03:42 am »
There is, I just don't have Microsoft Silverlight!

Here's the rest.

Thursday, June 12, 2008 Morning Lectures
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=e51b0393-8bce-4605-8a25-95dc8ed55f4d

    * Structural Design and Mass Properties Estimation (Bowcutt)
    * Flight performance & multidisciplinary design optimization (Bowcutt)
    * Integrated aero/propulsion dynamics of hypersonic flight (Nugent)
    * Hypersonic vehicle stability, or the lack there-of (Nugent)
    * Integrated aero/propulsion/thermodynamics (Nugent)
    * Large operating envelopes (Nugent)
    * Scramjet operating modes & Propulsion transition modes (Nugent)
    * Powered ground effects (Nugent)
    * Environmental disturbances (Nugent)
    * Largely linear flight envelopes (Nugent)
    * Unique hypersonic flight dynamics (Nugent)
    * Sensing systems for hypersonic flight (Nugent)
    * Control effectors for hypersonic control (Nugent)
    * Control system verification challenges (Nugent)
    * Markets for hypersonic vehicles (Gonda, presented by Bowcutt)

Thursday, June 12, 2008 Afternoon Lectures
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=913942db-d037-48fa-b4d7-ccd6915a120e

    * Vehicle costs (Gonda, presented by Bowcutt)
    * Business case (Gonda, presented by Bowcutt)
    * Operational considerations (Gonda, presented by Bowcutt)
    * Other considerations (Gonda, presented by Bowcutt)

I'm working on a place to post the slides.



Offline wb

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #162 on: May 29, 2010, 06:36:25 am »
One question about Isinglass still puzzles me:  The engine seems huge for an air-launched vehicle. Mulready's book gives a loaded weight of 132,000 pounds, but that seems pretty massive even for a B-52, particularly asymmetrically carried, and still won't allow a lot of burn time on a 250K engine. And if you're launching at altitude, why do you need the two-position nozzle?

Is it possible that an early version of Isinglass was smaller and air-launched, but that it was ground-launched by the time the development work was under way?

The NB-52 dropped the SRB-DTV, which was 48,000 pounds. That should be the heaviest thing it's carried on the pylon, and is right up to the aircraft's limits. The X-51 vehicle is pushing the 52H right up to the limits of its performance envelope as is.
So 132k does sound pretty big.

Might they have considered an "Internal launch"? The C-17 is quoted as "170 K Lb Internal Carriage" and "1000lb+ to LEO" for an "internal launch" (air dropped from its cargo hold) - see slide 11 of the "Responsive Air Launch" presentation by folks from Orbital Sciences, DARPA & Schafer http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS2%5CSESSION%20PAPERS%5CSESSION%208%5CHORAIS%5C8003C.ppt (PPT)

The C-5 had its first flight in 1968, and would have been capable of carrying a 160,000 lb craft in its cargo hold. The heaviest single item dropped from a C-5 weighs in at 60,000 pound, though: http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5.asp

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #163 on: May 29, 2010, 06:53:00 am »
Might they have considered an "Internal launch"?

No.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #164 on: July 13, 2010, 04:33:08 am »
An NRO memo to DRNO from Brig. Gen. Jack Ledford, USAF, as of 1965, indicates that the proposed propulsion system for ISINGLASS is the "RL-20 A-1." He also wrote that "P&W has also indicated a growth potential for this engine of about 10 seconds in Isp beyond the values attainable at the time of the Qualification Test (Q.T.)."

This may have grown into the XLR-129. The memos I have been going over looks like the CIA initiated the program with one sole source contractor, MAC, for the design and development work, went to the NRO, who had greater funds than the CIA for recce asset development. Was turned down by the NRO (Dir. McMillian) after a period of threat, technical, and cost analysis, and then directed towards the USAF. A later memo states that the NRO offers a liason for transfering information on ISINGLASS to the USAF in 1967.

Other memos indicate the CIA continues to fund ISINGLASS into 1968. Will provide more info with some scanned documentation.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #165 on: July 13, 2010, 08:41:59 am »
Here is the document.

Offline Gridlock

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #166 on: September 13, 2010, 07:54:34 am »
"The heaviest load it carried was the No. 2 X-15 aircraft at 53,100 pounds."

>100,000 pounds still seems awfully big for a drop from a B-52,

I hear ya!

Anyone got an XB-70 flight manual? ;)


Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #167 on: June 08, 2011, 05:13:52 am »
Hypertech mentions that the picture in the design is the result of a collaboration between McAir and Pratt & Whitney in the 1958-1963 time frame.

The date assigned to ISINGLASS (or rather, "Model 192") in McDonnell's inhouse chronology is 1964, which corresponds to the first work on the project. If the work you refer to was conducted between 1958 and 1963, it certainly can't be about ISINGLASS.

We still have gaps in the McDonnell models list between 166-174 and 178-187... The only identified projects that could fit the description are right before the ISINGLASS: Models 190 and 191A both correspond to a Multipurpose Strategic Reconnaissance Aircraft project, or MSRA, dated 1963 (and which was described in MCAIR Report No. A299, February 1964, not available online of course...).

But what of the 1958-1962 period? If Pratt & Whitney already worked on similar projects, what could these be? Perhaps the 1958 Model 132A/B/C, which consisted of conceptual manned test vehicles for the Dyna-Soar I, II and III programs. Another possible candidate could be Model 151, the better known ASSET program, which was developed from 1959 to 1963.

Well, just my two cents...

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #168 on: November 22, 2011, 09:17:10 am »
Here is the ISINGLASS project aircraft, via the CIA Project ISINGLASS Review document date 1965. Released via FOIA. Included is a reconnaissance version of the Model 122. The ISINGLASS vehicle was being developed as a manned and unmanned aircraft with the CIA favoring a manned version that would have the ability to be modified for unmanned operations.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #169 on: November 22, 2011, 11:10:45 am »
Sweet! Just in time for Thanksgiving, too. :)   Thank you!

So, from looking at the cutaway, I take it they were planning on some kind of glide landing followed by water recovery for Model 122? It also looks to me like they considered a runway recovery option for Model 192 as well.

Was there any further data regarding the launch method? IIRC, air-launch by B-52 has been mentioned before in regards to ISINGLASS. Looking at the expendable booster attached to the vehicle, on pg.2, I take it the CIA was also considering a ground launch option too.

I have to wonder what kind of first-stage booster would've been used. A re-worked Minuteman stage, maybe?

So I'm looking at the launch weight and it looks to me like they're in the upper end of the BUFF's limits for the launch pylon. This was discussed earlier in the thread. This also brings to mind earlier discussion about whether ISINGLASS was instead a VTHL design.

Also, I noticed on pg.1, the moldline of the manned 192 variant seems to have a slight notch toward the nose. Also, this seems to correspond with the camera bay in the unmanned nose section on pg. 5. Which is kinda odd because I don't seem to see that notch on page 4's illustration, even though it's listed as unmanned, too.

IIRC, Prof Czyz's Model 192 desk model also had a notched nose as well.
 
We now have this little bit of declassification on ISINGLASS thanks to Dyno and FOIA. Perhaps the good Professor could help clear up some questions on this topic, now that it's somewhat safe to do so.

See, this new data helps clear up a lot earlier questions on ISINGLASS. But I think there's going to be more questions now that the cat's out of the bag.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 12:08:57 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #170 on: November 22, 2011, 11:26:26 am »
Dynoman, thanks a LOT!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #171 on: November 22, 2011, 01:10:02 pm »
Moonbat...the document does list a heavily modified and dedicated B-52 as the launch platform for the Model 192. The document goes on to discuss the concerns of overflight in a denied area such as China and the USSR. However, the document states that there is no concern for pilot capture, interrogation or display, as an engagement at the vehicles mission altitude would result in complete vehicle breakup and in essence, no pilot. It does mention that an ejection system up to Mach 3 could be used and that concerns exist for pilot performance during flyout to the launch area due to extended periods of riding along under the pylon of a B-52.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #172 on: November 22, 2011, 01:38:46 pm »
Some other key points:
 
The Model 192 design was tested in wind tunnels with a L/D of 2.5- 3.0. Further "configuration optimization" would be necessary to obtain the required 3.0-3.5 according to the document.
 
Structural materials- thoria nose cap, leading edges made of columbium, the bottom surface made of T-D nickel. Rene 41 and beryllium would be made for the upper surface. The primary load carrying structure and fuel tanks are to be made from titanium.
 
Propulsion- RL-20 A-1 (as to date in this document)
 
Cameras- For one foot resolution (nadir, low contrast), 60 mile swath width, and 6500nm range, "reveals that the focal length of less than 50 inches would be needed to avoid extreme weight penalties..."
 
Optical issues for the camera windows remain a concern in this document.
 
Modified B-52H launch aircraft
 
Manned systems to include: X-band beacon, UHF, Tape recorder, Inertial Navigation Computer, Automatic Flight Control, ILS and TACAN, View Finder and Photo control system.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #173 on: November 22, 2011, 01:49:41 pm »
"Hmm...hmmm...may be too naive, but what if?" (post from first page)
 
Flateric...you win the guessing game! :)

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #174 on: November 22, 2011, 02:06:56 pm »
Model 122 was the Alpha Draco-derived boost-glide RV, so an enlarged version of it should have the required performance.  Water recovery would make a lot of sense depending on the mission.


I agree, neat find!

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #175 on: November 22, 2011, 03:26:55 pm »
I know. I ask a lot of questions. Well, again, thank you for this find. It's very fascinating all the same.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #176 on: November 22, 2011, 07:59:29 pm »
The two objects on the right side of this nose section, which are angled inward, are panoramic cameras. I don't know the dimensions here, but it is conceivable that they are modified KH-4 CORONA reconnaissance satellite cameras with a focal length of 24 inches. They would sweep back and forth as the vehicle overflew its targets. That's probably a decent way to do it, as opposed to a singular framing camera, because the speed was so high. It's hard to speculate more without the entire document.

Note that the pilot would have to sit farther back behind this compartment, and would be rather hard-pressed to see the ground...

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #177 on: November 22, 2011, 08:12:41 pm »
Note that the pilot would have to sit farther back behind this compartment...

Very far back. *EXTREMELY* far back. Like back at the base.
 
It's a little difficult to make out, but the text points this out as "UNMANNED."
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #178 on: November 23, 2011, 05:51:34 am »
Here's the other images. Nothing on cockpit layout for the manned version.

The ballistic version is confusing. Note that it shows two panoramic cameras at the back. But what is the pressurant and hydrogen peroxide for? Is this thing supposed to be boosted and then glide at hypersonic speeds over its target?

Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #179 on: November 23, 2011, 07:17:17 am »

The ballistic version is confusing. Note that it shows two panoramic cameras at the back. But what is the pressurant and hydrogen peroxide for? Is this thing supposed to be boosted and then glide at hypersonic speeds over its target?

Hydrogen peroxide is a propellant used for attitude control thrusters. 

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #180 on: November 23, 2011, 08:36:12 am »
Hydrogen peroxide is a propellant used for attitude control thrusters.

Gotcha! That makes sense.

Note that for that vehicle, this is apparently a top view, looking down on it. The camera mounting is a little odd. It would seem to make more sense to mount them perpendicular to the direction of flight, so they could take full advantage of the vehicle diameter and also scan to the left and right of the flight path.

Note also that the nose was supposed to be actively cooled.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #181 on: November 23, 2011, 11:20:53 am »
Top & side views I'm confident of; front view, less so.
 
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #182 on: November 23, 2011, 02:47:01 pm »
I was thinking the same thing about a cockpit....given that the camera bay's forward location, the cockpit would have tobe pretty far aft.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #183 on: November 24, 2011, 02:59:43 pm »
For what it's worth, here are the manned (blue) and unmanned (red) versions overlaid to scale, with the inboard view of the payload section (green) to approximate scale. Presumably the manned vehicle would have a similar interior layout, giving an idea of the amount of space left over for propellant and cockpit.

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #184 on: November 28, 2011, 08:27:18 am »
Wow... the story slowly trickles out.

Now we just need a little more detail about the B-52 mods.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #185 on: November 28, 2011, 09:15:40 am »
I wonder if HyperTech can help us out.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #186 on: November 28, 2011, 09:30:49 am »
Now we just need a little more detail about the B-52 mods.

Here's what I consider to be a big question: how do you drop something that incredibly heavy off of one wing and not immediately roll the aircraft onto its side? The control issues must have been daunting.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #187 on: November 28, 2011, 11:00:06 am »
how do you drop something that incredibly heavy off of one wing and not immediately roll the aircraft onto its side?

Actually, that need not be too big of a problem. The only places to put the ISINGLASS on a B-52 are on top (unlikely), under a wing root like the X-15, or in a heavily modified bomb bay (maybe). Putting it under a wing root seems most likely . But evena  beast like the ISINGLASS wouldn;t put *that* much of a roll torque on the vehicle, since it would be offset from the centerline only a dozen or so feet.
 
If the plane is flying straight and level at release, the controls woudl of course have to be trimmed to accompdate that roll torque prior to release. The same signal that releases the ISINGLASS clamps would be used to cause the controls to snap to a neutral position. With that, all that would be needed would be to counter the wing "spring" effect... the wing would be somewhat flexed, and would flex back. This would not impart much of a roll to the vehicle, but it might be a hell of a thump.
 
An alternative would be to actaully roll the B-52 *before* release. If the ISINGLASS is under the starboard wing, roll somewhat to starboard (right-wing-down). This would move the CG of the composite vehicle closer to directly under the CG of just the B-52. When the ISINGLASS is dropped, the change in effective CG location would be reduced, and thus the roll torque would be reduced. Lots of problems with that idea, though.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #188 on: November 28, 2011, 12:55:33 pm »
I envision every component of the B-52, down to and including the Elsan, going TWANG when they dropped that sucka.

Somehow I doubt that re-modifying the mothership back to a regular SIOP configuration was in the plan.

Offline aliensporebomb

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • If it flies, it's probably interesting...
    • Aliensporebomb dot com
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #189 on: November 28, 2011, 07:11:41 pm »
Fascinating.  Looks like they did a boatload of research. 
Yes I really have a domain called aliensporebomb dot com.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #190 on: November 29, 2011, 06:34:34 am »
They did - including building and testing the engine, which was a half-scale SSME. Except that it was all secret, which permitted NASA to hand the SSME contract to the old gang at Rocketdyne.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #191 on: November 29, 2011, 01:18:03 pm »
A brand new online article on ALPHA DRACO and ISINGLASS:
http://ghostrocket.blogspot.com/2011/11/isinglass-precedents-and-successors-ii.html

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #192 on: November 29, 2011, 04:46:12 pm »
Looking further back at older posts on ghostrocket, there's more on Isinglass:

http://ghostrocket.blogspot.com/2011/11/isinglass-precedents-and-successors.html

http://ghostrocket.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-is-known-about-isinglass.html

There's more in the older blog entries as well - just keep looking back for more.

I've ordered the Bob Brulle book as well - our museum curator worked next to him for a time in the '60s and speaks well of him.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 04:51:49 pm by Mark Nankivil »

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #193 on: November 30, 2011, 06:51:57 am »
Now we just need a little more detail about the B-52 mods.

Here's what I consider to be a big question: how do you drop something that incredibly heavy off of one wing and not immediately roll the aircraft onto its side? The control issues must have been daunting.

The roll would actually help in the separation maneuver.

Offline Gridlock

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #194 on: November 30, 2011, 07:50:46 am »
You're oversimplifying the physics I think as well, wouldn't the mother ship achieve a fairly impressive rate of climb almost immediately upon release?


Add in the roll, the yaw change as the frontal silhouette changes and the impressive THUMP through the airframe and you get one hell of a ride, no? :)

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #195 on: November 30, 2011, 08:37:03 am »
You're oversimplifying the physics I think as well, wouldn't the mother ship achieve a fairly impressive rate of climb almost immediately upon release?

If you're dropping the payload, then a sudden jump up a few meters would only be a good thing.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Mat Parry

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 403
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #196 on: November 30, 2011, 12:25:26 pm »
I envision every component of the B-52, down to and including the Elsan, going TWANG when they dropped that sucka.

Somehow I doubt that re-modifying the mothership back to a regular SIOP configuration was in the plan.

I'm reading between your lines and getting bomb bay conversion (cant say?)
 

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #197 on: November 30, 2011, 03:04:26 pm »
Here's a silly little question. On the manned Model 192, which would be the more logical location for a cockpit?

Somewhere amidships or a little further aft towards the engine? The de-classed info we do have doesnt really show anything like a cockpit, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume it's embedded. Perhaps something not unlike the placement of the payload bay on the X-33's design?

Also makes wonder what kind of visibility issues you would get from that on landing. Some kind of CCTV setup maybe?
On this note, I also wonder about the tankage arrangement.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, ISINGLASS kinda-sorta reminds me of McDonnell's Mach 12 demonstrator. See here, down at Reply 37.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.30.html

Not an exact match but similar nontheless.
 
,
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #198 on: November 30, 2011, 06:14:09 pm »
Somewhere amidships or a little further aft towards the engine? The

Right behind the camera equipment would be my guess. Do it that way and the hydrogen tankage can be largely un-interrupted; move the cockpit aft and now you have to split up the tanks. Additionally, the nose of the vehicle could be blown off as an escape capsule (speculation).
 
The size of the cockpit can be guesstimated by looking at my crappy little comparison drawing, and taking note of the length delta.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #199 on: December 01, 2011, 06:51:36 am »
Sounds good.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #200 on: December 01, 2011, 07:37:53 am »
I don't think it would be a bomb-bay conversion. Not enough room.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #201 on: December 01, 2011, 11:27:03 am »
This is probably a non-starter, but is there any evidence that they looked into towing it to launch altitude?
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #202 on: December 01, 2011, 02:57:37 pm »
Sorry for the delay in posting this document. This is the first 10 pages of the 52 page document entitled Summary Review of ISINGLASS Program. I will post the other pages shortly.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #203 on: December 01, 2011, 03:12:58 pm »
Dynoman, thanks again for sharing!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline xstatic3000

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #204 on: December 01, 2011, 03:42:38 pm »
Along Moonbat's line of thinking - the ISINGLASS/Model 192 seems to be quite far along in the development process to not have been tested to some degree - I wonder if the RL-10-powered "Mach 12 Demonstrator" actually did fly as a proof of concept?

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #205 on: December 01, 2011, 04:59:21 pm »
The newly posted documentation makes it plain that the ISINGLASS would be carried under a B-52 wing. The LOX tank would be carried within the B-52... presumably the bomb bay. The hydrogen tank is external... possibly under ther opposite wing root from the ISINGLASS.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #206 on: December 01, 2011, 05:07:33 pm »
Could help with any balance issues.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #207 on: December 01, 2011, 06:37:47 pm »
Along Moonbat's line of thinking - the ISINGLASS/Model 192 seems to be quite far along in the development process to not have been tested to some degree - I wonder if the RL-10-powered "Mach 12 Demonstrator" actually did fly as a proof of concept?


There were ground test articles - that was covered in the P&W book - but probably nothing more.
It would be very interesting though if some of the modifications to B-52H  60-0036 and 61-0021 to support TAGBOARD predated the TAGBOARD program. Unlikely though

Offline dickie

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #208 on: December 02, 2011, 06:31:24 am »
I couldn't help but draw a parallel between this and an image from the X-24C L301 documentation:





Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #209 on: December 02, 2011, 09:11:45 am »
I have not built a model in decades, but if this gets to the point where someone can generate a respectable conversion kit for a B-52...

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #210 on: December 02, 2011, 09:20:45 am »
You know....I'm lookin back at the Mach 12 Demo. It's a completely different beast than ISINGLASS. Different purpose, different weight, different engine count.

One thing that did occur to me are it's dimensions. They're roughly similar to MODEL 192.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #211 on: December 02, 2011, 10:22:22 am »
I have not built a model in decades, but if this gets to the point where someone can generate a respectable conversion kit for a B-52...

Why do you think that elsewhere on this forum I recently asked if anyone had any really good diagrams of the B-52?
 
Hmmm...
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #212 on: December 02, 2011, 10:25:39 am »
Also makes wonder what kind of visibility issues you would get from that on landing.

If the cockpit was directly behind the camera compartment, then the pilot *might* have been able to look directly through the camera windows. Perhaps aided by a  mirror/periscope setup, CCTV cameras, something. But it seems an obvious way to go, since it would likely land at a substantial angle of attack.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #213 on: December 02, 2011, 10:38:40 am »
For comparison, these were the McDonnell mach 12 configurations from the HYFAC study:


Air launched (config 233, 5x RL-10): TOGW 87,000 lbs, length 83.3 ft, span 30.3 ft.


Surface-launched (config 260, 1x J-2S): TOGW 167,000 lbs, dimensions not found


These were of course, cruise vehicles, not nominally boost gliders, with a 1500 lb research payload.  Duration at M-12 was quite short, on the order of 300 seconds.


The "M2" operational objective system that drove the HYFAC research requirements was a Mach 12 strategic recon/strike aircraft,  runway-launched, with two XLR-129-class engines for takeoff and a scramjet system for cruise.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #214 on: December 02, 2011, 11:32:35 am »
The "M2" operational objective system that drove the HYFAC research requirements was a Mach 12 strategic recon/strike aircraft,  runway-launched, with two XLR-129-class engines for takeoff and a scramjet system for cruise.

What was the time frame for this?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1101
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #216 on: December 02, 2011, 05:21:14 pm »

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #217 on: December 05, 2011, 02:55:01 pm »
You're oversimplifying the physics I think as well, wouldn't the mother ship achieve a fairly impressive rate of climb almost immediately upon release?


Add in the roll, the yaw change as the frontal silhouette changes and the impressive THUMP through the airframe and you get one hell of a ride, no? :)

A lot depends on the weight carried and the required launch point, Mach and q. If one is pushing the weight limit of the modified BUFF, then a significant fuel load imbalance may be needed to balance the load. This complicates the post drop dynamics. The second Hyper-X Mach 7 mission had this to deal with while balls to the walls  Definitely not trivial. Oh yeah, captive carry trials or launch aborted missions add a whole other set of fun to deal with.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 02:57:17 pm by DSE »

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #218 on: December 05, 2011, 04:36:17 pm »
Here is the document as I received it. Posted on MediaFire. Here is the link.
 
http://www.mediafire.com/?nx1zozl5iwua1ct
 
Thanks for the help Flateric!

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #219 on: December 06, 2011, 12:40:45 pm »
Thanks to you both!
 
Now, and I'm just wondering here, would ISINGLASS have used fuel cells for onboard power?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 08:00:39 am by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #220 on: December 17, 2011, 03:21:36 pm »
Not much to look at here. Maybe Archipeppe or someone can do an improved version.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #221 on: December 18, 2011, 04:31:09 pm »
We all realize that we now know what the mysterious desktop model from a few pages up is, right?

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #222 on: December 18, 2011, 06:10:04 pm »
Not much to look at here. Maybe Archipeppe or someone can do an improved version.

I'm not sure that I'd put the pilot that close to the upper skin of the vehicle, which would be very hot. I suspect he'd be a little farther down.


Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1475
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #223 on: December 18, 2011, 11:45:28 pm »
Not much to look at here. Maybe Archipeppe or someone can do an improved version.

I'm glad for the confidence and your hand-mande drawing is cute and clear.
To start working on I need of a greater scan of such drawing.
 
Thanks in advance.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #224 on: December 19, 2011, 01:05:02 am »
We all realize that we now know what the mysterious desktop model from a few pages up is, right?
yezzz!!! wonder how did he left the location alive and with camera left intact)
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 01:07:18 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Mr London 24/7

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 359
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #225 on: December 19, 2011, 04:18:58 am »
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1602/1

A bat outta Hell: the ISINGLASS Mach 22 follow-on to OXCART
by Dwayne Day
Monday, April 12, 2010
 
Soon after the U-2 was flying in the latter 1950s, the CIA began work on a successor that eventually resulted in the A-12 OXCART, better known because of its more prominent offspring, the SR-71 Blackbird. The May 1960 shootdown of Francis Gary Powers over the Soviet Union threw ice water on plans to send more manned reconnaissance aircraft over the Soviet Union. Even though CIA officials talked about OXCART missions over the USSR, some of them even flying missions coordinated with satellites far overhead, both politics and the perceived vulnerability of the OXCART to sophisticated defense prevented this from ever happening. But by the mid-1960s the CIA began looking at a potential replacement for the OXCART, a Mach 22 rocket-powered glider known as ISINGLASS.

I was a big fan of this article Dwayne, might you be considering an update now that the Isinglass configuration is known??

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #226 on: February 27, 2012, 08:13:00 am »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline dannydale

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #227 on: February 27, 2012, 03:54:58 pm »

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 921
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #228 on: February 27, 2012, 07:17:25 pm »
Nothing on the Internet Archive either  :'(

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #229 on: February 27, 2012, 09:52:59 pm »
Google cash has about all the stuff that was there including illustrations
Blog author was a frequent visitor to SPF...just wonder what caused him to kill the blog
if you are reading this post...can you shed the light on?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 921
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #230 on: February 28, 2012, 06:36:39 am »
Google cash has about all the stuff that was there including illustrations
Blog author was a frequent visitor to SPF...just wonder what caused him to kill the blog
if you are reading this post...can you shed the light on?

Sadly a lot of the information is missing - many of the posts are available up until the "See More" link on the Monthly Archive Pages  :'(

Additional: many of the lost posts were those with long URL Titles. Google Cache does not seem to appreciate verbosity.
 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 06:40:07 am by starviking »


Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #232 on: June 04, 2012, 05:55:39 am »
Greetings All -

An article interviewing Paul Czysz:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1026001/Paul-Czysz-Hypersonic-Interview

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #234 on: November 22, 2012, 08:18:58 pm »
So...it's been a year since we got our first decent look at ISINGLASS. I'm guessing that's all we're getting for now. However, has anything at all similar been released on RHEINBERRY?
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #235 on: November 23, 2012, 02:13:26 am »
Slightly off-topic... one little question that's been bugging me for months:

How do you pronounce ISINGLASS? Is it like "is in glass" [izinglas] or "I sing lass" [aisinglas]?

Online Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #236 on: November 23, 2012, 02:46:00 am »
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isinglass
<edit>Hm.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/isinglass
 
Apparently it depends on which side of the pond you're on. As its concerns a US project...</edit>
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 02:57:28 am by Arjen »

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 653
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #237 on: December 25, 2012, 08:49:23 am »
Hi,


I'm not sure this direct link has ever been posted here before:


http://www.nro.gov/foia/docs/foia-isinglass.pdf


It's all about Isinglass. NRO FOAI approved for release material dated "23 June 2010"
No picture, no plans, no drawings, no blueprints. Just plain dry'n raw, historical material, many of them.




 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #238 on: December 26, 2012, 05:35:53 am »
And here I was planning to work today...

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #239 on: December 26, 2012, 07:30:04 am »
And here I was planning to work today...
Hey if you INSIST on having these obviously unreal expectations all the time... :)
 
Randy

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 653
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #241 on: December 26, 2012, 03:21:38 pm »
And here I was planning to work today...

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22isinglass%22+site%3Anro.gov&hl=en
whaow! wasn't expecting such a chain of reactions. Didn't know the "site:" tip using google. Thanks a lot.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 03:23:26 pm by antigravite »
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #242 on: January 30, 2013, 03:58:20 pm »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #243 on: August 30, 2013, 07:15:21 pm »
Just obtained some newly declassified documents on this subject that shed both light and confusion on the project. Nothing major (no pictures or line drawings), but they are interesting. Some info on the origins of the program and who thought what.

The confusion is that I have one undated document that indicates that RHEINBERRY was a McD proposal for an air-launched boost-glide system that had much promise, and ISINGLASS was a canceled GD program. See earlier confusion in this thread (and on Wiki) about whether or not ISINGLASS was a GD program or McD.

Now the document could be wrong, but I suspect that what happened is that there was a GD proposal for an A-12 successor aircraft and it initially was designated ISINGLASS. There was also a McD proposal for an air-launched boost-glide vehicle that was designated RHEINBERRY. I suspect that the GD proposal got rejected, and then the McD proposal was renamed ISINGLASS and continued for several years before getting killed. Switching code names for programs is not uncommon during this period. Sometimes things got code names for a short time until the administration was shuffled around and they got a new name.

I keep forgetting what I know about these programs, so I'll have to look over the documents closely and determine if anything they say is really new.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #244 on: August 31, 2013, 09:39:42 am »
We could sure use Prof. Cszyz's input right about now.  :'( I'm sure he'd definitely know which project was which.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #245 on: November 30, 2013, 07:44:24 pm »
The doc confirms that there was a push for McDonnell Isinglass to be transferred from NRO to the Air Force around 1967.

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/NROStaffRecords/808.PDF

The transfer and cancellation was documented by Dwayne Day in 2010:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1602/1

Quote
McDonnell Douglas took the ISINGLASS proposal to the Air Force, but according to Cunningham they were uninterested because it was a “not-invented-here” idea.  “They didn’t even want to hear it, basically.”  The project died in 1967 or soon thereafter, although Pratt & Whitney’s engine work continued.  A brief Air Force effort to resurrect ISINGLASS occurred near the end of 1968, but it failed.

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 677
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #246 on: January 18, 2017, 12:53:10 pm »
Don't know if anybody has seen this before but the CIA just put up some ISINGLASS docs in the last two weeks.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #247 on: January 18, 2017, 01:40:43 pm »
Excellent find!

Information on Project Rheinberry (Advanced Aircraft Program) as a follow-on to Isinglass.

« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 01:44:35 pm by Dynoman »

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 653
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #248 on: January 18, 2017, 03:39:20 pm »
Don't know if anybody has seen this before but the CIA just put up some ISINGLASS docs in the last two weeks.
what I don't understand quite right with this mash up (?) document: was plasma stealth project KEMPSTER B related in anyway to RHEINBERRY?

A.

PS) real nice find
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #249 on: January 19, 2017, 08:38:18 am »
Lots of interesting stuff on programmatics in the reading room; not so much (that I've yet found) on technical capabilities other than broad speed and range targets.

I found myself chuckling over a memorandum describing a briefing for Brockway McMillan, then head of the NRO, who apparently did his best McNamara impression by comparing the Model 192 against mythical competitive systems (Model 122 repurposed for recon with no description of the recovery system, a FOBS-like system, etc) and mythical Soviet SAMs ("System III/Missile X").  Naturally he found the answers wanting, because if the objective is to delay or cancel a system, there's always an even more powerful/capable/cheaper solution available via viewgraph for comparison, and the contractor's analyses, tests, and design assumptions are never comprehensive enough.  Fie.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #250 on: January 19, 2017, 02:43:00 pm »
Don't know if anybody has seen this before but the CIA just put up some ISINGLASS docs in the last two weeks.

If you look at the date on the top of that document, it was declassified in 2011. I've had that and a bunch of other ISINGLASS documents since then (well, probably 2012) and have written some articles about them. I think some of the articles are linked elsewhere in this thread. (If you look at my August 30, 2013 post here, I was discussing that document and what it said about RHEINBERRY vs. ISINGLASS.) That and the other ISINGLASS documents were released as part of the CREST collection at the National Archives. Now much of the CREST collection is available to the public via the CIA's website.

Unless they have put new ISINGLASS documents onto the site that have been declassified in the past year, all the material you find in that CIA site has been publicly available for 4+ years. But I'm pretty much the only person who has been writing about it. So I'm going to be a wet blanket and say that there is not anything previously unknown, it is just easier for individuals to access the documents now. I go out to the Archives regularly (where that collection was kept) and I have not seen any new and interesting documents on R or I in the past few years, maybe even since that one above.

Sadly, there is almost nothing on the technology. It's mostly memos about the program.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 03:15:46 pm by blackstar »

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #251 on: January 19, 2017, 05:10:52 pm »
There's more.... ;) Albeit, the technological data is lacking. Unfortunately, I think this is in the hands of the contractor, i.e. McDonnell Douglas (now a part of Boeing). I noticed when I sent a FOIA request to the CIA they omitted the "manned drawings" of ISINGLASS, leading me to believe that their interest in boost-glide vehicles surpassed the stillborn ISINGLASS project.

The other data I have is from NRO and USAF FOIA requests.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 05:14:06 pm by Dynoman »

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #252 on: January 19, 2017, 05:25:08 pm »
If you look at the date on the top of that document, it was declassified in 2011. I've had that and a bunch of other ISINGLASS documents since then (well, probably 2012) and have written some articles about them. I think some of the articles are linked elsewhere in this thread. (If you look at my August 30, 2013 post here, I was discussing that document and what it said about RHEINBERRY vs. ISINGLASS.) That and the other ISINGLASS documents were released as part of the CREST collection at the National Archives. Now much of the CREST collection is available to the public via the CIA's website.

Yes, as I was reading these today (and not reading my departmental budget spreadsheets), I realized I had seen much of this before in PDF form (and thank you for posting those).  The advantage with CREST is both better document quality and a search function.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #253 on: January 19, 2017, 05:43:33 pm »
Here's an interesting drawing that shows the general location of the cockpit and ejection clearance.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 05:46:15 pm by Dynoman »

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #254 on: January 19, 2017, 06:37:50 pm »
Earlier discussions in this thread centered on General Dynamics involvement in the ISINGLASS effort. Here a pre-approval contract is written with the CIA's technical representative, John Parangosky (of CIA airborne recon aircraft fame), to General Dynamics to redirect their study of an advanced airframe under the program line ISINGLASS, dated June 3, 1964.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP67B00074R000500100003-9.pdf

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #255 on: January 20, 2017, 04:36:59 am »
This implies that GD was conducting a study similar to ISINGLASS, before ISINGLASS got underway, and may have been funded to examine the application of their design to the boost-glide reconnaissance concept (i.e. possibly GD's VL-3A design, which has been written as the first boost-glide design in AIAA by Lynch).
 

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 653
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #256 on: January 21, 2017, 03:27:56 am »
This implies that GD was conducting a study similar to ISINGLASS, before ISINGLASS got underway, and may have been funded to examine the application of their design to the boost-glide reconnaissance concept (i.e. possibly GD's VL-3A design, which has been written as the first boost-glide design in AIAA by Lynch).


For what it's worth:

R. LYNCH, GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP., GENERAL DYNAMICS/CONVAIR, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.
"The first manned lifting entry vehicle configuration", 3rd Annual Meeting, Annual Meeting, 29 November 1966 - 02 December 1966
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.1966-959
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.1966-959

(document not shown in full, first page only)

A.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #257 on: January 25, 2017, 01:11:26 pm »
ISINGLASS Model 192 from CIA presentation.

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #258 on: January 25, 2017, 01:20:18 pm »
Model 192 Flight Path

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #259 on: January 25, 2017, 01:27:00 pm »
Thanks Dyno, this from the CREST site?

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #260 on: January 25, 2017, 01:30:33 pm »
Yes, these two images are from the CIA's CREST site.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #261 on: January 25, 2017, 02:11:26 pm »
Man, I Prof Cszyz was still with us to provide a little feedback on that. :-/
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline newsdeskdan

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 637
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #262 on: January 26, 2017, 07:25:16 am »
ISINGLASS Model 192 from CIA presentation.

But would it really have penetrated Hen House/Galosh?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #263 on: January 26, 2017, 07:58:47 am »
NAVY PROJECT JANE as untaken alternative to ISINGLASS
B-52 vs B-58 as a carrier aircraft pro&contra internal discussion
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP62B00844R000200130070-2.pdf
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #264 on: January 27, 2017, 12:28:01 pm »
NAVY PROJECT JANE as untaken alternative to ISINGLASS
B-52 vs B-58 as a carrier aircraft pro&contra internal discussion
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP62B00844R000200130070-2.pdf

I think that JANE and ISINGLASS were different time periods. This document dates from 1959. ISINGLASS was mid-1960s.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #265 on: January 29, 2017, 10:51:31 am »
There has to be almost enough information out there now to produce a decent conversion kit for a B-52G/H. If only there was someone on the forum who had some experience in that area...

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #266 on: January 30, 2017, 05:51:09 am »
The pictures above that I posted are from a document titled: Reconnaissance Vehicle Concept Study for FY1968.

The presentation material is at the end of the document.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00822R000100070040-7.pdf

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #267 on: January 30, 2017, 06:14:34 am »
Some additional data that is from McDonnell Douglas regarding boost glide performance and stability & control of an ISINGLASS type vehicle (ISINGLASS nor Model 192 are directly mentioned, however the drawings appear to be that of Model 192).

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00265R000200130015-9.pdf

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #268 on: January 30, 2017, 07:52:31 pm »
From the abovementioned report.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #269 on: January 31, 2017, 04:28:30 am »
Thanks for the links, Dyno.

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 653
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #270 on: February 01, 2017, 12:53:22 am »
ISINGLASS Model 192 from CIA presentation.

Hi for the sake of information contextualization / archival intent, here is the page extract wherein this outlined artwork appears.

A.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline newsdeskdan

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 637
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #271 on: February 01, 2017, 02:47:39 am »
ISINGLASS Model 192 from CIA presentation.

Hi for the sake of information contextualization / archival intent, here is the page extract wherein this outlined artwork appears.

A.

I liked the table which shows rad count from a Galosh near-miss and its effects on the crew/mission.

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1722
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #272 on: February 01, 2017, 08:29:02 am »
I had a quick go at cleaning up the side view in reply #268 . . .

cheers,
           Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #273 on: February 01, 2017, 10:56:06 am »
Thanks Rob. :D
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #274 on: February 01, 2017, 02:45:38 pm »
The pictures above that I posted are from a document titled: Reconnaissance Vehicle Concept Study for FY1968.

The presentation material is at the end of the document.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00822R000100070040-7.pdf

Note that this document is not ISINGLASS. ISINGLASS was canceled by that time. On page 2 it states that this study should take into account earlier work, including work done on ISINGLASS.

There are several words deleted at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2. It is possible that the deleted stuff at the bottom of page 1 is "General Dynamics" If you look farther down on page 2 they have deleted some contractor names, including the contractor that built the F-111. (duh)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #275 on: February 01, 2017, 11:43:53 pm »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Meteorit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 427
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #276 on: February 02, 2017, 04:28:03 am »
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00822R000100070040-7.pdf

Note that this document is not ISINGLASS. ISINGLASS was canceled by that time. On page 2 it states that this study should take into account earlier work, including work done on ISINGLASS.

There are several words deleted at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2. It is possible that the deleted stuff at the bottom of page 1 is "General Dynamics" If you look farther down on page 2 they have deleted some contractor names, including the contractor that built the F-111. (duh)

One should note that the PDF actually contains three documents lumped together:
1. "Reconnaissance Vehicle Concept Study for Fiscal Year 1968" (PDF pages 1 - 3)
2. "Assessment of the factors affecting advanced lifting entry vehicles" (4 - 35)
3. Survivability presentation (36 - 64)

And that last part which is the most interesting and contains the posted graphics uses "Model 192" throughout, so it should actually be about ISINGLASS.

Offline Meteorit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 427
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #277 on: February 02, 2017, 04:29:56 am »
Here's an interesting drawing that shows the general location of the cockpit and ejection clearance.

May I ask for the source of this drawing (presuming it comes from the FOIA ERR)?

Offline Dynoman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #278 on: February 02, 2017, 06:31:19 am »
Meteorit, you can find that picture in the CIA document Flight Control of the Model 192

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00265R000200130005-0.pdf

Offline Meteorit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 427
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #279 on: February 02, 2017, 02:32:36 pm »
Thank you.
Too bad there doesn't seem to be front/cross-sectional views of Model 192 found so far. The NRO report earlier in this thread has cross-sections from nose up to the recce equipment bay, but not further back.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #280 on: February 02, 2017, 06:44:09 pm »
Voilá
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #281 on: March 14, 2017, 02:36:00 pm »
Something new.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #282 on: March 14, 2017, 05:09:49 pm »
Thanks!  Interesting.

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #283 on: July 12, 2017, 06:39:19 am »
Good Day All -

We received a treasure trove of goodies from a retired McAir engineer yesterday and amongst all of the photos and documents was the attached print of what appears to be the Mach 12 demonstrator.  I found the negatives as well and will scan them when I get back from our family trip. 

Enjoy the Day!  Mark

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 677
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #284 on: July 12, 2017, 07:45:02 am »
Very nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #285 on: July 13, 2017, 06:34:03 pm »
Thank you, Mark
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #286 on: July 21, 2017, 04:20:38 pm »
Good Day All!

Here are a few of the negative scans - thoughts on whether this is Model 192, Mach 12 Demonstrator or?!?!

Enjoy the Day!  Mark
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 04:23:27 pm by Mark Nankivil »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #287 on: February 09, 2019, 01:18:13 am »
One question about Isinglass still puzzles me:  The engine seems huge for an air-launched vehicle. Mulready's book gives a loaded weight of 132,000 pounds, but that seems pretty massive even for a B-52, particularly asymmetrically carried, and still won't allow a lot of burn time on a 250K engine. And if you're launching at altitude, why do you need the two-position nozzle?

Is it possible that an early version of Isinglass was smaller and air-launched, but that it was ground-launched by the time the development work was under way?

So I have a few moments to do this.
Looks interesting !

Looking at BlackStar's .pdf from earlier (very quickly). Fig 29 says at altitude Isp is 440 secs at 30K-200K ft.
(booster config - think that is the two position nozzle config - not sure though - haven't read the whole thing yet - Thanks BlackStar!)
g = 32 ft/sec**2
Mf = Mass fully fuelled is 132,000 lbs (given from Mulready)
Me = Mass empty (structure, wings, electronics, dudes flying it, landing gear, etc) 40,000 lbs (just guessing).

DeltaV = Isp (secs) * g (ft/sec**2) * ln(Mf/Me) = DeltaV ft/sec
DeltaV = 440 secs * 32 ft/sec**2 * ln(132000/40000) = 16,810 ft/sec
Approx Mach 16.8
NotMach 22.We have to go lower for Me.

So what empty weight gives around Mach 22?

That would be around 27,650 lbs as:
DeltaV = 440 secs * 32 ft/sec**2 * ln(132000/27650) = 22,000 ft/sec= Approx Mach 22

So say you launch at 30,000 ft from B-52.
I think that this vehicle could add some lift (due to its lifting surface) and the rocket could
also potentially be burned if the B-52 could carry that extra fuel (they looked at this for the
M/D-21 as well). May burn the B-52's tail off though - :)

So you could go from essentially standstill (B-52's speed) to Mach 22 with the above Isp and
Mass Ratio according to the Ideal Rocket Equation (just a back of the envelope calc.)

rocket equation applied to ISINGLASS
9.81*450*ln(132770/24450)=7469 m/s

not included: air launch from the b52 +900 m/s

so 8369 m/s - so  close from earth orbit (9400 m/s) but not quite!

maybe they should reconsider fluorine: raising isp to 500 seconds would bridge the gap. Space shuttle here we go !! 

replace the b52 with a 747 (more practical) with ISINGLASS clung underwing Launcher One style.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2019, 02:11:49 am by Archibald »
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline PlanesPictures

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 898
Re: Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY
« Reply #288 on: February 09, 2019, 04:11:41 am »
"air launch from the b52 +900 m/s "- not only +300 m/s ?