Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY

I still just can't believe they picked a BS-100 turbojet just to get the Harrier-like swivelling nozzles... and engine exhausts on the rear flanks.
To make room for the big XLR-129 engine bell on the rear.

In passing: STOL rocketplane to (near) orbit... ! Never thought a Harrier could marry a X-15, but that peculiar ISINGLASS design more or less did that.

If they were concerned about the bifurcated exhaust to miss the rocket, they might have just used twin engines with the rocket in between?
Click to expand...
Good idea, but jet engines are heavy, and rocketplanes hate any weight, mass fraction is all important to them: 0.80 to 0.95 - or die suborbital.

Also, some of the F-155T designs (and a lot of other jet-rocket hybrids) had severe structural / vibration / acoustic issues because of the rocket in the tail. Those things are extremely noisy (150 dB or more !).
 
I've realized that McDonnell ISINGLASS proposal (against Convair ramjets proposals, circa 1964) was heavily related to their Model 122 / Alpha Draco / BGRV work.

Page 126 of the Pdf
McDonnell expended a concerted effort on a proposal using
the Alpha Draco concept for the Minuteman missile system,
but it was just too new and not a completely proven concept.
Our Model 122 research projects remained in work but at a
reduced level. One tangible effect of our effort was that the
English lexicon was increased by the acronym BGRV, for boost
glide reentry vehicle, which was the Air Force–acceptable generic
name for our glide concept. One of the research projects
that finally garnered a contract and made it to the flight phase
was the Model 122E BGRV. It was launched at Vandenberg
AFB, California, using an Atlas booster and glided several thousand
miles making a turn around Johnson Island on its way to
Wake Island.
Click to expand...

The first Atlas launch at Vandenberg AFB with a boilerplate
missile was unexpectedly terminated about 30 seconds into
the flight by a malfunction of the Atlas self‑destruct system.
The second flight test, using a flight article, placed the 122E
into the correct insertion point. Unfortunately, when the 122E
separated from the Atlas, a static-electric buildup between the
122E and the Atlas created a spark that set off the command
destruct system in the 122E. Launch number three, on 26 February
1966, was an outstanding success. It glided down the
entire range, even making a turn over Johnson Island to its
planned target point. The flight was terminated by a programmed
self‑destruct when it reached Mach 5 at 100,000 feet
altitude, where it would have been commanded to dive to the
target in operational use.
Click to expand...

McDonnell did not made one, but TWO ISINGLASS proposals.
- Model 192 is the familiar one: B-52 launched, piloted, glided recovery, XLR-129 / RL-20 engine.
-Model 122 is least known.

It kind of made a few compromises
- separated booster
- no pilot
- no wings
- recovery by parachute

And this, folks, makes it a close relative of Model 122B Alpha Draco (1959) and Model 122E BGRV (1966).

More on this on the next post. Took me a while to realize the unmanned ISINGLASS "backup proposal" was McDonnell trying to place their revolutionary 122 boost-glide system into the strategic reconnaissance role.
 

Attachments

  • B_0113_BRULLE_ENGINEERING_SPACE_AGE.pdf
    4.4 MB · Views: 105
The two proposals can be identified in the three attached documents. There was Model 192, and then there was Model 122. The later clearly derived from 122B / 122E-BGRV - but I don't know whether 192 related to BGRV besides the flight profile.

Seems that the "Model 122" ISINGLASS proposal corresponds to the varied concepts "S-104".
- Air launched from a B-52, like Model 192 (two variants: BG-1A & BG-2A)
- Ground launched by a repurposed ICBM, like Model 122E (BG-1G, with a Titan II in place of Atlas F)

I had once posted this at NASAspaceflight https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18261.60

Excerpt from this document (attached document with the name ISINGLASS1966, dated February 23, 1966)
1684998019901.png

Last page of the Pdf, I cleaned it up.

Air-launched options, 1966.PNG
 

Attachments

  • ISINGLASS1966.pdf
    524.4 KB · Views: 52
  • ISINGLASS 192.PDF
    133.3 KB · Views: 45
  • ISINGLASS FOIA cleanup_page-0001.pdf
    8.8 MB · Views: 73
Last edited:
Now back to that February 26, 1966 Model 122E BGRV flight.
Launched by an Atlas F from Vandenberg it made a rocket-glide flight as far as Johnston & Wake islands in the Pacific. That's 5000 miles, which evenly matches ISINGLASS planned range.
The date is also a perfect match.
McDonnell ISINGLASS proposals started in March 1965 and died in March 1967 (see "ISINGLASS FOIA cleanup" doc above). That BGRV flight was smack dab in the middle, so not surprising McDonnell took their chance with a Model 122 proposal for ISINGLASS.
 
Last post for today, I swear. So, looking at this picture below... left to right, date: February 23, 1966. Seems the NRO was reviewing varied "exotic" options that included ISINGLASS... and a few others.

- Lockheed D-21 drone TAGBOARD

- McDonnell ISINGLASS [well-known proposal : manned / B-52]

- S-103: TOWN HALL like proposal: big rocket dropped from a bomber, to launch a cut-down spysat

- S-104: McDonnell second ISINGLASS proposal: Model 122 family, BGRV

- S-105: Convair ISINGLASS family (B-58 / mach 4 / ramjet / 110 000 ft)

Air-launched options, 1966.PNG
 
Last edited:
From all the above, here is my own opinion - for what its worth.

By 1966 GAMBIT and CORONA had suceeded and defined two core missions, two spysats.
- broad mapping of the Soviet Union 22 million km2 at a resolution of a few feet (CORONA)
- pinpoint details at a scale of a few inch (GAMBIT-1 / GAMBIT-3)

Last spysat not a GAMBIT nor a CORONA launched in August 1964.
First KH-9 launched in June 1971.

So, for seven years, the NRO optical spysats were either GAMBIT 1/3 or CORONA.

Besides these two of course the spooks had plenty of concepts and missions in the pipeline: VHR, crisis reconnaissance, Near Real Time... also plenty of "exotic" concepts and proposals by aerospace contractors. Not only spysats, but also drones, and A-12 / SR-71 follow on, plus MOL / Dynasoar, that is, USAF controversial manned space program.

Seems that document drew a comparison between these varied "exotic" concepts
- three ISINGLASS: Convair versus McDonnell 192 versus McDonnell 122
- two more alternatives
a) Lockheed well-known D-21 drone
b) that old idea of air-launching spysats: dropping rockets from large aircraft (TOWN HALL, 1962: Polaris from either A-12 or B-58)
Seems b) wasn't dead by 1966, four years after TOWN HALL...
 
Last edited:
Dew said:
Archibald said:
I've realized that McDonnell ISINGLASS proposal (against Convair ramjets proposals, circa 1964) was heavily related to their Model 122 / Alpha Draco / BGRV work.
Click to expand...
*Ahem* ;)
Click to expand...

I'm growing old. Plus I tend to mix McDonnell and Douglas, since they merged 15 years before I came to that world: I grew up in the 1980's / 90's so I have difficulty imagining the two as separate entities.
 
Archibald said:
I'm growing old. Plus I tend to mix McDonnell and Douglas, since they merged 15 years before I came to that world: I grew up in the 1980's / 90's so I have difficulty imagining the two as separate entities.
Click to expand...
Ah it was the "Remember that the unmanned boost glide vehicle related to ISINGLASS was the (Y variant?) Model 122, which spanned from 1957 through to mid-sixties (and a little beyond?) edit: late-sixties, including the Alpha-Draco (B) & BGRV (E)." part I was prompting :)
 
Dynoman said:
I'm wondering if any additional data on hypersonic optical cameras and windows are available.
Click to expand...

from Nov 27 1968:

Wind tunnel tests have been conducted on techniques for cooling camera windows for hypersonic aircraft using a fuselage cavity and helium injection. Test data is now being analyzed, and preliminary results show that satisfactory cooling, with adequate control of thermal gradients in the window, can be accomplished with reasonable amounts of helium.
These studies have shown that the window will not pose insurmountable problems in the development of hypersonic reconnaissance vehicles if such are needed for the Advanced Aircraft Reconnaissance System.​
Click to expand...

MEMORANDUM FOR: Comptroller, Special Activities, PROGRAM CALL, FISCAL YEARS 1971-1975​

 
We have many scattered BGV & BGRV mentions on this forum. This is just for the record (because this is fascinating stuff) - to have all of them together in one post and one place.



https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...es-start-asset-prime-fdl-x-24-etc.722/page-10

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/project-isinglass-project-rheinberry.382/page-9

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/defense-against-hypersonic-glide-vehicles.31281/page-10
(with that gem - http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2020/06/mcdonnell-alpha-draco-missile30th-year.html )

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/asalm.466/page-2


https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/early-maneuverable-reentry-vehicle-studies.8981/page-2
 
Last edited:
did isinglass take off from the drawing board or was it only a proposed aircraft sorry if I sound dumb
 
They build an airframe test rig and components of the xlr-129 rocket. But no complete aircraft. Spysats were cheaper and much more flexible.
 
Attached: a whole lot of CIA documents, related to ISINGLASS. Just in case the links are taken down. Nothing new, the docs have been discussed earlier in this thread.
 

Attachments

  • CIA-RDP71B00822R000200130026-5.pdf
    121.8 KB · Views: 18
  • CIA-RDP71R00510A000200220007-3.pdf
    529.1 KB · Views: 12
  • CIA-RDP80B01676R001400030002-4.pdf
    35.6 KB · Views: 12
  • CIA-RDP80R01580R002004190024-2.pdf
    290.7 KB · Views: 13
  • CIA-RDP85B00803R000100050009-0.pdf
    48 KB · Views: 9
  • CIA-RDP90B00170R000100130001-9.pdf
    497.5 KB · Views: 11
  • CIA-RDP71B00822R000100070040-7.pdf
    2.9 MB · Views: 16
  • CIA-RDP71B00822R000100070032-6.pdf
    58.8 KB · Views: 8
  • CIA-RDP71B00508R000100060039-9.pdf
    630.7 KB · Views: 8
  • CIA-RDP71B00265R000200130015-9.pdf
    915.1 KB · Views: 8
  • CIA-RDP71B00265R000200130005-0.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 8
  • CIA-RDP67B00074R000500100003-9.pdf
    100.4 KB · Views: 8
  • CIA-RDP62B00844R000200130070-2.pdf
    39.8 KB · Views: 8
  • CIA-RDP33-02415A000500070002-6.pdf
    112.5 KB · Views: 8
  • CIA-RDP33-02415A000100390042-1.pdf
    166.1 KB · Views: 9
  • CIA-RDP90B00170R000200310001-8.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 11
Archibald said:
Nope he quoted Astronautix which is all wrong. This is BGRV, 1966 and Atlas.
Click to expand...
There is literally a sign next to it in the second picture which clearly reads Simulated Re-entry Vehicle. It is most certainly BGRV (well, ABRES at least) related though.
 
Archibald said:
The Wizards of Langley has this to say about ISINGLASS / RHEINBERRY

books.google.fr

The Wizards Of Langley

In this, the first full-length study of the Directorate of Science and Technology, Jeffrey T. Richelson walks us down the corridors of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and through the four decades of science, scientists, and managers that produced the CIA we have today. He tells a story of...
books.google.fr

Did they got the ISINGLASS / RHEINBERRY distinction right ? I'm a little confused...

AFAIK

- ramjets won't go past Mach 5 - so ISINGLASS would be the early Mach 4.5 using F-111 tech and ramjets ?

- rockets can go to orbital speed and beyond but as far as SSTO goes, the limit is propellant mass fraction. That would be RHEINBERRY ? To Mach 22, no ramjets, XLR-129 only ?

Hydrolox needs at least 0.88 to get in orbit with XLR-129 specific impulse of 450 seconds. Main issue is, with 1960's level of tech the upper limit was around 0.80 - best case 0.83 (for example, the late X-33 many decades later was 0.79 with aerospike... and failed)

Back of the enveloppe calculations

The X-15A-2 ended at 56 000 pounds, or 25500 kg. Let's suppose RHEINBERRY mass was similar since it used, too, a NB-52.

0.80 of 25500 kg = 20400 kg of propellant. So RHEINBERRY with the tanks empty weights: 5100 kg. Then if the XLR-129 vacuum ISP is 450 seconds...

9.81*450*ln(25500/5100) = 7104 m/s.

Air launch from the B-52 provides a little boost, 600 m/s, so end result: 7700 m/s.

Orbital speed without drag, steering and gravity losses is 7700 m/s - and with them, 9200 m/s.

9200 m/s is (approximatively) Mach 27.

As said before, RHEINBERRY won't go into orbit with 7700 m/s because steering / drag / gravity losses push the tally to 9000 m/s or even a little beyond.

Still, 7700 m/s is Mach 22.5 and thus matches RHEINBERRY rumoured top speed. Tantalizing close from orbital speed, but not enough, as the rocket equation is exponential in nature...

For RHEINBERRY to reach orbit a lot of weight would have to shaved out of the already tight empty mass

9.81*450*ln(25500/3100) = 9302 m/s. Two metric tons less. Prop mass fraction 1-(3100/25500) = 0.878

The evil side of the exponential nature of the rocket equation... the closest you want to get from orbit, the smaller the empty mass and thus the harder the prop mass fraction... 0.80, 0.83 or 0.88 doesn't look much of a difference by percentage, but the reality is excruciating... lose 1% = lose some 300 m/s+ of delta-v...
Click to expand...
Why do you need orbital velocity for a spyplane?
 
I didn't said that. I was just compairing RHEINBERRY Mach 20 - 22 (suborbital) velocity to orbital velocity.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom