CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
- Jun 3, 2011
- Reaction score
SWEET! Where is "the usual place"? Will you post links when you're done? ???
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.Dynoman said: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).
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.blackstar said: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).
Moonbat, remember Paul was talking about MOL not ISINGLASS.XP67_Moonbat said:With the C-5 launched variant, I knew something was up.
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.CFE said: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.
Hi Dynoman.Dynoman said: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.
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.Dynoman said: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.
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.Dynoman said: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:
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.
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.XP67_Moonbat said: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.
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).Dynoman said: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 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.XP67_Moonbat said:Sounds like they need a good fact-checker.
I'll check tonight via my copy, unless someone beats me to it.LowObservable said: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.
Does your source know if there's any relation between Isinglass and the GRM-29A?LowObservable said: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?LowObservable said:Belay that last message. Impeccable source says that Isinglass was VTHL in all its forms. Launched vertically with external tanks.