Author Topic: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane  (Read 77106 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« on: 08/07/2009 03:18 pm »
A number of years ago I wrote a response to the Aviation Week cover story about the supposed Blackstar spaceplane:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/576/1

At the end of that article I mentioned that I had a lot of documentation on the ISINGLASS spaceplane that was supposed to replace the SR-71 and was going to write an article about it.  Unfortunately, I just haven't gotten around to it--I was busy writing dozens of other articles.  Anyway, I feel slightly guilty about teasing and not delivering, so I'm going to share some of my ISINGLASS documents.  I just grabbed these at random and they don't necessarily reflect the best stuff that I have.  I'm only doing it to assuage my guilt...

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #1 on: 08/07/2009 04:12 pm »
Hurrah !!!
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #2 on: 08/07/2009 05:15 pm »
What was the Pratt&Whitney engine that was not man rated at that time. The RL-10 ? They are talking Mach 20 and 200,000 fett so I am assuming a rocket engine.

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #3 on: 08/08/2009 05:15 am »
This article inspired a net search & led to a great webite on SR-71:
http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/sr-71~1.htm

I'm sure this will be old hat to some but hope others will enjoy it as much as I did.
One section I found particularly interesting was the tail art in this section:

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/tail001.html

Those crews really had a pair of heavy hangers. Bet there is some great untold history there!
« Last Edit: 08/08/2009 05:30 am by JosephB »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #4 on: 08/10/2009 01:23 am »
What was the Pratt&Whitney engine that was not man rated at that time. The RL-10 ? They are talking Mach 20 and 200,000 fett so I am assuming a rocket engine.

I doubt it was the RL-10, because the memo on the briefing of 26 April 1966 mentions that DDR&E assistant director John Kirk was concerned that P&W wouldn't be able to man-rate the engine within 31 months. Surely by the spring of 1966 the RL-10 was a well-known quantity.

It's made clear that this is a rocket-boosted glider rather than a rocket-propelled airplane, which is listed as the next thing to be developed, to be followed in turn by a scramjet. On the whole, this seems like an attempt to resurrect Dyna-Soar, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale, three years after its death. And the scale isn't really that much different in that the speed--Mach 20-plus--is nearly orbital.

To Blackstar: If you have any further "guilt" that needs to be "assuage," I'm sure we would all be only to happy to help! Thanks a lot.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #5 on: 08/10/2009 02:07 pm »
In the mid-1990s I was talking to a former senior CIA official who told me about both ISINGLASS and RHEINBERRY (I have almost nothing on the the latter, and do not believe it was seriously studied).  This was several years before either was mentioned publicly elsewhere.  He said that ISINGLASS was primarily pushed by General Bernard Schriever, whom he said was interested in hypersonics.

What I scanned is perhaps 1/3 of the documents on ISINGLASS that I have accumulated.  I'm not sure I'm going to post anymore here.  (The reason is that I may still publish something on this in the future.)

As far as any remaining guilt?  My biggest guilt is still not publishing my histories of Samos E-6, SPARTAN, KH-7 and KH-8.  Also some residual guilt for not finishing my DMSP history series.  Oh, and guilt at not writing the MOL history.  And guilt at not finishing my Polyus article...
« Last Edit: 08/10/2009 02:10 pm by Blackstar »

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #6 on: 08/10/2009 04:57 pm »
It's difficult to believe that with all of this interest in such a vehicle over the last several decades, nothing has ever come of it!

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #7 on: 08/10/2009 05:12 pm »
What was the Pratt&Whitney engine that was not man rated at that time. The RL-10 ? They are talking Mach 20 and 200,000 fett so I am assuming a rocket engine.

I doubt it was the RL-10, because the memo on the briefing of 26 April 1966 mentions that DDR&E assistant director John Kirk was concerned that P&W wouldn't be able to man-rate the engine within 31 months. Surely by the spring of 1966 the RL-10 was a well-known quantity.

It's made clear that this is a rocket-boosted glider rather than a rocket-propelled airplane, which is listed as the next thing to be developed, to be followed in turn by a scramjet. On the whole, this seems like an attempt to resurrect Dyna-Soar, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale, three years after its death. And the scale isn't really that much different in that the speed--Mach 20-plus--is nearly orbital.

To Blackstar: If you have any further "guilt" that needs to be "assuage," I'm sure we would all be only to happy to help! Thanks a lot.

The report keeps talking about no. of engines to be procured which led me to think that the engines are mounted on the airframe.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #8 on: 08/10/2009 06:42 pm »
It's difficult to believe that with all of this interest in such a vehicle over the last several decades, nothing has ever come of it!

Not really.  There are plenty of things that have been studied intensely for a short period of time and never turned into a real program.  For example, the nuclear-powered airplane.  There are also plenty of things that have been studied on and off for long periods of time and never got adopted in a major way.  For example, aerostats and heavy-lift blimps.

You could study a perpetual motion machine for decades and never build a successful one.

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #9 on: 08/10/2009 09:51 pm »
Mulready's book about advanced engine development at Pratt and Whitney says that they designed and built a reusable staged combustion LOX/LH2 engine for some secret Air Force project, and used the knowledge from that project in their unsuccessful SSME bid.  I don't have it with me so I can't look up the name of the engine, but it seems likely that this is the engine that is being discussed.  I seem to recall it was around 200klb thrust, which at two engines a vehicle means that this would be pretty damn large for an air-dropped system.

The use of the term "man-rate" is interesting.

Mulready's book also has a mention of an impressive-sounding fabrication technology to make titanium sandwich structures with conventional steel-rolling technology.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1710
  • Liked: 2215
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #10 on: 08/13/2009 10:02 pm »
Mulready's book about advanced engine development at Pratt and Whitney says that they designed and built a reusable staged combustion LOX/LH2 engine for some secret Air Force project, and used the knowledge from that project in their unsuccessful SSME bid.  I don't have it with me so I can't look up the name of the engine, but it seems likely that this is the engine that is being discussed.  I seem to recall it was around 200klb thrust, which at two engines a vehicle means that this would be pretty damn large for an air-dropped system.

The use of the term "man-rate" is interesting.

Mulready's book also has a mention of an impressive-sounding fabrication technology to make titanium sandwich structures with conventional steel-rolling technology.

The ISINGLASS (possibly air-launched) boost-glider was to be powered by the P&W XLR-129 engine, rated at 250,000 lbsF.  The XLR-129 technology later become P&W's entry into the SSME competition, though at a thrust up-rate to 350,000 lbsF.  A notable feature of the XLR-129 was its transpirationally cooled chamber, which had essentially unlimited life.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #11 on: 08/13/2009 10:22 pm »
I'm curious about the name. Isinglass is fishbladder gelatin, which was most commonly encountered in the lickable glue on envelopes and stamps. I have no idea if they still make it that way anymore.

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #12 on: 08/14/2009 03:02 am »
A question if I may.
I came across this interesting article in Janes:
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jidr/jidr000105_01_n.shtml

After reading this (and with our thread here in mind) I was wondering if it may be russian, overflights?

Here is a good page on the Open Skies Treaty:
http://www.dod.mil/acq/acic/treaties/os/congr_test.htm

Also, perhaps this is why there is no Blackstar Spaceplane?
Thoughts, comments very appreciated!





Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #13 on: 08/14/2009 03:20 am »
A question if I may.
I came across this interesting article in Janes:
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jidr/jidr000105_01_n.shtml

After reading this (and with our thread here in mind) I was wondering if it may be russian, overflights?

Sweetman is a well-regarded aviation writer.  But that article was written over nine years ago.  We could ask what has become known since then that was mentioned in that article.  I don't know of any "high speed aircraft" revealed in US publications since that time.
« Last Edit: 08/14/2009 03:32 am by Blackstar »

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #14 on: 08/14/2009 01:04 pm »
Kelly Johnson had stated in 1981 the SR-71 had over 1000 missles launched against it, none successful.

I'm assuming the Open Skies Treaty establishes some "etiquette" for such flights and getting shot at is no longer an occurance (with Russia at least)? True? Partially true? I suppose the public will never really know and I should do some more research on OST.

I wonder about the frequency of Russian overflights and at what speed & altitude they may fly.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #15 on: 08/14/2009 01:30 pm »
Kelly Johnson had stated in 1981 the SR-71 had over 1000 missles launched against it, none successful.

I'm assuming the Open Skies Treaty establishes some "etiquette" for such flights and getting shot at is no longer an occurance (with Russia at least)? True? Partially true? I suppose the public will never really know and I should do some more research on OST.

I wonder about the frequency of Russian overflights and at what speed & altitude they may fly.



SR-71 never overflew the USSR

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #16 on: 08/14/2009 02:10 pm »

Not really.  There are plenty of things that have been studied intensely for a short period of time and never turned into a real program. 

I saw this stealthy "thing" at the Air Force Museum a few weeks ago.  It was hard to photograph.  The damn thing is still almost invisible!  You can't see its means of propulsion from the public viewing spots.

This "thing" (I'll let people guess what it was) is a prime example of how some of these dark programs must turn out.  A whole "fleet" of these were developed to perform a mission that now seems unbelievable and impossible.  Then, just as they were to be put into operation, the program was canceled and the "things" were scrapped.

Or so the story goes.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 08/14/2009 02:15 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #17 on: 08/14/2009 02:15 pm »
In the middle of 2001 (i.e. before 9-11) I attended an unclassified symposium at the Defense Intelligence Agency.  It was about historical overflight.  As part of the symposium we got a tour of the DIA's imagery analysis center, which at the time was pioneering the government use of commercial remote sensing imagery.  The value of such imagery was that it could be freely distributed to allies, law enforcement, etc., because it was unclassified.

At the end of our tour we saw the room where they processed U-2 film.  There was a light table there with some U-2 imagery on it.  I took a look and saw an image of several C-17s on a ramp.*  We were told that this was Open Skies imagery.  The US and the Russians took imagery of either sides' installations and apparently shared their imagery.  We used the U-2's film cameras (I think) because it was old technology and we didn't want to show them our current digital capabilities.

Open Skies was not really about intelligence, it was a confidence-building exercise intended to get the two countries talking to each other.




*Our guide, a photo-interpreter, was impressed that I could identify the aircraft and told me I'd make a good PI.  I got a laugh out of that--I think they have eyesight requirements that I wouldn't pass.

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #18 on: 08/14/2009 03:26 pm »
Thanks for the feedback. I'm surprised SR-71 didn't overfly the Soviets. Years ago I had read a book on converted bombers that overflew the soviets in the 50's (some were downed) and I just assumed overflights continued in later decades. So much for assuming. With recon sats everywhere I wonder how much practical use there is for overflights now. If a pop up capability is needed wouldn't a Pegasus fit the bill? And how often would that be anyway?

There is a whole laundry list of books I'd like to get, once some of our damn bills are paid, and Shades Of Gray: National Security And The Evolution Of Space Reconnaissance by L. Parker Temple is one I was thinking about.
Has anyone read it? Amazon gave it an ok rating.

I have to say Blackstar, you get access to some pretty neat stuff.
Jim as well. I'm guessing he's working on the next Atlas/Payload.
I should have picked a different Major back in the day.

And Ed, I've never seen that unmanned whatever it is. This webfind is maybe an offspring? The (white) world may never know...
« Last Edit: 08/14/2009 03:28 pm by JosephB »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #19 on: 08/14/2009 08:05 pm »
1-There is a whole laundry list of books I'd like to get, once some of our damn bills are paid, and Shades Of Gray: National Security And The Evolution Of Space Reconnaissance by L. Parker Temple is one I was thinking about.
Has anyone read it? Amazon gave it an ok rating.

2-I have to say Blackstar, you get access to some pretty neat stuff.

1-I suggest getting it through interlibrary loan to see if you really want it.  If I remember correctly, it is very expensive.  I think the material is dated now.

2-Requires lots of effort.

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #20 on: 08/14/2009 08:37 pm »
I saw this stealthy "thing" at the Air Force Museum a few weeks ago.  It was hard to photograph.  The damn thing is still almost invisible!  You can't see its means of propulsion from the public viewing spots.

Teledyne-Ryan Compass Arrow

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #21 on: 08/14/2009 09:53 pm »
Thanks for the feedback. I'm surprised SR-71 didn't overfly the Soviets. Years ago I had read a book on converted bombers that overflew the soviets in the 50's (some were downed) and I just assumed overflights continued in later decades.

SR-71s did not overfly the USSR.  This was because of the May 1960 U-2 incident.  There were proposals for A-12 OXCART flights, but all were denied.

There were a number of overflights by converted bombers around 1954-1956.  There was some substantial misinformation on this in the late 1990s, but a 2-book series by Cargill Hall, "Early Cold War Overflights," really set the record straight.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #22 on: 08/14/2009 10:07 pm »
I saw this stealthy "thing" at the Air Force Museum a few weeks ago.  It was hard to photograph.  The damn thing is still almost invisible!  You can't see its means of propulsion from the public viewing spots.

Teledyne-Ryan Compass Arrow

That's right!  It was designed to overfly mainland *China*, at 78,000 feet, to photograph nuclear sites, unmanned.  Its jet engine was mounted on top, and its underside was shaped to minimize radar cross section.  This was an early "stealth" plane!  It would have been air-launched from a C-130-something and recovered while it dropped under a parachute, by a helicopter.  This was an extension of the Ryan unmanned drone effort during Vietnam.     

Teledyne-Ryan was all set to go, then Nixon went to see Mao and the program had to be shut down!

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050323-F-1234P-012.jpg

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #23 on: 08/15/2009 12:58 am »
That's right!  It was designed to overfly mainland *China*, at 78,000 feet, to photograph nuclear sites, unmanned.  Its jet engine was mounted on top, and its underside was shaped to minimize radar cross section.  This was an early "stealth" plane!  It would have been air-launched from a C-130-something and recovered while it dropped under a parachute, by a helicopter.  This was an extension of the Ryan unmanned drone effort during Vietnam.     

Teledyne-Ryan was all set to go, then Nixon went to see Mao and the program had to be shut down!

There's a picture of one of these pancaked on a highway somewhere.  I think they had a flight control failure.  If memory serves, that exposed the program.  It is also shown, but not explained, in the book Lightning Bugs and Other Reconnaissance Drones.  (There's a story behind that book.  I don't know the full details, but apparently it was a classified drone history that somebody let get public by accident.)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #24 on: 08/15/2009 03:13 am »

There's a picture of one of these pancaked on a highway somewhere.  I think they had a flight control failure.  If memory serves, that exposed the program.  It is also shown, but not explained, in the book Lightning Bugs and Other Reconnaissance Drones.  (There's a story behind that book.  I don't know the full details, but apparently it was a classified drone history that somebody let get public by accident.)

I have that book, which still amazes.  The horizon to horizon photo returned from one drone taken as it flew *under* a high voltage power line deep inside North Vietnam while people stood below, gaping up at the unmanned jet, is alone worth the price of the book.  Compass Arrow and something even bigger called Compass Cope are shown in drawings presented in the book, with little or no description in the text. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #25 on: 08/15/2009 04:24 am »
"The horizon to horizon photo returned from one drone taken as it flew *under* a high voltage power line deep inside North Vietnam while people stood below, gaping up at the unmanned jet, is alone worth the price of the book."


I got a good belly laugh at that one, quite the visual.
How do you say "CHEESE" in vietnamese?

So many great books to get...

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #26 on: 08/15/2009 10:54 pm »
Would it be fair to say the need for a winged vehicle to make a high speed intel run is history with the advance of sats? As much as I'd like to hope there was a follow on to the A-12, I just can't see what you could do that a sat couldn't.

Tactical & loiter are another thing of course.
I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good book on the P3 Orion that had to land in china? Any comment on how much damage was done or did the crew manage to take care of the critical items? Sorry for getting off topic.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #27 on: 08/16/2009 02:23 am »
1-Would it be fair to say the need for a winged vehicle to make a high speed intel run is history with the advance of sats? As much as I'd like to hope there was a follow on to the A-12, I just can't see what you could do that a sat couldn't.

2-Tactical & loiter are another thing of course.

3-I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good book on the P3 Orion that had to land in china? Any comment on how much damage was done or did the crew manage to take care of the critical items? Sorry for getting off topic.

1-Yep.  That's been true since the early 1990s.

2-The term is "persistent surveillance."  Flying over a target at Mach 3 means that you can see that target for a few minutes at most.  But if you're looking for the insurgents planting an improvised explosive device alongside a road, or the terrorist emerging from his house and getting into an SUV, you need to stay overhead for a long time, waiting for something to happen.

3-The pilot of the plane wrote a biography a few years ago.  But it was apparently mostly a personal religious account, not anything about the mission or aftermath.  That was 8 years ago, however.  If the US took an intelligence hit because of it (such as the Chinese learning how to hide their signals), that happened years ago.

The E-3 is being replaced in the next few years.

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #28 on: 08/16/2009 04:01 am »
In your last article you mentioned Dwayne Day watches too much bad television and needs to read more books. Well, my personal TV peeve is Discovery, TLC & History channels should be grounded in science or fact. Monster Quest? What the…
Or how about a team setting up their ghost detecting equipment while filming a paranormal show in “nite shot” mode? Reverse engineering Alien technology at Area 51? How many crab pots can a guy take? Yep, there goes another truck down the ice road. Hope they don’t slip.

I live in MN, I drive a damn ice road 5 months out of the year.
If upgrading to the highest cable tier didn’t soak me for an additional 60 bucks in order to get science channel etc… How about shows with some substance? The latest developments in any science field and it application?

Anyway, sounds like the P8 & (E8)Poseidon will be a real Cadillac.

For those that want a quick summary of the P8:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3936369728460662331
Edit: another neat vid

« Last Edit: 08/18/2009 05:12 am by JosephB »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #29 on: 08/16/2009 12:08 pm »
In your last article you mentioned Dwayne Day watches too much bad television and needs to read more books.

He does.  The kid needs to get outside more.

In my view, Discovery Channel does a pretty good job with their science documentaries.  It is the History Channel that resorts to a lot of pseudo-science crap.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #30 on: 04/12/2010 02:45 pm »
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.
 
« Last Edit: 04/12/2010 04:54 pm by Blackstar »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #31 on: 04/12/2010 03:22 pm »
Excellent article, two quick questions.

1. Did the nozzle extension extend while the engine was running vs. shutting down in flight, extending, restarting?

2. So did your research indicate if lesson's learned applied to the RL-10 nozzle extension?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #32 on: 04/12/2010 03:48 pm »
1-I presume it extended while in operation.  This was a booster, so it burned for a short period and then shut off.

2-I don't know.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #33 on: 04/12/2010 05:31 pm »
Just noticing the Jack screw and wondering if there was a connection to a similar solution.

One and one may not equal two here, but a web image of an RL-102-B showing the screws

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_2/Diverse/US%20engines/RL-10B-2_1.jpg

and your article image

http://www.thespacereview.com/archive/1602b.jpg
 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #34 on: 04/12/2010 06:53 pm »
You can download the report on the XLR-129 engine here:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD881744

WARNING: this is a 17 megabyte file!

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #35 on: 04/12/2010 06:59 pm »
Quote
Pratt & Whitney engineers obviously felt they had a superior product, but what happened to it and why probably requires further investigation.

Bill Mulready's book talks a lot about the XLR-129 and the Space Shuttle and a little about ISINGLASS.  Once you account for his obvious and justifiable personal biases, it seems like a pretty clear chain of events.

NASA issued reliability/reusability and performance goals that in combination were probably out of reach.  Pratt offered an engine that would be reliable and reusable but had a performance hit, while Rocketdyne offered an engine that was lighter but less reliable.  NASA had a long and positive history with Rocketdyne, NASA has always been a sucker for high performance, Pratt was probably going to have their hands full with the F100 turbofan for the F-15 and F-16 anyway, and without the SSME Rocketdyne would have been in a bad spot.  SSME contract goes to Rocketdyne.

The SSME's reliability and reusability turned out to be a problem, and down the road Pratt got a few big contracts to significantly redesign the SSME to enhance reliability at the cost of some weight and performance.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #36 on: 04/12/2010 10:59 pm »
I was responding to what seems like an urban legend that grew up at P&W that they had a superior product and they got screwed over.  I always doubt those kinds of claims, because the people making them a) are biased, and b) usually lack the information on why decisions were really made.

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #37 on: 04/13/2010 02:24 am »
I agree that most claims of "we had a better product and got screwed over" are self-serving, even if the person making the claim truly believes it.  But in this case it's easy to see why each party thought they had a better product at the time.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Graham2001

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #38 on: 04/13/2010 05:14 pm »
You can download the report on the XLR-129 engine here:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD881744

WARNING: this is a 17 megabyte file!

Interesting, if the Space Review article is correct all documentation on this engine was supposedly destroyed...

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #39 on: 04/13/2010 06:01 pm »
Interesting, if the Space Review article is correct all documentation on this engine was supposedly destroyed...

That's not what the article says.  It says "Pratt & Whitney employees later claimed that they were told to destroy their blueprints and test data to “avoid embarrassing NASA."


Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #40 on: 04/13/2010 07:47 pm »
Interesting, if the Space Review article is correct all documentation on this engine was supposedly destroyed...

That's not what the article says.  It says "Pratt & Whitney employees later claimed that they were told to destroy their blueprints and test data to “avoid embarrassing NASA."

Without knowing the context in which they said this (hint, hint) it's hard to judge.  But Pratt management certainly could have come to an internal decision to give up on the XLR-129 and then tried to soften the blow to their employees that really wanted to keep it alive by pointing the finger at NASA.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #41 on: 04/13/2010 10:10 pm »
I once met someone who'd been working on MOL at the time of its cancellation.  He said there had been a rumour that the cancellation was due to a Soviet threat to do something very unpleasant if MOL were ever launched.  Obviously the implication of the rumour is that MOL was a very valuable military asset.  I think we can be virtually certain the rumour was untrue (many discussions in this forum indicate it was doubtful that MOL had much military value to the US, and furthermore the Soviets launched manned military stations of their own).  It's an example of a self-serving myth created by the death of a program.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #42 on: 04/14/2010 02:41 am »
I will make one observation that has been true of every product development I've been on. The team always believes the product is better than all other competitors "equivalent" even in the face of reality. You can always find something that lets you point at your team being better. No self serving myths needed. It is pride in ones work.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #43 on: 05/20/2010 11:31 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 Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #44 on: 11/23/2011 03:50 pm »
We have what is apparently the first illustrations of the shape of the air-launched ISINGLASS vehicle (in manned and unmanned configurations), the interior arrangement of the forward part of the vehicle, including the camera payload, and also a proposed ballistic reconnaissance vehicle.

Details are still sketchy, and I'm hoping to get more. No information on where the pilot would sit in such a small vehicle, or how he would see anything to control it.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #45 on: 11/25/2011 02:16 pm »
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. 

I have a vague and very possibly incorrect memory that some flights were made over the Barents Sea parallel to the coast of the Kola Peninsula to get looks inland. Beyond that, a circuit of the Barents going on past Cape Kanin Nos and up the west coast of Novaya Zemlya would have afforded opportunities to see interesting things while staying out of Soviet airspace.

"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #46 on: 11/28/2011 03:03 am »
I have a vague and very possibly incorrect memory that some flights were made over the Barents Sea parallel to the coast of the Kola Peninsula to get looks inland. Beyond that, a circuit of the Barents going on past Cape Kanin Nos and up the west coast of Novaya Zemlya would have afforded opportunities to see interesting things while staying out of Soviet airspace.

I'm not sure what the off-axis capability of the SR-71 was. There were certainly aircraft that were designed to look at a long slant angle, but that requires a relatively large fuselage to fit the camera. They did this regularly with USAF transports along the Berlin corridor. I actually have a significant amount of information on the early Big Safari program that I've never published. Just don't have the energy.

As for ISINGLASS, it remains an interesting mystery. I really wonder about the performance. Somebody should be able to take those dimensions and work out how much fuel it could carry. From there they could work out performance characteristics. I assume that any first-year aerospace engineering student could do that. It's just volume and then the rocket equation. It should be easy to get maximum values.

Offline jjnodice

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #47 on: 11/29/2011 01:22 am »
As for ISINGLASS, it remains an interesting mystery. I really wonder about the performance. Somebody should be able to take those dimensions and work out how much fuel it could carry. From there they could work out performance characteristics. I assume that any first-year aerospace engineering student could do that. It's just volume and then the rocket equation. It should be easy to get maximum values.

Some of the numbers were hard to read but everything you need for the rocket equation was on the charts. 

For the "Model 192 Unmanned-Booster Retained" I got an ideal delta-V of ~7233 m/sec. 

For the Model 122 "Expendable Booster" I got an ideal deltaV of ~6914 m/sec.

For the "Model 192 Retain Booster" I got an ideal delta-V of ~7370 m/sec.

These are pretty sporty!  Maybe someone can take a stab at figuring out the L/D.
« Last Edit: 11/29/2011 01:23 am by jjnodice »

Offline suhler

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #48 on: 03/12/2012 12:10 am »
Eric Hehs, editor of LMCO's Code One magazine, has just posted an article on Convair's work on ISINGLASS in 1963-64.  He refers to it by the internal billing number, Work Order 540.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=92

I wish I'd pursued it further when I interviewed Bob Widmer and Randy Kent in 2003 for my book on stealth and the Blackbird.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #49 on: 03/12/2012 01:50 am »
That article doesn't refer to ISINGLASS at all.

Offline suhler

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #50 on: 03/12/2012 03:49 am »
Indeed the Code One article doesn't say ISINGLASS.  I just got an e-mail from Eric that says that none of his documents even say who the customer is.

There are a number of CREST documents citing ISINGLASS from this time, which don't mention Convair.  One is precontract approval for proposals 5058 and 5059, dated 30 Dec 63 and 2 Jan 64, respectively.

A search for "Convair" turned up three documents that I've requested:
"ADDITIONAL TASKING OF CONVAIR FORT WORTH, FOR SIMULATION [Sanitized]," 18 Nov 63;
"TASKING FOR CONVAIR," 12 Feb 64; and
"TASKING FOR CONVAIR," 21 Feb 64.

Maybe when I have those it'll be nailed down completely.

I asked Bob Naka about ISINGLASS; he grinned and said that his church had some windows with isinglass.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #51 on: 03/12/2012 02:06 pm »
My understanding of this is that it was only McDonnell that dealt with ISINGLASS because it was essentially their own proposal. It was not like the CIA put out a request for proposals/bids. Put another way, M went to the USAF and said "we want to try and build this." USAF really liked that, then went to the CIA for funding help. That's what got funded. I've posted a bunch of ISINGLASS documents in this forum (look for them), and I've written this:

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

If Convair did any hypersonics research, it may have not been ISINGLASS at all. It may have simply been the CIA giving out walking-around money to contractors, and Convair got some.

Offline suhler

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #52 on: 03/13/2012 12:42 am »
Pedlow and Welzenbach indicated that the Convair work in 1963-64 was under ISINGLASS, and Welzenbach told me that he worked from un-redacted documents:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000645397/0000645397_0049.gif, and attached.

Granted there are lots of errors in that book, but the ISINGLASS contract documents I cited are in that time frame, even if the contractor is redacted. Is there any evidence that McDonnell or anyone else was involved that early?  So far the earliest document I've found that mentions ISINGLASS and McDonnell is "Proposed Boost Glide Device," 6 Mar 65 by Brockway McMillan (DNRO), and it also mentions Boeing and Martin as possible contractors.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #53 on: 03/13/2012 01:05 am »
I suspect that the early work was general, and that McDonnell's proposal got accepted. In addition to the Cunningham interview, I was told by a retired high-ranking CIA official that it was a McDonnell project.

So those other companies may have been pitching high-speed stuff, but didn't make it into what became known as ISINGLASS.

Offline suhler

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #54 on: 06/11/2012 01:43 am »
...
A search for "Convair" turned up three documents that I've requested:
"ADDITIONAL TASKING OF CONVAIR FORT WORTH, FOR SIMULATION [Sanitized]," 18 Nov 63;
"TASKING FOR CONVAIR," 12 Feb 64; and
"TASKING FOR CONVAIR," 21 Feb 64.
...

To follow up on this, the tasking turned out to be for developing a 1/6th scale radar model of an SA-2.  So, this has nothing to do with ISINGLASS.

For what it's worth, the second-earliest ISINGLASS document I've laid hands on has an OXCART control number, OXC-7366.

Unless further evidence turns up, I'd assume that Pedlow & Welzenbach were mistaken in saying that Convair got ISINGLASS funding, and that Dwayne is right.

Offline archipeppe68

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Italy
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #55 on: 06/11/2012 06:27 am »
Here it is my personal contribution about the matter.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #56 on: 06/11/2012 04:05 pm »
Nice!

Offline archipeppe68

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Italy
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #57 on: 06/13/2012 03:14 pm »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #58 on: 09/19/2013 09:22 pm »
Just wondering how well this would work at mach 10 and that cool PW-129 engine?

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6153
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 3364
  • Likes Given: 1139
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #59 on: 09/21/2013 12:54 am »
In the middle of 2001 (i.e. before 9-11) I attended an unclassified symposium at the Defense Intelligence Agency.  It was about historical overflight.  As part of the symposium we got a tour of the DIA's imagery analysis center, which at the time was pioneering the government use of commercial remote sensing imagery.  The value of such imagery was that it could be freely distributed to allies, law enforcement, etc., because it was unclassified.

At the end of our tour we saw the room where they processed U-2 film.  There was a light table there with some U-2 imagery on it.  I took a look and saw an image of several C-17s on a ramp.*  We were told that this was Open Skies imagery.  The US and the Russians took imagery of either sides' installations and apparently shared their imagery.  We used the U-2's film cameras (I think) because it was old technology and we didn't want to show them our current digital capabilities.

Open Skies was not really about intelligence, it was a confidence-building exercise intended to get the two countries talking to each other.


That US imagery is now processed by a unit (the Sq was in my Group) at Wright-Patt and apparently their equipment is some of the only in existence still capable of doing it--spares are a huge problem.  I believe they also process Russian film for distribution to all treaty parties but I could be wrong.  The Russian Open Skies birds base at WP when they are in the US for Open Skies missions and I saw a crew at the Commisary/BX and I swear the crew of at least 15 didn't have two uniforms that matched.  It will be interesting to see how imagery from the new Russian TU-214 http://dtirp.dtra.mil/OST/ost.aspx will be processed since the Russian images will now be digital.
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #60 on: 03/14/2017 08:36 pm »
Something new.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #61 on: 03/14/2017 09:00 pm »
Thanks for that. Shame there's no illustrations in the paperwork.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #62 on: 03/14/2017 10:11 pm »
Some interesting details of the development work planned there in the second half of that document, especially with regard to plans for structural test section of fuselage and camera window elements, and the work planned to evaluate several types of metallic shingles to TPS.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1710
  • Liked: 2215
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #63 on: 03/14/2017 10:15 pm »
Something new.

The powerplant for ISINGLASS was the P&W XLR-129, by the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_XLR-129

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #64 on: 01/26/2021 01:20 pm »
I cleaned up the last page from the document posted by Blackstar on top of this page, in 2017.

Lot of interesting stuff.  Not least that the date is 1966, quite late for some of the concepts listed in the many columns.

TAGBOARD (on the left column) is well known.

ISINGLASS (second column) is also recognizable: B-52, LOX/LH-2 (= XLR-129 although not mentionned), Mach 21

The other columns by contrast are a little more confusing.

S-105 looks like Convair FISH / KINGFISH of 1958 which led to the first ISINGLASS of 1963-64.
That is
a) B-58 mothership
b) Ramjets
c) Mach 4

S-103 looks like the TOWN HALL varied studies of 1962 using B-58 or A-12 with expendable rocket stages and spysat cameras. Polaris SLBM was a favorite.
Except
- This one uses a B-52 + Minuteman + AJ10 (= Transtage, Apollo engine)
- The document is from 1966, four years after TOWN HALL ! So this mean that "air launched spysats" were still considered, that late ?

And the three S-104 columns - never heard of these combinations before.

- B-52 + J-2 + Centaur + Boost-Glide-Vehicle BG-1A, orbital

- B-52 + J-2 + "Integral Agena" + Boost-Glide-Vehicle BG-2A
25500 feet per second = 7772 m/s > short of orbital speed with all the losses, 9100 m/s = 30 000 fps.

- Titan II + Boost-Glide-Vehicle, orbital
(DynaSoar ? is that you ?! nah, it was killed in December 1963. An ASSET-related unmanned system ?)




Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #65 on: 01/26/2021 05:48 pm »
I've probably posted this story before, but back in the 1990s when I was researching CORONA, I met up with retired CIA Director of Science and Technology Bud Wheelon, who lived in Montecito, a suburb of Santa Monica. Wheelon was a really nice guy and we had a great interview. I probably have a tape recording of that somewhere. Anyway, he took me to lunch and over lunch he casually mentioned "Isinglass" and "Rheinberry." This was long before they were declassified. He just said that they were supposed to be very fast successors to the SR-71 and that Air Force General Bernie Schriever had made them (or at least Isinglass) his pet project. I'm sitting there at a restaurant practically vibrating in my seat. There had been NOTHING ever written or reported on these programs before, and he just dropped that into conversation.

If you're wondering, there was only one thing that he told me about that he made me turn off the tape recorder and told me I could not write about, and that was the program to drop sensors into China. That has been reported on in various places, and is now partially declassified.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #66 on: 01/26/2021 06:29 pm »
I red about this recently. The CIA send ROCAF pilots into the Chinese SA-2 meatgrinder. First time, they dropped the sensors from a U-2. Did not worked. Second try: they send a ROCAF C-130 Hercules at low level - 5000 miles ! - from Thailand to Lop Nor and back. Ten or twelve hours spent hugging the Chinese ground... and they dropped the sensors and made it back alive.  :o

The CIA also tried to spy Lop Nor from an Indian, himalayan mountain 25000 ft high and 1500 miles away. With a RTG powered sensor. That was swept by a snow avalanche... or perhaps stolen by the Indians. They never knew.

...

... sometimes it makes a fun read, excellent food for one's imagination; and sometimes you're left shaking your head in disbelief and wondering "wow, they did THAT ?"

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #67 on: 01/26/2021 06:35 pm »
I cleaned up the last page from the document posted by Blackstar on top of this page, in 2017.

Lot of interesting stuff.  Not least that the date is 1966, quite late for some of the concepts listed in the many columns.

TAGBOARD (on the left column) is well known.

ISINGLASS (second column) is also recognizable: B-52, LOX/LH-2 (= XLR-129 although not mentionned), Mach 21

[snip]


Any thoughts on ISINGLASS/McDonnell and connections to earlier hydrogen aircraft work at Lockheed by Ben Rich and Kelly Johnson? The relevant chapter in "Skunkworks", chapter 8 "Blowing up Burbank", where they were looking into LH2 planes from about 1956 to ~~1960. That included Suntan 1956-1958. ISINGLASS is later while Lockheed works on the A12 but anyway?

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #68 on: 02/01/2021 06:33 am »
Digging this further... cleaned up file 2.0, attached.

-------

No idea what S-105 / ISINGLASS would do with a "Skybolt 2nd stage". Perhaps an auxiliary rocket engine to help accelerating the ramjets from the B-58's Mach 2 to ISINGLASS Mach 4 cruise speed ? Ramjets work better at mach 3 than Mach 2... they usually need a booster.

--------

S-103 "air launched reconnaissance satellite" the booster is a Minuteman II + Able-Star stage as described on Ed Kyle website.

AJ10-41 was Able-Star engine.

https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/thorh2.html

https://minutemanmissile.com/solidrocketboosters.html

I did some calculations for a B-52 + Minuteman II + Able-Star launcher; the overall weight and payload to orbit matches very well.

Minuteman II 63 000 pounds and Able-star is 10 000 pounds, so total 73 000 pounds.

Payload to orbit corresponds, too: 1100 pounds.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #69 on: 02/01/2021 06:41 am »
The three S-104 concepts looks like alternatives to RHEINBERRY. That one was to be
a) piloted b) suborbital and c) horizontal-launch from a B-52.

The three S-104 concepts are probably "tradeoff" against the basic RHEINBERRY, asking
- piloted or not ?
- orbital or suborbital ?
- B-52 or Titan II launch vehicle ? vertical or horizontal ?

Pretty interesting to think the boost-glide concept was still considered in 1966 with no less than four different concepts.

It is the usual tradeoff "air launch" versus "ground launch". In the case of RHEINBERRY B-52 would be more "responsive" and flexible.
But Titan II as of 1965 was deployed as ICBM, launching Gemini, and used as the coming Titan III core. So it wasn't too expensive either, and had its own flexibility.

(I checked the Titan II silos dimensions - just for the fun of it. While the Titan by itself was 10 feet diameter, its silo launch ducts were 26 feet in diameter. So on paper at least, it might be possible to put a "boost glide vehicle" with a span smaller than 26 feet on top of a Titan II ICBM and launch that from a silo in place of a megaton warhead. Remember that scene in Moonraker when Drax launch Shuttles from an underground amazonian base ?  ;D )

Kind of catch-22 !

And S-103 looks like an alternative to the S-104 / RHEINBERRY  boost-glide concepts. Using expendable rocket stages and perhaps film return capsules. Closer from a CORONA or a GAMBIT except without the Agena.



Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #70 on: 02/01/2021 12:48 pm »
There are still a lot of unanswered questions about this program (and RHEINBERRY). I think the biggest question is what had been done when the program was canceled? At most they were doing early hardware testing. How much and what kind? And had they settled on a basic vehicle design? Or were they still looking at multiple options?

We don't even have a good chronology of the program.

Online darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 8746
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #71 on: 02/01/2021 05:59 pm »
I red about this recently. The CIA send ROCAF pilots into the Chinese SA-2 meatgrinder. First time, they dropped the sensors from a U-2. Did not worked. Second try: they send a ROCAF C-130 Hercules at low level - 5000 miles ! - from Thailand to Lop Nor and back. Ten or twelve hours spent hugging the Chinese ground... and they dropped the sensors and made it back alive.  :o

The CIA also tried to spy Lop Nor from an Indian, himalayan mountain 25000 ft high and 1500 miles away. With a RTG powered sensor. That was swept by a snow avalanche... or perhaps stolen by the Indians. They never knew.

...

... sometimes it makes a fun read, excellent food for one's imagination; and sometimes you're left shaking your head in disbelief and wondering "wow, they did THAT ?"

"Spy On The Roof Of The World" by Sydney Wignall in 1996, tells of an ill-fated attempt in 1955 to sneak into Communist China-occupied Tibet to climb Mt. Gurla Mandhata. He admits to also agreeing to provide information to the Indian intelligence establishment about Chinese military in the area. They were captured by the PLA. He claims to have made up a story (he was tortured), about an atomic-powered spy device. Then there are stories about a lost RTG-powered device on an Indian mountain in the mid-60's (complete with someone involved getting testicular cancer from the plutonium). The device disappeared, supposedly, in a massive avalanche, and is described as a huge environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. These stories appear to have come out after the Wignall book.

I'm not even going to try to guess how much of the above is true.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2021 06:01 pm by darkenfast »
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #72 on: 02/01/2021 06:05 pm »
There are still a lot of unanswered questions about this program (and RHEINBERRY). I think the biggest question is what had been done when the program was canceled? At most they were doing early hardware testing. How much and what kind? And had they settled on a basic vehicle design? Or were they still looking at multiple options?

We don't even have a good chronology of the program.

A good reading here. http://codeonemagazine.net/c5_article.html?item_id=92

The last part has a lot of interesting stuff. Alas, it certainly adds more confusion to the whole affair !

Quote
The results of this work were presented to Air Force Systems Command in March 1965 in a report titled Manned Hypersonic Vehicle Study.

Manned Hypersonic Vehicle Study

The Manned Hypersonic Vehicle study summarized the work done in the previous phases for Mach 4 to 6 designs and then addressed two classes of Mach 6 to 12 hydrogen-powered designs. The first class, called Early Availability, consisted of vehicles with conventional propulsion systems, including currently available turbojets and subsonic combustion ramjets. The second class, called Later Availability, consisted of vehicles with advanced propulsion systems, including advanced turbojets and supersonic combustion ramjets.

None of the designs were B-58 parasites, which is not surprising since Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara formally announced the retirement of the B-58 program in late 1965.

Three design approaches were presented for the Early Availability category. They were based on three variations of the same reconnaissance mission concept—a pre-zone leg at subsonic speeds and medium altitudes that covered at least 2,000 nautical miles from the area to be reconnoitered; a zone leg at maximum altitude and super- or hypersonic cruising speed that covered 4,000 nautical miles; and a post-zone leg at subsonic speed that returned the vehicle to the home base or a safe base in another location.

The first design approached the mission with a boost-glide vehicle. This design, called Configuration R-3, had a maximum speed of Mach 9 and a maximum altitude of 130,000 feet. Powered to max speed and altitude by a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket booster with thrust of 190,000 pounds, it then glided for the remainder of the time in the reconnaissance zone. Subsonic propulsion for pre- and post-zone operations was provided by a single Bristol Siddeley 100/8 turbojet engine.

R-3 had a gross weight of 146,000 pounds and a zone range of 1,100 nautical miles. The variable sweep wings, when extended, gave the aircraft a wingspan of eighty feet. The overall length of the aircraft was 141.8 feet. The sweep angle of the leading edge when not extended was eighty-two degrees.

The second design, called Configuration B-2, approached the mission by air-launching a satellite payload from a rocket-propelled missile pod attached to the underside of a hypersonic carrier. The carrier vehicle had a maximum speed of Mach 8. It was powered by four General Electric J93 engines and one liquid oxygen/JP-fueled rocket motor. The rocket had a thrust of 250,000 pounds. The aircraft was 134.7 feet long with a fixed wing span of 77.8 feet and a sweep angle of sixty degrees. It weighed 299,000 pounds without the pod.

The satellite pod in B-2 was powered by two rockets.

The first rocket, which ignited after the pod separated from the carrier at Mach 8, consisted of a two-stage UGM-27 Polaris A2 sea-launched ballistic missile.

The second rocket was a forty-inch diameter Thiokol rocket. The combination satellite/missile pod weighed 25,000 pounds.

The third design approached the mission with a cruise vehicle. Called Configuration C-3, this design had a maximum speed of Mach 8 and a zone altitude of 115,000 feet. The twin-tail, fixed-wing aircraft was powered by four Pratt & Whitney advanced TF30 turbofan engines and one Marquardt dual fuel ramjet.

The turbojets would power the aircraft to Mach 3 at which point the ramjets would be ignited and powered by JP-4 fuel, the same fuel used to power the turbojets. Once the aircraft reached 115,000 feet and Mach 8, the ramjets would switch to liquid hydrogen for the duration of the zone leg. The dual-fuel approach allowed the aircraft to be sized smaller than a single-fuel design and to be refueled by existing KC-135 tanker aircraft.

C-3 had a gross weight of 170,000 pounds. It was 158.4 feet long and had a wingspan of 68.4 feet. An alternate configuration, which placed all four turbojets between the twin tails, had a length of 147.9 feet and a wingspan of 68.5 feet.

The Later Availability vehicles were based on engine and structural advances as applied to Configuration C-3. These advances included supersonic combustion ramjets and advanced turbojets. These designs, which were not detailed and not pursued, according to Kent, would be capable of reaching orbital velocities.

Just like the NRO document, there are a) boost-glide vehicles and b) air launched satellites there.

One thing is sure: after the A-12 & SR-71 flew in 1962-64 speed did not surrendered immediately. There was a multi-prongued effort until 1966 at least - Schriever retirement ? - to get some kind of hypersonic / suborbital strategic reconnaissance system.

They probably tried to get a system to bridge the gap between Mach 3.5 OXCART and orbital speed (Mach 27). And they really explored all the solutions they could think off, even the weirdest ones.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #73 on: 02/01/2021 07:43 pm »
atomic-powered spy device. Then there are stories about a lost RTG-powered device on an Indian mountain in the mid-60's (complete with someone involved getting testicular cancer from the plutonium). The device disappeared, supposedly, in a massive avalanche, and is described as a huge environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. These stories appear to have come out after the Wignall book.

I'm not even going to try to guess how much of the above is true.

So I don't think that the environmental catastrophe thing is true. Plutonium is predictable, and this stuff was an oxide form and would not dissolve in water. It doesn't give off gamma radiation. It's really only dangerous if it is pulverized and inhaled. Sitting buried under rock and snow, it's not going to make it into the groundwater. (I think.) It also has a fairly short half-life, and so a lot of it is already gone. There are actually more dangerous radio-isotopes--the Soviets used polonium a lot, which is nasty, and americium is not all the nice either. Pu-238 is not horrible if it is out there.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2021 07:47 pm by Blackstar »

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #74 on: 08/02/2021 05:38 am »
http://codeonemagazine.net/c5_article.html?item_id=92

Quote
Those working on the A-12 replacement project initially referred to it by an internal billing designation—Work Order 540. The initial studies were divided into four two-month phases that spanned November 1963 through June 1964.

A budget status chart at the end of the report for Phase 3 indicated that Work Order 540 would run through July 1965 with an overall budget of $165,000, and approximately $110,000 had been spent for the first three phases. However, no status reports beyond Phase 3 were found in researching this article. The gap, however, is covered by follow-on design work that was initiated in August 1964. The results of this work were presented to Air Force Systems Command in March 1965 in a report titled Manned Hypersonic Vehicle Study.


Quote

The Manned Hypersonic Vehicle study summarized the work done in the previous phases for Mach 4 to 6 designs and then addressed two classes of Mach 6 to 12 hydrogen-powered designs. The first class, called Early Availability, consisted of vehicles with conventional propulsion systems, including currently available turbojets and subsonic combustion ramjets. The second class, called Later Availability, consisted of vehicles with advanced propulsion systems, including advanced turbojets and supersonic combustion ramjets.

None of the designs were B-58 parasites, which is not surprising since Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara formally announced the retirement of the B-58 program in late 1965.

Three design approaches were presented for the Early Availability category.

The first design approached the mission with a boost-glide vehicle. This design, called Configuration R-3, had a maximum speed of Mach 9 and a maximum altitude of 130,000 feet. Powered to max speed and altitude by a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket booster with thrust of 190,000 pounds, it then glided for the remainder of the time in the reconnaissance zone. Subsonic propulsion for pre- and post-zone operations was provided by a single Bristol Siddeley 100/8 turbojet engine.


Quote
The Later Availability vehicles were based on engine and structural advances as applied to Configuration C-3. These advances included supersonic combustion ramjets and advanced turbojets. These designs, which were not detailed and not pursued, according to Kent, would be capable of reaching orbital velocities.

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

Quote
Cunningham said that he and CIA officials Jack Ledford and John Parangosky met with Jim McDonnell and his son to discuss the project. This was most likely in early 1965.

McDonnell Douglas worked on the project for approximately 14 months (May 1966 aprox.)

All these quotes to highlight that Convair final work on ISINGLASS stretched from 1964 into summer 1965. And it involved hydrolox rocket vehicles pushing to Mach 9 at 130 000 feet. They also considered near orbital vehicles so mach 20+ (ascent to orbit = Mach 26).

Meanwhile come McDonnell Douglas, from early 1965 to 1966 so overlaping in time. Proposing an hydrolox rocket vehicle flying at 125 000 feet except much faster: to Mach 22.

So the dates and basic concepts match: by the first-half of the year 1965 Convair - with MDD on their heels ! - had switched from airbreathing (top speed Mach 4.5, not enough against nuclear SA-5s) to LOX/LH2 rockets.

I often think this explains the name shift from ISINGLASS to RHEINBERRY, but it's only my gut feeling there.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2021 11:53 am by libra »

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #75 on: 03/06/2023 03:38 pm »
Document attached is a 1961 study about technical issues related to boost-glide reconnaissance. "1961" means DynaSoar (obviously) but it may be of interest for ISINGLASS and RHEINBERRY too.

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #76 on: 03/06/2023 07:16 pm »
I cleaned up the last page from the document posted by Blackstar on top of this page, in 2017.

Lot of interesting stuff.  Not least that the date is 1966, quite late for some of the concepts listed in the many columns.

TAGBOARD (on the left column) is well known.

ISINGLASS (second column) is also recognizable: B-52, LOX/LH-2 (= XLR-129 although not mentionned), Mach 21

[snip]


Any thoughts on ISINGLASS/McDonnell and connections to earlier hydrogen aircraft work at Lockheed by Ben Rich and Kelly Johnson? The relevant chapter in "Skunkworks", chapter 8 "Blowing up Burbank", where they were looking into LH2 planes from about 1956 to ~~1960. That included Suntan 1956-1958. ISINGLASS is later while Lockheed works on the A12 but anyway?
The CL-400 was abandoned in favor of the Archangel design series when Kelly Johnson realized that any full-scale development and operational use of the CL-400 Suntan required building an infrastructure for supplying LH2 to fuel the CL-400's engines. ISINGLASS was designed to take pictures of Soviet territory at speeds greater than Mach 10, so it needed an engine and a carrier aircraft to perform a reconnaissance mission, and McDonnell found the B-52 the most appropriate launch platform for the Model 192. The LR129 rocket engine would have allowed the Model 192 to tune performance over a wide range of altitudes over hostile territory by relying on an expanded nozzle. Like ISINGLASS, the Suntan program was kept secret even after cancellation for a generation, and it was publicly disclosed by Lockheed until the 1970s.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2023 02:35 pm by Vahe231991 »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #77 on: 03/07/2023 06:03 am »
Document attached is a 1961 study about technical issues related to boost-glide reconnaissance. "1961" means DynaSoar (obviously) but it may be of interest for ISINGLASS and RHEINBERRY too.

Thanks for that. I like the shimmy factor, page viii.

"we got a wicked shimmy" --- "Apollo 13"

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #78 on: 03/07/2023 10:20 pm »
Digging this further... cleaned up file 2.0, attached.

-------

No idea what S-105 / ISINGLASS would do with a "Skybolt 2nd stage". Perhaps an auxiliary rocket engine to help accelerating the ramjets from the B-58's Mach 2 to ISINGLASS Mach 4 cruise speed ? Ramjets work better at mach 3 than Mach 2... they usually need a booster.

--------

S-103 "air launched reconnaissance satellite" the booster is a Minuteman II + Able-Star stage as described on Ed Kyle website.

AJ10-41 was Able-Star engine.

https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/thorh2.html

https://minutemanmissile.com/solidrocketboosters.html

I did some calculations for a B-52 + Minuteman II + Able-Star launcher; the overall weight and payload to orbit matches very well.

Minuteman II 63 000 pounds and Able-star is 10 000 pounds, so total 73 000 pounds.

Payload to orbit corresponds, too: 1100 pounds.

I don't know if I paid attention to this when you posted it a couple of years ago, but why did you switch the names? The table in the original document has ISINGLASS as the second column, but you renamed it. What is the justification for that?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #79 on: 03/07/2023 10:30 pm »
Something that I am starting to appreciate in another context is that if the payload (camera system) is closely tied to the rocket--meaning that it maxes out the rocket--and if the rocket has little room for growth, then the payload has no room for growth either.

Put another way, you're stuck with what you have and it's not going to get much better. That's one of the big limitations of air-launched rockets. They are going to be designed to take maximum advantage of the aircraft payload capability. So the program starts at maximum capability and is not going to get much better and therefore your payload cannot grow.

Contrast that to ground-launched rockets, particularly at this time. Thor was improved by adding a longer Agena, then stretching the first stage, then adding SRBs (not necessarily in that order). Atlas got a bit of an increase in performance over its lifetime too. And Titan also got bigger and more capable. If you look at the Thor example, the first CORONA was a single camera. Then it grew to two cameras. Then it added a second reentry vehicle. Then it added more film. The final version of CORONA was a lot bigger and more capable than the early version, and that was possible because the Thor was improved a lot.

ISINGLASS was going to start out with little growth capability.

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #80 on: 03/08/2023 04:17 am »
Digging this further... cleaned up file 2.0, attached.

-------

No idea what S-105 / ISINGLASS would do with a "Skybolt 2nd stage". Perhaps an auxiliary rocket engine to help accelerating the ramjets from the B-58's Mach 2 to ISINGLASS Mach 4 cruise speed ? Ramjets work better at mach 3 than Mach 2... they usually need a booster.

--------

S-103 "air launched reconnaissance satellite" the booster is a Minuteman II + Able-Star stage as described on Ed Kyle website.

AJ10-41 was Able-Star engine.

https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/thorh2.html

https://minutemanmissile.com/solidrocketboosters.html

I did some calculations for a B-52 + Minuteman II + Able-Star launcher; the overall weight and payload to orbit matches very well.

Minuteman II 63 000 pounds and Able-star is 10 000 pounds, so total 73 000 pounds.

Payload to orbit corresponds, too: 1100 pounds.

I don't know if I paid attention to this when you posted it a couple of years ago, but why did you switch the names? The table in the original document has ISINGLASS as the second column, but you renamed it. What is the justification for that?

Can't remember, I have to ask my old self with the different pseudo (in passing: I hate a certain SpaceX f.a.n.b.o.y that forced that name change... patience ? what's that ?)
« Last Edit: 03/08/2023 04:18 am by Harry Cover »

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #81 on: 03/08/2023 12:27 pm »
Think I was trying to make a distinction between
- ISINGLASS / airbreathing / ramjets Mach 4
- RHEINBERRY: rocket-powered to Mach 22

But I do know the distinction wasn't that clear cut -  black & white. Late Convair ISINGLASS studies were rocket powered and much faster than Mach 5, yet not called RHEINBERRY - not yet.

There was also a moment (circa 1963-64) when Convair was struggling with tons of airbreathing concepts - and then Douglas came out of the blue and boom - screw airbreathing, let's go all-rocket, boost-glide as fast as possible, direction orbital velocity (would have been Mach 27 & 9 km/s, but mass fraction wouldn't cooperate, so Mach 22 & 7 km/s it was, hence: no orbital capability, only suborbital).

My gut feeling about all this:
1-Convair tried to stick with airbreathing and 1959 FISH / KINGFISH / Mach 4 / 110 000 ft / legacy as long as possible (see the Code One links I posted upthread - a fantastic reading:)
2-The Soviets however had locked their airspace with nuclear SA-5s, as high as 140 000 ft and much faster than Mach 5
3-The CIA and NRO told that to Convair, but by 1964 they got the message too late (last concepts had rockets to Mach 9)
4-Douglas however got the message better and faster, and essentially said "screw airbreathing because nuclear SA-5, the only way is suborbital to Mach 22, so: all-rocket"
5-This was in 1964 and led to (by 1965-66)
a) RHEINBERRY
b) its XLR-129 high-pressure hydrolox rocket engine

Things we still don't know
- when did ISINGLASS morphed into RHEINBERRY: 1964 ? 1965 ?
- the role of Benny Schriever in that transition before his retirement from USAF in the summer of 1966
- how did he got the XLR-129 funded and build and tested as far as component level

I red somewhere that either the RAND Corp or NRO were saying "whatever flies slower than Mach 9 by 1970 cannot safely penetrate Soviet airspace" (should be able to find the quote at Google books).

Coincidentally, according to Code One website the last Convair studies (early 1964) had shifted to Mach 9 with a rocket in the back. Douglas then outsmarted Convair with a no-compromise all-rocket flying dart (no jets, no undercarriage, B-52 launched, land with skids - minimal airframe and lift: brute rocket power, ballistics / suborbital).
All this raised the bar from Mach 9 to Mach 22 - no less.

RHEINBERRY was a no-compromise rocketplane pushing as far as propellant mass fraction would allow. With the XLR-129 theoretical specific impulse of 445 seconds it would take 0.88 to make it to orbit with zero payload; Douglas target was 0.80-something, and that's the reason why the thing was suborbital - quasi-orbital, but no orbit.

1-26000/133000 = 0.8045   (rounded numbers: that's the propellant mass fraction: Shuttle was 0.83 but it staged).

9.81*450*ln((133000)/(26000)) = 7205 m/s  - plus whatever little additional delta-v the B-52 provided: no more than 1100 m/s and probably 600 - 900 m/s.
So no more than 8000 m/s of delta-v, and that's not enough for a full blown ascent to orbit on hydrolox props: that would take 9300 m/s.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2023 03:44 pm by Harry Cover »

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #82 on: 03/08/2023 04:33 pm »
I found an image of the Model 192 flight profile plus a drawing of the McDonnell Model 192 being pyloned below a B-52 from the McDonnell project documents.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #83 on: 03/09/2023 05:34 pm »

Things we still don't know
- when did ISINGLASS morphed into RHEINBERRY: 1964 ? 1965 ?
- the role of Benny Schriever in that transition before his retirement from USAF in the summer of 1966
- how did he got the XLR-129 funded and build and tested as far as component level



I am not sure that you are not muddying the waters here.

1-Do we have any public/declassified document that mentions RHEINBERRY? As I have related, at least 20 years ago Bud Wheelon told me about ISINGLASS and RHEINBERRY. We have documents about ISINGLASS. But I don't know if we have ever seen the word RHEINBERRY in documents.

2-I don't think we know that the program morphed into anything. They could have been parallel studies, with ISINGLASS getting the most study.

3-There is no 3.

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #84 on: 03/09/2023 06:54 pm »
So RHEINBERRY could be a pure "accronym invention", like TR-3A Black Manta or Aurora ? (or... Blackstar ?)   ;D

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #85 on: 03/09/2023 07:31 pm »
So RHEINBERRY could be a pure "accronym invention", like TR-3A Black Manta or Aurora ? (or... Blackstar ?)   ;D


No, I think RHEINBERRY is real. Bud Wheelon told me that name while we were having lunch. It's just that I'm not sure we have any documentation about it. It may have been a blip of a program, started and gone quickly.

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #86 on: 03/09/2023 10:56 pm »
So RHEINBERRY could be a pure "accronym invention", like TR-3A Black Manta or Aurora ? (or... Blackstar ?)   ;D


No, I think RHEINBERRY is real. Bud Wheelon told me that name while we were having lunch. It's just that I'm not sure we have any documentation about it. It may have been a blip of a program, started and gone quickly.
"The program (code name Project RHEINBERRY) has not been funded, nor has it formally been submitted for approval pending further preliminary studies by OSA."
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90B00170R000100130001-9.pdf

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #87 on: 03/10/2023 07:51 pm »
Thank you for finding that. I think I've seen that before, since I went through the CREST archives a lot. I think that in the 2000s I may have posted about RHEINBERRY in some discussion forums, but I never got anywhere. At the bottom of my April 2010 article on ISINGLASS, I asked if anybody had any more information on RHEINBERRY:

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

I don't think I got anything.

As I compile my list of proposed but unbuilt space/satellite-based reconnaissance programs, I keep turning up more and more of them. I think I'm up to two dozen now.

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #88 on: 03/11/2023 06:56 am »
The mid-1960's had some kind of "cambrian explosion" of strategic reconnaissance system proposals.
This was
-the last gasp of spyplanes - post SR-71 and beyond Mach 4
-the dawn of drones, with the Firebees, TAGBOARD and COMPASS ARROW
-the dawn of spysats, space race and manned spaceflight.

What is really interesting is: they tried to get hybrid systems out of the above three: space / drones / aircraft.

 For example: air launching a spysat from an A-12 OXCART.

Or: (sub)orbital spyplanes like RHEINBERRY or Dynasoar.  Or a manned orbital spysat (MOL).

Plus VHR and near-real time proposals. And all the KH-9 derivatives.

It is those "hybrid" systems that fascinates me. Proposals like swapping the film recovery capsules for ASSET unmanned lifting bodies that could land at Dulles Airport or Andrews AFB near Washington DC... because the NRO HQ and White House are there, hence they would got the pictures faster.

The 1960's- 1970's had so many interesting concepts floating around. As if they were trying to reinvent strategic reconnaissance after the trauma of Francis G. Power shootdown.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2023 07:08 am by Harry Cover »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #89 on: 03/11/2023 08:24 am »

The CL-400 was abandoned in favor of the Archangel design series when Kelly Johnson realized that any full-scale development and operational use of the CL-400 Suntan required building an infrastructure which could supply LH2 to fuel the CL-400's engines. ISINGLASS, since it was designed to take pictures of Soviet territory at speeds greater than Mach 10, needed an engine and a carrier aircraft to perform a reconnaissance mission, and McDonnell found the B-52 the most appropriate launch platform for the Model 192, and the LR129 rocket engine would have allowed the Model 192 to tune performance over a wide range of altitudes over hostile territory by relying on an expanded nozzle. Like ISINGLASS, the Suntan program was kept secret even after cancellation for a generation, and it was publicly disclosed by Lockheed until the 1970s.
Side note. The CL-400 was not a conventional turbojet cycle. The LH2 pump they developed became a key part of the RL10, although apparently the RL10 developers were not told where it came from.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #90 on: 03/11/2023 09:14 am »
Thank you for finding that. I think I've seen that before, since I went through the CREST archives a lot. I think that in the 2000s I may have posted about RHEINBERRY in some discussion forums, but I never got anywhere. At the bottom of my April 2010 article on ISINGLASS, I asked if anybody had any more information on RHEINBERRY:

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

I don't think I got anything.

As I compile my list of proposed but unbuilt space/satellite-based reconnaissance programs, I keep turning up more and more of them. I think I'm up to two dozen now.
I think I might have seen some of that information.

It was either at the tail end of NASP (the 1980's one) or SDI and there was some kind of meeting to get a brain dump of stuff people knew and record what was the actual SoA in these materials. So people wouldn't ask "Can we do this?" when in fact it has already been done, decades ago.

Molybdenum is  probably the ideal refractory as it's relatively light/cheap/abundant but oxidies too easily.  :( The report also talked about Tungsten/Rhenium alloys and work done on ejector ramjets in the 60's (several of them were ex Marquadt people). Stuff from the X20 programme as well IIRC.  Stuff about how to make things, fabrication methods that worked (and that didn't) etc.

Probably not most people's preferrred reading material but I found it fascinating.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2023 09:16 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #91 on: 03/11/2023 11:12 am »
Rene 41 material - of DynaSoar fame - had a long and rich story in the decades thereafter: at Boeing and elsewhere.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #92 on: 03/11/2023 01:35 pm »

 For example: air launching a spysat from an A-12 OXCART.


https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4307/1

That one just made no sense.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #93 on: 03/11/2023 02:01 pm »
Rene 41 material - of DynaSoar fame - had a long and rich story in the decades thereafter: at Boeing and elsewhere.
Indeed. Featured a lot in the RASV reports.

When you're doing something that's really going to push the boundaries you want to take as few chances as possible with materials. The British and French did this when they chose an aluminum alloy that had been used to make aircraft engine pistons since the 1930's to build Concorde out of. Lots of test data in lots of different situations, especially at high temperature. Concorde had issues but it flew for 28 years with a perfect safety record, till the French fried a load of burghers during takeoff * :(

*I think this was a British tabloid headline at the time.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #94 on: 03/11/2023 03:09 pm »
When you're doing something that's really going to push the boundaries you want to take as few chances as possible with materials. The British and French did this when they chose an aluminum alloy that had been used to make aircraft engine pistons since the 1930's to build Concorde out of. Lots of test data in lots of different situations, especially at high temperature.

A number of years ago I worked on a report about additive manufacturing--also known as 3D printing. I didn't have much experience with the materials or manufacturing people. One thing that I learned was that there are certain materials, primarily metals, that have a very long lineage and therefore very well known properties. It's all kept in reference manuals. So if you want to know the strength of aluminum at minus 20 degrees C, it's in a book. If you want to know about fatigue cracks under heavy loads for 5 years, it's in a book. You don't need to do your own testing, or study the problem for a decade. That's one of the issues with selecting materials for 3D printers. You want to use something with very well known properties. Unfortunately, you also need it to come in a form that can be fed into a 3D printer, usually a powder. Now try to look up the properties for aluminum that started as a powder before it went through a 3D printing process. You may not be able to find that info.


Addendum: Let me just close the circle on my above statement. This issue of having a long record for some materials is therefore a factor in deciding if you are going to use that material in your manufacturing process, and could even be a factor in what process you use. So a company may be thinking that 3D printing a part is attractive and they may want to do that. But then they consider the materials, and if they use a traditional material with a long pedigree (some metal alloy that has been in use for decades), they don't have to do any testing of that material, they just manufacture it. They can start immediately. But if they want to do 3D printing, they might have to use a new material that they then have to test for a number of years, at great expense and delaying their product. So they might choose to simply cast that metal part instead of 3D printing it based entirely on the existing knowledge of a material they are going to use. Materials and manufacturing isn't something I know much about, but during my brief exposure to it, I learned a lot.

« Last Edit: 03/12/2023 05:09 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #95 on: 03/11/2023 05:24 pm »

 For example: air launching a spysat from an A-12 OXCART.


https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4307/1

That one just made no sense.

Even less since there is no room whatsoever on an A-12 to stick a large rocket - not on the back, not on the belly, and even less on a non-existing pylon.

Plus: not only the huge drag would kill the Mach 3.4 top speed, but even that velocity makes preciously little difference when launching things in orbit - because the rocket equation is (pardon the rude word) an exponential bastard thing.

A modified SR-71 already had difficulty dragging a D-21 drone on its back - when then did not crashed into each other. 

Funnily enough, a Mach 2 B-58 while a touch slower would be a better air-launch platform. As a Polaris size and weight evenly matches the usual big pod underneath. At least the rocket wouldn't screw the B-58 usual aerodynamics.

Project TOWN HALL ran in parallel with the A-12 studies, same year 1962 and using the same solid-fuel rocket - a Polaris !
« Last Edit: 03/11/2023 05:27 pm by Harry Cover »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #96 on: 03/11/2023 05:39 pm »
Even less since there is no room whatsoever on an A-12 to stick a large rocket - not on the back, not on the belly, and even less on a non-existing pylon.

Plus: not only the huge drag would kill the Mach 3.4 top speed, but even that velocity makes preciously little difference when launching things in orbit - because the rocket equation is (pardon the rude word) an exponential bastard thing.

A modified SR-71 already had difficulty dragging a D-21 drone on its back - when then did not crashed into each other. 

Funnily enough, a Mach 2 B-58 while a touch slower would be a better air-launch platform. As a Polaris size and weight evenly matches the usual big pod underneath. At least the rocket wouldn't screw the B-58 usual aerodynamics.

Project TOWN HALL ran in parallel with the A-12 studies, same year 1962 and using the same solid-fuel rocket - a Polaris !


About 5 years ago I was at AIAA's SciTech conference and there was a session on air-launching satellites. Somebody there said that at that time there were something like 20 companies with proposals for air-launching. Now a lot of times these companies are not even companies but just one or two people who have put out some press and are looking for money and may not even have filed paperwork creating their company. But it was a surprise to me how many still wanted to do this. People have been launching rockets into space for 65 years now and there have been almost no air-launched rockets.

I swear that at some point long ago I saw a proposal in the CREST archives for a C-130-launched rocket, but I've never been able to re-find it. Would have been mid-1960s.

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #97 on: 03/11/2023 07:14 pm »
I'm doing all kind of rocket calculations those days, because I'm such a rocket nerd. It starts from the C-130 Hercules max payload, which becomes a two stage rocket with a certain mass fraction and specific impulse. End result is such system can throw 2000 to 3000 pounds to orbit, which is not much and not GEO.

A B-52H could throw approximately 4000-5000 pounds to orbit from the same wing pylon that once dropped X-15s. Not much of a gain compared to a much cheaper Hercules.

Even with a C-5A dropping something akin to a S-IV or S-IVB: no more than 20 000 pounds to orbit.

Basic issue is that the payload to orbit rise much slowly than the size and cost of the aircraft mothership. That's the crux of the matter with air launch.

Even maxing out a Stratolaunch payload of 250 mt with some kind of fat S-IVB, payload is still inferior to, say, an Ariane 5 or a Proton or a Falcon 9 - so what's the point ? 

In a sense,  the largest air launch systems fall into a hole between manned spaceflight - not enough payload - and commercial space - not GEO, or not enough to LEO.

The bulk of possible combinations falls between 2000 and 10 000 pounds to orbit.

At least it makes some fun rocket porn, mixing aircraft cargo and two stage boosters; throwing concepts against the wall and see what sticks.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2023 07:21 pm by Harry Cover »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #98 on: 03/12/2023 10:49 am »
A number of years ago I worked on a report about additive manufacturing--also known as 3D printing. I didn't have much experience with the materials or manufacturing people. One thing that I learned was that there are certain materials, primarily metals, that have a very long lineage and therefore very well known properties. It's all kept in reference manuals. So if you want to know the strength of aluminum at minus 20 degrees C, it's in a book. If you want to know about fatigue cracks under heavy loads for 5 years, it's in a book. You don't need to do your own testing, or study the problem for a decade. That's one of the issues with selecting materials for 3D printers. You want to use something with very well known properties. Unfortunately, you also need it to come in a form that can be fed into a 3D printer, usually a powder. Now try to look up the properties for aluminum that started as a powder before it went through a 3D printing process. You may not be able to find that info.
Yes, what does the actual 3d printing process do to those material properties?

I used the word pedigree about this subject.

What if I'm running a startup and I want something to carry LH2? If it's SS301 I know (or can find out) , because that's what the Centaur tanks are made from and it's in a report somewhere.

But (for example) this new 6 element alloy that's mostly Al/Ti? Sounds promising. But if no one's done it then I'm going to have to get that alloy, make test pieces and apply LH2

And what if it fails?

Likewise there was a lot of materials testing done in the 60's for high temperature matierals and lot of them failed

But that was for use as gas turbine blades for 10s of 1000s of hours.

But TPS use is nowhere near that life time. My instinct is that some of those "faillures" could make very acceptable reusable TPS. It's just that they were not tested for those conditions.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #99 on: 03/12/2023 11:01 am »
About 5 years ago I was at AIAA's SciTech conference and there was a session on air-launching satellites. Somebody there said that at that time there were something like 20 companies with proposals for air-launching. Now a lot of times these companies are not even companies but just one or two people who have put out some press and are looking for money and may not even have filed paperwork creating their company. But it was a surprise to me how many still wanted to do this. People have been launching rockets into space for 65 years now and there have been almost no air-launched rockets.

I swear that at some point long ago I saw a proposal in the CREST archives for a C-130-launched rocket, but I've never been able to re-find it. Would have been mid-1960s.
I'm pretty sure HMX has had some involvment with at least one of those projects.

and there was definitely an air drop from a Herucles of a Minuteman stage in the mid 70's.

And let's not forget the Douglas Skybolt ICBM c1962.  I was astonished that this was 1/11 the size of the Orbital Pegasus (5000lb Vs 55000lb)  :o

The trouble is the support costs for the launch aircraft unless you can rent it and fit (and remove) all the support hardware as-and-when you need it.

The other issue (for solids) is your vehicle price is set by your stage mfg's prices.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #100 on: 03/12/2023 05:14 pm »
Even less since there is no room whatsoever on an A-12 to stick a large rocket - not on the back, not on the belly, and even less on a non-existing pylon.

Plus: not only the huge drag would kill the Mach 3.4 top speed, but even that velocity makes preciously little difference when launching things in orbit - because the rocket equation is (pardon the rude word) an exponential bastard thing.

I remember years ago reading an explanation of this and somebody pointed out that most of the value in air launch is from the altitude, not added velocity. Going fast doesn't help all that much, and it comes with its own drawbacks.

[Update: one other thing that I just remembered is that a related issue is the altitude that you lose after deploying the rocket. If you drop it at 35,000 feet and it falls 2,000 feet that and the downward velocity from falling are things that have to be reversed. So maybe having some speed for deployment makes up for that. But this is all a discussion for another thread, and has probably been discussed on NSF many times by people who actually understand it.]

When I first encountered that A-12 launcher concept,* I initially thought that this was an example of the airplane people not really knowing much about rockets and coming up with a bad design. But I realized that wasn't really fair. It was proposed in 1962, and the rocket/space people had not really been around that long, and most of them had come out of the airplane side. Proposals like that are less understandable when they came many years later, because people should have known better by then.






*I found that document in the CREST archives soon after it was declassified, but I never published anything about it. Unfortunately, that meant that when the archives went online, other people found it, so I lost my scoop.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2023 11:44 am by Blackstar »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #101 on: 03/13/2023 09:50 am »
1-There is a whole laundry list of books I'd like to get, once some of our damn bills are paid, and Shades Of Gray: National Security And The Evolution Of Space Reconnaissance by L. Parker Temple is one I was thinking about.
Has anyone read it? Amazon gave it an ok rating.

2-I have to say Blackstar, you get access to some pretty neat stuff.

1-I suggest getting it through interlibrary loan to see if you really want it.  If I remember correctly, it is very expensive.  I think the material is dated now.

2-Requires lots of effort.

I'm sure #2 is true, but re #1 I'd note that price seems lower now (first grab) and it's currently on archive.org if you want to browse. https://archive.org/details/shadesofgraynati0000temp/page/n5/mode/2up

It's heavy going but he has a rare inside perspective,  and bits were interesting to me e.g. his take on Hans Mark and the Titan 34D. I think it's of more interest on non-NRO history than NRO history though, perhaps because so little could be said when he wrote it by someone with his official background. I thought his article on Shuttle was good though, Libra posted about this a year or two ago in one of these history threads.

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #102 on: 03/13/2023 06:09 pm »
Lockheed Martin: "The SR-71 Blackbird is still the fastest acknowledged crewed air-breathing jet aircraft."

acknowledged  8)

https://twitter.com/LockheedMartin/status/1635026632032362497

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #103 on: 03/13/2023 07:31 pm »
Lockheed Martin: "The SR-71 Blackbird is still the fastest acknowledged crewed air-breathing jet aircraft."

acknowledged  8)

I think they were joking there. It's a reference to the movie.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #104 on: 03/18/2023 12:12 pm »
I worked on my ISINGLASS and RHEINBERRY sections for my article last night and think that I have a bit of a better understanding of them. I will post those sections of my draft article here shortly. But the quick version:

ISINGLASS appears to have started around March of 1964 and was finally canceled by 1967. General Dynamics proposed a vehicle that would travel at Mach 4-5 and 110,000 feet, but this was rejected because it would have been vulnerable to air defenses. McDonnell proposed a vehicle that would have traveled at Mach 20 and 200,000 feet. It would have been rocket-powered using a new rocket engine. Both proposals would have been dropped from a B-52. McDonnell may have spent a considerable amount of internal R&D funding on their design. It would have involved 3 test aircraft and 5 operational aircraft.

Although ISINGLASS was dead by 1967, Pratt & Whitney had a rocket study contract that ran thru 1972. This led into their competition to build the shuttle's SSME, but they did not win that contract.

RHEINBERRY appears to have been a proposal around 1965 that had the same flight goals as ISINGLASS (Mach 20, 200K feet), but it is unclear how it actually differed from the ISINGLASS design being pushed by McDonnell.

ISINGLASS would have been a very expensive program.

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #105 on: 03/18/2023 01:24 pm »
Not sure whether you checked this archive already but there seems to be material on ISINGLASS, CORONA at the Online Archive of California (OAC). Examples

Wheelon (Albert D.) papers 1917-2013, Box 93, Folder 10 DECLASSIFIED Project Isinglass (U.S.), (2010)
and
The Finding Aid of the Cecil and Gladys Brown Edwards Papers 0005, box 8, folder 46

Probably not relevant for ISINGLASS but there is also a Ben rich archive for CL-400 fans

PS: To answer my own question, as OAC includes "The Space review" printouts, you probably knew ;)
« Last Edit: 03/18/2023 01:26 pm by leovinus »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #106 on: 03/18/2023 02:12 pm »
PS: To answer my own question, as OAC includes "The Space review" printouts, you probably knew ;)

I did not know. However, my suspicion is that this entry in Wheelon's papers contains material that I sent him in the 2000s.

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #107 on: 03/18/2023 02:31 pm »
Quote
RHEINBERRY appears to have been a proposal around 1965 that had the same flight goals as ISINGLASS

Veeery interesting. Wonder who made that proposal then.

Seems there is a distinction to be made between
-"Second ISINGLASS"
-"That RHEINBERRY that overlapped with the second ISINGLASS".

As for Pratt XLR-129 it could have been either for "second ISINGLASS" or "That RHEINBERRY that overlapped with the second ISINGLASS".
Wonder how these two were related...

« Last Edit: 03/18/2023 02:37 pm by Harry Cover »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #108 on: 03/18/2023 05:49 pm »
Quote
RHEINBERRY appears to have been a proposal around 1965 that had the same flight goals as ISINGLASS

Veeery interesting. Wonder who made that proposal then.

Seems there is a distinction to be made between
-"Second ISINGLASS"
-"That RHEINBERRY that overlapped with the second ISINGLASS".

As for Pratt XLR-129 it could have been either for "second ISINGLASS" or "That RHEINBERRY that overlapped with the second ISINGLASS".
Wonder how these two were related...

Wheelon told me that General Schriever was interested in a scramjet. I wonder if RHEINBERRY was a scramjet vehicle and they determined that would be too difficult to achieve, so they abandoned that program.


Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #109 on: 03/18/2023 07:07 pm »
Quote
RHEINBERRY appears to have been a proposal around 1965 that had the same flight goals as ISINGLASS

Veeery interesting. Wonder who made that proposal then.

Seems there is a distinction to be made between
-"Second ISINGLASS"
-"That RHEINBERRY that overlapped with the second ISINGLASS".

As for Pratt XLR-129 it could have been either for "second ISINGLASS" or "That RHEINBERRY that overlapped with the second ISINGLASS".
Wonder how these two were related...

Wheelon told me that General Schriever was interested in a scramjet. I wonder if RHEINBERRY was a scramjet vehicle and they determined that would be too difficult to achieve, so they abandoned that program.
From the 1-page RHEINBERRY document, including the hand-written side note, I got the impression that RHEINBERRY was a boost-glide vehicle as well. Could it be that they just kept the codename ISINGLASS, and retired RHEINBERRY?

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #110 on: 03/18/2023 07:13 pm »
I've seen tech papers that hoped to push scramjets as fast as Mach 20 - if not to orbit. Documents going all the way from the 1960's to well into the 1980's. Imagine, the prospect of going into orbit without that pesky LOX oxidizer and its enormous mass.

Nowadays we know how hard it is to get any thrust out of these engine even at Mach 8 - mach 10. And only for smallish cruise missiles.

But back then it was believed scramjets could go well past Mach 12 if not to orbit. So a paper discussing a scramjet RHEINBERRY with a Mach 20 speed could exist. Probably a naive, uber-optimistical sales pitch.  By people like Tony du Pont.

Du Pont in the 1960's was part of the X-15 HRE podded scramjet that almost melted the X-15A2 during the October 3, 1967 historical mach 7.2 flight. Podded scramjets proved to be a very bad idea.
Fifteen years later, same person grossly oversold another scramjet concept, first to DARPA and then to the Reagan administration - COPPER CANYON, X-30, Orient Express...

Richard Hallion in his book had few good things to say about Du Pont. But I digress. I can see a similar *bright eyed* scramjet sales pitch to Schriever happening in the mid-1960's.

A "Mach 20 scramjet vehicle" (RHEINBERRY or not) would make  some sense as it would somewhat bridge a gap between the two ISINGLASS
- "Mach 4.5 ramjet" - too slow
- "Mach 20 with a XLR-129 rocket." - rockets are too voracious, oxidizer sucks.
Kind of trying to have one's cake (airbreathing, screw oxidizer !) and eat it (Mach 20 rocket speed).

For example the three vehicles could (theoretically) be pitched as some kind of stepped / phased program
- Phase 1: slow & airbreathing (ISINGLASS-ramjet)
- Phase 2: fast, but rocket (ISINGLASS-rocket)
- Phase 3: fast AND airbreathing *altogether* (a scramjet vehicle - whatever its name)

This is the way NASA would pitch such a program. Can see tech papers with titles like "A phased approach to hypersonic reconnaissance". Then again, maybe I'm reading too much NASA papers.  ;D
« Last Edit: 03/18/2023 07:26 pm by Harry Cover »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #111 on: 03/19/2023 01:16 pm »
As I've been writing this one up I keep scratching my head about why the CIA thought it was a good idea. It had very limited utility. It would have provided a single photo pass roughly 50 nautical miles wide and 6000 nautical miles long. Okay, what is the value of that? What happens if the interesting stuff is outside of that swath?

And my suspicion is that it had very little final crossrange capability, meaning that it pretty much had to be pointed at the landing location. So if the target of interest is not along that path (because the vehicle could not reach its landing spot), then you're not able to use it.


Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #112 on: 03/19/2023 04:34 pm »
As I've been writing this one up I keep scratching my head about why the CIA thought it was a good idea. It had very limited utility. It would have provided a single photo pass roughly 50 nautical miles wide and 6000 nautical miles long. Okay, what is the value of that? What happens if the interesting stuff is outside of that swath?

And my suspicion is that it had very little final crossrange capability, meaning that it pretty much had to be pointed at the landing location. So if the target of interest is not along that path (because the vehicle could not reach its landing spot), then you're not able to use it.
I've been wondering the same. In the mid 1960s they argued that the Aircaft Reconnaissance System system could provide a back-up in case US recon sats would be taken out by Soviet or Chinese asat weapons.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00822R000100110002-4.pdf

In 1969 their rationale for the continuation of OSA's Advanced Aircraft Program was that it provides "a (survivable) quick reaction strategic reconnaissance capability". They stress, though, that it is "not aimed at Crisis Reconnaissance, per se".
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75B00159R000100150019-5.pdf

If I understand the threat analysis for "MODEL 192" correctly, the USSR's network of early warning radar and SA-5/TALLINN/"GALLOSH" (GAMMON) missiles restricted potential penetration and overflight paths quite a bit in particular over the western USSR.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2023 04:37 pm by hoku »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #113 on: 03/19/2023 06:13 pm »
I realized that I might be misreading some of the documents and have a different interpretation now.

I think that RHEINBERRY may have originally been the name for the McDonnell proposal. ISINGLASS was the name for a General Dynamics proposal. The GD proposal was then rejected, and perhaps at that point the McDonnell proposal became ISINGLASS.

Considering that what is described as the McDonnell proposal here as RHEINBERRY is what essentially continued on as ISINGLASS, that seems to make the most sense.

Or am I misunderstanding stuff?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #114 on: 03/19/2023 06:42 pm »
I've been wondering the same. In the mid 1960s they argued that the Aircraft Reconnaissance System system could provide a back-up in case US recon sats would be taken out by Soviet or Chinese asat weapons.


So that's a good point.

But I still find this puzzling. It seems that they could have (probably did?) studied all the targets that the vehicle could photograph given the operational constraints. That would have indicated what they could not photograph too.

Now if they were not thinking of ISINGLASS as a crisis response vehicle, that would change the calculations a bit. Crisis response would require them to photograph a limited set of targets, such as the Israeli-Egyptian border and Eastern Europe (looking for a potential invasion force). If those targets were not reachable by ISINGLASS, then it obviously could not do that mission. There's no point in photographing 200 miles behind the border when you want to spot the tanks that are massed 50 miles behind the border.

I guess this might come down to a case of what factors were driving their decision making. Were they just really enamored of a super fast rocketplane and that drove their desires more than an operational requirement? Or did they have some studies that showed that this thing might actually be valuable?

(Of course, we're being very theoretical here, because they didn't build it.)

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #115 on: 03/19/2023 07:38 pm »
<snip>

I guess this might come down to a case of what factors were driving their decision making. Were they just really enamored of a super fast rocketplane and that drove their desires more than an operational requirement? Or did they have some studies that showed that this thing might actually be valuable?

(Of course, we're being very theoretical here, because they didn't build it.)
Part of their motivation might have been institutional "inertia".

U-2 flew higher, and had a smaller radar cross-section than previous recon planes, yet it had a limited operational survivability window. Thus they developed the A-12, which flew faster and higher, and supposedly had an even smaller radar cross-section (the experiments with the EMERALD and KEMPSTER devices, and the Cesium as fuel additive suggest that the operational A-12/SR-71 were not as stealthy as they hoped for).

The next "logical step" in the arms race was a still faster and higher flying plane, i.e. Project RHEINBERRY/ISINGLASS.

The alternatives for achieving 1 ft or better resolution over denied territories, i.e. GAMBIT and TAGBOARD were also just getting started in 1963/1964, thus at that time ISINGLASS might have had its raison d'etre.

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #116 on: 03/19/2023 08:10 pm »
I realized that I might be misreading some of the documents and have a different interpretation now.

I think that RHEINBERRY may have originally been the name for the McDonnell proposal. ISINGLASS was the name for a General Dynamics proposal. The GD proposal was then rejected, and perhaps at that point the McDonnell proposal became ISINGLASS.

Considering that what is described as the McDonnell proposal here as RHEINBERRY is what essentially continued on as ISINGLASS, that seems to make the most sense.

Or am I misunderstanding stuff?
In May 1968, OSA expressed a bias against two out of four(?) potential "contractors". One contractor is blamed for the "recent F-111 fiasco", thus Convair/General Dynamics were probably not in the best standing with the Air Force at that time.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9329
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #117 on: 03/20/2023 10:06 am »
I realized that I might be misreading some of the documents and have a different interpretation now.

I think that RHEINBERRY may have originally been the name for the McDonnell proposal. ISINGLASS was the name for a General Dynamics proposal. The GD proposal was then rejected, and perhaps at that point the McDonnell proposal became ISINGLASS.

Considering that what is described as the McDonnell proposal here as RHEINBERRY is what essentially continued on as ISINGLASS, that seems to make the most sense.

Or am I misunderstanding stuff?
It's possible there was some programme name politics going on: Initially using RHEINBERY to separate the concept from ISINGLASS (which at that point was looking to be on the chopping block due to not being sufficiently performant to do the job), then with the requirements change to a Mach 20 vehicle renaming to ISINGLAS II - and later just ISINGLASS again - to give the impression of a mere iteration to an existing vehicle programme rather than development of a whole new and otherwise unrelated vehicle (in a similar attempt to the Crusader III).

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #118 on: 03/20/2023 12:01 pm »
I realized that I might be misreading some of the documents and have a different interpretation now.

I think that RHEINBERRY may have originally been the name for the McDonnell proposal. ISINGLASS was the name for a General Dynamics proposal. The GD proposal was then rejected, and perhaps at that point the McDonnell proposal became ISINGLASS.

Considering that what is described as the McDonnell proposal here as RHEINBERRY is what essentially continued on as ISINGLASS, that seems to make the most sense.

Or am I misunderstanding stuff?
It's possible there was some programme name politics going on: Initially using RHEINBERY to separate the concept from ISINGLASS (which at that point was looking to be on the chopping block due to not being sufficiently performant to do the job), then with the requirements change to a Mach 20 vehicle renaming to ISINGLAS II - and later just ISINGLASS again - to give the impression of a mere iteration to an existing vehicle programme rather than development of a whole new and otherwise unrelated vehicle (in a similar attempt to the Crusader III).

A bit like the proverbial "ship rebuild" - where they actually build a whole new ship around the former ship bell and call that "an upgrade". LMAO.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #119 on: 03/20/2023 12:42 pm »
ISINGLASS is really only going to be a relatively short section of my much bigger article. But I've fallen down the rabbit hole on it and am trying to climb out. Late last night I found myself skimming dozens of documents about it when I should have gone to bed.

The program was really pushed by CIA and opposed by the NRO. I think the primary opposition was the cost, plus the lack of a clear requirement for it. There were also concerns about vulnerability. There are indications that CIA just couldn't find the funds, and McD funded it internally probably a bit too much. Everybody knew it was going to be really expensive. And some docs I skimmed confirmed things I learned elsewhere, like they got USAF to fund the rocket engine. ISINGLASS appears to have been an active program until around 1968, which is longer than I thought, with the engine contract going into the early 1970s. However, "active" mainly means limited study. They were not starting development. Some demonstration hardware--subscale structure and thermal protection system--was produced.

So far I have not found anything that surprised me, except that CIA was pushing for it a lot more than I thought.

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #120 on: 03/20/2023 01:16 pm »
Quote
But I've fallen down the rabbit hole on it and am trying to climb out. Late last night I found myself skimming dozens of documents about it when I should have gone to bed.

Ha ha. I've fallen down the AIAA, SAE, NTRS, DTIC (and others) rabbit hole in 2002 - when as a student I finally got a regular access to the Internet.

Still trying to get out of the rabbit hole... 21 years later.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #121 on: 03/20/2023 03:01 pm »
Quote
But I've fallen down the rabbit hole on it and am trying to climb out. Late last night I found myself skimming dozens of documents about it when I should have gone to bed.

Ha ha. I've fallen down the AIAA, SAE, NTRS, DTIC (and others) rabbit hole in 2002 - when as a student I finally got a regular access to the Internet.

Still trying to get out of the rabbit hole... 21 years later.

Almost every article that I write where I decide "this will be a short one" results in me finding more and more interesting stuff. My problem with ISINGLASS is that I only want to write a short entry in an article, but I do want to understand it properly to be accurate. I think I can do that now.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #122 on: 03/20/2023 03:21 pm »
So far I have not found anything that surprised me, except that CIA was pushing for it a lot more than I thought.

Was it the CIA as a whole, or DDS&T, or NRO Program D specifically ? I ask because I don't really know what they  did after the A-12, apart for some audacious but presumably relatively cheap drone programmes.

And by "they", I'm not really sure if I mean CIA or Program D. There's quite a lot in the Wizards of Langley on aviation but it's a long time since I read it.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #123 on: 03/20/2023 03:39 pm »
So far I have not found anything that surprised me, except that CIA was pushing for it a lot more than I thought.

Was it the CIA as a whole, or DDS&T, or NRO Program D specifically ? I ask because I don't really know what they  did after the A-12, apart for some audacious but presumably relatively cheap drone programmes.

And by "they", I'm not really sure if I mean CIA or Program D. There's quite a lot in the Wizards of Langley on aviation but it's a long time since I read it.

Seems like it was DDS&T. But I don't know. I only have a limited number of documents, I skimmed them late at night, and I'm not doing a deep dive into this now.

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #124 on: 03/20/2023 07:02 pm »
Quote
apart for some audacious but presumably relatively cheap drone programmes.

What baffles me is COMPASS ARROW and TAGBOARD drones. Build at the same period for the same target (Lop Nor PRC nuclear grounds) with some limited common features such as "pre-stealth" low RCS. But different organisations - once again, USAF vs CIA aerial reconnaissance turf war.

TAGBOARD flew just in time (1968) to make a few missions to Lop Nor - all of them failed one way or another.

COMPASS ARROW was a bit late and couldn't even reach IOC before Nixon - rather than spy drones - went to China and screwed both programs to befriend Mao.

Both drones were fantastic technical achievements but never get a chance to shine. Which I could know more about COMPASS ARROW. Any declassification for that one, someday ?
« Last Edit: 03/20/2023 07:03 pm by Harry Cover »

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #125 on: 03/20/2023 07:44 pm »
Do you have names of people involved with COMPASS ARROW? Sometimes it is easier to search for and through personal archives as opposed to FOIA the services directly.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #126 on: 03/20/2023 08:58 pm »
Quote
apart for some audacious but presumably relatively cheap drone programmes.

What baffles me is COMPASS ARROW and TAGBOARD drones. Build at the same period for the same target (Lop Nor PRC nuclear grounds) with some limited common features such as "pre-stealth" low RCS. But different organisations - once again, USAF vs CIA aerial reconnaissance turf war.

TAGBOARD flew just in time (1968) to make a few missions to Lop Nor - all of them failed one way or another.

COMPASS ARROW was a bit late and couldn't even reach IOC before Nixon - rather than spy drones - went to China and screwed both programs to befriend Mao.

Both drones were fantastic technical achievements but never get a chance to shine. Which I could know more about COMPASS ARROW. Any declassification for that one, someday ?

Add in AQUILINE.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/aquiline


Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #127 on: 03/20/2023 09:57 pm »
Here is what CIA historians Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach wrote in 1992:
"(...) the Office of Special Activities did briefly consider several possible successors to the OXCART during the mid-1960s. The first of these, known as Project ISINGLASS, was prepared by General Dynamics to utilize technology developed for its Convair Division’s 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 (...)"
https://ia803405.us.archive.org/2/items/ufos-fact-or-fiction/DOC_0000190094.pdf

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #128 on: 03/20/2023 11:05 pm »
Here is what CIA historians Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach wrote in 1992:
"(...) the Office of Special Activities did briefly consider several possible successors to the OXCART during the mid-1960s. The first of these, known as Project ISINGLASS, was prepared by General Dynamics to utilize technology developed for its Convair Division’s 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 (...)"


That's pretty much directly from the RHEINBERRY page posted up-thread. That's where they got it from.

My suspicion is that the ISINGLASS documents that have been declassified were ones that Pedlow and Welzenbach collected for their work. There has to be bigger stash of ISINGLASS documents still in a storage facility somewhere.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #129 on: 03/21/2023 02:37 pm »
This is only loosely related, but I wanted to share the link anyways. The National Security Archive has released a bunch of declassified videos on the US Air Force in the 1960s:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2023-03-20/filming-armageddon-air-force-movies-depict-us-preparations?fbclid=IwAR0RCX-wV8cDbQfrzlQFkG197prGVhLQAzI1qvttlqdjgRTIBf464wfhQS0


Filming Armageddon: Air Force Movies Depict U.S. Preparations for Nuclear War
USAirforce


Washington, D.C., March 20, 2023 – The declassified Air Force film shows the crew of a U.S. B-52 bomber reaching its “Positive Control” (“fail safe”) point on the way to its target in the Soviet Union. But instead of turning around as usual, they get an order to proceed to their assigned objective. Having received and authenticated a “Go Code” message from U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC), the pilot announces, “We’re going in,” navigating the aircraft in low over mountains, lakes, fields, and forests to avoid Soviet air defenses. The dramatic soundtrack swells as the bomber nears its target, unleashes its nuclear payload, and then speeds away to create “separation distance” between itself and the effects of the resulting explosion. Undamaged by the thermal blast and shockwave, the aircrew heads back home, but not before flying through “the contaminated cloud of another bomb dropped 30 minutes ago” by a different SAC B-52.

While this dramatization of a U.S. nuclear strike is reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 classic, Dr. Strangelove, it’s actually the climactic sequence of a 1960 SAC training film recently declassified by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Titled “Nuclear Effects During SAC Delivery Missions,” the film’s purpose is to familiarize SAC pilots and crew members with the devastating effects of nuclear weapons detonations and the detailed plans that the command had developed to help the crews evade the dangers of navigating through a nuclear battlefield. The narrator assures trainees that SAC had taken into account the effects of the blasts on U.S. aircrews and had prepared a “workable plan for every sortie to and from the target area.” SAC crewmembers are advised that they can safely navigate the aircraft home “if you follow rigidly your flight plan.”

Today’s posting includes the “Nuclear Effects” film and four other movies produced by SAC and the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s that were declassified in response to requests by the National Security Archive. Published here for the first time, the films reveal how SAC prepared bomber pilots and crews for nuclear war, educated them on the effects of the devastating weapons, and acquainted them with the contents of their “Combat Mission Folders,” which included guidance needed to reach targets and return to base safely.


Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #130 on: 03/22/2023 04:20 am »
Quote
Add in AQUILINE.

That one was so smartass it ended pretty baffling. "Hey, let's build a spy drone masquerading as a bird of prey so that the chinese doesn't notice it. Oh, and it must fly 3000 miles because Lop Nor is so far away."

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #131 on: 03/22/2023 09:57 pm »
Digging this further... cleaned up file 2.0, attached.

-------

No idea what S-105 / ISINGLASS would do with a "Skybolt 2nd stage". Perhaps an auxiliary rocket engine to help accelerating the ramjets from the B-58's Mach 2 to ISINGLASS Mach 4 cruise speed ? Ramjets work better at mach 3 than Mach 2... they usually need a booster.

--------

S-103 "air launched reconnaissance satellite" the booster is a Minuteman II + Able-Star stage as described on Ed Kyle website.

AJ10-41 was Able-Star engine.

https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/thorh2.html

https://minutemanmissile.com/solidrocketboosters.html

I did some calculations for a B-52 + Minuteman II + Able-Star launcher; the overall weight and payload to orbit matches very well.

Minuteman II 63 000 pounds and Able-star is 10 000 pounds, so total 73 000 pounds.

Payload to orbit corresponds, too: 1100 pounds.
Since the column labeled "S-105 Ramjet" in the chart lists "ramjet" and "Skybolt 2nd stage" as the powerplant for the vehicle called "S-105 Ramjet", it is possible that the "S-105 Ramjet" vehicle would have used a Skybolt-based rocket booster to propel it to speeds at which the ramjet would take in enough air to accelerate the aircraft to Mach 4, given that the X-43 experimental hypersonic aircraft had to be boosted to hypersonic speed by a Pegasus booster, after which it ignited the scramjet. In Scott Lowther's bookazine Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird: Origins and Evolution, there is a short entry in Chapter 2 about a proposed swing-wing derivative of the FISH reconnaissance aircraft project, called VSF-1, which was envisaged in November 1963 and would have been air-launched from the B-58. Since the launch platform for the vehicle labeled "S-105 Ramjet" is listed as the B-58, the possibility that General Dynamics's ISINGLASS proposal took the form of a derivative of the VSF-1 designed to be boosted to supersonic speeds by a rocket booster before igniting the ramjets for Mach 4 can't be ruled out, since the altitude given for the "S-105 Ramjet" (95,000 to 110,000 feet) is largely consistent with the 110,000 foot altitude given for the General Dynamics design in the only declassified CIA document that mentions the name RHEINBERRY.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2023 10:22 pm by Vahe231991 »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9329
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #132 on: 03/23/2023 06:45 am »
Quote
Add in AQUILINE.

That one was so smartass it ended pretty baffling. "Hey, let's build a spy drone masquerading as a bird of prey so that the chinese doesn't notice it. Oh, and it must fly 3000 miles because Lop Nor is so far away."
I can kind of see how it would make sense at the time. The 500P "Quiet One", QT-2PC "PRIZE CREW" and YO-3 Quiet Star were all successful (and operationally used) manned low-observable aircraft - not RADAR stealth specifically, but visual and audio stealth combined with very low altitude flight. AQUILINE's mission appears to mirror those efforts, but on an unmanned platform. It may have been overambitious in capability (e.g. deploying listening hardware autonomously rather than by dropping crew into trees to install and then picking them up as with Quiet One missions), but 'replace crew with more fuel, penetrate deeper into denied areas' is not an unreasonable goal.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #133 on: 03/23/2023 03:21 pm »
Robert Perry in his histories liked to bring up the issue of technology push vs. requirements pull. This is a theory that has gone around in the history of science and technology as well as histories of defense procurement, that looks at the development of some device--often a weapons system--as primarily the result of one or the other. Were there pressing requirements that forced (pulled) the development of the new thing (plane, weapon, instrument), or were people in an organization or company pushing the technology as far as they could, without a clear requirement?

ISINGLASS looks to me more like it was a case of technology-push: they wanted something that would fly higher and faster than the OXCART, but there was no clear requirement for that vehicle.

Now I'm sure that they thought that they were responding to a requirement. They looked at Soviet SAM development and they knew that the OXCART was going to be vulnerable, so the requirement in their view was to beat the SAMs. But I think that mostly assumed that the requirement that was originally filled by the U-2, and then the OXCART, was still valid and would continue to be valid. I don't think that CIA was able to convince anybody else that was really true. There were other ways to fulfill requirements that were at least adjacent to the quick reaction reconnaissance requirement--in other words, gathering SIGINT and other kinds of intel might have filled in some of the gap and so quick-reaction reconnaissance was not as high priority.



Caveat: like all theories, one should not take this one too far. Often requirements can be vague, and so new technologies can be justified as filling them. It's rarely clear-cut.


Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #134 on: 03/23/2023 04:47 pm »
I find the "Advanced Reconnaissance Aircraft Study" from Nov 1966 quite interesting. It lists A-12 and SR-71 "Mission requirements":
1. Strategic recon in peacetime of USSR, China + their allies
2. Force mobilisation recon of China and European Warsaw Pact members
3. Recon for general war crisis over USSR (+China)
4. SIOP recon of USSR (post-strike damage assessment)

The mission requirements should also have been applicable to ISINGLASS.  They discuss the requirement with respect to present and future optical and radar recon sat (KH-8, KH-9, FROG, MOL ,..) and drone (TAGBOARD, etc) capabilities. Overall, they still see a "need" for the A-12/SR-71 over the following 2 to 5 years.

I was surprised by the accumulated costs of the A-12/SR-71 program. By the end of FY66, a total of 2.073 billions US$ had been spent (about 16.5% of what had been spent on the Apollo program at that time). This makes me wonder about the projected cost of the "very expensive" ISINGLASS project.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2023 04:48 pm by hoku »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #135 on: 03/23/2023 06:18 pm »

I was surprised by the accumulated costs of the A-12/SR-71 program. By the end of FY66, a total of 2.073 billions US$ had been spent (about 16.5% of what had been spent on the Apollo program at that time). This makes me wonder about the projected cost of the "very expensive" ISINGLASS project.

From my article (because it is the easiest thing to look up right now):

“Well, of course, the bill was, by anybody’s standards, pretty staggering. It was like the eight vehicles were spaced out over three years and the total cost was like $2.6 billion. And this was in 1965 dollars.” (Roughly $18 billion in 2010 dollars.) “It got a very polite reception, like everybody in the audience clapped with one hand.”

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


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #136 on: 03/23/2023 06:23 pm »

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #137 on: 03/24/2023 02:16 am »

Given that the book Advanced Engine Development at Pratt & Whitney: The Inside Story of Eight Special Projects, 1946-1971 which includes the chapter titled "Boost Glide and the XLR129 -- Mach 20 at 200,000 Feet" was published in 2001, is it reasonable to assume that McDonnell project documents for the Model 192 design for ISINGLASS were declassified in the late 1990s?

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #138 on: 03/24/2023 02:31 am »
ISINGLASS is really only going to be a relatively short section of my much bigger article. But I've fallen down the rabbit hole on it and am trying to climb out. Late last night I found myself skimming dozens of documents about it when I should have gone to bed.

The program was really pushed by CIA and opposed by the NRO. I think the primary opposition was the cost, plus the lack of a clear requirement for it. There were also concerns about vulnerability. There are indications that CIA just couldn't find the funds, and McD funded it internally probably a bit too much. Everybody knew it was going to be really expensive. And some docs I skimmed confirmed things I learned elsewhere, like they got USAF to fund the rocket engine. ISINGLASS appears to have been an active program until around 1968, which is longer than I thought, with the engine contract going into the early 1970s. However, "active" mainly means limited study. They were not starting development. Some demonstration hardware--subscale structure and thermal protection system--was produced.

So far I have not found anything that surprised me, except that CIA was pushing for it a lot more than I thought.
I found another CIA document associating ISINGLASS with the McDonnell Model 192, this one from June 1967.

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #139 on: 03/24/2023 03:56 am »

I was surprised by the accumulated costs of the A-12/SR-71 program. By the end of FY66, a total of 2.073 billions US$ had been spent (about 16.5% of what had been spent on the Apollo program at that time). This makes me wonder about the projected cost of the "very expensive" ISINGLASS project.

From my article (because it is the easiest thing to look up right now):

“Well, of course, the bill was, by anybody’s standards, pretty staggering. It was like the eight vehicles were spaced out over three years and the total cost was like $2.6 billion. And this was in 1965 dollars.” (Roughly $18 billion in 2010 dollars.) “It got a very polite reception, like everybody in the audience clapped with one hand.”

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

Thing is, not only satellites are (relatively) cheap and low-tech; Agena was produced in rather large numbers for a spacecraft (362 total, of which at least 250 something were spysats - 144 CORONA and 92 GAMBIT, for a start. Plus the failed birds : ARGON, LANYARD).

Compared to ISINGLASS or RHEINBERRY, an Agena spysat looks like a bargain. Even with the launch costs. There is no pilot, no ECLSS, no heatshield, no landing gear or B-52 mothership, no tortured aerodynamic shape whatsoever.

It is merely an aluminium tin crammed with storable props, RCS and a guidance system - with the spysat stuff bolted to it: capsules in the back, camera in the front. 
« Last Edit: 03/24/2023 03:58 am by Harry Cover »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #140 on: 03/24/2023 03:02 pm »
Thing is, not only satellites are (relatively) cheap and low-tech; Agena was produced in rather large numbers for a spacecraft (362 total, of which at least 250 something were spysats - 144 CORONA and 92 GAMBIT, for a start. Plus the failed birds : ARGON, LANYARD).

Compared to ISINGLASS or RHEINBERRY, an Agena spysat looks like a bargain. Even with the launch costs. There is no pilot, no ECLSS, no heatshield, no landing gear or B-52 mothership, no tortured aerodynamic shape whatsoever.

It is merely an aluminium tin crammed with storable props, RCS and a guidance system - with the spysat stuff bolted to it: capsules in the back, camera in the front. 

I would not make that comparison. ISINGLASS was proposed for quick-reaction reconnaissance, a mission that the satellites at that time could not perform. The satellites were providing strategic reconnaissance (counting missiles, etc.), which was a mission that ISINGLASS could not perform.

Later in the decade, and particularly by the early 1970s, the NRO started to care a lot about the costs of their missions. HEXAGON cost twice as much as GAMBIT, and they were concerned about paying for about 4 missions of each type per year. (I'd also add that in that case, they were talking about their per-unit costs, whereas the multi-billion dollar figure for ISINGLASS covers development and production of a finite number of vehicles.)

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #141 on: 03/24/2023 08:36 pm »
I happened to find this drawing at the Secret Projects forum of the McDonnell Model 192 from a CIA presentation paper. Any idea when the document containing this drawing was written?
« Last Edit: 03/24/2023 10:40 pm by Vahe231991 »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #142 on: 03/24/2023 09:47 pm »
Later in the decade, and particularly by the early 1970s, the NRO started to care a lot about the costs of their missions. HEXAGON cost twice as much as GAMBIT, and they were concerned about paying for about 4 missions of each type per year. (I'd also add that in that case, they were talking about their per-unit costs, whereas the multi-billion dollar figure for ISINGLASS covers development and production of a finite number of vehicles.)

Let me muse a bit more: I don't know where to look, but I'll have to find a 1971 cost estimate of a CORONA vehicle. I remember one NRO document stating that CORONAs were really cheap. The Nixon administration was exerting budget cuts on the intelligence community by 1969 (one of the main reasons MOL got canceled). So at the same time they were under budget pressure, they were retiring a very cheap satellite in favor of a much more expensive one.

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #143 on: 03/24/2023 10:39 pm »
I happened to find this drawing at the Secret Projects forumof the McDonnell Model 192 from a CIA presentation paper. Any idea when the document containing this drawing was written?
Not sure about the original/earliest doc, but the drawing is included in a slide deck in a memo entitled "Reconnaissance Vehicle Concept Study for Fiscal Year 1969", dated 7. May 1968.

The memo is quite interesting as it explains the major design drivers:
1. boost glide vehicle with range > 4000 nm -> lift-over-drag ratio > 3 -> length > 30 ft
2. type and number of sensors + pilot for crewed vehicle -> volume requirement
etc.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #144 on: 03/25/2023 08:02 am »
"Four and twenty Blackbirds baked in a pie"

I find the "Advanced Reconnaissance Aircraft Study" from Nov 1966 quite interesting. It lists A-12 and SR-71 "Mission requirements":
1. Strategic recon in peacetime of USSR, China + their allies
2. Force mobilisation recon of China and European Warsaw Pact members
3. Recon for general war crisis over USSR (+China)
4. SIOP recon of USSR (post-strike damage assessment)

The mission requirements should also have been applicable to ISINGLASS.  They discuss the requirement with respect to present and future optical and radar recon sat (KH-8, KH-9, FROG, MOL ,..) and drone (TAGBOARD, etc) capabilities. Overall, they still see a "need" for the A-12/SR-71 over the following 2 to 5 years.

 


That's a truly fascinating doc, especially the discussions of requirements #3 and 4. To me the doc seems basically to argue that requirements 3 and 4 were by that point *the* USP of the A-12 and SR-71  compared to satellites, and paints an extraordinary picture of half a dozen Blackbirds flying over a devasted Soviet Union with side looking radars as part of SIOP post-strike assessment. One to read in full, thanks again hoku, you really do find 'em.

[Edit: the mention of a radar satellite for "sea based launch after  initial exchanges" might be one for the end of Blackstar's Roads Not Taken]
« Last Edit: 03/28/2023 10:34 am by LittleBird »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #145 on: 03/26/2023 03:59 pm »
"Take a shufti, don't come back"

So far I have not found anything that surprised me, except that CIA was pushing for it a lot more than I thought.

Was it the CIA as a whole, or DDS&T, or NRO Program D specifically ? I ask because I don't really know what they  did after the A-12, apart for some audacious but presumably relatively cheap drone programmes.

And by "they", I'm not really sure if I mean CIA or Program D. There's quite a lot in the Wizards of Langley on aviation but it's a long time since I read it.

Seems like it was DDS&T. But I don't know. I only have a limited number of documents, I skimmed them late at night, and I'm not doing a deep dive into this now.

Fortunately Some Guy wrote about it way back when in this thread ;-) https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18261.msg593028#msg593028 where it's said that the ISINGLASS ...

Quote
-project was sponsored by the airplane side of CIA, without the endorsement of the Directorate of Science and Technology.

If that lack of endorsement from DS&T continued to RHEINBERRY it would perhaps explain on its own why it was a non starter. [Edit: By the way, did Wheelon actually express his opinion of R or I in the interview you had with him ?]

I was also struck by some other points you had there in very pithy form:

Quote
-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.

    "Perkins, we are asking you to be that one man. I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. Get up in a crate, Perkins, pop over to Bremen, take a shufti, don't come back. Goodbye, Perkins. God, I wish I was going too."

----1961, Peter Cook, Beyond the Fringe (AfterMyth of War)
« Last Edit: 03/28/2023 10:35 am by LittleBird »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #146 on: 03/26/2023 04:53 pm »
"... it is not clear who will use the `hard copy' information ..."

This is only loosely related, but I wanted to share the link anyways. The National Security Archive has released a bunch of declassified videos on the US Air Force in the 1960s:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2023-03-20/filming-armageddon-air-force-movies-depict-us-preparations?fbclid=IwAR0RCX-wV8cDbQfrzlQFkG197prGVhLQAzI1qvttlqdjgRTIBf464wfhQS0


Filming Armageddon: Air Force Movies Depict U.S. Preparations for Nuclear War
USAirforce


Washington, D.C., March 20, 2023 – The declassified Air Force film shows the crew of a U.S. B-52 bomber reaching its “Positive Control” (“fail safe”) point on the way to its target in the Soviet Union. But instead of turning around as usual, they get an order to proceed to their assigned objective. 

Not that disconnected, because the 1966 study that hoku posted was already describing the key advantage of  the SR-71  against satellites as being in the trans- and post-SIOP eras (#3 and 4 in doc). As I said above I think this doc is well worth devoting time to, but feel that anyone in a hurry would find the blog post by "Sir Humphrey" a nice summary https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2018/11/striking-soviets-role-of-sr71-in-siop.html

I can just about see how (in the frame of reference of a cold war planner) a small group of high flying jets,  15 miles above a devastated Eurasian landmass and arriving after most of the bombing, could take radar imagery of a variety of targets that would in principle "calibrate" other sources such as what was then called 266 (the GEO IR system in the pipeline).   

I can't see how a faster but less manouverable rocket  or ramjet plane plausibly helps with such a task, or really any other reason why it would appeal to USAF except as backdoor route to a near-orbital manned spacecraft [Edit: or, of course, as an R&D vehicle for a hypersonic weapon ... a perennial interest, e.g. https://www.space.com/12670-superfast-hypersonic-military-aircraft-darpa-htv2.html]. Did Wheelon give any clue as to why Schriever allegedly liked idea ?

By the way,  on the SIOP role of the SR-71 there is a doc from 1971 in one of the National Security Archive briefing books, "The U-2, OXCART, and the SR-71, U.S. Aerial Espionage in the Cold War and Beyond"
 https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB74/ (Document 36)
summarised by the late Jeff Richelson:

Quote
One key mission envisioned for the SR-71, but not the A-12, was post-strike reconnaissance - its use in the event of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union as well as in other scenarios. This draft study describes the SR-71 aircraft and its sensors, the deployment of aircraft, the location and capability of processing sensors, details of its envisioned pre-launch, penetration, and target coverage activities, and an evaluation of SR-71 utility for post-strike reconnaissance. The data collected could possibly contribute to both generalized estimates of ballistic missile performance and the evaluation of whether specific targets were destroyed.

This report (attached) although heavily redacted, leaves no doubt (grabs) as to i) how crucial the task of refuelling the very thirsty Blackbird would be, ii) how sensitive to missing  its tanker RV such missions would be, and, iii) of course, the Achilles heel of the whole idea, the need to get the data back to an "end user".
« Last Edit: 03/28/2023 10:37 am by LittleBird »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #147 on: 03/28/2023 11:12 am »
Original purposes of A-12 vs SR-71, and Richelson on Wheelon's role on behalf  of RHEINBERRY.

Getting back to thread's main topic-after my contemplation of the gates of hell-I just wanted to note two things

 i) a Memorandum for the President, Subject: Advanced Reconnaissance Aircraft, December 26, 1966, Top Secret, 4 pp., Source: Freedom of Information Act Request

#23 in the Briefing Book here, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB74/ and summarised by Jeff Richelson as
Quote
The question of the composition and, as result, management, of the U.S. advanced aerial reconnaissance effort was the subject of this memo. It was based on a mid-December discussion among Cyrus Vance (the Deputy Secretary of Defense), Donald Hornig (presidential science adviser), Richard Helms (the Director of Central Intelligence), and C.W. Fischer (of the Bureau of the Budget). The memo summarizes the status of the OXCART (A-12) and SR-71 fleets, noted that originally they had different purposes, and that while they were being developed the U.S. had acquired an increased overhead reconnaissance capability through satellites and drones. It further discusses views of fleet size, identifies fleet reduction alternatives and the arguments for and against those alternatives, and presents recommendations. All the participants except for Helms recommend mothballing the entire OXCART fleet. On December 28th, President Lyndon Johnson approved that recommendation and the phaseout of the fleet by January 1968.(14)

It very clearly notes the original purposes of the A-12 and SR-71 (first grab), and to me raises the question of whether things like RHEINBERRY were seen as successors to one or the other or both ?

ii) a bit more detail re Wheelon's role in Richelson's book ""The Wizards of Langley". The last 4 paras of Chapter 3 mention ISINGLASS and RHEINBERRY. First two are based on Pedlow and Weizenbach and add nothing but last 2 say (boldfacing and expansions in brackets are mine:

Quote
Favoring the [RHEINBERRY?] proposal was General Bernard Schriever, who wanted to see ramjet [sic] technology developed but who was unsure the NRO would approve such an effort. He suggested to Wheelon that [CIA's Office of Special Activities] might begin work on it, and the Air Force Systems Command would support the work. Wheelon raised the issue with [DCI, Vice Admiral William ] Raborn, who raised it with MacNamara, who told the DCI to forget it. Wheelon was not convinced it was needed, and the plane would be quite inflexible-capable of only one turn around the Earth. [Ref to author's Wheelon interview in 1998].

Nor would it have produced much in the way of intelligence. After much effort, designers concluded that it was impossible to eliminate the shock wave created when the plane skipped along the atmosphere and impossible to photograph targets through the shock wave . The plane might have provided an exciting ride for the pilot but would have done nothing for intelligence analaysts on the ground. [Ref to "interview with a former CIA official".]
« Last Edit: 03/29/2023 04:34 pm by LittleBird »

Offline Larry Golo

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane
« Reply #148 on: 04/14/2023 04:27 am »
Got a little fun yesterday. I've long wanted to bring the varied "strategic reconnaissance systems" of the 1960's together - from U-2A to HEXAGON.
The variety of concepts is pretty amazing.

I've used a lot of G. De Chiara stupendous artworks to do that, with his approval of course.

EDIT: and a much expanded variant...
« Last Edit: 04/15/2023 05:54 pm by Larry Golo »
"Opinions are like a$$holes. Everybody has one." Dirty Harry Callahan.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0