Author Topic: ISINGLASS reconnaissance spaceplane  (Read 77072 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • 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: 1111
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 528
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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • 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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • 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: 1094
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 865
  • 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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • 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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • 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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • 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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • 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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • 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.

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9325
  • 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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • 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.

 

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