This is the case as per the CIA/NRO document:
ISINGLASS - Boost glide rocket - 7,500 mi range, Mach 20, 200,000 ft
ISINGLASS II - Hypersonic rocket powered - 12,000 mi range
Hypersonic Extended Range - Scramjet powered - 24,000 mi range
...are very interesting propositions. I'm still trying to gather data on Contract NA-2000, which may help to define the vehicle that preceded ISINGLASS from Convair. Another interesting evolution to the ISINGLASS story is the CIA concept study into a follow-on vehicle, presented in November 1968...
Interestingly I found a document from the CIA that was received from the ISINGLASS files for a vehicle study, dated Oct 1969, for an Advanced Aerodynamic Reconnaissance System. The CIA was looking for money to develop the concept in FY1970. They proposed a boostglide type system similar to...
Doesn't surprize me, ISINGLASS was being worked on around that time, searching for "boost-glide" on the NTRS brings up a mix of designs including what looks like one of the early Dyna-Soar concepts.
...looking at this picture below... left to right, date: February 23, 1966. Seems the NRO was reviewing varied "exotic" options that included ISINGLASS... and a few others.
- Lockheed D-21 drone TAGBOARD
- McDonnell ISINGLASS [well-known proposal : manned / B-52]
- S-103: TOWN HALL like...
Some additional data that is from McDonnell Douglas regarding boost glide performance and stability & control of an ISINGLASS type vehicle (ISINGLASS nor Model 192 are directly mentioned, however the drawings appear to be that of Model 192)...
The newly posted documentation makes it plain that the ISINGLASS would be carried under a B-52 wing. The LOX tank would be carried within the B-52... presumably the bomb bay. The hydrogen tank is external... possibly under ther opposite wing root from the ISINGLASS.
Xstatic, I don't know if these (S-103 and/or S-104) were developed before ISINGLASS or in conjunction in order to show up on the CIA flowchart indicating a sequential pattern to some of the vehicles development.
I would think that the S-103/4 system would be potentially easier to develop and...
Looking further back at older posts on ghostrocket, there's more on Isinglass:
http://ghostrocket.blogspot.com/2011/11/isinglass-precedents-and-successors.html
http://ghostrocket.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-is-known-about-isinglass.html
There's more in the older blog entries as well - just keep...
On a further note, and here's where I need a professional opinion, would ISINGLASS's tankage have been in tandem? Or would it have been in side-by-side lobes, ala X-33?
Given what we know of design standards of the era, which one would have been more feasible for ISINGLASS?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.