Search results for query: isinglass

*Ahem* ;)

200 miles ?? 360 km - this is freakkin' ISS altitude ! Mach 5 in comparison falls far from orbit (= Mach 26). Maybe they thought about militarizing a X-15 rocketplane; in turn these performances looks like ISINGLASS (ramjets to mach 5) and RHEINBERRY (suborbital, with a rocket).

Along Moonbat's line of thinking - the ISINGLASS/Model 192 seems to be quite far along in the development process to not have been tested to some degree - I wonder if the RL-10-powered "Mach 12 Demonstrator" actually did fly as a proof of concept?

Isinglass document presented by Dwayne Day at nasaspaceflight.com forum: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18261.msg291469;topicseen#new Seems mostly discussion memos, not much technical stuff... Don't know if there's much new there? It seems I can't attach the pdf file, too...

Lockheed won the Reusable Subsystems Design/Analysis study, covering three military space applications: Project 1: Reusable upper stage Project 2: Manned reusable launch vehicle, 25K lbm payload (ancestor of the Lockheed Star Clipper) Project 3: FDL-influenced manned reusable spaceplane The...

The date assigned to ISINGLASS (or rather, "Model 192") in McDonnell's inhouse chronology is 1964, which corresponds to the first work on the project. If the work you refer to was conducted between 1958 and 1963, it certainly can't be about ISINGLASS. We still have gaps in the McDonnell models...

...192 as well. Was there any further data regarding the launch method? IIRC, air-launch by B-52 has been mentioned before in regards to ISINGLASS. Looking at the expendable booster attached to the vehicle, on pg.2, I take it the CIA was also considering a ground launch option too. I have to...

Where do you usually post these articles?

Thank you. Was a tedious job to extract the pictures first, then paste the website own comments on them. May that inspire you to return to ISINGLASS beyond the Mach 22 design you did a decade ago. :D My favorites are R-3 and B-2.

Well given the trapezoidal cross section, I'd assume a large cylindrical hydrogen tank in the center and two smaller cylindrical oxygen tanks in the low corners. But this might be totally wrong - AFAIK not even good three views of the FDL-7C/D for example have been posted? Is the center fuselage...

There were some advancements in this area in the mid 80s, though not directly connected to ISINGLASS of course. People were still working the problem. By that time though, attention focused to using a radar. What is curious to me is that few of these drawings, and the model, show the two...

So, from what I've seen these are the CLOSEST things to Aurora: ISINGLASS, INCAAPS Mach 5 Strike Aircraft, Lockheed ADP/NASA Langley 1990 Mach 4-5 methane fueled studies, Advanced Aerospace Vehicle (AAV), and the X-15. If I missed any other obscure hypersonic concept, I'll be happy to learn more.

Hi, I'm not sure this direct link has ever been posted here before: http://www.nro.gov/foia/docs/foia-isinglass.pdf It's all about Isinglass. NRO FOAI approved for release material dated "23 June 2010" No picture, no plans, no drawings, no blueprints. Just plain dry'n raw, historical...

Beat me to it! :D Well, here's link anyway: http://www.paperlessarchives.com/a12.html As far as using F-111 tech, could that be interpreted to mean swing-wings for low speed approaches? If so, maybe GD was brought in to consult on that aspect of ISINGLASS It just a theory. Moonbat

...a declassified NRO document dated 1966 which listed air launched reconnaissance assets in the planning stage. They included TAGBOARD, ISINGLASS, S-103, S-104 (BG-1A, BG-2A), and S-105. I know TAGBOARD and ISINGLASS, and the S-105 matches the description of Project Town Hall, however the S-103...

I liked the table which shows rad count from a Galosh near-miss and its effects on the crew/mission.

I don't know what you'd regard as "exciting" ;), but when I'm through with the book, I'll post here what I found most remarkable.

Urged by XP_67Moonbat I realized the following drawings about the topic: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,382.msg140326.html#msg140326 Enjoy them... ;)

That contradicts what was in the Cunningham interview, as well as what was in the Pratt & Whitney book. Plus, what's the launch site? And it did this with how many engines?

Well, ISINGLASS was intended to fly _much_ faster than the X-15, Mach 22 versus Mach 5. As for the issue of a retractable cover, the person who contacted me specifically referred to that in his message. He said that the program manager said that the problem was that the opening in the vehicle...