Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY

[blackstar]

Don't know if anybody has seen this before but the CIA just put up some ISINGLASS docs in the last two weeks.

If you look at the date on the top of that document, it was declassified in 2011. I've had that and a bunch of other ISINGLASS documents since then (well, probably 2012) and have written some articles about them. I think some of the articles are linked elsewhere in this thread. (If you look at my August 30, 2013 post here, I was discussing that document and what it said about RHEINBERRY vs. ISINGLASS.) That and the other ISINGLASS documents were released as part of the CREST collection at the National Archives. Now much of the CREST collection is available to the public via the CIA's website.

Unless they have put new ISINGLASS documents onto the site that have been declassified in the past year, all the material you find in that CIA site has been publicly available for 4+ years. But I'm pretty much the only person who has been writing about it. So I'm going to be a wet blanket and say that there is not anything previously unknown, it is just easier for individuals to access the documents now. I go out to the Archives regularly (where that collection was kept) and I have not seen any new and interesting documents on R or I in the past few years, maybe even since that one above.

Sadly, there is almost nothing on the technology. It's mostly memos about the program.

 

[Dynoman]

There's more.... Albeit, the technological data is lacking. Unfortunately, I think this is in the hands of the contractor, i.e. McDonnell Douglas (now a part of Boeing). I noticed when I sent a FOIA request to the CIA they omitted the "manned drawings" of ISINGLASS, leading me to believe that their interest in boost-glide vehicles surpassed the stillborn ISINGLASS project.

The other data I have is from NRO and USAF FOIA requests.

 

[Dynoman]

Here's an interesting drawing that shows the general location of the cockpit and ejection clearance.

 

[Dynoman]

Earlier discussions in this thread centered on General Dynamics involvement in the ISINGLASS effort. Here a pre-approval contract is written with the CIA's technical representative, John Parangosky (of CIA airborne recon aircraft fame), to General Dynamics to redirect their study of an advanced airframe under the program line ISINGLASS, dated June 3, 1964.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP67B00074R000500100003-9.pdf

 

[Dynoman]

This implies that GD was conducting a study similar to ISINGLASS, before ISINGLASS got underway, and may have been funded to examine the application of their design to the boost-glide reconnaissance concept (i.e. possibly GD's VL-3A design, which has been written as the first boost-glide design in AIAA by Lynch).

 

[antigravite]

This implies that GD was conducting a study similar to ISINGLASS, before ISINGLASS got underway, and may have been funded to examine the application of their design to the boost-glide reconnaissance concept (i.e. possibly GD's VL-3A design, which has been written as the first boost-glide design in AIAA by Lynch).

For what it's worth:

R. LYNCH, GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP., GENERAL DYNAMICS/CONVAIR, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.
"The first manned lifting entry vehicle configuration", 3rd Annual Meeting, Annual Meeting, 29 November 1966 - 02 December 1966
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.1966-959
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.1966-959

(document not shown in full, first page only)

A.

 

[Dynoman]

ISINGLASS Model 192 from CIA presentation.

 

[Dynoman]

Model 192 Flight Path

 

[Dynoman]

Yes, these two images are from the CIA's CREST site.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Man, I Prof Cszyz was still with us to provide a little feedback on that. :-/

 

[newsdeskdan]

ISINGLASS Model 192 from CIA presentation.

But would it really have penetrated Hen House/Galosh?

 

[flateric]

NAVY PROJECT JANE as untaken alternative to ISINGLASS
B-52 vs B-58 as a carrier aircraft pro&contra internal discussion
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP62B00844R000200130070-2.pdf

 

[blackstar]

NAVY PROJECT JANE as untaken alternative to ISINGLASS
B-52 vs B-58 as a carrier aircraft pro&contra internal discussion
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP62B00844R000200130070-2.pdf

I think that JANE and ISINGLASS were different time periods. This document dates from 1959. ISINGLASS was mid-1960s.

 

[LowObservable]

There has to be almost enough information out there now to produce a decent conversion kit for a B-52G/H. If only there was someone on the forum who had some experience in that area...

 

[Dynoman]

The pictures above that I posted are from a document titled: Reconnaissance Vehicle Concept Study for FY1968.

The presentation material is at the end of the document.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00822R000100070040-7.pdf

 

[Dynoman]

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).

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00265R000200130015-9.pdf

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

From the abovementioned report.

 

[LowObservable]

Thanks for the links, Dyno.

 

[antigravite]

ISINGLASS Model 192 from CIA presentation.

Hi for the sake of information contextualization / archival intent, here is the page extract wherein this outlined artwork appears.

A.

 

[newsdeskdan]

ISINGLASS Model 192 from CIA presentation.

Hi for the sake of information contextualization / archival intent, here is the page extract wherein this outlined artwork appears.

A.

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

 

[robunos]

I had a quick go at cleaning up the side view in reply #268 . . .

cheers,
Robin.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Thanks Rob.

 

[blackstar]

The pictures above that I posted are from a document titled: Reconnaissance Vehicle Concept Study for FY1968.

The presentation material is at the end of the document.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00822R000100070040-7.pdf

Note that this document is not ISINGLASS. ISINGLASS was canceled by that time. On page 2 it states that this study should take into account earlier work, including work done on ISINGLASS.

There are several words deleted at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2. It is possible that the deleted stuff at the bottom of page 1 is "General Dynamics" If you look farther down on page 2 they have deleted some contractor names, including the contractor that built the F-111. (duh)

 

[flateric]

...

 

[Tuomasn]

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00822R000100070040-7.pdf

Note that this document is not ISINGLASS. ISINGLASS was canceled by that time. On page 2 it states that this study should take into account earlier work, including work done on ISINGLASS.

There are several words deleted at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2. It is possible that the deleted stuff at the bottom of page 1 is "General Dynamics" If you look farther down on page 2 they have deleted some contractor names, including the contractor that built the F-111. (duh)

One should note that the PDF actually contains three documents lumped together:
1. "Reconnaissance Vehicle Concept Study for Fiscal Year 1968" (PDF pages 1 - 3)
2. "Assessment of the factors affecting advanced lifting entry vehicles" (4 - 35)
3. Survivability presentation (36 - 64)

And that last part which is the most interesting and contains the posted graphics uses "Model 192" throughout, so it should actually be about ISINGLASS.

 

[Tuomasn]

Here's an interesting drawing that shows the general location of the cockpit and ejection clearance.

May I ask for the source of this drawing (presuming it comes from the FOIA ERR)?

 

[Dynoman]

Meteorit, you can find that picture in the CIA document Flight Control of the Model 192

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00265R000200130005-0.pdf

 

[Tuomasn]

Thank you.
Too bad there doesn't seem to be front/cross-sectional views of Model 192 found so far. The NRO report earlier in this thread has cross-sections from nose up to the recce equipment bay, but not further back.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Voilá

 

[blackstar]

Something new.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

We received a treasure trove of goodies from a retired McAir engineer yesterday and amongst all of the photos and documents was the attached print of what appears to be the Mach 12 demonstrator. I found the negatives as well and will scan them when I get back from our family trip.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[sublight_]

Very nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Thank you, Mark

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All!

Here are a few of the negative scans - thoughts on whether this is Model 192, Mach 12 Demonstrator or?!?!

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Archibald]

One question about Isinglass still puzzles me: The engine seems huge for an air-launched vehicle. Mulready's book gives a loaded weight of 132,000 pounds, but that seems pretty massive even for a B-52, particularly asymmetrically carried, and still won't allow a lot of burn time on a 250K engine. And if you're launching at altitude, why do you need the two-position nozzle?

Is it possible that an early version of Isinglass was smaller and air-launched, but that it was ground-launched by the time the development work was under way?

So I have a few moments to do this.
Looks interesting !

Looking at BlackStar's .pdf from earlier (very quickly). Fig 29 says at altitude Isp is 440 secs at 30K-200K ft.
(booster config - think that is the two position nozzle config - not sure though - haven't read the whole thing yet - Thanks BlackStar!)
g = 32 ft/sec**2
Mf = Mass fully fuelled is 132,000 lbs (given from Mulready)
Me = Mass empty (structure, wings, electronics, dudes flying it, landing gear, etc) 40,000 lbs (just guessing).

DeltaV = Isp (secs) * g (ft/sec**2) * ln(Mf/Me) = DeltaV ft/sec
DeltaV = 440 secs * 32 ft/sec**2 * ln(132000/40000) = 16,810 ft/sec
Approx Mach 16.8
NotMach 22.We have to go lower for Me.

So what empty weight gives around Mach 22?

That would be around 27,650 lbs as:
DeltaV = 440 secs * 32 ft/sec**2 * ln(132000/27650) = 22,000 ft/sec= Approx Mach 22

So say you launch at 30,000 ft from B-52.
I think that this vehicle could add some lift (due to its lifting surface) and the rocket could
also potentially be burned if the B-52 could carry that extra fuel (they looked at this for the
M/D-21 as well). May burn the B-52's tail off though -

So you could go from essentially standstill (B-52's speed) to Mach 22 with the above Isp and
Mass Ratio according to the Ideal Rocket Equation (just a back of the envelope calc.)

rocket equation applied to ISINGLASS
9.81*450*ln(132770/24450)=7469 m/s

not included: air launch from the b52 +900 m/s

so 8369 m/s - so close from earth orbit (9400 m/s) but not quite!

maybe they should reconsider fluorine: raising isp to 500 seconds would bridge the gap. Space shuttle here we go !!

replace the b52 with a 747 (more practical) with ISINGLASS clung underwing Launcher One style.

 

[PlanesPictures]

"air launch from the b52 +900 m/s "- not only +300 m/s ?

 

[AVD Laboratory]

Good Day All -

We received a treasure trove of goodies from a retired McAir engineer yesterday and amongst all of the photos and documents was the attached print of what appears to be the Mach 12 demonstrator. I found the negatives as well and will scan them when I get back from our family trip.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Hi Mark,

Hope this note reaches you; what material did you receive from McAir?

 

[Archibald]

The Wizards of Langley has this to say about ISINGLASS / RHEINBERRY

The Wizards Of Langley

In this, the first full-length study of the Directorate of Science and Technology, Jeffrey T. Richelson walks us down the corridors of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and through the four decades of science, scientists, and managers that produced the CIA we have today. He tells a story of...

books.google.fr

Did they got the ISINGLASS / RHEINBERRY distinction right ? I'm a little confused...

AFAIK

- ramjets won't go past Mach 5 - so ISINGLASS would be the early Mach 4.5 using F-111 tech and ramjets ?

- rockets can go to orbital speed and beyond but as far as SSTO goes, the limit is propellant mass fraction. That would be RHEINBERRY ? To Mach 22, no ramjets, XLR-129 only ?

Hydrolox needs at least 0.88 to get in orbit with XLR-129 specific impulse of 450 seconds. Main issue is, with 1960's level of tech the upper limit was around 0.80 - best case 0.83 (for example, the late X-33 many decades later was 0.79 with aerospike... and failed)

Back of the enveloppe calculations

The X-15A-2 ended at 56 000 pounds, or 25500 kg. Let's suppose RHEINBERRY mass was similar since it used, too, a NB-52.

0.80 of 25500 kg = 20400 kg of propellant. So RHEINBERRY with the tanks empty weights: 5100 kg. Then if the XLR-129 vacuum ISP is 450 seconds...

9.81*450*ln(25500/5100) = 7104 m/s.

Air launch from the B-52 provides a little boost, 600 m/s, so end result: 7700 m/s.

Orbital speed without drag, steering and gravity losses is 7700 m/s - and with them, 9200 m/s.

9200 m/s is (approximatively) Mach 27.

As said before, RHEINBERRY won't go into orbit with 7700 m/s because steering / drag / gravity losses push the tally to 9000 m/s or even a little beyond.

Still, 7700 m/s is Mach 22.5 and thus matches RHEINBERRY rumoured top speed. Tantalizing close from orbital speed, but not enough, as the rocket equation is exponential in nature...

For RHEINBERRY to reach orbit a lot of weight would have to shaved out of the already tight empty mass

9.81*450*ln(25500/3100) = 9302 m/s. Two metric tons less. Prop mass fraction 1-(3100/25500) = 0.878

The evil side of the exponential nature of the rocket equation... the closest you want to get from orbit, the smaller the empty mass and thus the harder the prop mass fraction... 0.80, 0.83 or 0.88 doesn't look much of a difference by percentage, but the reality is excruciating... lose 1% = lose some 300 m/s+ of delta-v...

 

[Archibald]

109 documents found browsing ISINGLASS there.

Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov

Much less for RHEINBERRY

Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov

 

[LowObservable]

Gotta love security people who carefully delete MAC (McDonnell Aircraft Co.) and then leave in the mention of St Louis.