XP67_Moonbat
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 January 2008
- Messages
- 2,252
- Reaction score
- 409
Yah. Is there anything concrete to go on. I feel like we're just grasping on shreds sometimes.
GeorgeA said:Seems like ground launch would negate all of the operational advantages (e.g., all-azimuth launch).
Could it be that there were two applications for the same basics airframe?
XP67_Moonbat said:Has there ever been any mention of the number of crew ISINGLASS was to have carried?
XP67_Moonbat said:Yeah, it is McD. How GD's name got mixed up in this is anybody's guess. Hey, it even got me there, for a moment.
XP67_Moonbat said: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?
LowObservable said:Belay that last message. Impeccable source says that Isinglass was VTHL in all its forms. Launched vertically with external tanks.
XP67_Moonbat said:Ah, yet another engima. Sometimes I feel like we're looking for the aerospace equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster or Yeti.
blackstar said:I stumbled across something else last night. It is a reference to a visit by Cunningham to NASA in January 1965. He wanted to know what NASA's experience was working with Pratt & Whitney. Were they a reliable contractor re cost and schedule and things like that?
The clear implication of this is that it must have been soon after CIA learned about McDonnell's proposal for ISINGLASS and their idea of using a Pratt & Whitney rocket engine. So CIA wanted to know about a contractor that they had no experience with. It gives a good indication of when the program was first started.
blackstar said:Maybe these were different parts of P&W? Rockets vs. jet engines.
DSE said:It's tough to figure what relates to what in Czysz's presentations at times. Could also be space for tanks. No link to the charts, however video of the presentation is at:
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=9e186d8a-7960-4e7b-9778-ff6e3c14a299 see last 1/4 and
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=a78b7755-0f85-457e-ba50-a3b219527fc3
DSE said:DSE said:It's tough to figure what relates to what in Czysz's presentations at times. Could also be space for tanks. No link to the charts, however video of the presentation is at:
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=9e186d8a-7960-4e7b-9778-ff6e3c14a299 see last 1/4 and
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=a78b7755-0f85-457e-ba50-a3b219527fc3
The first video presentation from the course:
* Hypersonic vehicle design challenge (Bowcutt)
* Abbreviated hypersonic historical design-perspective (Chudoba)
* Flight vehicle classes and characterization (Chudoba)
* Product development life-cycle and generic development process (Chudoba)
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=e1020dec-8de1-443d-a193-7273d1ab6ca4
and the next one following Czysz's videos:
# Hypersonic vehicle design requirements (Bowcutt)
# Aerodynamic design and analysis (Bowcutt)
# Propulsion flowpath design, integration & analysis (Bowcutt)
# Vehicle multidisciplinary design optimization (Bowcutt)
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=56e8b97a-a724-4507-a478-a0d6f4f98edd
Dynoman said:Also, can anybody cite the references for RHEINBERRY? The only two I know are the CIA document from the U-2 and OXCART histories, and the Bill Rose Military Space Technologies book. Are there any others?
XP67_Moonbat said:All we need is some commentary from the good Professor himself.
mz said:There is, I just don't have Microsoft Silverlight!
quellish said:LowObservable said: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?
The NB-52 dropped the SRB-DTV, which was 48,000 pounds. That should be the heaviest thing it's carried on the pylon, and is right up to the aircraft's limits. The X-51 vehicle is pushing the 52H right up to the limits of its performance envelope as is.
So 132k does sound pretty big.
wb said:Might they have considered an "Internal launch"?