Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY

[XP67_Moonbat]

Yah. Is there anything concrete to go on. I feel like we're just grasping on shreds sometimes.

 

[DSE]

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?

Possibly.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Ooh, the Toss-Back booster! Keep it coming, DSE! Now we're cooking!

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9589.0/highlight,toss-back+booster.html

Prof C has some good ideas.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Hey Dwayne? Has there ever been any mention of the number of crew ISINGLASS was to have carried? And now for the real kicker.

Something just occurred to me in the shower. We do have clues to ISINGLASS's configuration at hand.

It's a safe bet that being LH2/O2 powered, the fuselage would have a broad cross-section. Whether the tanks are tandem or side-by-side is anybody's guess. Let's leave that open. From there, we can assume you'll have:

A-The XLR-29's in the aft end
B-The LH2 tankage
C-The O2 tankage
D-Some kind of Q-bay
E-The avionics bay
F- The cockpit up front. Whether the cockpit is flush or raised, again, is an open question.
G- Anything else not covered

Knowing what we DO know from all the documented info we have on McDonnell's hypersonic designs, Professor Czysz's lectures and occassional input on here, and the scant bits of hard info on ISINGLASS, I think we could come up with a reasonable composite of ISINGLASS's configuration.

What do you think?

 

[blackstar]

Has there ever been any mention of the number of crew ISINGLASS was to have carried?

No. But the documents do indicate that it was definitely supposed to be manned. They also indicate that it was McD (not General Dynamics). You can see that by downloading the pdf posted earlier in the thread and looking through them and you'll find McD's name, not GD.

 

[LowObservable]

A-12 and U-2 were both single-seat. And mission endurance would not have been a big problem here.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

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.

I guess it's like old "telephone" game where a message starts out one way and gets completely changed by the end of the game.

So this mixup of ISINGLASS's maker has become very widespread.

In fact, I was just going back through Bill Rose's still outstanding SECRET PROJECTS book on military space tech and even he writes about the "General Dynamics" ISINGLASS (Hey there's always second editions).

Not mention the Wiki page on the project. One day it'll all be put right.

So as far as what I was talking about in my last post, I think we, as a forum, have just enough info on ISINGLASS to make a reasonably informed guess on how the plane looked. Just a guess. But an informed guess. Short of full declassification, this would have to do.

Maybe some of our artists on here like Giuseppe or Prolific can cook up something.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

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?

 

[blackstar]

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.

That's from the CIA history. Look a little earlier in the thread where we discuss it.

On another note, I have a document that clearly indicates that ISINGLASS was supposed to be launched from a B-52. So that settles that it was not vertical launching. It will take me a little while to scan it and post it, however.

My plan is to take my TSR article and revise it and add in the various sources that I have (several dozen documents, although some of them are redundant/repetitive) and then publish it. I may update the Wikipedia page in the interim, although Wikipedia annoys me. A few years back I wrote an article about Blue Gemini, which was NOT the name of the Gemini for MOL. I then updated the Wikipedia page, only to have somebody "improve" it a few months later by introducing all kinds of errors. It's proof that the Wikipedia assumption that over time bad articles will get better is wrong--it is just as likely that over time good articles will get worse as people who don't know what they're talking about "correct" things that don't require correction. It's just regression towards the mean in action.

 

[mz]

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?

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 widening aftward significantly or not? What are the angles? IIRC only the nose bottom ramp's 3 or 6 degrees or something has been mentioned as a number.

 

[blackstar]

Belay that last message. Impeccable source says that Isinglass was VTHL in all its forms. Launched vertically with external tanks.

Your source must be thinking of a different project, not ISINGLASS. There are at least a couple of declassified documents that indicate that ISINGLASS was air-launched (and a McD project, not GD as stated in the CIA history).

"The ISINGLASS system is an advanced boost-glide vehicle. It is launched at about 25,000 feet, from a B-52 or equivalent aircraft, boosted by a Pratt and Whitney high pressure liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen rocket engine to an altitude [deleted]"

Another document states:

"Dr. McMillan then questioned the validity of the claimed quick reaction capability with a four to five hour flyout time for the B-52 plus a one hour mission time and another 12 hours to get the film back to Rochester or some other place."

Also interesting:

"Dr. McMillan also questioned to what extent studies had been conducted on 'throw away' boosters reminding [deleted] that you could have a reuseable vehicle without a reusable booster."

Although they're discussing disposable boosters, this implies to me that the ISINGLASS design did not include disposable elements like fuel tanks, although I find that hard to believe.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Could it be that Impeccable's source confused the Toss-Back Booster for ISINGLASS? They're both from the McDonnell hypersonic stable.

 

[blackstar]

That's possible. All that I know is what ISINGLASS was.

Now to figure out RHEINBERRY...

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Ah, yet another engima. Sometimes I feel like we're looking for the aerospace equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster or Yeti.

 

[blackstar]

Ah, yet another engima. Sometimes I feel like we're looking for the aerospace equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster or Yeti.

Not at all. There is real evidence on ISINGLASS to be uncovered, as you can see by starting at the beginning of this thread, and I'll be publishing an article on it soon. We still don't have any illustrations of what it looked like, but they certainly exist and will be released. But consider what we do know:

-when it started
-who developed it
-what it was supposed to do
-how it was supposed to work
-the fact that it was not government funded
-the type of engine it used
-when it ended
-why it ended

We only have general information on most of these questions, but that is far better than what we initially had, which was not only short and vague, but wrong (see the discussion of the CIA history earlier in this thread).

There is almost nothing on RHEINBERRY, but I suspect that is primarily because there was less done on that project.

So at least ISINGLASS is no longer a mythical beast, and we'll probably get better with RHEINBERRY as well.

 

[blackstar]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

As I recall, didn't the CIA work with P&W on the J58? (And Suntan as well?)

 

[blackstar]

Maybe these were different parts of P&W? Rockets vs. jet engines.

 

[DSE]

Maybe these were different parts of P&W? Rockets vs. jet engines.

Can't speak to back then, but these days P&W is very much segmented, not just in regard to products but also programmaticly/technically.

 

[mz]

Well, back then, after RL-10 and before SSME, P&W had not been making rocket engines for long. Nowadays it even owns the former Rocketdyne... But perhaps Mulready's book or something...

 

[Sundog]

J58 testing was done down there.

Edit: As well the test runs of the Suntan powerplant. Here's a PDF of Dr. Bob Abernethy's presentation on the J58 that talks about testing it in Florida. I'm sure I found this referenced elsewhere at Secret Projects. He was re-assigned to work on the RL-10 after the J-58. It's a very enjoyable read.

 

[DSE]

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

 

[DSE]

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

I guess there is little interest in these or the rest of the video, so there is no need to post the links.

 

[mz]

There is, I just don't have Microsoft Silverlight!

 

[Skybolt]

Let me see what I can do.

 

[Dynoman]

Just curious...

James A. Cunningham, of IDEALIST fame, mentioned that the vehicle was supposed to be an RL-20 engine (cited in the reference below). Pratt was conducting research on an evolutionary engine at the time, known as the RL-20 P-3. Many of the technologies in the RL-20 end up in the revolutionary XLR-129 (as per Mulready). Just wondering if Cunningham, who admits to having left before ISINGLASS got rolling, was involved in intial talks where the RL-20 may have been the initial proposed engine? Food for thought. Dick Mulready's book mentions that the engine was in development in 1963 and that it was shown to many high level government and DoD executives. It was also in the same thrust class as a J-2 (which was the proposed engine for the NASA hypersonic research model for a manned vehicle found earlier in this thread).

 

[Dynoman]

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?

 

[mz]

Wait, what really is the RL-20? It's amazing that something completely new like that pops up. This is an awesome forum.
Expander engines are a strangely little explored path - only really done in the USA and lately in Japan. And they are not limited to small thrust or low chamber pressures.

The RL-10 had roughly 10 tonnes of thrust (100 kN). Hence naturally the RL-20 could be 20 tonnes (200 kN). The Saturn J-2 had 100 tonnes (1 MN). The XLR-129 was in the J-2 class.

I think there certainly exists a "hole" or "niche" for an RL-20. Though the use of dual RL-10 Centaurs later speaks against it being developed...

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Go down to reply #51 from Mark. Notice how that last piece of artwork is reminiscent of the NASA J-2 powered aircraft referenced by Dyno earlier.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.45.html

However, in reply #57, Prof. Czsyz describes it as "a XLR-129 powered hypersonic glider with a 25,000 nautical mile glide range circa 1958"

Moonbat

 

[blackstar]

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?

A former senior CIA official mentioned it to me in a lunch conversation back around 1996, which I think was before the OXCART history was declassified. Actually, he mentioned both ISINGLASS and RHEINBERRY. Later, when I asked him about RHEINBERRY, he couldn't even remember the name. My suspicion is that he learned about the latter only casually, although he knew about the former firsthand.

 

[Dynoman]

For MZ...RL20 with deployable skirt.

 

[Dynoman]

I may take some heat for this, but I think it may be on the minds of some already and I just want to throw it out there for debate :

The only vehicles that we know of that uses the XLR-129 engines are the two below. CIA U-2/OXCART history document says that the ISINGLASS project by MAC evolved into RHEINBERRY. Both of these vehicles are MAC XLR-129 powered vehicles (the first is a BGV). The CIA documents posted by Blackstar shows ISINGLASS I, ISINGLASS II, and Extended Global Range (EGR) vehicles. What if ISINGLASS I is the boost-glide version, ISINGLASS II is the single XLR-129 version, and EGR is the HSVS version or the final RHEINBERRY vehicle?

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

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

All we need is some commentary from the good Professor himself.

 

[archipeppe]

All we need is some commentary from the good Professor himself.

Emh.... why he can't join us here??

 

[blackstar]

Got more info from a former senior CIA official, working from memory. Here are some of the details:

-the rocket engine was only for the boost phase. After that, a scramjet would take over.
-General Schriever was particularly interested in the scramjet. He could not get that technology funded by the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, so he was hoping that the CIA would pay for it.
-it's not clear that there was ever a final configuration of the craft. McDonnell may have gone through a bunch of iterations, just like for OXCART.
-project was sponsored by the airplane side of CIA, without the endorsement of the Directorate of Science and Technology.
-CIA was not convinced that it was possible to solve the window problem. They had faced a major challenge to get the window to work on the OXCART at Mach 3, and ISINGLASS would have had to fly much faster. Although it would have been at a higher altitude, there would be major problems in this area.
-the project was too expensive to be funded by CIA alone. Because DoD was opposed, there was no way that it would get funded.
-CIA had to inform McDonnell that it was not going to happen (because of DoD opposition) and they should stop spending internal funds.
-another major problem was the operational utility. ISINGLASS could essentially only fly in a straight line and could not maneuver. This really limited how it could be used. For example, you had to pick a starting point and an ending point (friendly airfield) and could only photograph targets along that line. If what you wanted to look at was off that line, it was too bad, you were SOL.

This will all go into the article that I'm writing on the program based upon previous documentation.

 

[DSE]

There is, I just don't have Microsoft Silverlight!

Here's the rest.

Thursday, June 12, 2008 Morning Lectures
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=e51b0393-8bce-4605-8a25-95dc8ed55f4d

* Structural Design and Mass Properties Estimation (Bowcutt)
* Flight performance & multidisciplinary design optimization (Bowcutt)
* Integrated aero/propulsion dynamics of hypersonic flight (Nugent)
* Hypersonic vehicle stability, or the lack there-of (Nugent)
* Integrated aero/propulsion/thermodynamics (Nugent)
* Large operating envelopes (Nugent)
* Scramjet operating modes & Propulsion transition modes (Nugent)
* Powered ground effects (Nugent)
* Environmental disturbances (Nugent)
* Largely linear flight envelopes (Nugent)
* Unique hypersonic flight dynamics (Nugent)
* Sensing systems for hypersonic flight (Nugent)
* Control effectors for hypersonic control (Nugent)
* Control system verification challenges (Nugent)
* Markets for hypersonic vehicles (Gonda, presented by Bowcutt)

Thursday, June 12, 2008 Afternoon Lectures
http://nia-mediasite.nianet.org/NIAMediasite100/Viewer/?peid=913942db-d037-48fa-b4d7-ccd6915a120e

* Vehicle costs (Gonda, presented by Bowcutt)
* Business case (Gonda, presented by Bowcutt)
* Operational considerations (Gonda, presented by Bowcutt)
* Other considerations (Gonda, presented by Bowcutt)

I'm working on a place to post the slides.

 

[wb]

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.

Might they have considered an "Internal launch"? The C-17 is quoted as "170 K Lb Internal Carriage" and "1000lb+ to LEO" for an "internal launch" (air dropped from its cargo hold) - see slide 11 of the "Responsive Air Launch" presentation by folks from Orbital Sciences, DARPA & Schafer http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS2%5CSESSION%20PAPERS%5CSESSION%208%5CHORAIS%5C8003C.ppt (PPT)

The C-5 had its first flight in 1968, and would have been capable of carrying a 160,000 lb craft in its cargo hold. The heaviest single item dropped from a C-5 weighs in at 60,000 pound, though: http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5.asp

 

[blackstar]

Might they have considered an "Internal launch"?

No.

 

[Dynoman]

An NRO memo to DRNO from Brig. Gen. Jack Ledford, USAF, as of 1965, indicates that the proposed propulsion system for ISINGLASS is the "RL-20 A-1." He also wrote that "P&W has also indicated a growth potential for this engine of about 10 seconds in Isp beyond the values attainable at the time of the Qualification Test (Q.T.)."

This may have grown into the XLR-129. The memos I have been going over looks like the CIA initiated the program with one sole source contractor, MAC, for the design and development work, went to the NRO, who had greater funds than the CIA for recce asset development. Was turned down by the NRO (Dir. McMillian) after a period of threat, technical, and cost analysis, and then directed towards the USAF. A later memo states that the NRO offers a liason for transfering information on ISINGLASS to the USAF in 1967.

Other memos indicate the CIA continues to fund ISINGLASS into 1968. Will provide more info with some scanned documentation.

 

[Dynoman]

Here is the document.