The infobox image caption says "An artist's concept of the McDonnell-Douglas IGV, which may have been similar to the Isinglass/Rheinberry aircraft", but there's no source for that similarity in the article. Given that no images of the design are public, and the retired CIA guy's description in the Day article is "scaled-down Space Shuttle" (which to my eyes the IGV doesn't look much like), I'm not sure that including this image is justified. More importantly, given this tenuousness, I don't think a fair use claim can be supported. (By comparison, the B-52/D-21 image is okay, since we know the B-52 launch scheme was part of Isinglass and since the photo is public domain.)
The article is saying that the craft was supposed to fly at Mach 22. So too did the article's DYK hook. But the only source for this, as far as I can tell, is the retired CIA's guy memory in the Day article. All the contemporaneous sources point to by this article –
this sheet and
this sheet and
the 92-page document posted here – all say Mach 20. So too does
this Aviation Week story used as a source. So why did you decide to go with the one source for Mach 22 as opposed to the many for Mach 20?
To answer your concerns: the IGV image was included based on a post on a discussion forum (the SecretProjects.uk forums, which are actually pretty good) that commented on how the IGV, being a McDonnell-Douglas aircraft designed for the same flight domain as ISINGLASS/RHEINBERRY, probably provided hints as to the possible design of the black bird. Although I reckon you're right; I'll zappa the image for now and re-upload it at a later date if I can reliably souce a better connection. As for the speed, I assumed the Day article might be more accurate, but I given the other souces, I'll change that to "Mach 20+". Thanks for the review!-
The BushrangerOne ping only07:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I feel pretty strongly that we should go with Mach 20 as the speed, and have changed the article accordingly. The retired CIA guy misremembered the engine number in the article, so he could have easily misremembered the speed. But I've added a footnote discussing the discrepancy, so that it's out there for the reader to see.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
13:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I would like to raise a small issue I have with the categorisation of this article. The article is in the categories
Reusable launch systems,
Air launch to orbit,
Cancelled spacecraft, and
Spaceplanes, however the article does not mention spaceflight at all (although it is implied somewhat by the use of the term "suborbital"). The CIA document (reference no.5) suggests that the maximum altitude that the aircraft could reach is "200,000 feet", which is some 40 kilometres below the edge of space. I therefore feel that the use of the term "sub-orbital" within the article is misleading, and that the categories need to be checked. --GW…12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks very much for spotting this!! It isn't just the categorizations, the term 'suborbital' was used several times in the article as well. Per
Sub-orbital spaceflight, an altitude of 100 km is required, or possibly 80 km; at 60 km, Isinglass clearly doesn't qualify. The only thing a source says that I can find, is the retired CIA guy saying 'near orbital speed' (Mach 25 is orbital speed in atmosphere, I think), nothing is said about trajectory. I've thus reworked the article to remove any mention of 'suborbital' and to remove most of the categories you called out. I've also removed
Category:UAVs and drones of the United States, which was clearly wrong since this was intended to be a manned craft. I do have questions about two remaining categories.
Category:Reusable launch systems might be justified, because one of the advantages of the Isinglass approach compared to satellites was reusability. But I guess the category description limits this to spaceflight systems? And is
Category:United States military reconnaissance aircraft 1960-1969 really justified? All of those other aircraft were actually built, if even only to prototype/test-flight stage. Should aircraft abandoned while still in the design stage be included in a category like that?
Wasted Time R (
talk)
14:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks for clearing that up. I think the definition of "launch system" in that context implies "space launch system". --GW…14:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The infobox image caption says "An artist's concept of the McDonnell-Douglas IGV, which may have been similar to the Isinglass/Rheinberry aircraft", but there's no source for that similarity in the article. Given that no images of the design are public, and the retired CIA guy's description in the Day article is "scaled-down Space Shuttle" (which to my eyes the IGV doesn't look much like), I'm not sure that including this image is justified. More importantly, given this tenuousness, I don't think a fair use claim can be supported. (By comparison, the B-52/D-21 image is okay, since we know the B-52 launch scheme was part of Isinglass and since the photo is public domain.)
The article is saying that the craft was supposed to fly at Mach 22. So too did the article's DYK hook. But the only source for this, as far as I can tell, is the retired CIA's guy memory in the Day article. All the contemporaneous sources point to by this article –
this sheet and
this sheet and
the 92-page document posted here – all say Mach 20. So too does
this Aviation Week story used as a source. So why did you decide to go with the one source for Mach 22 as opposed to the many for Mach 20?
To answer your concerns: the IGV image was included based on a post on a discussion forum (the SecretProjects.uk forums, which are actually pretty good) that commented on how the IGV, being a McDonnell-Douglas aircraft designed for the same flight domain as ISINGLASS/RHEINBERRY, probably provided hints as to the possible design of the black bird. Although I reckon you're right; I'll zappa the image for now and re-upload it at a later date if I can reliably souce a better connection. As for the speed, I assumed the Day article might be more accurate, but I given the other souces, I'll change that to "Mach 20+". Thanks for the review!-
The BushrangerOne ping only07:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I feel pretty strongly that we should go with Mach 20 as the speed, and have changed the article accordingly. The retired CIA guy misremembered the engine number in the article, so he could have easily misremembered the speed. But I've added a footnote discussing the discrepancy, so that it's out there for the reader to see.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
13:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I would like to raise a small issue I have with the categorisation of this article. The article is in the categories
Reusable launch systems,
Air launch to orbit,
Cancelled spacecraft, and
Spaceplanes, however the article does not mention spaceflight at all (although it is implied somewhat by the use of the term "suborbital"). The CIA document (reference no.5) suggests that the maximum altitude that the aircraft could reach is "200,000 feet", which is some 40 kilometres below the edge of space. I therefore feel that the use of the term "sub-orbital" within the article is misleading, and that the categories need to be checked. --GW…12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks very much for spotting this!! It isn't just the categorizations, the term 'suborbital' was used several times in the article as well. Per
Sub-orbital spaceflight, an altitude of 100 km is required, or possibly 80 km; at 60 km, Isinglass clearly doesn't qualify. The only thing a source says that I can find, is the retired CIA guy saying 'near orbital speed' (Mach 25 is orbital speed in atmosphere, I think), nothing is said about trajectory. I've thus reworked the article to remove any mention of 'suborbital' and to remove most of the categories you called out. I've also removed
Category:UAVs and drones of the United States, which was clearly wrong since this was intended to be a manned craft. I do have questions about two remaining categories.
Category:Reusable launch systems might be justified, because one of the advantages of the Isinglass approach compared to satellites was reusability. But I guess the category description limits this to spaceflight systems? And is
Category:United States military reconnaissance aircraft 1960-1969 really justified? All of those other aircraft were actually built, if even only to prototype/test-flight stage. Should aircraft abandoned while still in the design stage be included in a category like that?
Wasted Time R (
talk)
14:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks for clearing that up. I think the definition of "launch system" in that context implies "space launch system". --GW…14:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)reply