• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

less-known Titan variants

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
1,958
Hello to all!

Two variants of the Titan launcher are briefly mentionned at astronautix.

The Titan 2L was a decomissioned ICBM used as space launcher (as many, many Titan 2 were from 1988 to 2005) which LEO payload was not the ordinary 3500 kg, rather 8000 kg thanks to liquid strapons... of which nothing is known about.

The Titan 5 was suposed to be a "cryogenic core" Titan but again, no details on this one.
Was it part of the EELV competition ?
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,758
Reaction score
857
Archibald said:
Hello to all!

Two variants of the Titan launcher are briefly mentionned at astronautix.

The Titan 2L was a decomissioned ICBM used as space launcher (as many, many Titan 2 were from 1988 to 2005) which LEO payload was not the ordinary 3500 kg, rather 8000 kg thanks to liquid strapons... of which nothing is known about.

The Titan 5 was suposed to be a "cryogenic core" Titan but again, no details on this one.
Was it part of the EELV competition ?


for Titan 5 as EELV competition ? i dont know
is look more like that Titan 5 was competition to Ariane 5

so far i know is The Titan 2L is a Titan with 15 foot Large Diameter Core
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3l2.htm

another Titan version
1957 Titan-C based on Titan 1
first stage 4 meter ø with 4 x Engine LR-87-3
second stage same like Titan 1 first stage
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
56
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770082403_1977082403.pdf
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,758
Reaction score
857
i found something called "Winged Titan"
on Astronautix home page, but no source on it.

some know wat this its ?
 

Attachments

  • titnwin1.gif
    titnwin1.gif
    7.1 KB · Views: 590
  • titnwing.gif
    titnwing.gif
    8.3 KB · Views: 579

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,758
Reaction score
857
Here some info about Titan IIIL6 Booster

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6431.msg53880.html#msg53880

 

mz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
8
The eighties four engined space laser launcher concept Barbarian can be seen as a Titan derivative too:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/barianmm.htm
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,797
Reaction score
199
mz said:
The eighties four engined space laser launcher concept Barbarian can be seen as a Titan derivative too:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/barianmm.htm

They later changed the plans for Zenith Star so that it would use two launches and then do a hook up in space. Of course, the US had not developed automated rendezvous and docking technology at that time, so that would have been a new development.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
205
blackstar said:
mz said:
The eighties four engined space laser launcher concept Barbarian can be seen as a Titan derivative too:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/barianmm.htm

They later changed the plans for Zenith Star so that it would use two launches and then do a hook up in space. Of course, the US had not developed automated rendezvous and docking technology at that time, so that would have been a new development.

Then of course there is this other SDIO launcher...
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/timrwind.htm
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,797
Reaction score
199
Timberwind was of course a last-gasp weapon that would only be launched in the event of war.

Yet another example of some of the nuttiness that came out of SDI. I think that one of their biggest problems was that they spread the money around too much instead of focusing on near-term solutions.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
205
blackstar said:
Timberwind was of course a last-gasp weapon that would only be launched in the event of war.

Yet another example of some of the nuttiness that came out of SDI. I think that one of their biggest problems was that they spread the money around too much instead of focusing on near-term solutions.

I'm not sure that it was. While SDIO sure did like the idea of pop-up launches, to the best of my knowledge that was not TIMBERWIND's purpose. They looked at a whole family of launchers for a variety of missions, even if their core focus was lofting one or two specific payloads. Big payloads that sloshed.
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,797
Reaction score
199
It was what I described:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c08tw_2.htm

The idea was for a single-use rocket that would only be launched when radioactivity was not a worry--like when there would be nuclear explosions. I actually know the story of how the report got leaked. The report is in pdf form at the url above, but at 1.9 megabytes is too large to include here.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
205
blackstar said:
It was what I described:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c08tw_2.htm

The idea was for a single-use rocket that would only be launched when radioactivity was not a worry--like when there would be nuclear explosions. I actually know the story of how the report got leaked. The report is in pdf form at the url above, but at 1.9 megabytes is too large to include here.

I don't see mention of TIMBERWIND's mission in the audit report (which I've seen before).
Anyway, TIMBERWIND should have it's own thread if there is any interest in this.
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,797
Reaction score
199
If it's not in that report, you can find it elsewhere on the web. Anyway, I knew the people involved when the story got leaked and then the program was declassified. That's how I learned about the rocket's purpose. They reasoned that a little more radioactivity from a big rocket would not matter because the balloon had already gone up.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,758
Reaction score
857
blackstar said:
Timberwind was of course a last-gasp weapon that would only be launched in the event of war.

sure the First study on nuclear engine in USA were USAF study for ICBM !
the USSR had similar ideas YaRD ICBM http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/yardicbm.htm

on Timberwind, it looks that was only design as upperstage engine for More payload
replace Centaur stage or high altetude launch corestage (not ground Launch !)
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,797
Reaction score
199
Michel Van said:
on Timberwind, it looks that was only design as upperstage engine for More payload
replace Centaur stage or high altetude launch corestage (not ground Launch !)

If you look at the GAO report on that site, you will see that Timberwind was a missile interceptor and it was designed for use "in the atmosphere."

Timberwind was supposed to have a very high thrust-to-weight ratio. The reason was that it was designed for very high acceleration of missile interceptors. The idea was that it would fire multiple interceptors off from the Earth at very high speed, allowing them to conduct their intercept far from the United States. It was not simply a more powerful launch vehicle--the reference in the government report to "missile interceptor" is the giveaway.
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
130
Titan III-L, here in configuration 1207-4 Spread. 5 Aerojet General LR-87s in an enlarged core plus 4 UA 1207 120" solid boosters. The orbiter is Grumman H-33 with expendable drop tanks. Payload is 45.000 lbs in 100 nmi orbit, with a 15 X 60 inches full size bay. AFAIK this is the first illustration of a full-size bay orbiter mated with a Titan 3-L. And it is also the first illustration ever seen (AFAIK) of a "spread configuration". Here http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720010274 .
 

Attachments

  • Titam-3-L.gif
    Titam-3-L.gif
    25.6 KB · Views: 386
  • H33-titan.gif
    H33-titan.gif
    22 KB · Views: 377

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
56
I guess the Ares ICBM could be lumped in with this thread. Here's the link:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8161.0.html

Moonbat
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
1,958
Skybolt said:
Titan III-L, here in configuration 1207-4 Spread. 5 Aerojet General LR-87s in an enlarged core plus 4 UA 1207 120" solid boosters. The orbiter is Grumman H-33 with expendable drop tanks. Payload is 45.000 lbs in 100 nmi orbit, with a 15 X 60 inches full size bay. AFAIK this is the first illustration of a full-size bay orbiter mated with a Titan 3-L. And it is also the first illustration ever seen (AFAIK) of a "spread configuration". Here http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720010274 .

thank you for the link. It usefully complete Heppenheimer "space shuttle decision". I didn't imagined the Titan III-L like that ! I naively thought the four SRMs were "around" the core, not by pairs (!)

What a clunky shuttle proposal. Four SRMs igoing by pair, two expendable stages, an external tank, an orbiter. And they said the more staging events, the more risk of failures. Ykes !
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,758
Reaction score
857
lucky the don't take this Titan III-L for STS

because that 1207 Booster explode sometimes and here we have 4 under Shuttle :eek:

[flash=200,200]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNsJUmFrUCA[/flash]
The Video show several Titan III explosion
Sorry about the Music
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
130
Ahem, SRMs explode, too... Besides, the Titan III-L would have to be man-rated (regular UA 1207 aren't man-rated, not to speak of an enlarged core Titan), and this was a factor in its ultimate rejection: it was a new booster anyway. There is a very complete Martin Marietta report on Titan III-L, unfortunately still unavailable in any form both from NTRS and DTIC/NTIS.
I naively thought the four SRMs were "around" the core, not by pairs (!)
The "around the core" 1207 configurations were limited to sequential burning , and weren't up at boosting a full size bay orbiter with full payload (even in six-1207 versions). The only way a Titan III-L (AFAIK) would be able to bost an H-33 orbiter in space with full payload was via parallel burning. Total thrust of a Titan III-L with 4 1207s was in the order of 6.7 million pounds thrust at sea level.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
1,958
There is a very complete Martin Marietta report on Titan III-L, unfortunately still unavailable in any form both from NTRS and DTIC/NTIS.

sigh...
 

mz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
8
Alliant's losing EELV proposal was based on Titan SRMU:s also. Ed Kyle has dug up some info about that.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19248.0
 

Attachments

  • LCLS-Image2.jpg
    LCLS-Image2.jpg
    120.1 KB · Views: 373

The Artist

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
638
Reaction score
256
Michel Van said:
i found something called "Winged Titan"
on Astronautix home page, but no source on it.

some know wat this its ?

Somewhat cleaner copies of these illustrations can be found in the book America's Mightiest Missile edited by Larry Eisnger, ARCO Publishing 1961.

The caption on one states "Above is Martin Co. design for an even more powerful Titan with 3 stages and recoverable 1st stage that can be flown back to earth . . ."

The caption for the illustration showing the winged stage being serviced suggests that it is part of the NOVA project but I'm not sure if they put the right caption with that photo.

I'm not sure if I can scan and post these.

Mike
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,758
Reaction score
857
The Artist said:
I'm not sure if I can scan and post these.

ohh yes, you can...
only name Source, copyrights and ceep the Forums rules for Posting picture
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,026
Reaction score
1,358
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
The Artist said:
Somewhat cleaner copies of these illustrations can be found in the book America's Mightiest Missile edited by Larry Eisnger, ARCO Publishing 1961

Until I went looking for it a few minutes ago, I would've *swore* I owned a copy of this...
 

The Artist

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
638
Reaction score
256
Here they are.

Martin Denver art from America's Mightiest Missile by Lloyd Mallan, Edited by Larry Eisinger
1961 ARCO Publishing
The book dates to 1961 but Martin Denver's dates for the art may be earlier.
 

Attachments

  • Winged Titan.jpg
    Winged Titan.jpg
    73.1 KB · Views: 247
  • Winged Booster.jpg
    Winged Booster.jpg
    103.7 KB · Views: 234

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
56
Titan-Apollo variants
http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault2004/titanapollo2.jpg
http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault2004/Apollo-Titan%203C/TA-301%20Assembled.JPG

And last but not least, from our very own Scott:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1855
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1873
 

Attachments

  • titanapollo2.jpg
    titanapollo2.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 111
  • TA-301%20Assembled.jpg
    TA-301%20Assembled.jpg
    448.4 KB · Views: 109
  • titaniiil2.jpg
    titaniiil2.jpg
    114.9 KB · Views: 89
  • titaniiim.jpg
    titaniiim.jpg
    97.9 KB · Views: 84

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
1,958
"It's just a model" :D

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1988/1988%20-%203122.html?search=Titan IV

Some informations on evolved Titan IV. Cryogenic second stage or three SRMs.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
1,958
The more I look at it, the more I think Titan would have been
- a bargain when compared to the shuttle
- a hard rival for Ariane 1 - 4 (for example a Titan IIIE without the large solids)

In the 1968-72 era there was a real, strong case for cheap, mass-produced Titan III instead of shuttle. Really. If only...
 

SAustin16

Bravo to All Brave Test Pilots
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
132
Reaction score
6
I'm just an amateur space enthusiast, but I think that even in some alternate history the Shuttle concept would have eventually been built as the "low cost alternative". Maybe we're lucky that the Shuttle was built and flown when it was, as it has taught the world a number of hard and expensive lessons. Now that our US "Government/Leadership" has canceled manned space flight, the Shuttle is looking pretty good to me. I had been waiting for Constellation to go see my first rocket launch, and at my age (~50), I probably won't see anything within my life time after Shuttle retires.

The US will soon be envious of the remaining space-faring nations of the Earth, especially when something is discovered and we have no means of participating in the exploration.
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,797
Reaction score
199
Archibald said:
The more I look at it, the more I think Titan would have been
- a bargain when compared to the shuttle
- a hard rival for Ariane 1 - 4 (for example a Titan IIIE without the large solids)

In the 1968-72 era there was a real, strong case for cheap, mass-produced Titan III instead of shuttle. Really. If only...

This has been discussed on the www.nasaspaceflight.com forum and you can look for the thread there (the discussion was about the costs of the Titan IV and why it was so ridiculously expensive; much of that was due to inherent inefficiencies due to the ground infrastructure). But your last comment is not really true--in the 1968-1972 era the Titan III had no competitors in that size range and was being built at the rate it was needed. There was no requirement for more of them at that time, because it had no other rivals. Building more of them would have resulted in a lot of them going into storage. The ideal solution is for a mixed-fleet of vehicles, not mass production of a single vehicle. Relying too much on a single vehicle makes you vulnerable to having all your payloads grounded if there is an accident. In the 1968-1972 era the United States had a robust mixed-fleet of Scout, Atlas, Thor, Delta, and Titan. That was all abandoned in favor of the shuttle, and we know how well that worked out.
 

Proponent

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
blackstar said:
... in the 1968-1972 era the Titan III had no competitors in that size range and was being built at the rate it was needed. There was no requirement for more of them at that time, because it had no other rivals. Building more of them would have resulted in a lot of them going into storage.

It was my understanding that the Titan production rate actually was about twice what was needed, and that many vehicles did go into storage. My source is L. Parker Temple III's article "Committing to the Shuttle without Ever Having a National Space Policy." There is also a Bellcomm memo (dated 26 Mar. 1968, written by C. Bendersky and available from NTRS) indicating that about 50 Titans (of all types) were on order for 1968-71, whereas only about half that many actually flew.
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,797
Reaction score
199
But if true, it only highlights my point--mass producing Titan IIIs would not have solved anything. It's also worth noting that the entire way that commercial payloads were launched was different than what we are familiar with today. At the time, NASA launched commercial payloads and private companies signed a contract with NASA to do the launch, and NASA signed a contract with a launch vehicle company. So if the goal is to reduce costs, a good place to start would have been eliminating the government as middleman.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
807
Reaction score
23
Proponent said:
blackstar said:
... in the 1968-1972 era the Titan III had no competitors in that size range and was being built at the rate it was needed. There was no requirement for more of them at that time, because it had no other rivals. Building more of them would have resulted in a lot of them going into storage.

It was my understanding that the Titan production rate actually was about twice what was needed, and that many vehicles did go into storage. My source is L. Parker Temple III's article "Committing to the Shuttle without Ever Having a National Space Policy." There is also a Bellcomm memo (dated 26 Mar. 1968, written by C. Bendersky and available from NTRS) indicating that about 50 Titans (of all types) were on order for 1968-71, whereas only about half that many actually flew.

The Bellcom memo does not state the number Titans on order, it is an "acceptance" schedule and looks more like a projections vs contract numbers.

Even though the lines are not labeled, one could guess which each line is:
1. CCAFS T-IIIC
2. VAFB T-IIIB
3. VAFB T-IIID
4. ?? VAFB T-24B/33B or CCAFS ??
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
130
I agree that the Titan IIIs were produced in excess of actual need. The real issue here is: was the Titan family evolvable to support a different space program from what emerged with the Shuttle decision ? The low cost alternative to Shuttle was based on an enlarged Titan (a Titan IIIL ?) carrying a reusable glider for personnel transportation to and from the orbit. Problem is that there wasn't a space program in which that would be used, in partcular no space station follow-on of Skylab. Let me explain. If you don't have a reusable orbital carrier for cargo as well for personnel (Shuttle), you have to resort to expendable boosters to launch the station. BUT, if you cancel the only heavy lifter you have (Saturn V), and considering the Saturn IB substituted by an enlarged Titan III to launch personnel, you have to use Titans to launch the space station, a very costly endeavour indeed (how many launches, how many unmanned dockings, how much risk, remember you are in the early '70s and the most complex space docking you are experienced in is the Gemini-Agena, the Apollo-LEM is simpler since both shared the same booster, and the lunar rendez-vous has both vehicles manned). A wider use on Titans in the US space program in the '70s is in my opinion lnked to the continued availability of the Saturn V, its use as a space station elements launcher and the devolopment of an enlarged Titan to substitute the IB for personnel transportation. In a space program like that, even a resuable glider would have been probably redundant, since the use of Apollo would have been perfectly fit. Problem is that there was no willingness to fund a full fledged Space Station and continued production of Saturn V. NASA sensed that accondiscending on a "minimal program" (enlarged glider plus Titan IIIL) would have turned in an even more "minimal" one (why a reusable glider ? for going where ? no glider, no Titan IIIL und so weiter).
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,758
Reaction score
857
Byeman said:
The Bellcom memo does not state the number Titans on order, it is an "acceptance" schedule and looks more like a projections vs contract numbers.

Even though the lines are not labeled, one could guess which each line is:
1. CCAFS T-IIIC
2. VAFB T-IIIB
3. VAFB T-IIID
4. ??? VAFB T-24B/33B or CCAFS ???

VAFB = Vandenberg Air Force Base
CCAFS = Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,797
Reaction score
199
Skybolt said:
I agree that the Titan IIIs were produced in excess of actual need. The real issue here is: was the Titan family evolvable to support a different space program from what emerged with the Shuttle decision ?

I don't know of any serious evaluation of a Titan-based civilian human space program. There might have been contractor proposals, but I don't know of any NASA-level or higher evaluation of such an idea.

In general, the cheapest approach would have been to not do new vehicle development and to stick to the equipment already on-hand: Apollo and the Saturn variants. Now maybe the Saturns had production costs that were prohibitive (I don't know of any realistic cost analysis from that time period), but switching to the Titan would have required new equipment. It might have been possible to put an Apollo on a Titan, but the ground infrastructure did not support it and would have required modification. There's hidden costs everywhere. If we want to venture down the "what-if" pathway, the safest route assumes maintaining the equipment that had already been developed, Saturns and Apollo.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
1,958
Well, I venture down the whatif pathway. :) Advices are welcome, to do the "whatif" as realistic as possible.

It is essentially based on Tom Heppenheimer "Space shuttle decision" http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/sp4221.htm

switching to the Titan would have required new equipment. It might have been possible to put an Apollo on a Titan, but the ground infrastructure did not support it and would have required modification. There's hidden costs everywhere.

Let's take Pad 40 / 41 at the Cape. NASA used one of the two (can't remember if 40 or 41) for Helios, Viking and Voyager probes in the 1974-77 era.
How did USAF react, and was cooperation with NASA difficult ? This use of a USAF pad by NASA is intriguing.
 

Similar threads

Top