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

less-known Titan variants

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
148
The Titan IIIL/glider alternative was envisaged in August-Spetembre 1971 by no less than George Low, Deputy-Administrator of NASA. Its payload would have been 13,600 Kg in low orbit in a 15 X 40 feet cargo bay. The OMB (Office of Management and Budget) liked the glider idea but cut it down even more: a 4,536kg payload in a 10 X 20 feet cargo bay and using the Titan IIIM booster. See "The Space Shuttle Decision" by Heppenheimer, Chapter 8, page 366-368. The glider was pretty much in the picture still in November 1971. See attached cost graphics from late Nov 1971. As for the origin of the glider/Titan III concept, Martin Marietta was certainly one (sadly their reports on Titan IIIL are still unavailable) but could be that NASA conducted some internal study also. See the MSC-042 glider orbiter design by Marshall in a previous post in this topic. The reports produced during the STS definition and design aren't all published yet (far from it).
 

Attachments

  • p385.jpg
    p385.jpg
    36.6 KB · Views: 177

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
2,980
As I think this tend toward whatif and speculation I opened another thread http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9292.0.html

Skybolt, another alternative was Big Gemini ontop of Titan III-M :)
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
148
Yes, Big Gemini was an option for an alternate minimal manned space program in early '70s. It would have cost less than an Apollo CSM to do just up and down missions.
BTW, I discovered in a Bellcomm report two additional Titan versions: Titan IIIF, a non man-rated IIIM with a transtage, and Titan IIIG, that looks like an early version of the IIIL. Martin proposed the 100,000 lbs low Earth orbit payload G in alternative to the Saturn Derivative Intermediate (INT-XX) in 1968. The IIIG could use both seven-segment 120" solid boosters and five-segments 156" solids. Various versions of the G were described in 1967 in magazines like: Aerospace Technology, October 9, 1967, p 17 and Missile/ Space Daily, June 5, 1967, p 124. Anyone out there .... ?

Uh, seems that the Weber County Library System in Ogden, Utah, has at least the Aerospace Technology one, and guess who lives nearby Ogden ????
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
238
Archibald said:
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.

Slightly different question. If you put an Apollo atop a Titan, you need crew access at the top, also emergency escape, etc. And once you do that, do you want to do Apollo spacecraft processing in the facility already built for it, or build something new closer to the Titan pad? So there are costs that are not obvious when you shift a spacecraft to a different vehicle.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
blackstar said:
Archibald said:
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.

Slightly different question. If you put an Apollo atop a Titan, you need crew access at the top, also emergency escape, etc. And once you do that, do you want to do Apollo spacecraft processing in the facility already built for it, or build something new closer to the Titan pad? So there are costs that are not obvious when you shift a spacecraft to a different vehicle.

The difference in travel between the O&C (MSOB) to 40/41 vs 39 is insignificant, so there would not be a need for another facility
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
Archibald said:
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.

41. No different than NASA using 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, etc. But in this case, 41 was not turned over to NASA, the USAF still owned it. Also, the USAF had the contract with Martin and NASA procured the Titan through the USAF. The USAF still ran the facility and Titan ops.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
Skybolt said:
I agree that the Titan IIIs were produced in excess of actual need.

My point was that they were not in excess of need
 

Proponent

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
blackstar said:
But if true, it only highlights my point--mass producing Titan IIIs would not have solved anything.

I don't disagree with your principal conclusion.
 

Proponent

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Byeman said:
Skybolt said:
I agree that the Titan IIIs were produced in excess of actual need.

My point was that they were not in excess of need

What is the evidence for that view? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to know....
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
Proponent said:
Byeman said:
Skybolt said:
I agree that the Titan IIIs were produced in excess of actual need.

My point was that they were not in excess of need

What is the evidence for that view? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to know....

The chart was a projection and not an actual production schedule. There weren't Titans laying around waiting to get launched.

edited: changed were to weren't
 

Proponent

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Byeman said:
The chart was a projection and not an actual production schedule. There were Titans laying around waiting to get launched.

I still don't understand. The text of the memo describes the chart as an "acceptance schedule." Granted, the schedule could have changed later, but I still don't see how that's evidence that there wasn't an excess of Titans.

There's also the following passage from Temple's article in Air Power History, for which he cites and interview with deputy undersecretary of the Air Force J.D. Hill:

[T]he longer lifetime of satellites made such production rates too high, and soon an excess of Titans existed. By 1974, Titan production had to be severely reduced to near minimum economic production rate under six vehicles per year to accommodate earlier over­ production.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
Proponent said:
I still don't understand. The text of the memo describes the chart as an "acceptance schedule." Granted, the schedule could have changed later, but I still don't see how that's evidence that there wasn't an excess of Titans.

Because it wasn't an actual production schedule, and again, there weren't Titans lying around.

As for Hill's comment, one or two Titans per year could be "excess"
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
2,980
Byeman said:
blackstar said:
Archibald said:
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.

Slightly different question. If you put an Apollo atop a Titan, you need crew access at the top, also emergency escape, etc. And once you do that, do you want to do Apollo spacecraft processing in the facility already built for it, or build something new closer to the Titan pad? So there are costs that are not obvious when you shift a spacecraft to a different vehicle.

The difference in travel between the O&C (MSOB) to 40/41 vs 39 is insignificant, so there would not be a need for another facility

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12846.msg272652#msg272652

According to Ed Kyle LC-40 featured a "white room" build for the MOL program. Maybe it could have been reused for Big Gemini...
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
Archibald said:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12846.msg272652#msg272652

According to Ed Kyle LC-40 featured a "white room" build for the MOL program. Maybe it could have been reused for Big Gemini...

It wasn't a white room in the manned spacecraft sense. It was a clean room for a whole spacecraft. Both 40 and 41 had Universal Environmental Shelters.
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
238
Here's a badly-airbrushed Titan II.
 

Attachments

  • index-1.jpg
    index-1.jpg
    39.2 KB · Views: 209

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,709
Reaction score
1,777
The Titan II what an great missile/space launcher/ICBM. The US should have developed a solid propellant Titan ICBM to match the 308 SS-18s. The WS-120A project explored a heavy US solid propellant ICBM in the 60's for deployment in the early 70's but it was cancelled. I am still searching for any drawings of the WS-120A!
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
Proponent said:
Byeman said:
there weren't Titans lying around.

But what is the evidence that there were no excess Titans lying around?

There were no excess T-III's, all were launched. Only one T-IV wasn't launched. Only T-II ICBM's were lying around at Norton and later Davis Monthan.

There is little storage at the launch sites
 

Proponent

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Byeman said:
There were no excess T-III's, all were launched.

You have asserted that more than once, but an assertion is not evidence of itself.

Are there any T-IIIs lying on their sides in museums now? Not that I know of, but that doesn't prove that surplus T-IIIs never existed. Maybe some are around somewhere, maybe some were scrapped, maybe some were never quite completed before they were canceled.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
Proponent said:
Are there any T-IIIs lying on their sides in museums now? Not that I know of, but that doesn't prove that surplus T-IIIs never existed. Maybe some are around somewhere, maybe some were scrapped, maybe some were never quite completed before they were canceled.

They were all flown. None lying around, none scrapped and none partially completed. Only one T-IV not used.

Also, the tail numbers show no gaps.

The 34D program is proof, i.e. more vehicles had to be built.
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
148
I am still searching for any drawings of the WS-120A!
There were various concepts. Maybe I have found one possible source for at least one of them. Stay tuned. But don't be impatient, it will take a few time.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,709
Reaction score
1,777
Thanks Skybolt looking forward to it. I wonder if Orionblamblam will do a US ICBM special issue would buy it in a heartbeat.
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
238
Proposed Titan II with solids.
 

Attachments

  • Titan2.jpg
    Titan2.jpg
    712.3 KB · Views: 219

Proponent

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Byeman said:
They were all flown. None lying around, none scrapped and none partially completed. Only one T-IV not used.

Re-reading this thread, I think we're not actually disagreeing about much. Your point is, if I understand correctly, that the all the IIIs that had been manufactured had flown by about the time that the 34D started flying. The "excess" that I infer from Temple and the Bellcomm memo would have existed in the early 70s. With a subsequent production rate of about 3 per year, all IIIs ever built could have been launched by 1982. But it would be interesting to know what the actual production schedule was.

Also, the tail numbers show no gaps.

I'm interested in the tail numbers. Where do they appear? What was a typical tail number?
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
Proponent said:
Re-reading this thread, I think we're not actually disagreeing about much. Your point is, if I understand correctly, that the all the IIIs that had been manufactured had flown by about the time that the 34D started flying. The "excess" that I infer from Temple and the Bellcomm memo would have existed in the early 70s. With a subsequent production rate of about 3 per year, all IIIs ever built could have been launched by 1982. But it would be interesting to know what the actual production schedule was.

My contention is that there was no real backlog or excess beyond a few vehicles.

Proponent said:
I'm interested in the tail numbers. Where do they appear? What was a typical tail number?

http://www.planet4589.org/space/log/launchlog.txt
http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_lau/titan-3_bo.htm
 

carsinamerica

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
113
Reaction score
20
Military variant?

An article at GlobalSecurity, talking about an ICBM conversion of the Japanese H-2, had this to say:

The H-2 launch vehicle core stage propellants are cryogenic liquid hydrogen and oxygen. As such, it is ENTIRELY unsuited for conversion to ballistic missile applications. Although it is comparable in performance to the American Titan 34D launch vehicle, the Titan 3 family has never been used as an ICBM, and was only very briefly considered for such an application in the early 1960s, when though was given to using it to carry very high yield [~100 MT] nuclear warheads.

Does anyone know what that reference is about? I can't find any other reference to the use of Titan III as an ICBM, much less with a super-high-yield warhead, unless it's something to do with the Icarus project. I'd love to see a source that bears out this assertion.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
H-2 as ICBM ? ROLF

several years ago a Japanese newspaper
publish a secret government document about
a possibility of Japanese Nuclear weapons program (against North Korea)
the Nissan build M-V play a role as Mobil ICBM
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mv.htm

on 100MT US. warheads
the Icarus project was based on Apollo & Saturn V hardware


with the Soviet Tsar Bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_bomb
its seem logical that US would have also goes for a 100 MT nuke
lucky Robert McNamara ignore, those demands after the Tsar Bomb test,

USAF had take a trust increased Titan as launcher for this 44,000-pound (20 tons) nuclear bomb
but in beginn of 1960s the plans for a Trust increased Titan II was not like the Titan IIIC
like this two segment booster like here http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=498
but launching this from underground Silo ? ? ?
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
73
http://www.pefisher.us/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/TitanSRBmarketing.pdf

Reprint of various Titan reports from Aerospace Technology, Jan. thru April 1968
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,058
Reaction score
1,475
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Re: Military variant?

carsinamerica said:
I can't find any other reference to the use of Titan III as an ICBM, much less with a super-high-yield warhead,

Closest I can think of is a notion for silo-launched Titan IIIC's with modified Dyna Soar payloads. The DS's would be unmanned and would carry an internal 20 megaton hydrogen bomb of high yield, along with a turbojet.

Step 1) Dirty Commies act up
Step 2) About a dozen TIIIC/DS's would silo launch from Vandiland, putting the DS's into orbit.
Step 3A) Dirty Commies back down
Step 4A) DS's re-enter, land at Vandi and get refurbed
or...

Step 3B) Dirty Commies don't get the hint
Step 4B) DS's re-enter
Step 5) The DS's drop to low altitude, fire up their turbojets, fly as terrain-following cruise missiles
Step 6) Numerous Dirty Commie facilites go FOOOM
Step 7) ...
Step 8) Profit!

See APR Article 21 for more: http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/articles.htm
 

RLBH

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
373
Reaction score
244
Some very interesting Titan derivatives in (1), as well as methods of varying sanity to launch Shuttles. A few of the Titan-y highlights for your delectation include the Titan IIIM and Titan IIIF (same animal, actually, just not man-rated), as well as some interesting notions for future derivatives of the Titan family in place of the Space Shuttle.

The proposed medium launcher uses a 5-segment 120" Titan SRM with a Titan III second stage as an upper stage. Agena or Centaur upper stages could also be added for high-energy missions. They note that the performance could be varied by altering the lenght of SRM used, and that the thrust vector control system of the SRM would need development.

There's also some fairly good information on the uprated Titan III with the 15-foot diameter, four-LR87 core. Apparently, it would've been capable of taking two, four or six seven-segment 120" SRMs, although only the four-segment version was found useful in the study. The first stage would have 476 tonnes of fuel (as opposed to Astronautix' 300 tonnes) and the second stage, of only 10 foot diameter, 87.43 tonnes. It's also suggested that the IIIL could use a hammerhead fairing of up to 10 metres diameter.

Annoyingly, the reference for these vehicles - Volume IV of the report in (2) - is not on NTRS, although Volumes I to III and V are online; Volume VI is classified. One would imagine that the missing volume would go into more detail about the SRM launcher and Titan IIIL at least. However, the linked Volume I does have a summary table, which gives payload capacities to a 100 nautical mile, 28.5 degree orbit from KSC as:
7,900 lbs for the 5-segment SRM/Titan III second stage launcher
38,000 lbs for the Titan IIIF and Titan IIIM
62,500 lbs for the Titan IIIL-2
91,000 lbs for the Titan IIIL-4

(1) Mathematica Economic Analysis of the Space Shuttle System
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730005251_1973005251.pdf

(2) Integrated Operations/Payloads/Fleet Analysis Final Report - Volume I: Summary, Study Overview
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19720019140&hterms=19720019140&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchany%26Ntk%3DAll%26Ns%3DLoaded-Date|1%26N%3D0%26Ntt%3D19720019140
 

Attachments

  • Titan IIIM derivatives.png
    Titan IIIM derivatives.png
    78.7 KB · Views: 199
  • Titan SRM 'stick'.png
    Titan SRM 'stick'.png
    42.5 KB · Views: 193
  • Titan IIIL4.png
    Titan IIIL4.png
    40.6 KB · Views: 182

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
148
Returning to the super-heavy ICBM derived from Titan 34D, there is an hint in an AW&ST of 1963 I seem to remember. Will have a look to my photocopies. i t was in the same timeframe of the studies on tyxotropic (metallized) propellant for ICBMs.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
Skybolt said:
Returning to the super-heavy ICBM derived from Titan 34D, there is an hint in an AW&ST of 1963 I seem to remember. Will have a look to my photocopies. i t was in the same timeframe of the studies on tyxotropic (metallized) propellant for ICBMs.

the Titan 34D in 1963 ?
i thought the Titan 34D fly first in 1982, or is this a typing error ?
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,968
Reaction score
365
the message referred to above has been removed by myself.


cheers,
Robin.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,709
Reaction score
1,777
Skybolt said:
Returning to the super-heavy ICBM derived from Titan 34D, there is an hint in an AW&ST of 1963 I seem to remember. Will have a look to my photocopies. i t was in the same timeframe of the studies on tyxotropic (metallized) propellant for ICBMs.

Yes please :D any and all information on heavy US ICBM proposals would be welcome (WS-120A configurations?), thanks.
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
148
Uh, I meant there was a hint on something like a boosted-up Titan for use as an ICBM...
 

Similar threads

Top