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

less-known Titan variants

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,709
Reaction score
1,777
Skybolt said:
Uh, I meant there was a hint on something like a boosted-up Titan for use as an ICBM...

Skybolt - Did you see the 260" ICBM thread? Interesting talk about a super heavy lift ICBM. My dream would be more limited just 120" and about 110' for MMIII replacement and conventional prompt global strike :D
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
bobbymike said:
Skybolt said:
Uh, I meant there was a hint on something like a boosted-up Titan for use as an ICBM...

Skybolt - Did you see the 260" ICBM thread? Interesting talk about a super heavy lift ICBM. My dream would be more limited just 120" and about 110' for MMIII replacement and conventional prompt global strike :D

Global strike of 250 MT
if 206" ICBM use TEN B41 nuclear bomb each 25MT as payload
General LeMay would be delighted…
more here http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=10434
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
sealordlawrence said:
Is the 10 B41 thing confirmed or just speculation?

just speculation of my on wat this 260" ICBM carry 110000 pounds over 8000 n.mi.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,709
Reaction score
1,777
This was from another thread I started might interest people here:

From what appears to be a book abstract by Maurice F. Crommie. His website has this in his resume

Dec 1962 - Sept 1971

Consulting Engineer, Senior Scientist and Project Leader in strategic nuclear weapon design at General Electric, McDonald Douglas, Stanford Research Institute, Conductron Corporation and Avco Research and Advanced Design.

Jan 1960 - Dec 1962

Senior Engineer and Heat Transfer Specialist in rocket nozzle design and space capsule re-entry at TRW and Avco Research and Advanced Design.

March 1955 - Dec 1959

Aerothermodynamicist / jet engine designer

Link to his bibliography - http://home.olemiss.edu/~mcrommie/

“The subject of our paper was multiple warhead delivery systems. The title of our paper was “CLAW”, which stood for “Clustered Atomic Warheads”. We delivered this paper at a top secret restricted session of AMRAC at the secure Naval Station in San Diego in 1962. It was the first paper of its type advocating multiple warhead payloads. MIRV hadn’t been invented yet. The capability for Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicles didn’t exist in 1962. Our system could deliver multiple warheads, but only on a single target in a circular or elliptical pattern. This was an advance in the state of the art at that time.

[snip]

“Following the success of our AMRAC paper, I was promoted to Project Engineer for the design of a heavy payload system, 39,000 pounds on top of a Titan III missile. The mission was to negate the Leningrad SAM defense system to allow our B 52′s access to the target. My liaison officer was a U.S.A.F. major, who was a B 52 pilot. His idea was that when we softened up the target with our nuclear barrage, he would fly in and finish it off.

“Me and my team designed a three tiered payload with 13 one megaton Mark 11 RV’s in each tier (39 total) which would be spun out in space and impact the Leningrad defenses in three concentric elliptical rings. Our liaison officer was ecstatic, his bomb run would be unopposed. What he didn’t seem to realize was that there would be nothing left to bomb after we laid down a barrage equal to 2000 times the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima.”

http://home.olemiss.edu/~mcrommie/aerospace.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now that's my kind of ICBM
cheesy.gif
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
Back To Titan booster

USAF Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO) and The Aerospace Corporation,
made during 1965 to 1968 Minimum Cost Design studies
as low cost alternative to Titan III family
Also they studied also to replace the Solid booster of Titan IIIC
With pressure fed Strap-ons or Hybrid strap-ons wat exceeded the Soild one.

The Aerospace Corporation proposed tow different pressure fed liquid fuel strap-on concepts
United Technology proposed Hybrid Booster
TRW proposed Low-cost throttleable pressure fed single-chamber engine

In end the Minimum Cost Design studies died quiet by politic

Source:
LEO on the Cheap
by Lt Col John R. London III, 1994
Page 181-190
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
got someone info about Titan III with 2x156 inch ø (396,24 cm ø) solid booster ?


Was study in mid-1960s as medium payload rocket


source:
Apollo: The lost and Forgotten Missions
By David J. Shayler, Springer-Praxis books, Isbn 1-85233-575-o
graphic on page 221
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
found on You Tube


Titan IIIC R&D presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyECvf5qF3k&feature=related


Titan IIIC solid booster separation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65mLCLqTB4s&feature=related
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
2,980
A simple question. Does recovery at sea of Titan III Solid Rocket Motors was ever considered ?
Could someone point me to a study ?
I can't believe Martin Marietta (or the SRM builder, whatever company was that ?) never did such a proposal.
I would say that proposal should have been done somewhere between 1964 and 1974 or so.

For the sake of comparison, ESA tried to recover Ariane 5 own solids for studies only.
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/ariane5/recup_EAP.htm
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
73
http://sputnik.freehomepage.com/Models/gallery.html

About 2/3 ot the way down, the guy has pictures of a scratchbuilt Barbarian booster. Not sure how accurate it is though.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,058
Reaction score
1,475
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
XP67_Moonbat said:
http://sputnik.freehomepage.com/Models/gallery.html

About 2/3 ot the way down, the guy has pictures of a scratchbuilt Barbarian booster. Not sure how accurate it is though.

It's a reasonably accurate Zenith Star Launch System model, probably based on the one painting and one drawing that were published in Aerospace America way back when.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
666
Byeman said:
Barbarian was Titan and not Delta
There was more than one Barbarian, one by Martin, another one by McDonnell-Douglas.

Mark Wade's Astronautix on McDonnell-Douglas Barbarian:
Stage Data - Barbarian MDD
  • Stage 0. 3 x Shuttle SRB. Gross Mass: 589,670 kg (1,299,990 lb). Empty Mass: 86,183 kg (190,000 lb). Thrust (vac): 11,519.999 kN (2,589,799 lbf). Isp: 269 sec. Burn time: 124 sec. Isp(sl): 237 sec. Diameter: 3.71 m (12.17 ft). Span: 5.10 m (16.70 ft). Length: 38.47 m (126.21 ft). Propellants: Solid. No Engines: 1. Engine: SRB. Other designations: Solid Rocket Booster. Status: In Production.
  • Stage 1. 6 x Delta Thor XLT-C. Gross Mass: 101,900 kg (224,600 lb). Empty Mass: 5,900 kg (13,000 lb). Thrust (vac): 1,054.195 kN (236,992 lbf). Isp: 302 sec. Burn time: 265 sec. Isp(sl): 255 sec. Diameter: 2.44 m (8.00 ft). Span: 2.44 m (8.00 ft). Length: 26.05 m (85.46 ft). Propellants: Lox/Kerosene. No Engines: 1. Engine: RS-27C. Other designations: Extra ELT Thor+. Status: In Production.
  • Stage 2. 1 x Delta Thor XLT-C. Gross Mass: 101,900 kg (224,600 lb). Empty Mass: 5,900 kg (13,000 lb). Thrust (vac): 1,054.195 kN (236,992 lbf). Isp: 302 sec. Burn time: 265 sec. Isp(sl): 255 sec. Diameter: 2.44 m (8.00 ft). Span: 2.44 m (8.00 ft). Length: 26.05 m (85.46 ft). Propellants: Lox/Kerosene. No Engines: 1. Engine: RS-27C. Other designations: Extra ELT Thor+. Status: In Production.
Mark Wade's Astronautix on Martin Barbarian:
Stage Data - Barbarian MM
  • Stage 0. 5 x Titan UA1207. Gross Mass: 319,330 kg (704,000 lb). Empty Mass: 51,230 kg (112,940 lb). Thrust (vac): 7,116.999 kN (1,599,965 lbf). Isp: 272 sec. Burn time: 120 sec. Isp(sl): 245 sec. Diameter: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Span: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Length: 34.14 m (112.00 ft). Propellants: Solid. No Engines: 1. Engine: UA1207. Status: In Production.
  • Stage 1. 1 x Barbarian MM-1. Gross Mass: 400,000 kg (880,000 lb). Empty Mass: 25,000 kg (55,000 lb). Thrust (vac): 6,080.000 kN (1,366,830 lbf). Isp: 302 sec. Burn time: 175 sec. Isp(sl): 250 sec. Diameter: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Span: 5.80 m (19.00 ft). Length: 20.00 m (65.00 ft). Propellants: N2O4/Aerozine-50. No Engines: 5. Engine: LR-87-11. Status: Study. Comments: All values roughly estimated based on number of engines and diameter given.
  • Stage 2. 1 x Barbarian MM-2. Gross Mass: 80,000 kg (176,000 lb). Empty Mass: 6,000 kg (13,200 lb). Thrust (vac): 1,214.000 kN (272,918 lbf). Isp: 302 sec. Burn time: 175 sec. Isp(sl): 250 sec. Diameter: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Span: 5.80 m (19.00 ft). Length: 6.00 m (19.60 ft). Propellants: N2O4/Aerozine-50. No Engines: 1. Engine: LR-87-11. Status: Study. Comments: All values roughly estimated based on number of engines and diameter given.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,058
Reaction score
1,475
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
blackstar said:
It's too bad that the guy doesn't have a better camera.

The webpage, and thus the photos, is more than a decade old, probably from sometime in the 90's. Which means film photos on a flatbed scanner. And good film camera shots are a lot harder to get than good digital camera shots, sinc eyou can get a billion digital shots for the cost of a single roll of film.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
666
The MDD Barbarian model as built by Erik Anderson matches Mark Wade's description. If you know more about Barbarian, I'd honestly like to know.

As far as I know, both McDonnell-Douglas and Martin Marietta proposed heavy launchers for SDI. According to Mark Wade, they were both tagged with the 'Barbarian' moniker.
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
238
Byeman said:
Arjen said:
There was more than one Barbarian, one by Martin, another one by McDonnell-Douglas.

Astronautix is just a space version of wikipedia, it is not absolute reference.

And with its own unique problems. At least with Wikipedia, if there is a glaring error, you can fix it. On Astronautix, if there is a glaring error, it's probably never going to get fixed. (Then again, on Wikipedia people who think they know stuff can introduce their own errors.)
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
666
Just the same, I was aware both McDonnell-Douglas and Martin Marietta had proposed heavy launchers for SDI. It was too much of a business opportunity for either company not to jump in. Astronautix confirmed that, and - news to me - with the same name: Barbarian. I can't find any other references than OBB's site and Astronautix.

If you know more, and are allowed to share...

<edit>Found some more here, the image is an extract of the pdf.
<edit2> Bigger extract.
 

Attachments

  • Meeting Space Launch Needs - Economically.pdf
    635.3 KB · Views: 9
  • Barbarian.JPG
    Barbarian.JPG
    191.1 KB · Views: 294

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
238
Here's a report on Zenith Star from April 1989. This is the two-launch version:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/147682.pdf
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
666
Thank you kindly, that's a bit more than I was hoping for.
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
14
Website
www.io.com
Byeman said:
Arjen said:
There was more than one Barbarian, one by Martin, another one by McDonnell-Douglas.

Astronautix is just a space version of wikipedia, it is not absolute reference.

...Pbbbbt. Given the choice, I'd trust Mark Wade on the majority of common articles over Wikipedia. At least with Astronautix, you don't need to worry about the possibility that some prepubecent troll can come across and screw with the facts as well as other acts of vandalism, just to mark their scrawl. Ergo, just because Mark doesn't let the inmates run the asylum over on Astronautx doesn't mean it shouldn't be used as a resource. In fact, over the years I've found that a *lot* of the Wiki articles on Space Exploration have had whole sections lifted from Astronautics and just C&Pd, half the time without proper accreditation.

[shakes head in totally dismay]
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
OM said:
Byeman said:
Arjen said:
There was more than one Barbarian, one by Martin, another one by McDonnell-Douglas.

Astronautix is just a space version of wikipedia, it is not absolute reference.

...Pbbbbt. Given the choice, I'd trust Mark Wade on the majority of common articles over Wikipedia.

I wouldn't because I know better, and that is the issue, it isn't any better. One can find just as many errors in it as wiki and it has the author's bias in it. Also volume does not equate to quality.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
666
Found another reference for McDonnell-Douglas proposing a heavy launcher for Zenith Star.

Zenith Star Launch System Stafford, Larry; Rendine, Michael J. Aerospace America (ISSN 0740-722X), vol. 28, Sept. 1990, p. 40-43. <blockquote>The Zenith Star Launch System (ZSLS) will be used by the SDIO to loft the Alpha Laser and its Large Adaptive Mirror system to orbit. ZSLS performance requirements were rendered especially severe by the weights of these systems, which involved not only the 40,000 lbs of the laser and 15,000 lbs of the mirror, but the weight of laser fuel, laser coolant, beam-control system, target acquisition system, and laser pointing/tracking system. The Titan IV launch vehicle could not have lifted more than 40,000 lbs to LEO. The requisite 100,000 lbs will instead be boosted by a composite launch vehicle consisting of three Shuttle SRBs surrounding a cluster of six Delta II liquid-propellant first stages, and an air-started Delta II first stage. The payload fits within a Titan IV fairing. </blockquote> Keywords: HIGH POWER LASERS, LARGE SPACE STRUCTURES, LAUNCH VEHICLES, SPACEBORNE LASERS, LIQUID PROPELLANT ROCKET ENGINES, MIRRORS, PAYLOADS, SPACE SHUTTLE BOOSTERS
Source: The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
interesting find by Hexham
index.php


A Titan I with Centaur as Second stage, here for X-20 Dyna-Soar Phase Alpha booster study.
for Step IIA consider Orbital flights here:
the Titan I first stage add 105000 lb of Lox/RP-1 fuel and the engines are uprated to max 400000 lb. thrust.
as second stage Centaur B with two RL-10B engine
because this Titan-Centaur is on limit of size and thrust they study also a smaller version
with 360000 lb. Thrust and 66000 lb. additional fuel in first stage.

source
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720063130_1972063130.pdf
 

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
848
Reaction score
141
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Michel Van said:
got someone info about Titan III with 2x156 inch ø (396,24 cm ø) solid booster ?

Titan IIIG.

EDIT: No wait, Titan IIIG was the first of many proposals by Martin for "fat core" Titans.

IIIG would have been a 180" diameter core , compared to the later 192" (16 ft) core proposed for Titan IIIL-1207-4 (Spread) for the Grumman H-33 Orbiter or the 196" diameter core proposed for 'straight' Titan IIIL 2/4/6.


IIIG would have had option of two UA-1207 or UA-1565 (156" diam 5 segment SRM) boosters, and would have had four engines.


No idea if these were stock LR87s or the 'cut down' single chamber LR87s of only 226 klbf used in Titan IIIL-1207-4 (Spread).
 

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
848
Reaction score
141
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Skybolt said:
Titan III-L, here in configuration 1207-4 Spread. 5 Aerojet General LR-87s


If you read the document that's from, you'll notice they're an as yet uncategorized LR87.


They had an expansion ratio of 12 (vs 8 of the ones used on Titan III), and were single chamber, not dual chamber

Thrust was also substantially lower as a result.
 

Spark

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
43
Hi ,
What fat body Titan designs were there in the the Fifties? The US and UK used a common diametric standard for the missile,
The UK did a lot of work for the 15' (180in) as well as the16' (196in) and the 14' (168in) these were dedicated SLV variants.
Prior to Blue Streak 15' and 16' missiles were suggested (before 1954) with the observation that the 15' would be rail transportable. One source only for the rail transportability at PRO Kew.
There must have been work on a fat body Titan missile and SLV variants must have been considered in the fifties?


RyanCrierie said:
Skybolt said:
Titan III-L, here in configuration 1207-4 Spread. 5 Aerojet General LR-87s


If you read the document that's from, you'll notice they're an as yet uncategorized LR87.


They had an expansion ratio of 12 (vs 8 of the ones used on Titan III), and were single chamber, not dual chamber

Thrust was also substantially lower as a result.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
Spark said:
Hi ,
What fat body Titan designs were there in the the Fifties? The US and UK used a common diametric standard for the missile,
The UK did a lot of work for the 15' (180in) as well as the16' (196in) and the 14' (168in) these were dedicated SLV variants.
Prior to Blue Streak 15' and 16' missiles were suggested (before 1954) with the observation that the 15' would be rail transportable. One source only for the rail transportability at PRO Kew.
There must have been work on a fat body Titan missile and SLV variants must have been considered in the fifties?

The Titan I was only briefly look at as an SLV much less a wide body. Titan II contract was only started in 1960. Transportability was a prime consideration. So, there was no work in the 50's on wide body Titan.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
on Fat body Titan been considered in the fifties

there was the 1957 Titan-C proposal
based on Titan I hardware. it feature first stage 4 meter ø with 4 x Engine LR-87-3, as second stage the Titan 1 first stage.

also I remember vaguely on Titan-1 with Polaris SSLB as stage 3 and 4 for Interplanetary mission.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
From ABMA's Proposed National Integrated Missile and Space Development Program, from March 1958
Titan I as Space launcher with payload 450-1400 kg
Titan I with Polaris SSLB as stage 3 and 4. Payload 1400-2300 kg
also they proposed a Titan I with this feature:
First stage recoverable; 2 and 3 stages with N2H4-F2 or H2-O2 fuel. Payload 2300-4500 kg

From NACA Working Group's Recommended Space Vehicles, July 1958
Titan I with N2H4-F2 upper stage with 53 kN engine. Payload 1400-2700 kg
Uprated Titan I, first stage recoverable. with high-energy upper stage. Payload 2300-4500 kg

but already in 1959 under NASA the proposals for Titan I as Space launcher is disappear.
while the Air Force's Titan C proposed by the Glenn L. Martin Company as a launch vehicle for Dynasoar.
The first-stage was 4 meters in diameter and was powered by four Aerojet ICBM engines of 667 kN each.
The second stage was powered by two of the same engines but equipped with larger nozzles for high-altitude operation.

I just wonder about the designation Titan-C
because there Two titan rockets with that designation, this all O2-RP-1 fuel and another with Titan II first stage and H2-O2 second stage.
or could it be that here was made error in identification ?
that the Titan II first stage and H2-O2 second stage is in realty the Titan I with centaur for Dyna Soar ?


source
LIQUID HYDROGEN AS A PROPULSION FUEL,1945-1959
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch11-5.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch12-3.htm
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
818
Reaction score
34
Michel Van said:
on Fat body Titan been considered in the fifties

there was the 1957 Titan-C proposal
based on Titan I hardware. it feature first stage 4 meter ø with 4 x Engine LR-87-3, as second stage the Titan 1 first stage.

Not as an ICBM
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
Byeman said:
Michel Van said:
on Fat body Titan been considered in the fifties

there was the 1957 Titan-C proposal
based on Titan I hardware. it feature first stage 4 meter ø with 4 x Engine LR-87-3, as second stage the Titan 1 first stage.

Not as an ICBM


nope, was consider as Dyna Soar launcher.


i found on Titan-IIIM new variant, a Titan-IIIM(LDC)
i have no idea what LDC means, the paper* show only that carry more payload in orbit
while Titan-IIIM carry 36000 lb. in 125 n.m orbit at 90°, a Titan-IIIM(LDC) brings 48300 lb. in same orbit


*=A Titan-IIIM Launched Space Station program - Case 710
by E.D. Marion and J.A. Schelke
Bellcomm. Inc July 23, 1968
 

Similar threads

Top