Michel Van said:got someone info about Titan III with 2x156 inch ø (396,24 cm ø) solid booster ?
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).
Quite straightforward - until the tooling is actually made, there's no great disadvantage to changing the diameter to optimise the aerodynamics, or structural design, or some other aspect of the design. Changing diameter probably reflects changing expectations around what the vehicle was expected to be capable of.Very interesting. Why none of all those "fat Titans" had the same diameter is beyond me.
The III-F designation was seldom used and III-M wasn't used after MOL was canceled. The common designation was to use the basic vehicle configuration IIIC or IIID with an SRM number for advance planning. The difference between IIIC and IIID was the guidance system and the launch site. The IIIE was unique in that the Centaur provide guidance for the whole stack. This didn't allow for variations without the Centaur.In passing, something puzzles me... III-F and III-M were the 7-seg Titans, differing by being man-rated for MOL... or not. Fine.
Titan III-E introduced the Centaur, but only had the 5-seg solids. While it did an extremely fine job for Viking, Helios and Voyager, all three programs in the end left one spare spacecraft.
The spare Helios could have gone to comet Encke had Germany and ESRO funded it circa 1974.
The spare Voyager could have become Mariner Jupiter-Uranus, but Galileo Jupiter orbiter decided otherwise.
The spare Viking could have delivered a rover to Mars surface.
In all three cases, NASA was tempted to milk max performance out of the "spares" - and the obvious step was to put 7-seg on the Titan III-E.
In a sense: a Titan III-E-F or a Titan III-E-M. Space probes don't need man-rating, so such launcher would have been an hybrid of Titan III-E and III-F. Borrowing the Centaur from the former, and the 7-seg solids from the later.
I found tantalizing glimpses of such launcher on Google books ad NTRS, what bother me, there was no letter given to that III-E / III-F hybrid.
It was called Titan IIIC/7 !
In the end the 7-seg solids and Centaur got married, but only in the Titan IVA era... and Titan IV was quite a different animal from the older Titans.
Interesting, any image of it?Found another Titan variant
Titan IIIF/stretched Transtage
like the name say
Transtage with 37 inch stretch with 5000lb of propellant
was study in 1968 for launch Mars probes in 1973,1975 and 1977 launch windows.
Study of Direct Versus Orbital entry for mars mission vol (1 to 7)
volume III Launch Vehicle Performance and Flight Mechanics
Special thanks to Jim of NSF Forum for info on this Transtage version
yes, at time Voyager got axed, it needed a Saturn V to launch two Voyager to Mars !!!Between summer 1967 when Voyager got the axe and 1970 when Viking design was "frozen" there were a lot of concepts reviewed.