Asked what he foresaw as the launch vehicle beyond an uprated Titan III-C (Titan III-M, seven-segment solid rocket motors and a stretched first stage), Col. Taliaferro said:"That is about the extent of the growth potential of the present Titan III. Beyond that, if and when a firm requirement exists for a booster in the 50,000 to 100,000 lb. payload class, I like the fat-core Titan with optimized 156-in.-dia. solid rocket motors."Col. Taliaferro defined "fat core" as a Titan III vehicle with the diameter extended to 156 in. Four of the current Aerojet liquid-fuel engines are clustered and fed from common tankage.Martin-Marietta Corp. has funded an in-house effort of this nature for some time and such a vehicle has been well defined.
"The Titan IIIG has a 15 ft. diameter core with a 4 engine first stage, and can use 7-segment 120-inch or 5-segment 156-inch diameter SRM. Low earth orbit payloads up to 100,000 lbs are claimed. Martin has generated a serious sales effort to sell this vehicle in competition to the Saturn derivative intermediate family (e.g., INT-20)."
How close was Titan 3M to a first launch? Was the first unmanned MOL to be the payload of the first launch?The Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missles http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app3/b-6.html says only the first and second stages had undergone static tests.But Astronautix.com http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3m.htm says the UA1207 solid rocket motor had its first static test firing on April 27, 1969, in Coyote Canyon, CA.
Aerospace Technology article on 29 January 1968QuoteAsked what he foresaw as the launch vehicle beyond an uprated Titan III-C (Titan III-M, seven-segment solid rocket motors and a stretched first stage), Col. Taliaferro said:"That is about the extent of the growth potential of the present Titan III. Beyond that, if and when a firm requirement exists for a booster in the 50,000 to 100,000 lb. payload class, I like the fat-core Titan with optimized 156-in.-dia. solid rocket motors."Col. Taliaferro defined "fat core" as a Titan III vehicle with the diameter extended to 156 in. Four of the current Aerojet liquid-fuel engines are clustered and fed from common tankage.Martin-Marietta Corp. has funded an in-house effort of this nature for some time and such a vehicle has been well defined....TITAN IIIGSelected Comments on Agena and Titan III Family Stages, Case 720; 26 March 1968Quote"The Titan IIIG has a 15 ft. diameter core with a 4 engine first stage, and can use 7-segment 120-inch or 5-segment 156-inch diameter SRM. Low earth orbit payloads up to 100,000 lbs are claimed. Martin has generated a serious sales effort to sell this vehicle in competition to the Saturn derivative intermediate family (e.g., INT-20)."...Titan III Large Diameter Core (LDC) Family(aka Titan IIIL)Notes: This family was proposed from mid-1971 onwards by Martin Marietta. It would have increased the core stage diameter up from the existing 10 feet (3m) and would have used a varying number of UA-1207 SRMs developed for the Titan IIIM program.
Hey Mr Kyle, where there ever plans to have a Titan 3 with GEM's (like on Delta) and not UA-1207's? i have seen renders to the effect ( captioned as "an american equivalent to Ariane") but they might have been fanciful.
Any more information on these as they seem really interesting.
captioned as "an american equivalent to Ariane"
(180 inch is 4.572 m for those that use normal units)
4 SRBs! That would have been spectacular to see!
Quote from: Ronpur50 on 05/04/2016 01:12 am4 SRBs! That would have been spectacular to see!Particularly if it blew up like Titan 34D-9, except it would be squared or even cubed. Yowza.
This Titan-centric view of the future, of course, never materialized.
a non-LH2 orbiter option
The Orbiter engines would have ignited after staging, allowing them to be optimized for vacuum
No love for Titan I variants?
Martin Marietta's design would have used a large diameter core powered by five LR-87-AJ11 engines, topped by a second stage powered by one of the engines.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/19/2016 11:43 pmMartin Marietta's design would have used a large diameter core powered by five LR-87-AJ11 engines, topped by a second stage powered by one of the engines.Ed how do the core LR-87 engines get the same vacuum Isp as the second stage LR-87? Looking at your drawing it seems the second stage engine has a much higher expansion ratio suggesting it should have the greater vacuum Isp.
Looking back at the first post regarding the different Dyna-Soar rocket carriers, I was wondering: was the Centaur-D1T variation planned for the Titan II-Centaur config? Or was it an earlier Centaur model?
Didn't anyone cover the Titan V study from 1988? If I recall correctly, I think it included two UA1207 boosters and a cryogenic first stage powered by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
Could those Titan / Dyna Soar fins have been replaced with grid-fins, and would that have been smaller or lighter than those large fixed fins?
interesting, there were a complete Liquid fueled Titan version At first, it make impression, this is alternative to Solid Boosted Titan III ...But there is problem of low trust of liquid booster any evidence or note the Booster engine were upgraded for more thrust ?
I knew it. I knew it should have existed somewhere ! Interesting to see a Titan going the EELV road in the sense of strapping, not SRMs, but others Titan liquid-fuel cores - to the sides. But as said above, the LR-87 lacked thrust for that idea to work well. RD-180 and RS-68 are different beasts.
Here's a variant I'll bet no one's ever heard of: Arcturus. Recently I came across the book Exploring the Secrets of Space: Astronautics for the Layman, written by Israel Levitt and Dandridge Cole and published in 1963. It mentions a Saturn-C-3-class vehicle (about 100,000 lb to LEO). An illustration suggests it was to consist of six Titan bodies clustered around a seventh. It would have been sort of a Titan version of the Saturn C-I, though powered by two F-1 engines. The Apollo mode decision had just been made as of the time of writing. Though the book includes an illustration from Martin of the Arcturus launch what seems to be a Dyna-Soar, I'll be it was a originally intended as an alternative to the Saturn C-3 for the lunar mission.
It's understandable to think this might have been considered as an alternative to Saturn development, because it proposed using the F-1 engine, and we're all trained the believe that MSFC developed the F-1 engine. But the F-1 engine existed as a program well before von Braun and his team were brought into the NASA fold -- heck, before they even launched Explorer 1. F-1 development was moved from the DoD over to NASA (with a bewildering sequence of do-it-soon, put-it-on-the-back-burner, do-it-by-tomorrow-damnit to maybe-we'll-cancel-it under Eisenhower's flip-flop space policy). It was then managed by a NASA advanced propulsion office in Washington before MSFC was conceived and brought into being.It's also something that those of us who don't have Ed's dramatic memory (and documentation) of early boosters wouldn't think is right -- Titan used hypergolics and the F-1 was a kerolox engine. Sometimes it's hard to recall, even for those of us who grew up in the '60s, that the Titan was originally designed and built as a kerolox rocket, and only moved to hypergols with the advent of the Titan II and the need for silo-based ICBMs that didn't require a long and problematic cryogenic fueling step before being ready to launch. The Titan I, like the Atlas and, heck, the R-7, was a decent booster, but not a very easily deployable missile system. With hypergols, the Titan II became a system that could go from complete stand-down to launch in minutes. Until we came up with solid-fuel ICBMs like Minuteman and Polaris (later MX and Trident), the Titan II was the ultimate in fast-response strike systems.
Sounds like I was wrong, then, about it being an alternate Saturn C-3.
I found mention of Arcturus in the following link, which is a too-big (59 mB) pdf with a history of Littleton, Colorado. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjN9bamm6DNAhVEmR4KHT1wB0AQFggoMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycolorado.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2FOAHP%2FPrograms%2FSI_postWWII_Littleton_1949-1967.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEAIs7E7aq_nL6yEiPLYCrlq0knnAAmong the extensive, mostly unrelated pages of this document is mention of a 1959 presentation by Martin Company to the Littleton Rotary club that included "a model of an “Arcturus missile,” in which eleven Titan missileswere combined into a single space vehicle expected to reach the moon in 1965".
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/11/2016 02:51 pmI found mention of Arcturus in the following link, which is a too-big (59 mB) pdf with a history of Littleton, Colorado. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjN9bamm6DNAhVEmR4KHT1wB0AQFggoMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycolorado.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2FOAHP%2FPrograms%2FSI_postWWII_Littleton_1949-1967.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEAIs7E7aq_nL6yEiPLYCrlq0knnAAmong the extensive, mostly unrelated pages of this document is mention of a 1959 presentation by Martin Company to the Littleton Rotary club that included "a model of an “Arcturus missile,” in which eleven Titan missileswere combined into a single space vehicle expected to reach the moon in 1965".That's quite a find! I presume, then, the idea was to cluster seven Titan first stages as a first stage and four more as a second stage, making a total of eleven.
at Secret project Forum, we had topic X-15B (orbital Version of X-15) were this image was posted it feature four Titan I cluster I have no idea if that Real proposal or fake...
Quote from: Michel Van on 06/13/2016 10:29 amat Secret project Forum, we had topic X-15B (orbital Version of X-15) were this image was posted it feature four Titan I cluster I have no idea if that Real proposal or fake...You forgot the picture! Tease!
You need to have an account on and be logged onto http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ for the link to work.
On Orbital X-15B the NAA planed to 'stripped' X-15A with an empty mass of 4500 kg. (also landing gear out ?)and equipped with heat shield of beryllium oxide and Rene 41 alloy.as Booster 4 x G-26 NAA Navaho booster stages plus the X-15B's own XLR-99 engine. to get the X-15B in single 120 x 75 km orbit so no retrorocket was neededNAA expected that a first manned orbital flight could be achieved 30 months after a go-ahead at a cost of $ 120 million in 1958
The book mentioned that Arcturus would be "Saturn C-3" class. My question would be "which Saturn C-3"? That Saturn began at 25 tonnes LEO/11 tonnes escape in 1959, then grew to 36 tonnes LEO/13.6 tonnes escape by January 1961. By the time it was shelved later that year it had grown to 45.3 tonnes LEO/17.7 tonnes escape!
Second my Photoshop of proposed Titan 1 with Polaris as upper stage
I've been trying to model the Titan 1/Polaris concept, but it seems to me that a two-stage Polaris A-1, say, would simply be too heavy to be efficient. Yes, Titan might have been able to lift Polaris, but to no purpose since a much smaller, lighter solid motor or motors used as an upper stage or stages would have lifted as much or more to LEO! I'm wondering if the 1958 ABMA concept might have called for other motors from the Polaris development program, such as the X-17 solid motors, etc.The answer should be in "A National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program.", ABMA, April or March 1958, if anyone has a copy. - Ed Kyle
While it's not the ABMA plan itself, the draft Saturn technical history which is the second attachment to this post does indicate that only one Polaris stage was to be used. Does that help?
I seem to remember reading a Martin study talking about mating a three stage Vanguard on the top of a Titan 1. Any info on this?
Mr. Kyle,I think I have found a reference to the "Titan V" as "Growth Titan IV" in a report entitled "Space Station Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Utilization" on NTRS ( http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880011804.pdf ). The diagram (showing a LDC Titan with two RSRMs) is on the 18th page of the PDF and gives a height of 265.5 feet, and a LEO payload of 95k lbs.
Arcturus and Aldeberan images.
Quote from: Jim Davis on 06/11/2016 09:29 pmArcturus and Aldeberan images.On page 17 of the 28 March 1960 issue of Missiles and Rockets (plutogno provides a link) you'll find an article about the report by Dandridge Cole when Aldeberan was proposed.Be warned, though, that you can disappear into the M&R archive for hours; it's as bad as NTRS the first time you encounter it!
It started as a monthly but from July 1958 was a weekly. Go to page 707 of the PDF.
I have question on The Titan V studies had Martin Marietta study in 1988 a Titan with cryogenic core stage or not and this is mix up with cryogenic Titan study from James A. Martin ? on several web pages label Titan V as "Ariane 5 like booster" with 2 UA1207 and cryogenic core stagei could trace that down to Astonautix http://www.astronautix.com/t/titan5.htmlMartin Study 1988 as alternative to NLS.Thrust: 16,533.60 kN (3,716,901 lbf). Gross mass: 1,138,660 kg (2,510,310 lb). Height: 72.00 m (236.00 ft). Diameter: 6.00 m (19.60 ft).it use one engine "PW 1000000 lb LH2" for core stage trust 4,457.100 kN (vac), Isp: 425 sec. sadly there no reverence were this data came fromAlso i found in German aerospace magazine from 1991a article about 1990s US spaceflight development, with this phrase "also is manufacture study a Titan 5 with cryogenic core" Again no reverence what so ever on this.
Von Braun's team actually began contract discussions for "Saturn Titan" with Martin during mid 1959.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/12/2016 02:40 pmVon Braun's team actually began contract discussions for "Saturn Titan" with Martin during mid 1959.Saturn A-1 was proposed with Titan as a second stage: http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturna-1.htmlThe first Saturns were even built with a 10' diameter interstage structure.
found Martin Marietta corp. studythey mention a Titan IIIF/stretched TranstageGot someone more info on that Transtage?Source:Study of Direct Versus Orbital entry for mars missionvolume III Launch Vehicle Performance and Flight MechanicsNASA CR-66661196800223161.pdf
Care to share that study with us, Michel?
During 1962-64, Martin and Aerojet performed an Improved Titan Feasibility Study on a concept named "Titan 2A" that would have doubled Titan 2 payload. Titan 2A would have burned gelled "Alumazine" (aluminized (metalized) hydrazine) and N2O4. This was aluminum powder suspended in 56.7% hydrazine and 0.3% Carbopol 904 (a gelling agent). The tanks (mostly Stage 1) would have been stretched a bit to hold the denser, higher-energy propellant. Higher thrust engines would also have been developed. Though now up to 116.556 feet long, Titan 2A would still have fit within modified Titan 1 or Titan 2 silos.Scaled engine testing took place on what would have been highly efficient engines, but chamber cooling proved to be a challenge. Extra Aerozine-50 tanks would have been needed to feed the gas generators, some of which might have been in four external cylindrical tanks attached to Stage 1. The effort ended in 1964.Perhaps Titan 2A was briefly considered as the U.S. answer to the USSR's R-36 "Satan". - Ed Kyle
Aerojet N2O4/Alumizine rocket engine. 1960's USAF development effort for a Titan storable engine using a metallized fuel (for greater impulse density) and gelled propellants (to facilitate in-space starts after a period of coasting).Status: Out of Production. Height: 3.13 m (10.26 ft). Diameter: 1.14 m (3.74 ft).Around 1960 USAF development effort was funded to develop a Titan storable engine using a metallized fuel (for greater impulse density) and gelled propellants (to facilitate in-space starts after a period of coasting). Laboratory tests were sufficiently favorable for considerable hopes to be raised. However, the limited amount of funding was not sufficient to resolve the technical problems, The Aerozine 50 was slurried with aluminum powder (using Carbopol 904 gelling agent), and the engine was operated without any modifications, but could not attain stable, long duration operation in that configuration. This was the first time a liquid rocket booster engine had ever been run on aluminized propellant. Many years later Aerojet operated small thrusters on metallized storable propellants and achieved satisfactory results.Engine: 740 kg (1,630 lb). Area Ratio: 8. Propellant Formulation: N2O4/Alumizine-50.