Author Topic: Never-Flown Titan Variants  (Read 68437 times)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Never-Flown Titan Variants
« on: 04/09/2016 10:24 pm »
I'm putting never-flown Titan variants in this thread.  These include any Titan concepts given substantial study or funding that never made it to a launch pad.

Titan was the Dyna-Soar (X-20) launch vehicle from the beginning, but as the program restlessly shifted, so did the boosters.  Boeing had the space glider contract.  Martin had the launch vehicle contract. 

In 1959, Titan A (later Titan 1) was the suborbital booster for planned unmanned and manned flights to Saint Lucia and Fortaleza, Brazil.  A proposed "Titan C", powered by four Titan 1 engines at liftoff, was being considered for later orbital flights. 

In late 1960 the suborbital work shifted to the newly authorized, still to fly Titan 2 and studies began for a subsequent Titan 2/Centaur type launch vehicle for orbital flights.  Within a few months the idea had shifted toward a new LH2 upper stage powered by an LR87 derived engine or by a J-2, a concept named "Plan C" or, once again, "Titan C".  The bigger upper stage allowed use of a standard Titan 2 first stage, unlike the Centaur concepts.  Meanwhile, thought was given to using NASA's Saturn C-1 instead.

By the early Fall of 1961 a real breakthrough had occurred with the SOLTAN (Solid Titan) idea.  Here was a way to create a capable orbital launcher without having to completely change the basic Titan 2 core stages.  The early SOLTAN had three-segment, 100 inch diameter solids, but these were soon replaced by four-segment 120 inch diameter solids as the rocket was named "Titan 3".  In 1962, Titan 3C was changed to its ultimate five-segment solids, but the change caused problems for Dyna-Soar/X-20.  Designers were considering what to do about the problem when cancellation loomed.  McNamara finally pulled the plug in December 1963.       

With limited references, I've made educated guesses about both Titan C concepts and about Titan 2/Centaur. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/09/2016 11:43 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #1 on: 04/09/2016 10:37 pm »
Aerospace Technology article on 29 January 1968

Quote
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.

...

TITAN IIIG

Selected Comments on Agena and Titan III Family Stages, Case 720; 26 March 1968

Quote
"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.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2016 10:37 pm by RyanC »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #2 on: 04/10/2016 07:51 pm »
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
« Last Edit: 04/10/2016 07:57 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #3 on: 04/11/2016 07:01 pm »
"Titan II-1/2" was the informal name given to the "Mercury Mark II" (Gemini) launch vehicle being studied by NASA and Martin during 1961.  This would have been a stretched Titan 2 (I'm guessing a roughly 40 inch first stage stretch) that would have slightly improved payload performance to LEO.  The idea was short-lived due to budget and schedule squeezes and to then-new plans to develop Titan III using non-stretched core stages.  NASA relented (one of its best decisions ever) in December 1961 and chose to use standard Titan 2 stages with minimal modifications.  Without the extra launch vehicle development effort, Gemini came in relatively on-time, if not on-budget. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #4 on: 04/14/2016 12:04 am »
Titan 3M, designed to launch the U.S. Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL)/Dorian KH-10 reconnaissance system, was nearly ready to fly when the program was cancelled on June 10, 1969.  The effort was not totally lost because Titan 3M's "-11" series core stage engines, stretched first stage, and 7-segment motors all flew on subsequent Titan variants.  Many of MOLs USAF astronauts went on to fly Shuttle missions. 

The new VAFB SLC 6 launch pad for Titan 3M was built, but never used for Titan.  It was converted for Shuttle at a cost of several billion dollars but never used for Shuttle.  Lockheed's Athena finally christened the site during the 1990s, but it has been Delta 4 that has come closest to realizing the site's original goals.

Alternatives and follow-ons to Titan 3M were considered, and will be discussed in upcoming messages.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/14/2016 01:25 pm by edkyle99 »

Online zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11179
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7404
  • Likes Given: 72480
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #5 on: 04/14/2016 03:19 am »
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.
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #6 on: 04/14/2016 04:05 am »
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.
My notes say that the first launch was probably 18 months away when the cancellation came, so the plan would have been end of 1970.  The first SRM was tested before cancellation (April 26, 1969).  Three more SRM tests were allowed to be performed during 1970 to essentially complete the effort. 

The first two flights were to be Gemini-only unmanned without a real MOL or KH-10 (probably would have used simulators).  The third flight would have had a MOL and two crew.  (At the very end of the program, consideration was given to more unmanned flights, but with active Dorian reconnaissance systems.)  Plans appear to have called for 30 day missions and a couple flights per year. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/14/2016 01:35 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #7 on: 04/22/2016 10:18 pm »
While it was working on Titan 3M for MOL, Martin Company put a good deal of effort into studies of "Large Diameter Core" (LDC) Titans to handle heavier MOL payloads in the future.  These would have used four engines on a 180 inch (15 foot) diameter first stage.  Martin went as far as building an LDC fuel tank with four LR87-AJ11 engines for transport testing during 1966-67 (oxidizer and fuel tanks would have shipped separately to the launch site). 

At least two core engines would have ignited at liftoff.  All four would have burned during the mid-point of the stage's flight, when the SRMs would have jettisoned, before reverting to two engines before staging.  In early 1967, Martin briefly lobbied for an LDC with five segment boosters ("Titan 3M/LDC-5") as an alternative to Titan 3M.  The company also studied an ultimate LDC-3 version with 156 inch boosters that could have lifted more than 36 tonnes to near-polar orbit.

LDC was never picked up by the MOL program, though VAFB SLC 6 was set up to accept it if needed.  LDC died with MOL's 1969 demise, but the 15 foot diameter Titan idea kept reappearing in Martin proposals for at least two decades.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/26/2016 03:07 am by edkyle99 »

Offline DatUser14

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 651
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #8 on: 04/24/2016 06:04 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 04/24/2016 06:07 pm by DatUser14 »
Titan IVB was a cool rocket

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #9 on: 04/24/2016 09:57 pm »
Aerospace Technology article on 29 January 1968

Quote
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.

...

TITAN IIIG

Selected Comments on Agena and Titan III Family Stages, Case 720; 26 March 1968

Quote
"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.

Any more information on these as they seem really interesting.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #10 on: 04/24/2016 09:57 pm »
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.
There were post Challenger plans for a Titan 2 with two to eight Castor 4A strap on motors that never materialized.  For Titan 3, there were plans for shorter 120 inch diameter solid motors (two or three or four segments) and for segmented motors of slightly smaller diameter, but I don't know of any plans for small monolithic solids on Titan 3.  [EDIT:  Note that I've since found and added a 1967 Titan 3BAS2 design down-thread.]   Keep in mind that the whole idea behind Titan 3 was to develop a modular launch vehicle with an added "Zero Stage" that could lift a core vehicle that at first was a little-changed Titan 2 to an air-start.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/12/2016 06:50 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #11 on: 04/25/2016 04:36 pm »
Any more information on these as they seem really interesting.
I'm planning to cover these, and a few affiliated concepts, from both the early 1970s period and from the post-Challenger "Barbarian" era.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #12 on: 04/28/2016 01:48 am »
Titan 3D7/Centaur, otherwise known as Titan 3C7/Centaur and Titan 3F/Centaur, was a proposed follow-on to the Titan 3M/MOL launch vehicle that would have added a Centaur third stage and, potentially, a small solid fuel fourth, kick stage.  NASA studied the rocket for deep space missions such as Grand Tour and Comet Halley.  The MOL and Titan 3M cancellation drove NASA toward the smaller Titan 3E.

Although similar, the Titan 4A that would finally fly using seven-segment motors during the 1990s would end up with longer first and second stages and a fatter payload fairing than Titan 3C7/Centaur.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/28/2016 04:09 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #13 on: 04/30/2016 07:14 pm »
Quote
captioned as "an american equivalent to Ariane"

Must be mine  :)
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #14 on: 05/02/2016 04:15 am »
Titan 3B Centaur was proposed during the late 1960s/early 1970s period as a growth option for the 1980s and 1990s.  It appeared in a 1972 economic analysis of the proposed shuttle system as part of a potential expendable launch vehicle alternative fleet to the shuttle.  The projected performance was a bit underwhelming.  It barely matched its contemporary, Atlas-Centaur, although the big payload fairing may have reduced payload.  It did outperform Titan 3B Ascent Agena.  Perhaps it was considered as a follow-on to that launch vehicle for spook work. 

This was essentially the core of the Titan 3E launch vehicle, though it never flew alone as proposed here.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/02/2016 04:19 am by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #15 on: 05/03/2016 07:04 pm »
Titan 3L2 and 3L4 were Large Diameter Core Titans studied during the 1970-73 years.  They were extensions of the earlier "LDC" designs, with 180 inch diameter core stages.  New was the 4 x Seven Segment booster concept.  LC 37, the then-ex-Saturn IB launch site, would have been reconfigured for 3L4.  NASA studied them for deep space missions, but development was never seriously contemplated.  Titan 3L4 would have been more capable than any U.S. launch vehicle except Saturn 5.  With a Centaur upper stage it would have out-lifted even Falcon Heavy to solar orbit.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/17/2016 08:11 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Ronpur50

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Brandon, FL
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 1884
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #16 on: 05/04/2016 01:12 am »
4 SRBs!  That would have been spectacular to see!

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 1053
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #17 on: 05/04/2016 07:07 am »
(180 inch is 4.572 m for those that use normal units)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #18 on: 05/04/2016 01:12 pm »
(180 inch is 4.572 m for those that use normal units)
Yes, and the reason I'm using U.S. customary units is that they were used for the design of these machines.  The LDC core would have been exactly 180 inches diameter, for example.  That exactness doesn't always convert to a succinctly precise metric unit number, although in this case it does end up being exactly 457.2 cm.  I'm providing both numbers on the drawings.

The practice continues to this day by the way.  Falcon 9 is 144 inches diameter.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 01:16 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #19 on: 05/04/2016 06:51 pm »
4 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.
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #20 on: 05/04/2016 07:33 pm »
4 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.
Four seven-segment Titan SRMs would have exceeded the STS RSRB pair in mass, if not thrust, but the upcoming SLS five-segment SRB pair will weigh more and produce more thrust and total impulse than even four UTC1207 SRMs.  Four UTC1207s together would, at 5.7 million pounds force, have made a bit more liftoff thrust than Falcon Heavy's 27 Merlins.  The two SLS boosters will make 7.2 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 09:52 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #21 on: 05/11/2016 04:58 am »
Beginning in January 1965, the U.S. Air Force and its contractors began studying "Titan 3X" concepts to launch what would become Hexagon, the "Big Bird" photorecon system.  Initial plans considered Titans using two or three-segment, 120 inch diameter solid rocket motors.  The two-segment version could lift 12,000 to 13,000 lbs to sun synchronous orbit from Vandenberg AFB.  I've estimated 16,000 lbs for the three-segment version.  At the time, Hexagon was expected to have only two SRVs and would have been quite a bit smaller and lighter than the version that ultimately flew. 

From the beginning, a contingent of designers wanted to used the already-developed Titan 3C five-segment boosters, which would allow four SRVs and many more miles of film.  By May 1967, Titan 3X had been renamed "Titan 3D" and it had two five-segment boosters.   Development began in earnest at the end of 1967.

I'm very much guesstimating the two and three-segment booster numbers here.  I'm also guesstimating the shroud length by assuming a shorter Hexagon with two SRVs.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/12/2016 05:18 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #22 on: 05/12/2016 06:39 pm »
Astronautix lists a "Titan 3BAS2" design from a 1967 Martin marketing brochure.  This was a Titan 3B with a Centaur third stage and an optional Burner 2 fourth stage that would have been boosted by two Algol 2 strap on solid motors.  The concept was apparently studied for deep space mission use, but I have yet to see the source material.  A Cape Canaveral pad - likely a modified LC 20, would have to have been developed.  This rocket would generally have had Atlas SLV-3C/Centaur performance to GTO, but would have lifted more than SLV-3C to LEO.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #23 on: 05/15/2016 10:41 pm »
For the early-1970s Mathematica economic analysis of the proposed space shuttle system, The Aerospace Corporation proposed a family of potential space shuttle alternative expendable launch vehicles.  Since it was Aerospace Corporation, the USAF systems engineering contractor for missiles and space, the family was largely based on Titan.  An interesting proposal for a medium payload launch system was the "Five Segment Solid Rocket Motor/Core 2" system.  These would have used a suitably modified UTC-1205 five-segment motor from Titan 3C/3D/3E as a first stage topped by a Titan 3-series second stage.  (A second TVC tank would have been added to provide enough fluid for 3-axis control.)  Agena or Centaur or a Burner 2 type kick stage could have topped the vehicles. 

The idea seemed to be to replace every Atlas variant in the national fleet with Titan based launchers.   SRM/Core 2/Centaur would have flown from a rebuilt Cape Canaveral LC 36.  SRM/Core 2/Agena D and, presumably Centaur too, would have flown from VAFB SLC 4W.  An SRM/Core 2 with a Star 37 type kick stage would have been relatively cheap.  An SRM/Core 2/Centaur would have outmatched all Atlas Centaurs up to the 1980-s Atlas G/Centaur D1AR series.  Growth versions using 7-segment SRMs were, of course, possible.

This Titan-centric view of the future, of course, never materialized.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/16/2016 01:18 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #24 on: 05/16/2016 07:30 am »
Cool, anoher Titan-based rival for Ariane.  :)  (beside a Titan IIIE stripped of its SRMs and fitted with Delta nine GEM strapons)

Quote
This Titan-centric view of the future, of course, never materialized.
Except in my alternate space world (follow my signature !)This thread is a bonanza for me, keep on the good work Ed Kyle.
« Last Edit: 05/16/2016 07:32 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #25 on: 05/17/2016 06:29 pm »
During the Phase B-Prime Studies for Space Shuttle in 1971 or thereabouts, Martin Marietta proposed a series-burn booster concept.  It would have used four 7-segment Titan solid motors strapped to a 194 inch (4.88 meter) diameter core stage that itself would have had five LR87-AJ11 Titan 3M engines. 

The Orbiter engines would have ignited after staging, allowing them to be optimized for vacuum.   The LH2/LOX drop tank would have been smaller than the eventual External Tank as well.  It is likely that something like Pratt & Whitney's XLR-129 was base-lined as the orbiter engine at the time.

It seems likely that the SRMs and core would have burned in parallel, making something like 6.7 million pounds of thrust at liftoff.  The SRMs by themselves would have made 5.57 million pounds thrust.  The SRMs would have jettisoned at T+126 seconds.  The core would have burned out at perhaps 265 seconds.

This was only one of several designs, which included parallel stage alternatives and a non-LH2 orbiter option, studied by Martin.

 - Ed Kyle 
« Last Edit: 05/17/2016 08:08 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #26 on: 05/18/2016 03:44 pm »
Quote
a non-LH2 orbiter option

Considering NASA extended love with LH2 engines for the shuttle, that was a risky proposal to say the least

Quote
The Orbiter engines would have ignited after staging, allowing them to be optimized for vacuum

And this would change Ares 1 history.  ;)
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #27 on: 05/18/2016 05:06 pm »
No love for Titan I variants?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #28 on: 05/18/2016 06:14 pm »
No love for Titan I variants?

They're in the first post of this thread.  After the Titan 2 program began in mid-1960, Martin focused its energy on the new, more powerful storable propellant missile, including studies of future derivatives.  Now, NASA did list an orbital Titan 1 possibility in its early LV Handbooks, but never provided a drawing of what it might look like.  It would have used a small solid apogee kick motor (perhaps from the Vanguard program) and probably would have used a small diameter payload shroud (the base of the RV was 48 inches diameter, which, coincidentally, was roughly the diameter of NASA's Juno II shroud).

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/18/2016 09:33 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #29 on: 05/18/2016 08:09 pm »
Said handbook is attached: Titan configurations begin on page 87 of the PDF.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #30 on: 05/19/2016 12:41 am »
Here's a notional version of that notional Titan 1 orbital launch vehicle.  Something like an Altair kick motor, used by Vanguard and Delta, would have fit nicely on top.  The problem would have been keeping the Altair pointed in the right direction while coasting after Titan vernier motor burnout.  The Titan second stage did not have 3-axis control once the verniers cut out.  This problem was later solved for Atlas by creating the Burner stages, which added 3-axis control to solid kick motors.

Other possibilities at the time might have been Able/Delta or Agena liquid stages.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #32 on: 05/19/2016 11:43 pm »
On November 30, 1987, Aviation Week & Space Technology ran an article titled "SDI Considers Cluster Booster to Launch SDI Zenith Star Spacecraft".  I was a long subscriber, but this was, for me, one of the most memorable two-page reads that magazine ever printed.  It had a drawing of the massive proposed Zenith Star chemical laser experiment satellite, and a story about President Reagan's speech about the project during his Martin Denver visit.  It was apparent that work had been underway in secret for some time on this SDIO project.   

What made my jaw drop, however, were a few paragraphs that described two massive launch vehicles proposed to orbit the 100,000 lb, 80 foot long satellite.  The article said that McDonnell Douglas and Martin Marietta were each completing secret studies of proposed "Barbarian", or "Huey" (for humongous), launch vehicles cobbled together using existing propulsion systems.  The rockets would have stood 250 feet and produced 8 to 10 million pounds of liftoff thrust.  The selected design would have cost $400-500 million.  Its "support frame" would have been assembled with the rocket "like a building" at Cape Canaveral's then abandoned LC 37.  Barbarian, it seemed, would have been built once, to launch one big payload in a hurry.

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.  A total of five Titan 4A seven-segment SRMs would have surrounded the core.  All of the core engines would have ignited at liftoff with the solids, creating over 8.1 million pounds of thrust!

I've never found definitive details of this proposal.  I believe that the design suggested by Astronautix is too lightweight and likely based on earlier Titan LDC proposals.  AWST suggested that the core would be 19 feet in diameter, but that seems too fat given that even the Shuttle Titan 3L booster designs were only 200 inches in diameter.  In addition, the 200 inch Titan 4 diameter shroud would have been used to house the payload.  Nothing would surprise me, however.  AWST stated that the core might be assembled at Michoud using ET tooling, but ET was 27.58 feet diameter.

The idea was soon dropped in favor of cutting Zenith Star in half and launching it on two Titan 4 vehicles.  Then that idea died with the end of the Cold War.  I do find it interesting that Falcon Heavy is being designed to lift even more than Barbarian.  Surely there is a reason?

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/20/2016 03:06 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #33 on: 05/20/2016 12:26 am »
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.

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.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #34 on: 05/20/2016 01:54 am »
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.

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.
That part of the drawing came from one of the Shuttle booster proposals.  For Barbarian, AWST listed a stock LR87-AJ11 engine, which would have worked in the application and minimized development cost.  Think of the drawing as illustrative of a place-holder for a future upgrade!  I've now modified the drawing to show the big nozzle extension as a suggested upgrade, with an LR87-AJ11 approximation shown with solid lines.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/20/2016 03:08 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #35 on: 05/20/2016 10:41 pm »
Here's a modified view of Martin's Barbarian, with contemporary Titan 34D provided for a sense of scale.  Someday, perhaps, we might learn how they planned to assemble this behemoth with little launch site infrastructure.

 - Ed Kyle

Online ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8406
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2344
  • Likes Given: 2060
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #36 on: 05/24/2016 12:14 am »
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?
« Last Edit: 05/24/2016 12:20 am by longdrivechampion102 »
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #37 on: 05/24/2016 03:56 pm »
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?
My guess is Centaur D, which would have been the first operational Centaur version, more or less.  The D-1 Centaur model didn't appear until the 1970s.  Centaur was improved along the way (propulsion and avionics), but it didn't actually change size until it was stretched for Atlas 2 during the 1990s. 

 - Ed Kyle

Online ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8406
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2344
  • Likes Given: 2060
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #38 on: 06/03/2016 03:32 am »
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.
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #39 on: 06/03/2016 05:10 pm »
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.
The 1986-88 era Titan V study for which I found discussion was simply a continuation of Martin's long-running Large Diameter Core proposals, re-presented during the post-Challenger scramble.  (Barbarian, which may have been a type of "Titan V", was proposed about this same time.)  USAF did not sponsor the study.  It appears that Martin made a presentation to OTA for its 1988 "Launch Options for the Future Special Report", which included a "Titan V" option for a notional future national space launch fleet.  http://ota.fas.org/reports/8826.pdf

The OTA report described three Titan V options, as follows:

Option 1:  4 meter diameter core with 3 core engines and 2-3 solid motors, 60-80 Klb to 100 nmi x 28.5 deg
Option 2:  5 meter diameter core with 4-5 core engines and 3-5 solid motors, 80-130 Klb to 100 nmi x 28.5 deg
Option 3:  6 meter diameter core with 5-6 core engines and 5-6 solid motors, 130-150 Klb to 100 nmi x 28.5 deg

The core stage would have used Titan 4 type engines burning N2O4/A-50.  Development cost was estimated at $0.8 to $3.5 billion, depending on the option, over a 3.5 to 5 year time frame.

Note that the attached drawing from the OTA report shows Titan IV and V at the same height, which as we've seen in this thread would not have been the case.  The large-core Titans would have towered over even Titan IV.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/03/2016 05:25 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #40 on: 06/03/2016 09:08 pm »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #41 on: 06/03/2016 10:12 pm »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #42 on: 06/04/2016 12:58 am »
Is that a Dyna Soar mockup? Wow!
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Antilope7724

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Watched Freedom 7 on live TV
  • California
  • Liked: 278
  • Likes Given: 247
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #43 on: 06/04/2016 03:32 am »
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?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #44 on: 06/04/2016 11:45 am »
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?

No, grid fins are not a cureall. Grid fins are easier to stow.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #45 on: 06/05/2016 09:32 pm »
Even as it began launching its first Titan 23G (refurbished ICBM) vehicles on orbital missions from VAFB SLC 4W beginning in 1988, Martin Marietta studied upgrades.  The first obvious possibility was to add Delta 2 type Castor 4A or GEM-40 strap-on motors to create a "Titan 2S" (Titan 23S).  This approach would have doubled Titan 23G payload, but a new aft skirt would have been needed to support the motors and to protect the first stage engine section.  Four to ten SRMs could have been mounted.  They would have burned in staggered sequence similar to the Delta 2 solids, though with three burn sets rather than only two. 

Given the limited inventory of retired Titan 2 missiles, the cost to develop and fly the upgraded rocket, and the duplication of Delta 2 capability (once Delta 2 began flying from VAFB), "Titan 2S" was never developed.  I'm not sure for what specific payload the launch vehicle was considered, but a 2,300 kg to 890 km x 99 deg "reference mission" was mentioned in a 1991 AIAA paper by Bruce French of Martin Marietta.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/05/2016 09:40 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #46 on: 06/07/2016 02:36 pm »
excellent work Ed Kyle

at Secret Project Forum is also look into Unbuild Titan
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4636.0.html

some additional information

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.

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


Photoshop Picture of Titan I with Polaris by me

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #47 on: 06/07/2016 05:52 pm »
Hello Michel, glad to see you here (at last !)
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #48 on: 06/08/2016 07:14 pm »
During 1988-90 Martin Marietta also proposed using retired Titan 2 first stages as liquid boosters for 2-stage Titan 2 core vehicles.  The resulting "Titan 2L" ("L" this time standing for "Liquid" rather than "Large") would have lifted off with only one of the two core first stage engine "subassemblies" ignited to reign in acceleration forces.  When the liquid boosters staged, the second first stage subassembly would have started to provide full thrust.  Titan 2L would have been able to lift 7.5 tonnes or more to low sun synchronous orbit from Vandenberg AFB, more than 3.5 times more than Titan 23G and nearly twice as much as the proposed Titan 2S.  In theory, Titan 2L could also have lifted more than 9 tonnes to LEO x 28.5 deg from Cape Canaveral.

Another variation was named "Titan 3L".  This would have used two Titan 2 first stage liquid boosters strapped to a Commercial Titan 3 core.  The minimal description I found in a JSC presentation said that the core stages would, oddly, also have been powered by Titan 2 engines.  Although I've shown it this way on the card, this description makes little sense because it would likely have underperformed Titan 2L.  All engines would had to have ignited on the ground to provide enough liftoff thrust unless propellant was offloaded from the boosters.  Perhaps a Commercial Titan core with its Titan 4 type engines was the real plan.

Keep in mind that only 41 unassigned Titan 2's remained after the Titan 23G program began.  If they were used up three at a time, only a dozen Titan 2L or 3L launches would have been possible.  With the Cold War ending and with Delta 2 and Atlas 2(A)(S) soon offering comparable alternatives, we never got to see a "triple-barrel" all-liquid Titan launch.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/08/2016 07:31 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #49 on: 06/09/2016 12:27 pm »
interesting, there were a complete Liquid fueled Titan version

At first, it make impression, this is alternative to Solid Boosted Titan III
see the launch accident in 1986 were Titan 34D 9 blew up as one booster malfunction.


But there is problem of low trust of liquid booster
any evidence or note the Booster engine were upgraded for more thrust ?


Another version of Titan IIIC is the IIID aka Titan 2+2  from 1965
it use four UA1200 booster and a Titan III core
Launching would be quite sensational, the Titan IIID take off with two booster ignite
Once it clear the Launch tower and Pad, the two other booster ignite.
Source is 1965 brochure from United Technology Center (booster manufacture)
available here http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/catalog/drawndoc.htm




 
« Last Edit: 06/09/2016 12:29 pm by Michel Van »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #50 on: 06/09/2016 01:42 pm »
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 ? 
None that I've found to date.  They would have needed a thrust increase of about 20% over the LR87-AJ5 engine to be able to lift off using only the booster engines.  That would have required a substantial engine development effort, which didn't seem to be in the cards at the time.  (Titan 2L was part of the plan to use up existing Titan 2 ICBM resources.)  Also, it wouldn't have changed the payload much from the proposed plan to ignite one of the core first stage engine subassemblies on the ground. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/09/2016 01:48 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #51 on: 06/09/2016 01:47 pm »
I knew it. I knew it had been proposed at one point or another in Titan history ! 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.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2016 01:50 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #52 on: 06/09/2016 01:52 pm »
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.
Actually, LR87 had more thrust than the EELV engines as a percentage of total liftoff weight (at least for Titan 2/2L).  The difference with RD-180 and RS-68 is that they can throttle, allowing the cores to retain more propellant for high-altitude, post-booster separation flight.  The 20% LR87 thrust increase I mentioned earlier would have been needed for the boosters to serve as a "Stage 0" like the Titan 3/4 solid boosters, with an air-lit core first stage.  Both EELV Heavies are or would have been 1.5 core stage setups, with all engines ground lit.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/09/2016 04:19 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #53 on: 06/10/2016 09:16 am »
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.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #54 on: 06/10/2016 01:17 pm »
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.
I see that it was listed as a "conceptual study by Martin Co.".  I'm not familiar with this one.  The company would have been looking at a variety of ideas during the late 1950s/early 1960s while trying to find a Dyna-Soar launcher.   An ultimate "Step III" operational Dyna Soar system would have needed a lot of mass to orbit. 

Rooting through the digital universe digs up a description of the proposal as consisting of seven Titan 1 first stage tanks powered by 2 F-1 engines, a four-tank second stage powered by four engines (possibly LR91 engines), and a single tank third stage powered by a single LR91 engine.  The concept is thought to have been from around 1959.  Many similar ideas were floated during those years.

A description of Arcturus is supposed to be within the pages of "DYNA SOAR: STRATEGIC WEAPONS SYSTEM". 
https://www.amazon.com/Dyna-Soar-Hypersonic-Strategic-Weapons-System/dp/1896522955/188-5913246-0023437?ie=UTF8&

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/10/2016 01:50 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #55 on: 06/10/2016 03:07 pm »
Sounds like I was wrong, then, about it being an alternate Saturn C-3.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #56 on: 06/10/2016 03:40 pm »
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.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4672
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #57 on: 06/10/2016 08:59 pm »
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.
also to keep in mind is that the all of the Titan launcher family's LRE's were developed into three versions: Kerolox, Hypergolic, and Hydrolox. The Hydrolox versions were paraded around for Shuttle Program consideration.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #58 on: 06/11/2016 07:40 am »
The LR-87 is (to my knowledge) one of the few rocket engines to have run on alll three superstar propellants
kerolox, hydrolox, and storable.
But I never found a lot about the hydrolox LR-87 (beside astronautix off course). Any information or documentation ?
« Last Edit: 06/11/2016 07:40 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #59 on: 06/11/2016 08:51 am »
By the way, there's also a mention of an "Aldeberan" launch vehicle in Exploring the Secrets of Space, with something like 1 million pounds' LEO capability.  Judging by the name, I'd guess it was yet another Titan derivative.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #60 on: 06/11/2016 02:51 pm »
Sounds like I was wrong, then, about it being an alternate Saturn C-3.
You may have been right.  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_nL6yEiPLYCrlq0knnA
Among 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 missiles
were combined into a single space vehicle expected to reach the moon in 1965".

Keep in mind that at that time The Martin Company had yet to even successfully fly a two-stage Titan 1 missile! 

O.K., so does anyone have an image of this thing?

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/11/2016 02:52 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #61 on: 06/11/2016 09:29 pm »
Arcturus and Aldeberan images.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #62 on: 06/12/2016 11:05 am »
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_nL6yEiPLYCrlq0knnA
Among 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 missiles
were 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.

EDIT:  Added missing close-quote.
« Last Edit: 06/14/2016 10:48 am by Proponent »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #63 on: 06/12/2016 02:40 pm »
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_nL6yEiPLYCrlq0knnA
Among 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 missiles
were 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.
Yes, but in addition there was supposed to be a third stage, which may have also used a Titan air frame.  Either the Rotary Club story missed that stage, or it was proposed to be something not based on Titan, or that first stage actually only uses six Titan fuselages (hard to tell from the illustration).

About those F-1 engines:  until 1959 F-1 was a U.S. Air Force funded effort, though with no specific missile or launch vehicle in mind.  At some point, someone must have asked for ways to use the engine.   Perhaps Martin Company did the Arcturus study as a way to address that question for USAF. 

Alternatively, Martin may have done it to pitch it to just-formed NASA, which was just then taking over F-1.  Interestingly, ABMA (soon to become MSFC) was at about this time trying to find upper stages for its then-under-development Saturn booster.  Its "Saturn Systems Study" ended up recommending Titan (Titan 1) as a starting point for the second stage. 

I wonder if Arcturus fits into that narrative.  Von Braun's team actually began contract discussions for "Saturn Titan" with Martin during mid 1959.

- Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/13/2016 01:51 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #64 on: 06/13/2016 10:29 am »
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...

Online Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Liked: 727
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #65 on: 06/13/2016 11:07 am »
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...

You forgot the picture! Tease!

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #66 on: 06/13/2016 02:32 pm »
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...

You forgot the picture! Tease!

what do mean, is link not working ?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #67 on: 06/13/2016 03:11 pm »
You need to have an account on and be logged onto http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ for the link to work.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #68 on: 06/13/2016 04:34 pm »
On the proposed Arcturus, a rocket equation test shows that it would have to use stretched Titan 1 type tanks, probably seven, for the first stage.  Two F-1 engines, and I'm assuming NASA type producing 1.5 Mlbf thrust each, would power the stage. 

The second stage might use four Titan 1 first stage structures that would likely be slightly shorter than the original stage.    The second stage might be powered by five or six LR87-3 engines (thrust chambers), perhaps with extended nozzles to improve vacuum performance. 

The third stage might weigh about half as much as a Titan 1 first stage.  It could be powered by one or two improved LR91-3 (Titan 1 second stage) engines or it might be a high energy LH2 fueled stage. 

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!

An all-LOX/RP Arcturus would likely be able to lift 25 tonnes to LEO using two stages (or more than 30 tonnes using three stages), but would be limited to less than 9 tonnes to escape velocity by my figuring.  These numbers all assume that the upper stage engine ISP is increased to 310 seconds via. skirt extension.  If a high-energy LOX/LH2 third stage was used, however, something roughly the mass of the Saturn S-IV stage, 44 tonnes LEO/15 tonnes escape seems possible. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/13/2016 06:37 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #69 on: 06/13/2016 07:41 pm »
You need to have an account on and be logged onto http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ for the link to work.

ah dammed !

here upload on this forum

first the Odd X-15B launcher

Second my Photoshop of proposed Titan 1 with Polaris as upper stage

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #70 on: 06/13/2016 08:21 pm »
Google is not turning up much on that image. Other than this link: http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/earlier-suborbital-x-15-flight.305165/

I point out one thing, when you look at that image, it shows characteristics of being scanned from a magazine, newsprint, or catalog. So it was published somewhere at some point for some reason in the past.

There is an interesting quote that goes with that picture:
Quote
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 needed
NAA expected that a first manned orbital flight could be achieved 30 months after a go-ahead at a cost of $ 120 million in 1958
 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #71 on: 06/14/2016 11:02 am »
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!

There's a chart in the book showing the evolution of launch-vehicle capability.  If I remember correctly, both Arcturus and the C-3 are near the 44-tonne mark.  I think Aldeberan was shown at about ten times that.  Jim Davis can probably tell us for sure.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #72 on: 06/21/2016 02:38 am »
In June 1991, AIAA's Journal of Spacecraft published a paper submitted in 1989 by James A. Martin of NASA Langley titled "Titan Improvement Study:  Hydrogen Core Stages".  The paper proposed replacing the hypergolic Titan stages and Centaur stage of Titan 3E/3A with two hydrogen fueled core stages powered by a new expander cycle engine.  A 68 tonne thrust engine could power the second stage while three or more of the engines could power the first stage.  The core stages would have been the same diameter as the Titan 4 type payload fairings, allowing the Titan 3C/D/E five-segment boosters to be used as "Stage Zero". 

Though it would only have used two core stages, rather than Titan/Centaur's three, and would have only use existing five-segment boosters, rather than Titan 4's seven-segment boosters, its payload would have been Titan 4 class.

To my knowledge, Martin Marietta never made such a proposal, certainly not one named "Titan", but the study does offer a glimpse into the thinking of the time.  Similar thinking was soon reflected in the Advanced Launch System trades, in which Martin was heavily involved.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/21/2016 01:15 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #73 on: 06/28/2016 09:35 pm »

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
« Last Edit: 06/28/2016 09:48 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #74 on: 06/29/2016 09:31 am »
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?

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #75 on: 06/29/2016 10:51 am »

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
I wonder about this also.
 
As the Proposal was made, the Polaris program just started two years ago and they were begann working on Version A1 and A2 in November 1958
the A2 use more powerful solid fuel in second stage as A1 and got around 350 kg more solid fuel in first stage.
maybe the Titan 1 had to use the more powerful A2 version ?

but fact could be that this "bastard" was knocked up on paper by some ABMA engineers,
on Paper look everything awesome until you start to build that thing...


« Last Edit: 06/30/2016 08:04 pm by Michel Van »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #76 on: 06/29/2016 04:48 pm »
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?
Yes.  Nice find! 

If the Polaris A-1 or A-2 second stage is assumed to be used as the Titan/Polaris third stage, that lower-end-of-the-range 1.4 tonne payload to LEO seems ballpark right.  The upper stage would have full 3-axis steering and even on-board guidance, if so desired. 

To achieve the high end of ABMA's projected payload range (2.26 tonne), a higher performing motor with about twice as much propellant - or two smaller high performance motors stacked serially - would be needed, one that used a composite case and higher performing propellant like the Polaris A-2 (second stage) and Polaris A-3 motors.  ABMA might have projected such improvements for Titan/Polaris. 

In the end, NACA/NASA would have none of Titan/Polaris, and soon lost interest in Juno III and IV, but many of the other boosters proposed by ABMA did make it to the launch pad.

Interesting that ABMA proposed use of Polaris motors.  ABMA had, of course, originally worked on the Jupiter missile for the Navy.  It was traded initially against a "Jupiter-S" design which would have used a cluster of Algol 1 solid motors.  Improvements in solid motor propellant (and warhead weights) quickly re-shaped the playing field, allowing Polaris to end up weighing only one-fourth as much, stand 44% as tall, and fly further than ABMA's Jupiter.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/29/2016 04:59 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #77 on: 06/30/2016 07:32 pm »
Here's my stab at the Titan/Polaris concept, with a Polaris A-1 or A-2 second stage used as the kick motor.  I'm showing the 3,000 lb payload capability, not knowing how or if they got to 5,000 lbs.

ABMA proposed Titan/Polaris along with an array of other launch vehicles (Junos II through IV, Atlas with LH2 upper stage, giant rocket, etc.) to NACA in March, 1958 in its "A National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program."  This presentation, shortly after Explorer I, but before NASA was formed, was the von Braun team's pitch to, essentially, be in charge of the U.S. orbital launch vehicle fleet!  NACA approved the Juno ideas, all later cancelled, but the rest was shelved for the time being.  NACA/NASA later made its own list of desired launchers.  This list largely copied the ABMA plan, but Titan/Polaris was left out.

As I did with Atlas, I'm compiling the "not flown" concepts on a web page, in  this case at www.spacelaunchreport.com/titannot.html and accessible via. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/library.html

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/30/2016 07:34 pm by edkyle99 »

Online Big RI Joe

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #78 on: 07/22/2016 11:22 pm »
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?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #79 on: 07/23/2016 08:56 pm »
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?
In December 1958, the U.S. Army, Air Force, and Navy responded to the Holaday Committee request for satellite plans in the wake of Sputnik.  The Army (von Braun's group) proposed use of Jupiter and Super-Jupiter boosters.  The Air Force suggested using Thor, Atlas, and Titan. The Navy (NRL) proposed improving Vanguard, adding Vangaurd stages to Thor boosters, and, in the future, launching 1,500 pound satellites using "Titan-Vanguard combinations".  In the end, all of these proposals came true except for the "Titan-Vanguard combinations". 

I haven't found details of the "Titan-Vanguard" proposals.  My first guess would be something along the lines of Thor-Able or Atlas-Able, which in each case was the named booster topped by Vanguard stages 2 and 3.    That should mean use of both Titan stages topped by an AJ10 powered third stage with an optional solid fourth stage.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/23/2016 08:59 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline TCizadlo

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #80 on: 08/01/2016 12:10 am »
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.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #81 on: 08/01/2016 04:26 pm »
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.

Cool find. I don't think I've seen the single-SSME mega-Atlas before...

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #82 on: 08/01/2016 05:04 pm »
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.
Good find.  I suspect that this was still a hypergolic propellant LDC Titan, but the twist here, which I haven't seen before, is the use of STS Solid Rocket Boosters.   This would have been in lieu of the five seven-segment boosters needed for "Barbarian". 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #83 on: 08/02/2016 09:57 am »
I found info about Titan IIIF version

The Titan IIIF is NASA version for Titan IIIM
Not manned rated Launcher, but feature rest of Titan IIIM, upgraded Engine, seven segment booster.

Standart T-IIIF (2 booster two stage)
35000 lbs in 200 nautical mile at 28.5°
36000 lbs in 125 nautical mile at 50.0° 
32000 lbs in 100 nautical mile at 90.0° (MOL mission)

there were study  to use different Upper stages
Transtage, 26% more Payload in equatorial synchronous orbit compare to Titan IIIC
Agena D 10,500  lbs (probes for translunar injection)
Centaur  18,000 lbs (probes for translunar injection)

Source:
Bellcomm. Inc.
Unmanned Lunar Logistic Systems Case 340
Author R, Sehgal

Bellcomm. Inc
Selected Comments on Agena and Titan III Family Stages Case 720
Author C. Bendersky

Bellcomm, Inc.
A Titan IIIM launch Space station program Case 710
Autor E.D. Marion J.A. Schelke



Online ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8406
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2344
  • Likes Given: 2060
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #84 on: 08/07/2016 07:49 pm »
The Titan V design I discussed about a long time ago was on astronautix.com. Trust me; this was not my creation. Here's the link.

http://www.astronautix.com/t/titan5.html
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 07:55 pm by longdrivechampion102 »
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #85 on: 03/07/2017 04:02 pm »
Arcturus 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!
« Last Edit: 03/07/2017 04:02 pm by Proponent »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #86 on: 03/07/2017 05:41 pm »
Ah, I was wondering why your mug was on my milk carton.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #87 on: 03/08/2017 06:18 pm »
Arcturus 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 looks to be a quarterly magazine and checking the Jan-Apr 1960 issue I didn't see anything. This is the right link correct? https://archive.org/details/misslesandrockets

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #88 on: 03/08/2017 06:45 pm »
It started as a monthly but from July 1958 was a weekly.  Go to page 707 of the PDF.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #89 on: 03/08/2017 08:48 pm »
It started as a monthly but from July 1958 was a weekly.  Go to page 707 of the PDF.

Thanks

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #90 on: 07/22/2017 11:12 am »
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 stage
i could trace that down to Astonautix http://www.astronautix.com/t/titan5.html

Martin 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 from

Also i found in German aerospace magazine from 1991
a 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.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2017 11:20 am by Michel Van »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #91 on: 07/23/2017 06:08 pm »
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 stage
i could trace that down to Astonautix http://www.astronautix.com/t/titan5.html

Martin 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 from

Also i found in German aerospace magazine from 1991
a 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.
This document mentions "Titan V", but it is presented as a number of potential growth options that had been studied by Martin Marietta (and that had not been "sponsored" by the U.S. Air Force).  This tells me that "Titan V" was a placeholder name never really assigned to a specific, seriously considered design and that it was likely aimed at NASA or SDIO rather than the Air Force.  During this post-Challenger period there was a barrage of such studies and proposals (i.e. Barbarian and Jarvis, etc.).
http://ota.fas.org/reports/8826.pdf

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/23/2017 06:10 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Citabria

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 276
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #92 on: 07/24/2017 07:04 pm »
Von 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.html

The first Saturns were even built with a 10' diameter interstage structure.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #93 on: 07/24/2017 09:55 pm »
Von 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.html

The first Saturns were even built with a 10' diameter interstage structure.

I know, I took that photo!  :)

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #94 on: 04/02/2018 06:00 pm »
i got over Scott Lowther his APR Patreon,  a interesting study:

Benefits of ALS Technology to Titan Vehicles (sadly no author or Date named, probably around 1993)

Its about use of Advance Launch System (ALS) technology in Titan launcher Family 
There proposed  use of Titan as testing vehicle for new stuff like the use of composite structures in Titan IV
or new manufacturing procedure like 7- axis robotic weld repair system
next use of modern Avionics electronics tested in Titan, to be use later on ALS

one idea was Cryogenic Titan IV stage II what replaced the Core 2 stage
it resembles the later Centaur-T stage, only larger to 200 inch maxim diameter Lh2 tank and 120 inch Lox tank
the SRMB would have modified Nose cone to deal with new form and Aerodynamics drag during launch
powert by one derivate ALS engine it would provide 50% more payload into space

Another Idea were Liquid booster (LRB)  for Titan IV, sadly there vage if this is based on Titan Hardware.
Its feature 4 engine stage in size of Titan Core 
could be that they use same fuel as Titan Core since 2 tanks volume are equal in LRB
it would increase Payload to +15% compare to SRBM used on Titan IV

finally the Study show time table were Titan IV transform from 1993 to 2000
into ALS with four LBR and Payload 130000 lb. in LEO.
interesting is the 1995~1997 version of Titan that abandon the Storable Fuel in favor of Lox/Methane or hydrogen core.

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #95 on: 10/10/2020 07:39 am »
I Look for moment into NRO PDF about MOL program

They study 1966 so called Fat-core Titan to Launch MOL into polar
it's 180 inch diameter core with four and improved engines, that use UA1205 and Titan IIIC second stage.
in growth for more payload, they proposed follow changes:

-Replace Solids to US1207, lengthened first stage, then increase Second stage diameter to 180 inch
-Finally replace the Solids with new one with 156 inch diameter solids to bring 68000 lb. into 80° polar orbit

There is proposal  that match this description, called Titan IIIG a LCD and two to four 156 inch diameter solids.

Source:

Selected Comments on Agena and Titan III Family stages Case 720
Bellcome. Inc.

NRO pdf nr°347
NRO pdf 07-MOL_Titan

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #96 on: 10/16/2020 06:38 pm »
I can't believe I missed this thread after all these years.  First rate stuff Ed.

Offline JoeFromRIUSA

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Rhode Island USA
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 600
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #97 on: 10/17/2020 04:05 pm »
Get busy building, Mike!

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #98 on: 04/05/2021 10:22 pm »
found Martin Marietta corp. study

they mention a Titan IIIF/stretched Transtage

Got someone more info on that Transtage?

Source:
Study of Direct Versus Orbital entry for mars mission
volume III Launch Vehicle Performance and Flight Mechanics
NASA CR-66661
196800223161.pdf

Online ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8406
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2344
  • Likes Given: 2060
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #99 on: 04/05/2021 10:51 pm »
found Martin Marietta corp. study

they mention a Titan IIIF/stretched Transtage

Got someone more info on that Transtage?

Source:
Study of Direct Versus Orbital entry for mars mission
volume III Launch Vehicle Performance and Flight Mechanics
NASA CR-66661
196800223161.pdf

I've never heard of a stretched Transtage, but my best guess would be this particular upper stage being 3/4th the size of the Centaur used on the Titan IIIE.

In addition, the Titan IIIF vehicle would comprise two UA-1207 SRMs, the stretched Stage 1 used on Titan 34D, and the regular Titan III Stage 2 with a boattail to accommodate the Centaur Standard Shroud. And the stretched Transtage with its payload would be encapsulated in the CSS.

Note: the Titan IIIF's description above was paraphrased from Space Launch Report's depiction of said rocket.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2021 10:57 pm by ZachS09 »
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #100 on: 04/06/2021 01:35 pm »
found Martin Marietta corp. study

they mention a Titan IIIF/stretched Transtage

Got someone more info on that Transtage?

Source:
Study of Direct Versus Orbital entry for mars mission
volume III Launch Vehicle Performance and Flight Mechanics
NASA CR-66661
196800223161.pdf

37 inch stretch with 5000lb of propellant

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #101 on: 04/06/2021 04:13 pm »
Thanks Jim !

The 1968 Study compare Titan IIIC/Transtage - IIIC/Centaur and Titan IIIF/stretched Transtage - IIIF/Centaur
For launching Mars Probes either für direct landing or Orbit & landing on launch window 1973, 1975 and 1977

One consideration was for Titan IIIC/Transtage and Titan IIIF/stretched Transtage
Was the option to wait 30 day launch periods on launch pad, thanks storable propellants.

The Titan IIIC/Transtage was worst in payload, can't even launch something in 1975 to mars
while Titan IIIF/stretched Transtage was better, but the Centaur versions were more powerful.

In end the Titan IIIE became the Marsprobe launcher


Offline JoeFromRIUSA

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Rhode Island USA
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 600
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #102 on: 04/06/2021 05:08 pm »
Care to share that study with us, Michel?

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #103 on: 04/06/2021 05:47 pm »
Care to share that study with us, Michel?

you ca find all 7 volumes on NTRS

Study of Direct Versus Orbital entry for mars mission
volume III Launch Vehicle Performance and Flight Mechanics
NASA CR-66661
196800223161.pdf

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #104 on: 08/13/2021 11:25 am »
Found this graphic auf Flickr



it feature Titan with eight segments Soild but with 6 Algol solids
Modified Shuttle SRB


Source:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/104034978@N03/with/45812879634/

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #105 on: 08/13/2021 12:06 pm »
And yet all the augmentation to the Titan design prospects never seemed to amount to much performance improvements! :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #106 on: 08/13/2021 01:04 pm »

there was proposal with more payload
the Cryogenic Titan IV stage II that replaced the Core 2 stage
it resembles the later Centaur-T stage, only larger to 200 inch maxim diameter Lh2 tank and 120 inch Lox tank
the SRMB would have modified Nose cone to deal with new form and Aerodynamics drag during launch
powert by one derivate ALS engine it would provide 50% more payload into space

Offline JetProp

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Never-Flown Titan Variants
« Reply #107 on: 11/24/2021 04:29 pm »
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
1) Very little information about the LR87 fire stend tests at "Alumizine". Exists information at M. Wade about this modification:
Quote
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.
http://www.astronautix.com/l/lr87alumizine.html
At the book Ракетные топлива (по материалам зарубежной печати)" (Я. М. Паушкин) also says about this test with quote to:
Space Aeronautics, 1964, 42, No. 6, pp. 86 - 87
Space Aeronautics, 1964, 42, No. 4, pp. 39 - 43
But i can not find this book...
2) R-36 (8K67) is not Satan. In NATO classification it is Scarp.
Work at Satan - 15A14 - started only in 1969.

Tags: Titan1 Vanguard 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1