Author Topic: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters  (Read 37979 times)

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #20 on: 01/11/2016 01:18 AM »
Sorry Ed - I was unclear. What I meant was, when you look at how much it took to build one site with 3 silos, and how short a time the whole program was operational, you really get a feel for how much money and effort was thrown into the Cold War.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12249
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 518
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #21 on: 01/11/2016 02:16 AM »
Sorry Ed - I was unclear. What I meant was, when you look at how much it took to build one site with 3 silos, and how short a time the whole program was operational, you really get a feel for how much money and effort was thrown into the Cold War.
I agree.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9450
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 423
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #22 on: 01/11/2016 03:58 AM »
There is a Titan I lying around Ames Research Center.


Offline Antilope7724

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Watched Freedom 7 on live TV
  • California
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 249
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #23 on: 01/11/2016 04:05 AM »
Missiles transportation data / Military Traffic Management Agency.
by United States. Military Traffic Management Agency.
Published 1960, 76 p

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015070589638;view=1up;seq=1

Titan SM-68
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015070589638;view=1up;seq=71

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #24 on: 01/11/2016 02:20 PM »
There is a Titan I lying around Ames Research Center.
Here are links to photos of the Titan I restoration at Ames.
http://spaceref.com/nasa-hack-space/titan-i/      http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum41/HTML/000321.html
----
Titan Family of LVs on wiki

Quote from: WikiTitanFamily
The Titan I was the first version of the Titan family of rockets. It began as a backup ICBM project in case the Atlas was delayed.

The Titan II used the LR-87-5 engine, a modified version of the LR-87, that relied on a hypergolic combination of nitrogen tetroxide for its oxidizer and Aerozine 50 (a 50/50 mix of hydrazine and UDMH) for its fuel instead of the liquid oxygen and RP-1 combination used in the Titan I.

The Titan III was a modified Titan II with optional solid rocket boosters.

The Titan IV was a "stretched" Titan III with non-optional solid rocket boosters on its sides.
 By the time the Titan IV became operational,DOD and NRO requirements for launching satellites had tapered off due to improvements in the longevity of reconnaissance satellites.


Two ICBMs Atlas and Titan were deployed in the 1950s. In August 1957, the Air Force selected Warren Air Force Base as the first Atlas operational base, and Lowry Air Force Base in Colorado as the first Titan site, the HGM-25A Titan I to complement the SM-65 Atlas  Both Warren and Lowry AFBs are on the superfund site due to extensive soil and ground contamination with Trichloroethylene.  TCE was used to clean kerosene-fueled, RP-1 rocket engines of hydrocarbon deposits and to de-grease equipment.

The Titan V and the thread What would a better Titan IV have looked like?

----
The conflict between NASA and the AF early on in LV design....


Titan II in Jeopardy- Nasa History

"To make matters worse, Brigadier General John McCoy, director of Titan programs for the Air Force Ballistic Systems Division (BSD), strongly opposed any changes in the missile to meet Gemini standards - and for sound reasons. He could not afford to risk the failure of the missile program for a chance to help Gemini."

A previous generation of 'folks in charge' studied Shuttle vs Titan, with 28 flights per year the crossover point. Shuttle was built anyway and NASA has circled LEO for several decades.

So decades later, why is Falcon 9 more cost effective?  SpaceX copied the Titan I (LR-87 & 91) a RP-1, but with a single engine type (Merlin) for both stages (the number of engines is different).....with the goal of reuse...exactly as NASA requested in the VSE.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2016 01:35 AM by muomega0 »

Offline Archibald

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1968
  • Liked: 174
  • Likes Given: 471
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #25 on: 01/11/2016 04:53 PM »
Quote
A previous generation of 'folks in charge' studied Shuttle vs Titan, with 28 flights per year the crossover point. Shuttle was built anyway and NASA has circled LEO for several decades.

Interesting, didn't reminded that study.

Quote
So decades later, why is Falcon 9 more cost effective?  SpaceX copied the Titan I (LR-87 & 91) a RP-1, but with a single engine type (Merlin) for both stages (the number of engines is different).....with the goal of reuse...exactly as NASA requested in the VSE.

It's pretty funny to speculate about an early F9R build from Titan technology. You would need Titan I "clean" kerolox engines.  There would be three "growth" variants based on 
- standard Titan II
- the stretched Titan IIIC (3.05 m diameter, two engines)
- Titan III-L (4.87 m diameter, four engines)

At some point the kerolox LR-87s and LR-91s could be replaced by Rocketdyne H-1s. The final result would be a MCT propelled by a bunch of F-1As.

I see some issues however.
a) Titan used fire-in-the-hole destructive staging
b) neither the LR-87 nor H-1 nor F-1A can throttle
c) what's more, the F9R (or Kistler K-1) concept of VTOL, ballistic TSTO was on nobody's radar
see that post - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36040.msg1288494#msg1288494

Back in the early shuttle days it was either ballistic SSTO or winged TSTO but nobody thought about a possible ballistic TSTO.
It was Kistler that in 1995 made ballistic TSTOs fashionable.
« Last Edit: 01/11/2016 04:55 PM by Archibald »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12249
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 518
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #26 on: 01/11/2016 09:15 PM »
a) Titan used fire-in-the-hole destructive staging
Titan 2 used that technique, but Titan 1 did not.  Titan 1 had two separation "bottles" (solid motors) for stage separation.  Together, they briefly produced 9,300 lbs of thrust.  The separation sequence lasted about 3.8 seconds.  A separation motor is visible in the center of the attached image, between two of the four vernier nozzles.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/11/2016 09:34 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Archibald

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1968
  • Liked: 174
  • Likes Given: 471
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #27 on: 01/12/2016 10:58 AM »
Thank you for that bit of information. So Titan I is definitively more "F9R-able" than the latter batches of Titans.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12249
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 518
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #28 on: 01/13/2016 02:23 AM »
A typical operational-type Titan 1 flight would include a roughly 3.2 second ground run of the two LR87-AJ-3 LOX/RP-1 engines before liftoff, followed by a 137-ish second first stage burn .  About 7 seconds before Stage 1 shutdown, the Stage 2 gas generator would start.  Its exhaust would travel through the four vernier nozzles, providing 642 pounds of thrust.  The verniers could be swiveled by servo motors for attitude control. 

Staging would involve the firing of four separation bolts and a 3 second burn by the two solid fuel separation motors.  The LR91-AJ-3 Stage 2 "sustainer" engine would be started about 11 seconds after the gas generator started.  Sustainer burn time was usually about 159 seconds (all burn times varied depending on target distance, etc.).  After shutdown, the verniers would continue to provide thrust for another 20 to 40 seconds, depending on the needed velocity trim. 

After vernier shutdown, the Mk 4 reentry vehicle would separate, being spun up as it separated by a torsion spring.   

Initial portions of the flight were controlled by the autopilot.  The Bell Telephone Lab radio guidance system located in the forward adapter would provide trajectory adjustments during the second stage of flight.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12249
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 518
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #29 on: 01/15/2016 07:43 PM »
Titan 2 was a liquid fueled, storable propellant intercontinental ballistic missile.  Capable of lofting a 3,800 kg Mk 6 RV with a roughly 9 Mt thermonuclear warhead nearly 10,200 km, it was the largest, heaviest, most-powerful, and probably most frightening, ICBM ever developed by the United States.  The W-53 warhead was 7.5 times more powerful than today's most-powerful U.S. weapon.

Aerojet modified its Titan 1 engines to create more-powerful, but simplified engines that burned nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50, a 50-50 mix of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine.  These were hypergolic, storable propellants that were loaded into on-alert missiles for months at a time.  Titan 2 missiles stood fueled and ready in underground silos, from which they could directly launch unlike Atlas and Titan 1.

Unlike Titan 1, the Titan 2 LR91-AJ-5 second stage "sustainer" engine only had one gas generator nozzle, which swiveled to provide roll control.  Vernier thrust was provided after sustainer shutdown by two small solid motors in the propulsion section, which together provided 2,100 lbf thrust for up to 20 seconds.  When commanded by the all-inertial guidance system, the vernier nozzles were cut to terminate thrust.  Other small solid motors helped separate the second stage from the reentry vehicle.

First and second stage separation was the "fire-in-the-hole" type, with the second stage engine igniting immediately at stage separation.  Blowout vents in the interstage provided a path for exhaust gases.

Martin manufactured 141 Titan 2 missiles at its Waterton plant during 1962-1967.  Eighty-one Titan 2 ICBMs were tested between 1962 and 1987, with a higher success rate than Titan 1 had achieved.  The program kept as many as 54 missiles on ready-to-fire alert in underground silos for more than 20 years. 

Accidents involving Titan 2 silos or missiles killed at least 58 individuals, including 53 in a single 1965 silo fire near Little Rock, Arkansas that was the USA's "Nedelin Disaster" (though it did not involve the missile or its propellants).  A 1980 explosion near Damascus, Arkansas destroyed a missile and its silo, tossing the 740 ton silo door 600 feet and throwing the W-53 warhead outside the complex fence line.

As we shall see, Titan 2 would also serve as the Gemini crewed launch vehicle, with new-build stages used for that program.  After the ICBMs were retired, 14 were converted to Titan 23G space launchers, 13 of which flew during 1988-2003, about which more later.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/19/2016 03:41 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #30 on: 01/16/2016 07:18 AM »
Unlike Titan 1, the Titan 2 LR91-AJ-5 second stage "sustainer" engine only had one gas generator nozzle, which swiveled to provide roll control.

Which was the first rocket to use this trick?

Offline Damon Hill

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #31 on: 01/16/2016 07:30 AM »
Evidently the Gemini flights were also 'fire in the hole' separations--that startled me the first time I saw it on television during a launch with a good picture at separation.  Sky full of confetti!  Nobody commented on it at the time though it was clearly visible.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30364
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 8668
  • Likes Given: 283
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #32 on: 01/16/2016 03:18 PM »
Unlike Titan 1, the Titan 2 LR91-AJ-5 second stage "sustainer" engine only had one gas generator nozzle, which swiveled to provide roll control.

Which was the first rocket to use this trick?

Jupiter used it.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1452
  • Likes Given: 2481
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #33 on: 01/16/2016 06:58 PM »
Evidently the Gemini flights were also 'fire in the hole' separations--that startled me the first time I saw it on television during a launch with a good picture at separation.  Sky full of confetti!  Nobody commented on it at the time though it was clearly visible.

The Titan 2 first stage was *not* designed to come apart at staging, producing the "sky full of confetti" effect.  It did happen at least once, on Gemini X, and it happened on the occasion when they placed a movie camera pod at the base of the second stage (ejected shortly after staging, and recovered by parachute) which resulted in a spectacular film of a Titan 2 first stage rending itself into fragments as stage 2 pulled away.  For all I know, that footage could well have come from the GT-10 launch.

But I have also seen pictures of a relatively intact Titan 2 GLV first stage being pulled from the Atlantic.  So, I know that the first stage RUD event seen on at least the one Gemini launch was neither normal, nor planned.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12249
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 518
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #34 on: 01/16/2016 09:45 PM »
The Titan 2 first stage was *not* designed to come apart at staging, producing the "sky full of confetti" effect.  It did happen at least once, on Gemini X, and it happened on the occasion when they placed a movie camera pod at the base of the second stage (ejected shortly after staging, and recovered by parachute) which resulted in a spectacular film of a Titan 2 first stage rending itself into fragments as stage 2 pulled away.  For all I know, that footage could well have come from the GT-10 launch.

But I have also seen pictures of a relatively intact Titan 2 GLV first stage being pulled from the Atlantic.  So, I know that the first stage RUD event seen on at least the one Gemini launch was neither normal, nor planned.
The staging film, apparently taken during the N-25 flight on November 1, 1963, showed the interstage, not the first stage, breaking apart, but the interstage did not fail until after the second stage engine had completely cleared the interstage.  Exhaust ports in the first stage forward skirt and in the interstage vented exhaust long enough for staging to occur.  The intact first stage structure can be seen near the end of the film.

The Titan 2 first stage photographed being retrieved from the Atlantic was not, in fact, a complete first stage.  I believe it was only the remains of the forward oxidizer tank, the propulsion section and fuel tank having broken away.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/17/2016 03:02 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1452
  • Likes Given: 2481
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #35 on: 01/16/2016 10:50 PM »
The Titan 2 first stage was *not* designed to come apart at staging, producing the "sky full of confetti" effect.  It did happen at least once, on Gemini X, and it happened on the occasion when they placed a movie camera pod at the base of the second stage (ejected shortly after staging, and recovered by parachute) which resulted in a spectacular film of a Titan 2 first stage rending itself into fragments as stage 2 pulled away.  For all I know, that footage could well have come from the GT-10 launch.

But I have also seen pictures of a relatively intact Titan 2 GLV first stage being pulled from the Atlantic.  So, I know that the first stage RUD event seen on at least the one Gemini launch was neither normal, nor planned.
The staging film, and I will try to figure out which launch this was from, showed the interstage, not the first stage, breaking apart, but the interstage did not fail until after the second stage engine had completely cleared the interstage.  Exhaust ports in the first stage forward skirt and in the interstage vented exhaust long enough for staging to occur.  The intact first stage structure can be seen near the end of the film.

The Titan 2 first stage photographed being retrieved from the Atlantic was not, in fact, a complete first stage.  I believe it was only the remains of the forward oxidizer tank, the propulsion section and fuel tank having broken away.

 - Ed Kyle

Thanks for the corrections, Ed.  Leaves my point intact, though -- the first stage did not normally break up due to the FITH staging.

Any idea if that happened on any other GLVs other than GLV-10?  I know it happened on Gemini X, it was specifically noted in Mike Collins' excellent "Carrying the Fire"...
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12249
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 518
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #36 on: 01/17/2016 12:39 AM »
Thanks for the corrections, Ed.  Leaves my point intact, though -- the first stage did not normally break up due to the FITH staging.

Any idea if that happened on any other GLVs other than GLV-10?  I know it happened on Gemini X, it was specifically noted in Mike Collins' excellent "Carrying the Fire"...
I agree that the first stages themselves came out of staging largely intact.

I don't know about Gemini Titans, but I do remember seeing interstage breakups during Titan 23G flights.  Here is at least one separated piece visible during the Titan 23G-4 launch of Coriolis on January 6, 2003.  Stage 2 is on the left side of the image.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/17/2016 12:40 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9450
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 423
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #37 on: 01/17/2016 04:19 PM »
Many years ago, I read somewhere that the Titan II second stage was lengthened for the Gemini missions. Perhaps I misunderstood, and that there was a proposal to do so that was not implemented. Or maybe it was for a different program.

Would there have a been any benefit for Gemini to add more prop to the second stage?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9450
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 423
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #38 on: 01/17/2016 04:20 PM »
On another note, there was talk in the 1990s that, by adding a throttle to the first stage engine, that the Titan II first stage could achieve orbit. Any truth to this?

Offline Archibald

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1968
  • Liked: 174
  • Likes Given: 471
Re: The Different Variants of Titan Boosters
« Reply #39 on: 01/17/2016 05:58 PM »
Well, the Titan II stage 1 has a mass fraction of 0.96, high enough to reach orbit as an expendable SSTO, without much payload AFAIK (can someone crunch the numbers ?)
« Last Edit: 01/17/2016 05:58 PM by Archibald »

Tags: