Author Topic: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?  (Read 9537 times)

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« on: 10/28/2006 02:07 am »
I'm currently writing the instructions for my Dr. Zooch Titan IIIC SLV5 flying model rocket kit and in doing so I have run into a trivial question of the proper name for the strap-on solids. I've found some sources of the 1960s referring to them as "Solid Rocket Motors" while many sources of the later decades call them Solid Rocket Boosters and then note them as being similar to the Shuttle's SRBs. I know that a single segment of an SRB is called a Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) and that when combined with other segments they are then called Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB). My question is, what should I correctly call these strap ons in my instructions and what were they actually called back in 1965 when SLV5 was launched? Does anyone out there have the answer?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15436
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8619
  • Likes Given: 1363
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #1 on: 10/28/2006 04:29 am »
The original Titan IIIC solids, manufactured by United Technologies, were called Solid Rocket Motors (SRMs).  The use of the term "Motor" rather than "Booster" may have been due to the fact that the SRMs served as "Stage Zero" for Titan IIIC, rather than firing in parallel with the core stage as on Shuttle, Delta, and the later Atlas-Centaur rockets.

Each Titan IIIC SRM used five solid motor segments (as did Titan IIID and IIIE).  Titan 34D used five and one-half segments.  Titan IVA used seven segments.  Titan IVB used an entirely new set of solid motors, manufactured by Hercules (later Alliant Tech Systems), named Solid Rocket Motor (Upgraded), or SRMU.  Each SRMU used only three segments, but each segment was larger and more powerful than the previous SRM segments.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #2 on: 10/28/2006 05:12 am »
AFAIK motor refers to solids, engine refers to liquids - at least for current references...
Anyone know when those nomenclatures became 'standards' as far as engineering/management references?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37507
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21563
  • Likes Given: 429
RE: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #3 on: 10/28/2006 02:03 pm »
Quote
zerm - 27/10/2006  9:50 PM

I'm currently writing the instructions for my Dr. Zooch Titan IIIC SLV5 flying model rocket kit and in doing so I have run into a trivial question of the proper name for the strap-on solids. I've found some sources of the 1960s referring to them as "Solid Rocket Motors" while many sources of the later decades call them Solid Rocket Boosters and then note them as being similar to the Shuttle's SRBs. I know that a single segment of an SRB is called a Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) and that when combined with other segments they are then called Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB). My question is, what should I correctly call these strap ons in my instructions and what were they actually called back in 1965 when SLV5 was launched? Does anyone out there have the answer?


A single segment is not a SRM and multiple are not SRB's

The Titan has always uses SRM's and the term SRM

SRM and SRB are generic terms.  The Delta uses SRM's, but the Atlas V uses SRB's

STS is different.   The Shuttle uses SRM's (which ATK builds).  When the SRM is combined with aft skirt, avionics, attach points, fwd closure, recovery system, booster separation motors, and nose cone, it becomes an SRB


Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #4 on: 10/28/2006 10:31 pm »
Thanks everyone for the answers. This helps a great deal. Now when some smart apple comes out of the woodwork blabbing about how I got my terms wrong- I can tell 'em to log on here and talk to you folks instead of yacking at me. When you need the facts fast and correct- NSF is the place to come!

Offline dwmzmm

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Far West Houston, TX
    • Challenger 498 NAR Section
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #5 on: 10/29/2006 01:56 am »
Quote
zerm - 28/10/2006  5:14 PM

Thanks everyone for the answers. This helps a great deal. Now when some smart apple comes out of the woodwork blabbing about how I got my terms wrong- I can tell 'em to log on here and talk to you folks instead of yacking at me. When you need the facts fast and correct- NSF is the place to come!

Dr. Zooch, you got that right.  At least, I'm here to back you up on that!
Dave, NAR # 21853 SR.

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #6 on: 11/13/2006 03:52 am »
Here's another Titan IIIC question that will require someone, perhaps who was there, to answer. In the stacking and assembly process there are two main buildings at CCAFS- the Vertical Integration Building and the Solid Motor Assembly Building. So what was the order in which the vehicles were stacked on the transporters? Since the VIB is first on the rail system and the SMAB is between it and the pad it would seem logical that the core stages were stacked first in the VIB and then moved to the SMAB for attachment to the solids- but I seem to recall someone saying that the solids were actually brought from the SMAB to the VIB and everything was stacked there. Can anyone tell me the actual order and how these Titan IIICs were stacked? Also does anyone know how many actual Transporters there were? Was it 3 or 4?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37507
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21563
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #7 on: 11/13/2006 11:22 am »
The core stages were stacked in the VIB and then rolled to the SMAB for the solids to be attached.  The VIB was not sited for solids.   The SMARF was for the T-IVB.

Segments of the solids were actual bought to SRS and RIS buildings (which are near the VIB) for recieving, inspection, x-ray, prep and storage, before being sent to the SMAB for stacking

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #8 on: 11/13/2006 11:36 am »
Thanks Jim.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #9 on: 11/13/2006 04:15 pm »
Did Martin or the USAF ever consider a "triple-core" Titan (two first stages on the sides instead of solids)? Were they any reasons that you couldn't?

Simon ;)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37507
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21563
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #10 on: 11/13/2006 05:38 pm »
Not enought thrust

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #11 on: 11/13/2006 08:13 pm »
Yeah- I guess each one of those Titan IIIC SRMs, individually, are nearly as powerful as the first stage of a Saturn IB.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11785
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9399
  • Likes Given: 8092
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #12 on: 06/25/2023 08:47 am »
Bumping for an extremely old thread (2006)....

Titan IIIC First Launch - Cape Canaveral SLC-40, Multiple Views, 1965



Quote
Jun 22, 2023  #titan #ksc
Multiple camera views of the first Titan IIIC launch on June 18, 1965. Side-by-side views are shown along with historical narration and recreated flight audio.

AI upscale (Topaz AI) was used to resample the film to full HD resolution. While it works in most cases, some artifacts are present in some sequences.

Sound and image cleanup,  conversion to original 24 fps frame rate, geometry correction and AI upscale and color restoration by RetroSpace HD.

========================================
The Titan IIIC was an expendable launch system used by the United States Air Force from 1965 until 1982.

It was the first Titan booster to feature large solid rocket motors and was planned to be used as a launcher for the Dyna-Soar, though the spaceplane was canceled before it could fly. The majority of the launcher's payloads were DoD satellites, for military communications and early warning, though one flight (ATS-6) was performed by NASA.

The Titan IIIC was launched exclusively from Cape Canaveral while its sibling, the Titan IIID, was launched only from Vandenberg AFB.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2023 08:47 am by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #13 on: 10/09/2023 09:47 am »
United Technologies a Division of United Aircraft corporation (or short UA).
always labeled them as Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) not booster.

They label also SRM as UA-1205 and UA-1207
United Aircraft 120 inch 5 or 7 segment SRM

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #14 on: 10/13/2023 06:26 pm »
On the morning of August 26, 1966, the Cape was treated to a dramatic flight failure as the fifth Titan IIIC lifted from LC-41 with several IDCSP satellites intended to be used for Army communication in Indochina. At around T+15 seconds, pieces of the payload shroud started breaking off.  At T+79 seconds the shroud completely failed, the satellites were ripped off the stack, and the Titan performed a cartwheel until one of the SRMs separated from aerodynamic loads and activated the ISDS system, blowing the booster to pieces. The exact cause of the shroud failure was not determined, but on subsequent flights the fiberglass shrouds were replaced with a sturdier metal one.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15384
  • Liked: 7949
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #15 on: 10/13/2023 07:35 pm »
On the morning of August 26, 1966, the Cape was treated to a dramatic flight failure as the fifth Titan IIIC lifted from LC-41 with several IDCSP satellites intended to be used for Army communication in Indochina. At around T+15 seconds, pieces of the payload shroud started breaking off.

Only 15 seconds? That's way before Max-Q. Of course, with those solids the Titan III would have been a rough ride.

Offline JoeFromRIUSA

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Rhode Island USA
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 600
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #16 on: 10/13/2023 09:50 pm »
Aviation Week had a great cover showing this very launch mishap
« Last Edit: 10/13/2023 09:53 pm by JoeFromRIUSA »

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #17 on: 10/13/2023 11:56 pm »
Only 15 seconds? That's way before Max-Q. Of course, with those solids the Titan III would have been a rough ride.

Titan III was intended to fly MOL and Dyna-Soar and designed from the outset as a man-rated vehicle so the ride couldn't have been that rough. The shroud failure may have been caused by water vapor trapped in the fiberglass that froze into ice and expanded as the booster gained altitude, although that shouldn't happen less than 20 seconds into launch. In any case, it's somewhat similar to the Mariner 3 failure also caused by a fiberglass shroud where they quickly learned that some weight/cost-saving tricks weren't a good idea. Also see Apollo 6 which lost one of the S-IVB adapter panels due to water vapor freezing inside it and expanding.

Aviation Week had a great cover showing this very launch mishap

The Titan's aerodynamic profile was disrupted by the loss of the shroud so it tumbled out of control. Never seen video footage of this launch anywhere, though. A pity.
« Last Edit: 10/14/2023 12:02 am by WallE »

Offline Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 295
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 744
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #18 on: 10/14/2023 06:34 am »
A pity indeed... must have been a rather spectacular sight: one heck of a light and sound show. From a safe distance, obviously.
« Last Edit: 10/14/2023 06:36 am by Emmettvonbrown »

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Titan IIIC- a question in terms?
« Reply #19 on: 10/15/2023 01:39 am »
Aviation Week had a great cover showing this very launch mishap

Some kind of vapor coming out the top of the booster from the Transstage area. Perhaps the stage was damaged/ruptured by debris from the shroud or satellites disintegrating.

Tags:
 

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