Author Topic: Titan heavy?  (Read 9644 times)

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Titan heavy?
« on: 02/17/2015 09:21 pm »
Was there ever any plans or concepts of using three Titans in a heavy version instead of the solids for Titan III and IV?  Just wondering what one would do. 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #1 on: 02/18/2015 02:49 am »
Was there ever any plans or concepts of using three Titans in a heavy version instead of the solids for Titan III and IV?  Just wondering what one would do. 
Of a sort.  There was a general proposal for a Titan IIL during the early 1990s, which would have strapped two surplus Titan II first stages as boosters to a surplus Titan II core first stage.  It wouldn't have been a very capable rocket by EELV standards, only able to lift 7.5 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit from VAFB.  Only one of the core stage engines would have lit at liftoff, with the other igniting at booster staging.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/18/2015 03:04 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #2 on: 02/18/2015 02:51 am »
There was also a proposed Titan II with solids around the base, presumably Castors. I've seen an artist illustration that I may have laying around somewhere. I think it was from the late 1980s.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2015 02:52 am by Blackstar »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #3 on: 02/18/2015 02:53 am »
There was also a proposed Titan II with solids around the base, presumably Castors. I've seen an artist illustration that I may have laying around somewhere. I think it was from the late 1980s.
Yes.  Titan IIS, with four to ten Castor IVA solid motors.  Up to four tonnes or more to sun synchronous orbit from VAFB.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/18/2015 03:01 am by edkyle99 »

Offline the_roche_lobe

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #4 on: 02/18/2015 05:03 am »
'Barbarian' is a word that springs to mind although I think that was just a fat single core?

p

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #5 on: 02/18/2015 06:09 am »
There was also a proposed Titan II with solids around the base, presumably Castors. I've seen an artist illustration that I may have laying around somewhere. I think it was from the late 1980s.
Yes.  Titan IIS, with four to ten Castor IVA solid motors.  Up to four tonnes or more to sun synchronous orbit from VAFB.

 - Ed Kyle

Add the Titan IIIE Centaur to that and here it is, a US competitor to Ariane 1 - 4 ;)
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Antilope7724

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Watched Freedom 7 on live TV
  • California
  • Liked: 278
  • Likes Given: 247
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #6 on: 02/18/2015 11:59 am »
'Barbarian' is a word that springs to mind although I think that was just a fat single core?

p

Proposēd Titan Barbarian MM with a 4-engine core. But solid strap on boosters were still part of the vehicle.

Encyclopedia Astronautica
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/barianmm.htm

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #7 on: 02/18/2015 01:36 pm »
Was there ever any plans or concepts of using three Titans in a heavy version instead of the solids for Titan III and IV?  Just wondering what one would do. 

No, most advanced plans centered around wider core, longer and more solids.

http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=66

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #8 on: 02/20/2015 07:59 pm »
Was there ever any plans or concepts of using three Titans in a heavy version instead of the solids for Titan III and IV?  Just wondering what one would do. 
Of a sort.  There was a general proposal for a Titan IIL during the early 1990s, which would have strapped two surplus Titan II first stages as boosters to a surplus Titan II core first stage.  It wouldn't have been a very capable rocket by EELV standards, only able to lift 7.5 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit from VAFB.  Only one of the core stage engines would have lit at liftoff, with the other igniting at booster staging.

 - Ed Kyle
To satisfy my curiosity, I looked at a Titan IIIC alternative using two Titan first stages as boosters.  Assuming the same stretched stage used by Titan IIIA-C, and again assuming that one of the core "Stage 1" engines ignites on the pad and the other in the air at staging, I guesstimate 10.5 tonnes to a 28.5 deg LEO from the Cape or 0.9-0.95 tonnes to GEO using an upper Transtage. 

That compares with 12 tonnes and 1.043 tonnes for the early Titan IIIC variants.  To get Titan IIIC performance, the first stages would need to have been stretched a bit more than they were for IIIC, to about Titan 34D size.

So, why didn't Martin and the US Air Force take this path?  My guess is that growth options were more limited.  Titan IIIC was to be followed by Titan IIIM with longer solid motors to launch MOL.  Titan IIIM would have boosted 17 tonnes to LEO while still using the same core stages as Titan IIIC.  An all-liquid approach would have required changes to all of the stages to make such an improvement, and would have needed higher-thrust engines, or more engines.

 - Ed Kyle

« Last Edit: 02/21/2015 04:00 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Hotdog876

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Tennessee
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #9 on: 02/22/2015 02:46 pm »
Titan Barbarian using 3 shuttle SRB's

http://i62.tinypic.com/v7yyqv.jpg
« Last Edit: 02/22/2015 04:46 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #10 on: 02/23/2015 11:15 pm »
Was there ever any plans or concepts of using three Titans in a heavy version instead of the solids for Titan III and IV?  Just wondering what one would do. 
Of a sort.  There was a general proposal for a Titan IIL during the early 1990s, which would have strapped two surplus Titan II first stages as boosters to a surplus Titan II core first stage.  It wouldn't have been a very capable rocket by EELV standards, only able to lift 7.5 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit from VAFB.  Only one of the core stage engines would have lit at liftoff, with the other igniting at booster staging.

 - Ed Kyle
To satisfy my curiosity, I looked at a Titan IIIC alternative using two Titan first stages as boosters.  Assuming the same stretched stage used by Titan IIIA-C, and again assuming that one of the core "Stage 1" engines ignites on the pad and the other in the air at staging, I guesstimate 10.5 tonnes to a 28.5 deg LEO from the Cape or 0.9-0.95 tonnes to GEO using an upper Transtage. 

That compares with 12 tonnes and 1.043 tonnes for the early Titan IIIC variants.  To get Titan IIIC performance, the first stages would need to have been stretched a bit more than they were for IIIC, to about Titan 34D size.

So, why didn't Martin and the US Air Force take this path?  My guess is that growth options were more limited.  Titan IIIC was to be followed by Titan IIIM with longer solid motors to launch MOL.  Titan IIIM would have boosted 17 tonnes to LEO while still using the same core stages as Titan IIIC.  An all-liquid approach would have required changes to all of the stages to make such an improvement, and would have needed higher-thrust engines, or more engines.

 - Ed Kyle

Assuming for a moment that USAF didn't get one board with STS in the 70's, or maybe there wasn't an STS at all, I wonder what basically Titan IIIL as a tri-core could look like, so the separate boosters could be ditech entirely.  Each Titan IIIL core would have four engines, so they could probably light two on the central core for liftoff, and then light the other two at staging?
USAF only would have needed  essentially what Titan IV later gave them, as a successor to Titan IIIC. (that's all they needed until D4H started flying)  Althought the core and upper stage would be wider, I'd think it'd still have a large amount in common with the Titan III's. Gets rid of the separate SRB's which later became fairly expensive I think by they time they got the UA1207 and URSM boosters. 

Would mean some upgrades to the Titan Pads, but the benefits might have been reasonable. 
The LR87 and LR91 engines and associated systems would be pretty pleantiful from Titan II/III inventories I'd think?  And it gets a pretty reasonable production rate for the 5m Titan IIIL cores going if you use 3 of them per launch. 

Any ideas if such a system could meet or beat Titan IVB performance?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #11 on: 02/23/2015 11:35 pm »
Titan Barbarian using 3 shuttle SRB's

http://i62.tinypic.com/v7yyqv.jpg

Actually, had history unfolded a little different, I wonder if there could have been any possibility of a "Titan IV" but with Shuttle SRB's instead of the UA1207 or USRM SRB's?
Not as "Barbarian" as this, but those boosters should have exceeded Titan IVB performance, and NASA would have picked up the development tab.
Or would they have been too expensive/powerful/difficult to get to the Titan pads, etc?

History didn't unfold that way, so I'm guessing the problems were to great to do that (perahps political probelms, but always seems like there were the nice big SRB already flying, why not use them instead of USAF paying to finish UA1207 boosters, and then paying more for the USRM boosters?

I'd think such a "Titan 4" core could have been designed with a similar thrust beam like the ET had so they'd mount properly.  Although They've have probably been too powerful for the 3m wide Titan 4 core and stack...too much accelleration?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #12 on: 02/24/2015 12:09 am »

I'd think such a "Titan 4" core could have been designed with a similar thrust beam like the ET had so they'd mount properly. ?


no, the upper connection was on the second stage. 

Shuttle hardware on Titan was a non starter for many reasons.   You keep on wanting to join NASA and DOD launch vehicles, it wasn't going to happen.

They weren't "nice" SRB, they were overly complex and expensive and involved MSFC.
« Last Edit: 02/24/2015 12:10 am by Jim »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #13 on: 02/24/2015 05:25 pm »

I'd think such a "Titan 4" core could have been designed with a similar thrust beam like the ET had so they'd mount properly. ?


no, the upper connection was on the second stage. 

Shuttle hardware on Titan was a non starter for many reasons.   You keep on wanting to join NASA and DOD launch vehicles, it wasn't going to happen.

They weren't "nice" SRB, they were overly complex and expensive and involved MSFC.

Actually, not trying to join NASA and DoD here (although I have in other threads).  But weren't the USRM booster pretty expensive too?  And they were developed after the UA1207 booster had to be developed for Titan IVA.  So that's two new booster programs for Titan IV, vs. the -possible- use of existing big SRB's that have given them in excess of Titan IVB performance right away.  Seems like there might have been some advantage in making use of that if possible and saved those development programs.
Dealing with MSFC would have been a political issue, but I'd assume easier than a whole LV...at least.  They are just big SRB's after all. 

However, even if the politics could have been overcome, I'm thinking the acceleration of a Titan IV core on a pair of Shuttle SRB's would have been too great, as they were almost twice the thrust of the USRM boosters, and changing the boosters to a lower thrust propellant pour would cancel out any possible cost advantage.

But it was just a musing.  I'd think a tri-core configuration with the concept 5m wide Titan IIIL cores and ditching the SRB's all together would have been likely better than either UA1207, USRM, or Shuttle SRB's.   If it could have gotten the Titan IVB performance anyway.  Might have been a decent LV with just a single core as well for those Delta II class payloads perhaps?

« Last Edit: 02/24/2015 05:36 pm by Lobo »

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
    • Aerospace Projects Review
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #14 on: 03/05/2015 03:16 am »
Titan IIS, with four to ten Castor IVA solid motors. 

There was also a UTC concept to continue the use of the UA-1207 boosters in competition against the USRMs for the Titan IVB. Since the USRMs were more capable boosters than the UA-1207's, the solution was simple: strap-ons on the strap-ons. Up to seven Castors, I believe. It was not received by the USAF with much enthusiam.
"US Spacecraft Projects" and "US Launch Vehicle Projects"
aerospaceprojectsreview.com

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #15 on: 03/13/2015 12:37 am »
Looking a bit more at this idea, I've modeled some side-by-side comparisons of boosted-Titans as they flew with hypothetical "Titan Heavy" concepts with liquid boosters.  In every case, the all liquid concepts start one of two core engines on the pad and burn about half of their propellant before the boosters burn out and separate.  The second core engine ignites at that point.

If Titan 34D length tanks are assumed, Titan 3C performance is possible (Titan 34L), but the LR87-AJ11 engines have to be developed to produce 5% more liftoff thrust.  A Titan 34L with a Centaur D stage rivals Titan 3E performance.

A Titan 4L (using Titan 4-length tanks and engines) is conceivable, but liftoff thrust would have to be increased by 25% compared to the original LR87-AJ11.  This might have required a nearly-new engine, but, of course, it would also have been offset by not having to develop the big solid motor boosters.  Titan 4L still comes in a bit wimpy for LEO missions with no upper stage compared to Titan 4A, and falls slightly short of Titan 4A GSO performance with a Centaur G' upper stage.

Not out of the realm of the possible, I would say.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 02:27 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #16 on: 03/16/2015 11:41 pm »
One last thought on an all-liquid "Titan Heavy" possibility.  As noted earlier the all-liquid "Titan 4L" option would have done well with Titan 4A "beyond-LEO" payloads, but would have come up short with heavy payloads to LEO when no Centaur upper stage was used. 

An alternative approach might have been to go ahead and incorporate an advanced Centaur (essentially something like today's Atlas 5 Centaur) into the launch vehicle while simultaneously discontinuing the hypergolic second stage.  By stretching the core stages to maximum length (to Atlas III first stage length to carry nearly 190 tonnes of propellant), flying them in stage-and-a-half fashion, and using the advanced Centaur as a second stage, Titan 4 payload numbers could have been achieved. 

In order to make this happen, however, the core stage engines would had to have advanced quite a bit, likely requiring new engines altogether.  If no throttling was used and only one core stage engine ignited at liftoff, thrust would had to have increased 45% over the existing LR87-AJ11 engine (to about 302 tonnes force (666 Klbf) at liftoff per core).  If a new engine could be made to throttle so that all six engines could ignite at liftoff (allowing the core to subsequently thorttle down), liftoff thrust would only have needed to increase by 17% to 252 tonnes force (556 Klbf) at liftoff.  Liftoff thrust needed to be 755 tonnes (1.66 Mlbf) for a gross liftoff weight ranging from 629 to 645 tonnes, ish.

The result of this development work would have been a launch vehicle much simpler than the Titan 4 with its separate solid booster contracts and multiple upper stage options (NUS, IUS, Centaur, etc.).  The 2.5 stage rocket would have been a proto-EELV.

 - Ed Kyle     
« Last Edit: 03/17/2015 03:05 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #17 on: 03/17/2015 08:35 pm »
Interesting info Ed, thanks.

Quote
In order to make this happen, however, the core stage engines would had to have advanced quite a bit, likely requiring new engines altogether.  If no throttling was used and only one core stage engine ignited at liftoff, thrust would had to have increased 45% over the existing LR87-AJ11 engine (to about 302 tonnes force (666 Klbf) at liftoff per core).  If a new engine could be made to throttle so that all six engines could ignite at liftoff (allowing the core to subsequently thorttle down), liftoff thrust would only have needed to increase by 17% to 252 tonnes force (556 Klbf) at liftoff.  Liftoff thrust needed to be 755 tonnes (1.66 Mlbf) for a gross liftoff weight ranging from 629 to 645 tonnes, ish.


So would there have been any benefit instead of going that route, to go the Angara route with essentially standard Titan III cores/engines?  Tweak that core such that a central core could mount up to 6 other cores?
And while the central core would probably have to be lit for lift off on such a configuration to have sufficient thrust, can the LR87 be shut down and then re-lit at SRB sep?  It was air started after SRB sep on Titan III and IV, but could it be shut down after liftoff, and then re-lit? 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Titan heavy?
« Reply #18 on: 03/18/2015 03:08 pm »
So would there have been any benefit instead of going that route, to go the Angara route with essentially standard Titan III cores/engines?  Tweak that core such that a central core could mount up to 6 other cores?
And while the central core would probably have to be lit for lift off on such a configuration to have sufficient thrust, can the LR87 be shut down and then re-lit at SRB sep?  It was air started after SRB sep on Titan III and IV, but could it be shut down after liftoff, and then re-lit? 
LR87-AJ11 had one start cartridge, so could be started once.  (The Titan engines were relatively simple, fairly efficient, and turned out to be highly reliable.  Their story is little told compared to everything Rocketdyne.)

Going back to the Titan III series stages, and assuming that somehow four first stages could be used as strap-on boosters, it turns out that the boosters would produce enough thrust to act as a "Stage 0" much like the Titan IIIC solid motors, with the core air-starting as "Stage 1". 

Such a rocket would weigh 672 tonnes at liftoff, but would rise on 840 tonnes of thrust.  With a Transtage, it would lift 2.4 tonnes to geosynchronous orbit or 6.2 tonnes to GTO.  Without a Transtage, it would lift 18 tonnes to a 28.5 deg LEO from the Cape or 15 tonnes to sun synchronous orbit from Vandenberg.   

With a Centaur D-1T upper stage, this rocket would be able to lift 4.5 tonnes to GEO or 10 tonnes to GTO.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 06:40 pm by edkyle99 »

Tags:
 

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