Titan I wasn't used as an SLV because it was a backup program there solely in case Atlas didn't pan out, just as Jupiter was Thor's backup with no serious plans to develop it further (putting aside its brief, not very successful career as an SLV in 1958-61).
The Air Force began looking into storable propellants in 1959 and that quickly led to the Titan II. All the infrastructure for the Titan I was rapidly converted for the new missile--launch facilities and factory tooling at Martin-Marietta and Aerojet. That also explains the lack of decommissioned Titan Is being reused as space launchers--there were no spare parts available while Atlas was an active SLV with assembly lines going and parts still being produced to refurb Atlas E and F missiles.
Remember that the Titan I had surface pads only at the Cape, there were none at VAFB, just silos which weren't really usable for space launches. The Cape Titan pads were all converted for Titan II use in 1962 and there wasn't any way to perform space launches on a Titan I even if they wanted to.
And being in a silo, does not preclude use as a SLV. The vehicle was raised to the surface to be launched
A similar argument applies to Jupiter: there were only 45 tactical pads as opposed to 60 for Thor, and the personnel at MSFC and Chrysler were already diverted to Saturn I.
There was no requirement in the Kennedy-Khrushchyev secret deal to destroy any missiles -- the ones in Cuba were all shipped back to their original bases in the western fringes of the USSR.
A secondary reason was that the personnel and facilities were tied up in the continuing Titan II test and training launches, plus the Titan IIIB/C/D program
Atlas-Agena was a much smaller program than Titan III.
The first R-14 SLVs were launched from silos at Kapustin Yar, but it proved impractical since the silo would have to be rebuilt every launch (silos weren't designed for repeat use). Thus they quickly built proper surface pads. Note that some of the Atlas operational silos at VAFB were modified into surface pads after the ICBM program ended, and these were used for R/V tests and other such launches.
In regards to Titan I, aside from the earlier-mentioned points, there was not only a far smaller stock of them, but the lift capacity was less than Atlas and there was no need of them when there were more than enough existing Atlas and Thor/Delta boosters by 1965 for light and medium lift payloads. One might also add that Aerojet had stopped manufacturing the kerolox LR-87 used in the Titan I and their tooling was converted for the hypergol version in the Titan II/III family, so there may have been a lack of engine spare parts.
Not true at all and makes no sense. No silo pads were modified into surface pads at VAFB.The Atlas operational "pads" at VAFB were 3 surface pads and 3 coffin pads and these were later used for R/V and space tests. None of the 3 silos were operational, only for test.
lack of production line does not mean lack of spares. The Titan I ICBM program had spare engines and parts could be taken from other vehicles. Atlas E/F did the same thing. There was no production line for MA-3 engines.
Performance are not a reason for lack of use. Titan I had more performance than Thor.
Other than tank structure, Atlas E/F had little in common with the SLV-3 versions of Atlas. Different engines and avionics.
Atlas D had LEO capacity of 3000 pounds. I don't happen to know the exact LEO capacity of Titan I, but it was less than Atlas (although the range was longer).
The 576B pads were operational test silos for Atlas D, later converted to surface pads and used through 1967.
By the time the ICBM program ended in 1965, they had Thor-Agenas with around 800-1000 pounds LEO capacity, which was probably close to that of Titan I, plus a restartable engine and GEO capability, neither of which was possible on Titan I. Atlas-Agena had around 1700 pounds LEO capacity.
The avionics thing didn't really matter anyway since Atlas E/F converted for SLVs had the inertial guidance replaced with the Atlas D radio ground guidance system.
But there were probably far more MA-3s available since the engines were produced in greater numbers than the kerolox LR-87, in any case they probably had more parts commonality with currently produced Rocketdyne engines since they didn't switch propellant types. I don't happen to know the exact number of Titan Is produced, but it was certainly much less than the number of Atlases since it was after all just a backup program.
in any case they probably had more parts commonality with currently produced Rocketdyne engines since they didn't switch propellant types.
I don't happen to know the exact number of Titan Is produced, but it was certainly much less than the number of Atlases since it was after all just a backup program.
No repurposed IRBM Thor or ICBM Atlas (except for one) flew with Agena. So, I don't know what you getting at here. All repurposed weapon system vehicles flew PEO* or suborbital flights with no upper stage or with small SRM stages.Most Atlas E/F's were not SLV's and were used for R/V tests and used inertial guidance.
No, the MA-5 booster was completely different.
It all boils down to lack of above ground pads. Not guidance, not performance, not logistics, not numbers,
In defense of the argument, the OV-1 satellites were launched from the 576B silos (yes you were correct on that, they were not turned into surface pads) so it was definitely possible.
Nor did I ever claim they used Agenas on refurbed missiles (aside from of course Seasat).