Author Topic: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle  (Read 10428 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10842
  • Likes Given: 321
Why wasn't the Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle after they were decommissioned?  All the Atlas D, E & F's were used up?   some T-II's was converted in the late 80's but they ended up to be more expensive than Delta II's.  Titan I was available in the mid 1960's.  Was it because the was no above ground Titan I launch complexes at VAFB?

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #1 on: 03/27/2009 01:49 PM »
I have kinda wondered about the lack of T1 after deactivation myself.
We could consider the following:

No above ground facilities for T1 as noted
A glut of Atlases available plus continued production of SLV (would provide support and personnel).
Multiple Atlas surface facilities [8] including coffins could be used [VAFB]
Atlas F (most numerous) and E could be flown off modified surface pads used originally for D and SLV
« Last Edit: 03/27/2009 08:09 PM by Art LeBrun »
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 935
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #2 on: 03/27/2009 02:11 PM »
By the way, were those Titan I scrapped ?

 Or were some parts salvaged (I think of the LR-87 and LR-91 engines) ?
... that ackward moment when you realize that Jeff Bezos personal fortune is far above NASA annual budget... 115 billion to 18 billion...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10842
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #3 on: 03/27/2009 02:37 PM »

 Or were some parts salvaged (I think of the LR-87 and LR-91 engines) ?


Those engines weren't used for anything else

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Liked: 930
  • Likes Given: 614
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #4 on: 03/03/2011 02:23 AM »
Ancient thread, I know, but the attached 1961 NASA launch-vehicle handbook gives payload capabilities for the Titan I.  See page 87 of the PDF and following pages.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1112
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #5 on: 09/27/2011 04:25 PM »
While looking through something else I noticed an interesting Titan I trivia tidbit. Though the Titan I was never used for an orbital launch, part of one was placed in orbit.

Now for the trivia, who can answer the W's on that tidbit faster than Jim?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 308
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #6 on: 09/27/2011 04:32 PM »
Titan I oxydizer Tank as part of the OV4-3 satellite, which was a MOL dummy.

Launched on 3 November 1966 on a Titan-3C together with the Gemini-B capsule and three small satellites.

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ov4-3.htm

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1112
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #7 on: 09/27/2011 05:15 PM »
That was the tidbit I was thinking about.

Think it was because it was already a tank designed to handle the flight loads?
« Last Edit: 09/27/2011 05:15 PM by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9600
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 460
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #8 on: 09/30/2013 08:25 PM »
Although Titan I had some successful launches, and although it was designed with a more conservative technical approach than the contemporary Atlas, Titan was never used as a satellite launcher. More surprisingly, when it came to selection of a launch vehicle for Mercury, NASA went with Atlas or Titan.

So, why was Titan I shunned as a space launcher?

Was it this?    :o



Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11188
  • Liked: 2631
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #9 on: 09/30/2013 08:44 PM »
I think it got overtaken by events (or OBE, as those of us obsessed with acronyms know it).

There were other options coming along fast, and Titan I was quickly heading for retirement. I think it had a brief window during which it was considered for space launches (I've seen some documents listing Titan I as an option) and then everybody decided to stick with other vehicles instead, particularly ones that were remaining in production.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12597
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3482
  • Likes Given: 701
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #10 on: 09/30/2013 10:09 PM »
Although Titan I had some successful launches, and although it was designed with a more conservative technical approach than the contemporary Atlas, Titan was never used as a satellite launcher. More surprisingly, when it came to selection of a launch vehicle for Mercury, NASA went with Atlas or Titan.

So, why was Titan I shunned as a space launcher?

Was it this?    [video of a Titan I failure]

Titan I had more than only "some" successes.  It flew 67 times beginning in 1959.  By the end it sported a higher success rate than Atlas after the same number of flights.  So the failures were not the reason for Titan I's end.

Titan I (simply "Titan" at first) was quickly outmoded by Titan II, which began flying in 1962.  At that point, any future use of "Titan" for space missions was going to be Titan II by default.  The Martin factory was turned over to Titan II, as were the launch pads, etc., so the infrastructure needed to support a Titan I space launch program simply didn't exist.  A similar thing happened to Jupiter. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/30/2013 10:15 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9600
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 460
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #11 on: 09/30/2013 10:50 PM »
The question remains why NASA did not choose the "conservative" Titan I over Atlas for Mercury? Did Titan I not have the performance to orbit the Mercury capsule?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9600
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 460
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #12 on: 09/30/2013 10:51 PM »
I should note that the Russian R-9 was basically a Russian Titan 1, and suffered the same fate.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1112
  • Likes Given: 242
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12597
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3482
  • Likes Given: 701
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #14 on: 10/01/2013 12:01 AM »
The question remains why NASA did not choose the "conservative" Titan I over Atlas for Mercury? Did Titan I not have the performance to orbit the Mercury capsule?

My guess would be timing.  The Project Mercury booster decisions were made in 1958, a year before Titan I began flying.  Atlas first flew in 1957.

Atlas was actually more conservative than Titan in that all of its engines ignited on the pad.  Titan had to air-start its second stage.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Chris Bergin

Bump and merge.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 308
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #16 on: 10/01/2013 09:42 AM »
At least Titan I was considered as the booster for suborbital Dyna Soar flights.

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #17 on: 10/02/2013 12:41 AM »
Mmmm... fins!  :D

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5257
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1910
  • Likes Given: 1297
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #18 on: 03/01/2018 03:15 AM »
bump....

Titan 1 Launch 1960-10-24 USAF Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Launch Complex 19, ICBM Test Flight

Jeff Quitney
Published on Feb 28, 2018

1960 US Air Force film of Titan I missile J-6 launch on October 24, 1960 from Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 19. The Titan carried a Mark IV reentry vehicle on a suborbital (ICBM) flight, and the test was successful.

The SM-68 Titan (individual variants later designated HGM-25 and LGM-25) was the designation for two American intercontinental ballistic missiles; which were members of the Titan family of rockets. These consisted of the Titan I and Titan II missiles, which were operational between 1962 and 1987, and were a major component of the United States fleet of missiles during the Cold War.

Titan was originally built as a backup to the SM-65 Atlas. The Titan I used RP-1 and liquid oxygen propellant, resulting in a response time of around fifteen minutes, required to fuel the rocket and raise it to a launch position. It was replaced by the more powerful Titan II, which used nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine, allowing it to be stored with propellant loaded, giving it a much shorter response time.

The warhead of the Titan I was an AVCO Mk 4 re-entry vehicle containing a W38 thermonuclear bomb with a yield of 3.75 megatons which was fuzed for either air burst or contact burst. The Mk 4 RV also deployed penetration aids in the form of mylar balloons which replicated the radar signature of the Mk 4 RV.

Launch Complex 19 (LC-19) is a deactivated launch site on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida used by NASA to launch all of the Gemini manned spaceflights. It was also used by unmanned Titan I and Titan II missiles.

LC-19 was in use from 1959 to 1966, during which time it saw 27 launches, 10 of which were manned. The first flight from LC-19 was on August 14, 1959 and ended in a pad explosion, extensively damaging the facility, which took a few months to repair. The first successful launch from LC-19 was also a Titan I, on February 2, 1960. After being converted for the Titan II ICBM program in 1962, LC-19 was later designated for the Gemini flights. After the program concluded in December 1966, LC-19 was closed down.

The Gemini white room from the top of the booster erector has been partially restored and is on display at the Air Force Space and Missile Museum located at Complex 26.

--------------------------------------------
Originally a public domain film from the US Air Force, slightly cropped to remove uneven edges, with the aspect ratio corrected, and one-pass brightness-contrast-color correction & mild video noise reduction applied.
The soundtrack was also processed with volume normalization, noise reduction, clipping reduction, and/or equalization (the resulting sound, though not perfect, is far less noisy than the original).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQw3oJMcZtc?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #19 on: 03/01/2018 05:19 AM »
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). It had longer range than Atlas but less lift capacity.

It was more advanced than Atlas in the sense of having a true two-stage design with an air-started engine, which was not yet considered feasible in the mid-'50s when Atlas was designed, same reason for the contemporary R-7 to have this setup. The problems of air-starting rocket engines were solved quickly and both the US and Soviet programs had them before the decade was out.

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.

As for Mercury, indeed the program began in 1958 before Titan I had even flown and NASA picked the Redstone and Atlas because they had many test flights to draw data from. Early plans envisioned using Thor or Jupiter for "intermediate" suborbital flights at a higher altitude than with Redstone, but these were quickly dropped as unnecessary. Redstone was half a decade old in 1958 and a reliable, mature missile while Thor and Jupiter were still undergoing R&D tests and not reliable or operational yet. Atlas was new and not reliable at all, but NASA had no other way of getting a Mercury in orbit.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10842
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #20 on: 03/01/2018 11:40 AM »
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).


That doesn't answer the mail.  Being a backup does not negate its ability to be used as a space launch vehicle.

Jupiter wasn't used because the vehicles were destroyed as part of the deal to take them down.


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.


Not true..  There were enough vehicles that the fleet itself would provide the spares.  Just as Atlas E/F had to do and not by production line.


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.


Again, not true.  Still could have been used for RV tests.  And being in a silo, does not preclude use as a SLV.  The vehicle was raised to the surface to be launched
« Last Edit: 03/01/2018 11:52 AM by Jim »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Liked: 930
  • Likes Given: 614
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #21 on: 03/01/2018 12:18 PM »
And being in a silo, does not preclude use as a SLV.  The vehicle was raised to the surface to be launched

Were useful satellite orbits accessible from the silos?  I presume there would have been some significant limitations an launch azimuth.

Offline Arch Admiral

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • 14th Naval District
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #22 on: 03/02/2018 08:43 AM »
Space launches can easily be made from silos. The Soviets converted two of the four prototype R-12 tactical silos at Kapustin Yar to launch the derived Kosmos and Kosmos-3 light satellite boosters. These were hot-fire silos like those for Blue Streak and Titan II. The conversion involved extending the tracks for the silo lids to handle a short gantry for servicing the added upper stage and the payload. Go to 48-34-10N / 46-17-43E on Google Earth and scan back to 8/1/2002.

I think the reason Titan I was scrapped was that there were less than half as many operational missiles withdrawn by SAC in 1965 as there were Atlas D/E/F. 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 (which at that time was projected to be much bigger than it actually was).  There was no "Atlas II" and Atlas-Agena was a much smaller program than Titan III.

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.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10842
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #23 on: 03/02/2018 10:46 AM »

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.


Not really.  Douglas was busier than either of them.  Chrysler was only production.  Had nothing to with launching them.


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.


But the Jupiters were
« Last Edit: 03/02/2018 11:20 AM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10842
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #24 on: 03/02/2018 11:17 AM »
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

All three were different personnel.   Also, Titan IIID wasn't until the end of the 60's.

Atlas-Agena was a much smaller program than Titan III.


Not really, there were 5 pads in operation launching Atlas Agena

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #25 on: 03/04/2018 11:32 AM »
There several reason the Titan I was never used as space launch vehicle
Despite it serve as RV test vehicle during testing phase.

One: just a Backup
it was backup system for Atlas ICBM, just like Titan II was Backup for Minutemen ICBM
once the Atlas do it job, Titan I served as "fill-in" until Titan II and Minutemen were deployed in there Silos

Two: To late
As in 1964 the Titan I was pull out service, Launch Market had change radical
The Atlas serve the USAF and NASA as Launch vehicle and Martin was modifying Titans II for USAF or NASA use
Martin had no time to Refurbish the Titan I for Space Launch and what they had to launch ?

Third: to little
Titan I had very litte payload in LEO while USAF and NASA launching heavier and heavier Satellite
for refurbish Titan I can launch around 4400 lb. in 100 n.m. from KSC
but the Atlas SLV-3 Agena D launch the same and is operational and Atlas Centaur as in development.
There were plans to launch Dyna Soar with modified Titan I, but plans change fast to Titan II, until program was canceled.

Four: Not loved
Titan I had kerolox engines and solid fuel ICBM was thing of future
USAF had issue with Titan I after one explode in its Silo at Beale AFB.
also wanted USAF now storable Fuel for there Rockets and that was Titan II.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5257
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1910
  • Likes Given: 1297
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #26 on: 03/07/2018 08:26 PM »
First ICBM Silo Launch 1961 Vandenberg Air Force Base; Operation Silver Saddle

Jeff Quitney
Published on Mar 7, 2018

Slow-motion views of the first silo launch of an ICBM at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, on May 3, 1961. This Titan I was used for testing the silo system to be used on the Titan II ICBM, which was not ready to fly at the time of this test.

See Titan II, by David K. Stumpf, p. 27-29

https://books.google.com/books?id=0Zj...


The Martin Marietta SM-68A/HGM-25A Titan I was the United States' first multistage intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in use from 1959 until 1965. Incorporating the latest design technology when designed and manufactured, the Titan I provided an additional nuclear deterrent to complement the U.S. Air Force's SM-65 Atlas missile.

Titan 1 was the first in a series of Titan rockets but was unique among them in that it used liquid oxygen and RP-1 as propellants, while the later Titan ICBM versions all used storable propellants instead.

Though the SM-68A was operational for only three years, it was an important step in building the Air Force's strategic nuclear forces...

Origins

The program began in January 1955 when the Scientific Advisory Committee recommended an alternate approach to the ICBM. In May 1955 the Air Material Command invited contractors to submit proposals and bids for the two-stage alternate source ICBM. In September 1955 Martin was declared the contractor for the Titan missile. In early October the Air Force's Western Development Division was ordered to commence the Titan program. The Titan was developed in parallel with the Atlas (SM-65/HGM-16) Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. The Air Force's goal in launching the Titan program was threefold: one, to serve as a backup should Atlas fail; two, to develop a large, two-stage missile with potentially superior performance; and third to introduce competition which the head of Ballistic Missile Division, Brigadier General Bernard Schriever, thought might spur the Atlas contractor to work harder. Martin was selected as the contractor for two reasons. First, it proposed a superior organization. Second was that Martin proposed a method of dealing with the problem of igniting a liquid fueled engine at high altitude.

The Titan I was initially designated B-68 in the numbering sequence of bombers. It was later designate SM-68; then in 1962 it was redesignated HGM-25A.

-----------------------------------------------
Originally a public domain film from the US Air Force slightly cropped to remove uneven edges, with the aspect ratio corrected, and one-pass brightness-contrast-color correction & mild video noise reduction applied.
The soundtrack was also processed with volume normalization, noise reduction, clipping reduction, and/or equalization (the resulting sound, though not perfect, is far less noisy than the original).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anho7yiPcAU?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #27 on: 04/16/2018 10:03 PM »
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.

And as for Jupiter, the agreement to remove them from Turkey was a bit of a hollow one anyway since the things were obsolete by 1962 and planned for removal regardless of whether the CMC had happened or not.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10842
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #28 on: 04/17/2018 02:26 PM »
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.


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.



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.


No, Non

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.   

Atlas E/F and Titan I were decommissioned at the same time, so there wasn't "more than enough existing Atlas" before that. 

Other than tank structure, Atlas E/F had little in common with the SLV-3 versions of Atlas.  Different engines and avionics.

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #29 on: 04/17/2018 11:36 PM »
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.

Complex 576 had several Atlas pads. The 576A pads were surface pads for the Atlas D, not silos. These were converted for the Atlas F in 1965 and used into the early 1970s for R/V testing. The 576B pads were operational test silos for Atlas D, later converted to surface pads and used through 1967. The 576C through E facilities were for Atlas E/F; these were not converted. There was also the OSTF complex with two silo test facilities (one Atlas E, one Atlas F), neither converted to surface pads.

So in total that would be three surface pads and at least 14 test silos--three Atlas D, four Atlas E, and seven Atlas F.

As for the operational status, they did apparently keep at least one Atlas with a live warhead on duty at VAFB, initially on the exposed 576A surface pads. This was not very useful as you could well imagine and 576-A1 was badly damaged when Atlas 19D exploded on it in March 1960, it was not used again for a couple of years. 19D was (as I understand) an on-duty missile and not a test article, although I do not know if it had a live warhead mounted when the accident happened.


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.

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. In fact the Air Force had so many Atlas E/Fs available that they scrapped at least 40 of them in the mid-1970s to reduce storage costs and there were still enough left that they took until 1995 to finally use up the last of them.

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.

Performance are not a reason for lack of use.  Titan I had more performance than Thor.


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). 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.

So by 1965, there were more than enough options available for light/medium payloads that had upper stages and infrastructure readily available and there was no need or point to convert the remaining Titan Is for space use, especially with the lack of surface pads once the CCAS facilities were converted for the Titan II.

Other than tank structure, Atlas E/F had little in common with the SLV-3 versions of Atlas.  Different engines and avionics.

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. As for the rest, the booster engines and launcher mechanism were definitely very different. I don't remember if the sustainer/verniers on the MA-3 had any major differences other than the latter not starting until a few seconds after liftoff (the verniers on the Atlas D were ignited simultaneous with the sustainer, before the vehicle left the pad).
« Last Edit: 04/18/2018 03:36 AM by WallE »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Liked: 930
  • Likes Given: 614
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #30 on: 04/18/2018 01:19 PM »
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).

Page 101 of the report attached upthread puts the Titan I's payload to a 300-nmi. circular orbit due East from the Cape just over 3700 lb.  Page 86 op. cit. indicates a negative payload for the Atlas E to the same orbit.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10842
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #31 on: 04/18/2018 05:31 PM »
The 576B pads were operational test silos for Atlas D, later converted to surface pads and used through 1967.

Wrong, they were coffin pads for their whole life cycle.


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.


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.


*except Atlas GPS.

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.

Most Atlas E/F's were not SLV's and were used for R/V tests and used inertial guidance. 


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.

No, the MA-5 booster was completely different.


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.


There were more Titan I's (83)  than Thors (60) at both deactivations.



It all boils down to lack of above ground pads.  Not guidance, not performance, not logistics, not numbers,
« Last Edit: 04/18/2018 06:00 PM by Jim »

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #32 on: 04/19/2018 01:20 AM »
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. 

And I never claimed anything else. When I said they used radio guidance, I was referring to Atlases used as SLVs. Nor did I ever claim they used Agenas on refurbed missiles (aside from of course Seasat).

I was more getting at the fact that there were already existing SLV Thor and Atlases in 1965, so there was no point in trying to adapt leftover Titan Is as SLVs especially when the lift capacity wouldn't have been significantly different.

No, the MA-5 booster was completely different.

The MA-5 designation is a bit of a weasel term since originally it referred merely to MA-2 engines used on SLV Atlases. Later it referred to the enhanced booster engines on the Atlas-Centaur, which had twin turbopumps powering each engine, but were otherwise similar to the original MA-2 in that there was only one gas generator for the booster engines and everything was mounted in the central thrust section.

It all boils down to lack of above ground pads.  Not guidance, not performance, not logistics, not numbers,

Okay, but this was after claiming earlier in the thread that they didn't need surface pads and could still have used silos for SLVs. So you can't have it both ways here.

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.

Proponent's claim that the Titan I had 3700 pound LEO capacity seems accurate since the Titan II could put about 6800 pounds into LEO (the ICBM version; the GLV Titan II had a LEO capacity of almost 8000 pounds) and you figure it was roughly 2x as powerful as its predecessor.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2018 05:10 AM by WallE »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10842
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #33 on: 04/19/2018 03:43 PM »

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.

Again, 576B pads were not silos, they were coffins.

http://afspacemuseum.org/vandenberg/576B/

http://www.siloworld.net/576thSMS/Operational/ATLAS%20D/576B/launcher.htm

« Last Edit: 04/19/2018 04:01 PM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10842
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle
« Reply #34 on: 04/19/2018 03:53 PM »
Nor did I ever claim they used Agenas on refurbed missiles (aside from of course Seasat).


Then why did you bring up Agena?  Refurbished missiles were not in the same class as SLV's with Agena.  They were for smaller spacecraft or RV tests.

Tags: