Author Topic: Titan I as a space launch vehicle or RV test vehicle  (Read 10947 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
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: 5475
  • Liked: 990
  • Likes Given: 653
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: 119
  • 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: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
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: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
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: 154
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 81
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.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5443
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 2078
  • Likes Given: 1406
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: 235
  • Liked: 53
  • 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: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
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: 235
  • Liked: 53
  • 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: 5475
  • Liked: 990
  • Likes Given: 653
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: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
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: 235
  • Liked: 53
  • 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: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
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: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
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: