Titan Launch Vehicle History "Biography of a Titan" Titan 1 thru IV

Titan Launch Vehicle History "Biography of a Titan" Titan 1 thru IV by catdlr on 27 Sep, 2016 04:06
Titan Launch Vehicle History "Biography of a Titan" circa 1965 US Air Force

Jeff Quitney

Published on Feb 5, 2015

Overview of the history of Titan missiles and Titan launch vehicles up to the then new Titan IIIC (Titan 3C).

Titan was a family of U.S. expendable rockets used between 1959 and 2005. A total of 368 rockets of this family were launched, including all the Project Gemini manned flights of the mid-1960s. Titans were part of the American intercontinental ballistic missile deterrent until the late 1980s, and lifted other American military payloads as well as civilian agency intelligence-gathering satellites. Titans also were used to send highly successful interplanetary scientific probes throughout the Solar System...

Titan I

The Titan I was the first version of the Titan family of rockets. It began as a backup ICBM project in case the Atlas was delayed. It was a two-stage rocket whose LR-87 engine was powered by RP-1 and liquid oxygen. It was operational from early 1962 to mid-1965. The ground guidance for the Titan was the Unisys ATHENA computer, designed by Seymour Cray, based in a hardened underground bunker. Using radar data, it made course corrections during the burn phase.

Titan II

Most of the Titan rockets were the Titan II ICBM and their civilian derivatives for NASA. The Titan II used the LR-87-5 engine, a modified version of the LR-87, that relied on a hypergolic combination of nitrogen tetroxide for its oxidizer and Aerozine 50 (a 50/50 mix of hydrazine and UDMH) for its fuel instead of the liquid oxygen and RP-1 combination used in the Titan I...

The most famous use of the civilian Titan II was in the NASA Gemini program of manned space capsules in the mid-1960s. Twelve Titan IIs were used to launch two U.S. unmanned Gemini test launches and ten manned capsules with two-man crews. All of the launches were successes.

Also, in the late 1980s some of the deactivated Titan II [missiles] were converted into space launch vehicles to be used for launching U.S. Government payloads...

Titan III

The Titan III was a modified Titan II with optional solid rocket boosters. It was developed on behalf of the United States Air Force as a heavy-lift satellite launcher to be used mainly to launch American military payloads and civilian intelligence agency satellites such as the Vela Hotel nuclear-test-ban monitoring satellites, observation and reconnaissance satellites (for intelligence-gathering), and various series of defense communications satellites.

The Titan IIIA was a prototype rocket booster, which consisted of a standard Titan II rocket with a Transtage upper stage. The Titan IIIB with its different versions (23B, 24B, 33B, and 34B) had the Titan III core booster with an Agena D upper stage. This combination was used to launch the KH-8 GAMBIT series of intelligence-gathering satellites...

The powerful Titan IIIC used a Titan III core rocket with two large strap-on solid-fuel boosters to increase its launch thrust, and hence the maximum payload mass capability... The Titan IIID was a derivative of the Titan IIIC, without the upper transtage, that was used to place members of the Key Hole series of reconnaissance satellites into low Earth orbits. The Titan IIIE, the one with an additional high-specific-impulse Centaur upper stage, was used to launch several scientific spacecraft, including both of NASA's two Voyager space probes...

Titan IV

The Titan IV is a "stretched" Titan III with non-optional solid rocket boosters on its sides. The Titan IV could be launched with a Centaur upper stage, the USAF Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), or no upper stage at all. This rocket was used almost exclusively to launch American military or civilian intelligence agency payloads. However it was also used for a purely scientific purpose to launch the NASA - ESA Cassini / Huygens space probe to Saturn in 1997...

By the time it became available, the Titan IV was the most powerful unmanned rocket produced and used by United States, because the extremely large and powerful Saturn V rocket had not been available for some years...

Public domain film from the US Air Force, slightly cropped to remove uneven edges, with the aspect ratio corrected, and 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=jUJ8vLKn02U?t=001
#1 by catdlr on 17 Feb, 2023 08:07
....bump for update video

Titan I First Silo Launch - Vandenberg, 1961 - High FPS camera views, AI cleanup

Quote
Feb 16, 2023 #titan #missile #usaf
High FPS camera views of Titan I first silo launch from Vandenberg, on May 3, 1961. Sequences are shown at real speed and presented at 60fps. Side-by-side views are first shown, with individual sequences at the end of the video.

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

The original footage was silent - sound from a Titan II launch was added.

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

=========================================
The Martin Marietta SM-68A/HGM-25A Titan I was the United States' first multistage intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in use from 1959 until 1962. Though the SM-68A was operational for only three years, it spawned numerous follow-on models that were a part of the U.S. arsenal and space launch capability. The Titan I was unique among the Titan models in that it used liquid oxygen and RP-1 as propellants; all subsequent versions used storable propellants instead.

Originally designed as a backup in case the U.S. Air Force's SM-65 Atlas missile development ran into problems, the Titan was ultimately beaten into service by Atlas. Deployment went ahead anyway to increase the number of missiles on alert because the Titan's missile silo basing was more survivable than Atlas.
=========================================
#2 by DaveJ576 on 19 Feb, 2023 18:09
Here is something that I don't quite understand: why wasn't the Atlas E, F, and Titan 1 ICBMs launched directly from the silo? Why did they have to lift them up above ground before launch when the Titan 1 launch shown here showed that it could be done?

Thanks.
#3 by markbike528cbx on 19 Feb, 2023 19:03
Quote from: DaveJ576 on 19 Feb, 2023 18:09
Here is something that I don't quite understand: why wasn't the Atlas E, F, and Titan 1 ICBMs launched directly from the silo? Why did they have to lift them up above ground before launch when the Titan 1 launch shown here showed that it could be done?

Thanks.
Silos are expensive.
Silos don’t have perfect ventilation or spark proofing(1). Think of all the high oxygen atmosphere on vehicle venting.
Vandenberg is a test range, not an operational site, so they could work more carefully (slowly).

Just getting the missiles to work at all was the first priority. There are loads of videos of launch pad failures of Atlas and Titan 1.

The launch shown is four years after early atlas launches.
Atlas itself is a stainless bag, unlikely to be capable of the acoustic environment of a silo.

1 Source, Titan II by Stumpf. The Damascus Arkansas accident explosion may have been triggered by a fan.
#4 by Jim on 20 Feb, 2023 00:37
Quote from: DaveJ576 on 19 Feb, 2023 18:09
Here is something that I don't quite understand: why wasn't the Atlas E, F, and Titan 1 ICBMs launched directly from the silo? Why did they have to lift them up above ground before launch when the Titan 1 launch shown here showed that it could be done?

Thanks.

Atlas airframw was too weak for it.
#5 by Vahe231991 on 20 Feb, 2023 03:16
Quote from: DaveJ576 on 19 Feb, 2023 18:09
Here is something that I don't quite understand: why wasn't the Atlas E, F, and Titan 1 ICBMs launched directly from the silo? Why did they have to lift them up above ground before launch when the Titan 1 launch shown here showed that it could be done?

Thanks.
It was very dangerous to fuel the Atlas E, Atlas F, or Titan I in a silo before raising it to vertical position within the silo for launch because they used non-storable liquid fuels; on a few occasions, four Atlas Fs violently exploded during this operation, destroying their silos. The Atlas E was only designed for launch from a blast-protected coffin-like structure, being stored horizontally in the building, and when a launch order was given, the roof of the "coffin" would slide away, the missile raised to the vertical, ready for fueling and launching. Thus the Atlas E was originally designated SM-65E before being redesignated CGM-16E (with C standing for coffin) in 1963. The hazards associated with fueling the Atlas E, Atlas F, and Titan I with non-storable fuels in a silo led to the USAF phasing out the Atlas ICBM for service by the mid-1960s and Martin Marietta developing the Titan II (originally SM-68B, redesignated LGM-25C in 1963) to use storable liquid fuels.
#6 by DaveJ576 on 20 Feb, 2023 12:21
So for the Atlas F and Titan I, was the LOX loaded prior to raising the missile out of the silo, or after it was above ground level?
#7 by Jim on 20 Feb, 2023 14:14
Quote from: Vahe231991 on 20 Feb, 2023 03:16
. Thus the Atlas E was originally designated SM-65E before being redesignated CGM-16E (with C standing for coffin)

"C" did not stand for coffin
#8 by Jim on 20 Feb, 2023 14:16
Quote from: Vahe231991 on 20 Feb, 2023 03:16
The hazards associated with fueling the Atlas E, Atlas F, and Titan I

It wasn't the hazards, it was the reaction time and reliability that led to their demise. Titan II was actually more hazardous.
#9 by edkyle99 on 20 Feb, 2023 18:20
Quote from: DaveJ576 on 19 Feb, 2023 18:09
Here is something that I don't quite understand: why wasn't the Atlas E, F, and Titan 1 ICBMs launched directly from the silo? Why did they have to lift them up above ground before launch when the Titan 1 launch shown here showed that it could be done?

Thanks.
This Titan 1 silo launch was a basic concept test to assure Martin's Titan 2 designers that a silo launch was possible. The test predated Minuteman silo launches and even occurred before the first Titan 1 elevator silo flight. In the end, the Titan 2 silos differed considerably from the silo used for this test.

The VS-1 test originated from plans for a silo-launched SM-68A Titan 1 derivative that was never developed. A lot more detail about the VS-1 test here.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37100.msg1459581#msg1459581

- Ed Kyle
#10 by DaveJ576 on 21 Feb, 2023 16:21
Quote from: edkyle99 on 20 Feb, 2023 18:20
Quote from: DaveJ576 on 19 Feb, 2023 18:09
Here is something that I don't quite understand: why wasn't the Atlas E, F, and Titan 1 ICBMs launched directly from the silo? Why did they have to lift them up above ground before launch when the Titan 1 launch shown here showed that it could be done?

Thanks.
This Titan 1 silo launch was a basic concept test to assure Martin's Titan 2 designers that a silo launch was possible. The test predated Minuteman silo launches and even occurred before the first Titan 1 elevator silo flight. In the end, the Titan 2 silos differed considerably from the silo used for this test.

The VS-1 test originated from plans for a silo-launched SM-68A Titan 1 derivative that was never developed. A lot more detail about the VS-1 test here.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37100.msg1459581#msg1459581

- Ed Kyle

Thanks Ed. One last question if I may... with a flash point of 43 deg C RP-1 is very stable and it would make sense that it was loaded with the missile still in the silo. LOX on the other hand was far trickier to handle. From earlier posts I gathered that the VS-1 silo test was the exception to the rule for LOX. The OSTF was a controlled test facility and the VS-1 test itself was only a proof of concept test and was not meant to mimic operational conditions. Therefore the LOX was loaded while the vehicle was still in the silo. Most likely the silo door was wide open and special ventilation measures and precautions were taken. For operational Atlas F and Titan I missiles the procedure was far different. Is it correct to say that the missile was raised out of the silo on its platform, loaded with LOX, and fired? The references that I have access to seem to be a little murky on that point. Thanks for your help.
#11 by edzieba on 21 Feb, 2023 17:10
Quote from: DaveJ576 on 21 Feb, 2023 16:21
Quote from: edkyle99 on 20 Feb, 2023 18:20
Quote from: DaveJ576 on 19 Feb, 2023 18:09
Here is something that I don't quite understand: why wasn't the Atlas E, F, and Titan 1 ICBMs launched directly from the silo? Why did they have to lift them up above ground before launch when the Titan 1 launch shown here showed that it could be done?

Thanks.
This Titan 1 silo launch was a basic concept test to assure Martin's Titan 2 designers that a silo launch was possible. The test predated Minuteman silo launches and even occurred before the first Titan 1 elevator silo flight. In the end, the Titan 2 silos differed considerably from the silo used for this test.

The VS-1 test originated from plans for a silo-launched SM-68A Titan 1 derivative that was never developed. A lot more detail about the VS-1 test here.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37100.msg1459581#msg1459581

- Ed Kyle

Thanks Ed. One last question if I may... with a flash point of 43 deg C RP-1 is very stable and it would make sense that it was loaded with the missile still in the silo. LOX on the other hand was far trickier to handle. From earlier posts I gathered that the VS-1 silo test was the exception to the rule for LOX. The OSTF was a controlled test facility and the VS-1 test itself was only a proof of concept test and was not meant to mimic operational conditions. Therefore the LOX was loaded while the vehicle was still in the silo. Most likely the silo door was wide open and special ventilation measures and precautions were taken. For operational Atlas F and Titan I missiles the procedure was far different. Is it correct to say that the missile was raised out of the silo on its platform, loaded with LOX, and fired? The references that I have access to seem to be a little murky on that point. Thanks for your help.
Loading any prop (cryogenic or not) before tilting the vehicle up and out of the coffin would have placed unnecessary extra load on the vehicle, and not have made the overall loading sequence any faster - you'd have had to wait for RP-1 load, then tilt, then wait for LOX load; rather than tilting and then loading both props simultaneously.
#12 by WallE on 21 Feb, 2023 17:21
The first attempts at launching both a Titan I and II from a silo ended catastrophically. Titan I V-2 was raised to launch position and fueled on December 4, 1960 but the elevator collapsed and the missile simply dropped back down into the OSTF facility at VAFB and exploded. The silo walls resulted in there being nowhere for the energy from the blast to dissipate so it completely demolished the entire thing and it was abandoned and never rebuilt.

Titan II N-7 was launched from 395-C at VAFB on February 16, 1963. It was in trouble almost immediately as a chunk of wiring got ripped out by the retraction of the umbilicals inside the silo and cut power to the guidance system. The missile took off with an uncontrolled roll and to the horror of everyone in the blockhouse, nothing happened when the Range Safety officer pressed the destruct button--the power loss had also disabled the RSO system and so they had a missile that couldn't be destroyed and could easily plunge into a populated area with a load of toxic propellants onboard.

N-7 cartwheeled upside down at the point where the pitch and roll sequence was supposed to initiate. The second stage broke away from the stack and triggered the Inadvertent Separation Destruct System which blew up the first stage. The second stage, trailing N2O4 as it had been punctured by flying debris from the first stage destruct, fell into the water just offshore. Navy crews managed to recover the Mark VI R/V but were unable to find the guidance system.

It could have been a much worse disaster, but the uncontrolled roll of the missile at launch provided some stability and prevented it from colliding with the silo wall. The umbilical lanyard release system in 395-C was modified afterward to ensure proper separation without damaging the missile.
#13 by edkyle99 on 21 Feb, 2023 23:35
Quote from: DaveJ576 on 21 Feb, 2023 16:21
Thanks Ed. One last question if I may... with a flash point of 43 deg C RP-1 is very stable and it would make sense that it was loaded with the missile still in the silo. LOX on the other hand was far trickier to handle. From earlier posts I gathered that the VS-1 silo test was the exception to the rule for LOX. The OSTF was a controlled test facility and the VS-1 test itself was only a proof of concept test and was not meant to mimic operational conditions. Therefore the LOX was loaded while the vehicle was still in the silo. Most likely the silo door was wide open and special ventilation measures and precautions were taken. For operational Atlas F and Titan I missiles the procedure was far different. Is it correct to say that the missile was raised out of the silo on its platform, loaded with LOX, and fired? The references that I have access to seem to be a little murky on that point. Thanks for your help.
Both Atlas F and Titan 1 used elevator silos. If the missiles were on alert they were preloaded with kerosene. If a launch command was given they were fast-loaded with LOX. Then the giant elevator would raise the missile out of its silo and it would launch. The launch process from command to liftoff was supposed to take ~15 minutes. (The Atlas F countdown checklist said, "CAUTION - If a nuclear blast is detected during countdown, do no start commit sequence until blast conditions (shock wave and effect) are over.")

The first time they tested this concept with Titan 1, October 15, 1960, things went very badly even though it was only a Wet Dress Rehearsal. The missile was loaded with propellants in the Titan Operational Suitability Test Facility (OSTF) silo, then raised to the surface. So far so good, but when lowering the still loaded missile back into its silo the elevator failed. The missile and platform plummeted into the silo and exploded, massively. You can still see the hole from space!

The Titan 1 VS-1 launch that is shown in the video in an earlier message proved once and for all that launching a missile out of the silo was an inherently better idea than all of that complex elevator business!

- Ed Kyle
#14 by Vahe231991 on 22 Feb, 2023 03:02
Quote from: Jim on 20 Feb, 2023 14:14
Quote from: Vahe231991 on 20 Feb, 2023 03:16
. Thus the Atlas E was originally designated SM-65E before being redesignated CGM-16E (with C standing for coffin)

"C" did not stand for coffin
This official DoD document regarding the 1963 Tri-Service missile and rocket designation system clearly says on page III that the launch environment letter C stood for "coffin":
https://designation-systems.net/usmilav/original-docs/dodmissiles1963.pdf
#15 by WallE on 22 Feb, 2023 20:58
The first Atlas coffin launch was Missile 25D on April 22, 1960 from 576-B2 and was successful. The first Atlas E coffin launch was Missile 27E from OSTF-1 on June 7, 1961 which failed almost immediately at liftoff because of a recurrence of booster engine rough combustion, which had destroyed two Atlas Ds at CCAS a year earlier. The B-1 injector head ruptured, causing a thrust section fire and the missile toppled and exploded. It put OSTF-1 out of use for ten months.

OSTF-1 did not have a successful launch until 65E in April 1963. Atlas 66E suffered an in-flight thrust section fire for reasons unknown and experienced premature vernier shutdown and failure to stage the booster section. 67E had a propellant utilization problem resulting in late sustainer cutoff. 64E broke up 40 seconds after liftoff when the B-2 engine shut down. A pressure pulse at liftoff shoved the B-2 insulation boot up so it snagged the lube oil fill and drain line and caused its contents to escape during launch until the engine ran out of turbopump lubricant. Modifications to prelaunch procedures prevented this failure mode from happening again. The postflight investigations of 27E and 66E did not determine any specific cause of the failures, but it's quite conceivable that it was the same pressure pulse issue and it took three failed launches before anyone figured it out (the malfunction on 67E most likely was not because of this).