Talk:Titan (rocket family)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Payload[edit]

Titan 4 payload to GTO is about 13000kg, not 5800kg. That's the GEO payload. --Rnbc 00:07, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Are you sure???[edit]

The current owners of the Titan line (Lockheed-Martin) decided to extend their Atlas family of rockets instead of the more expensive Titans, along with joint ventures to sell launches on the Proton and the new Delta IV class of medium and heavy-lift launch vehicles.

But Delta IV prodused by Boeing. Lockheed-Martin produsing Atlas rockets. Is that a mistake? TestPilot 00:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The link to the IUS infromation at Boeing is:

http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/ius.html

Cost of propellants[edit]

"The high cost of Hydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide proved too much" - this cannot be true. The cost of propellant is on the order of 1% of all costs associated with the launch. The toxicity and fire hazard of said components is most likely were more important in that decision.


Accident[edit]

does someone have infor to include on the Titan accident. A maintenance guy droped a wrench down the silo, this burst the fuel tank and threw the war head miles away causing an emergency search to recover the warhead. Saltysailor (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out the book "Command and Control Nuclear Weapons, the Damacus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety. ISBN 10: 0143125788 (hardback) ISBN 13: 9780143125785 (softcover). It's a good read.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Weaponized version of Titan III[edit]

I've read in a couple places that Titan III was considered for use as a heavy fractional orbital bombardment system, as in the following quote: "TheTitan 3A was basically a Titan II with an upper stage, but all subsequent launchers have stemmed from theTitan 3B configuration, which added a pair of large strap-on solid boosters. This was also seen as apotential weapons system, especially for FOBS and other special payloads, but development of aweaponized version did not go ahead." This is from a document found online titled "U.S. Nuclear Missiles: History and Guide to Resources." Has anyone seen anything similar, with verifiable sourcing? It might make a good addition to this page. Sacxpert (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Payload[edit]

For Titan III, it says, “Their maximum payload mass was about 7,500 lb (3,000 kg).” This is inconsistent. 7,500 lb is about 3400 kg, while 3000 kg is about 6600 lb.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Haas?[edit]

Why does this article refer to some obscure Romanian rocket that doesn't appear to have ever been built? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Number of first stage engines[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles and Talk:LR-87#Affected articles that affects this article. Please discuss it there. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is listed at [[Talk:LR-87#Affected articles as one of those affected by the proposal at Talk:LR-87#Consensus? to treat all variants of the LR-87 as a single engine with two nozzles. Please raise any objections to this there.

If no objections are received, the proposal will in due course take effect in this article. Andrewa (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Required edits done [1]. Neither of these sentences really assume the number of nozzles either way, but they could be taken that way. The edits are more of the nature of clarification than correction. Given the history of this particular question, it's important to be clear. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


The USAF "T.O. 21M-HGM25A-1-1 Technical Manual Operation and Organizational Maintenance HGM-25A Missile Weapon System" defines the first stage engine in paragraph 1-243 (page 1-101) as: "STAGE I ROCKET ENGINE. The Stage I rocket engine, designated LR87-AJ-3, consists of two engine subassemblies."[1]

The Air Force said that the LR87 was one engine with two thrust chambers.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Titan IIIM[edit]

The Titan 3M was about to be built when MOL was canceled. NASA considered using it as a vehicle for an enlarged Big Gemini 120 for space rescue. The The 3M would have had a quicker response time compared to the Saturn IB. "Extremes of estimated time interval to reach an emergency site in a low earth orbit are 4 hr. minimum and 144 hr. maximum.[2] Another scheme was to use it to boost refurbished Apollo Command Modules for space rescue.[3] NASA estimated Titan 3M would be cheaper, $15-16 million vs Saturn IB at $28 million.[4] The 7 section solid strap on was tested. [5] The modified LR87 had been successfully tested.[6] Ground Support Equipment was built [7] The fuel used in the modified YRL87-AJ-11 was "Alumazine 50 "a suspension of powdered aluminum in (gelled) Hydrazine.".[8] The last cited article also explains the "M" in Titan 3M. It stood for "Metalized." The new fuel required modifications to the YRL87-11 which are detailed in the "Stage I Engine Demonstration Testing" report.

This would make the LR87 unique in being the only Large Liquid Propellent Engine to have been fired with four different Oxidizer/Fuel combinations. Anyone have more information on the "almost flew" Titan 3M (or IIIM)?

  • Aviation Week always called the SLV "Titan 3M," the only references to a "Titan IIIM" were official documents dealing with the development of the propulsion system.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Titan (rocket family). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ United States Air Force, The T.O. 21M-HGM25A-1-1 Technical Manual Operation and Organizational Maintenance HGM-25A Missile Weapon System, United States Air Force, 1964, paragraph 1-243
  2. ^ Views on Space Flight Emergencies Marked by Diversity, Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 8, 1967 page 75
  3. ^ Apollo Command Module Reuse Proposed, Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 7, 1969 pages 73-78
  4. ^ Recent NASA cost analysis made for Congress shows the price of the Titan 3M at $15-16 million, Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 24, 1967 page23
  5. ^ First United Technology Center seven-segment 120-in. Solid Rocket Motor has been erected in a test stand at UTC's Coyote, Calif. facility, Aviation Week & Space Technology, March 31, 1969 page 13
  6. ^ Program Titan IIIM Standard Space Launch Vehicle Development Report for Stage I Engine Demonstration Testing, Report 9180-941-DR-9, Aerojet General, September 3, 1969
  7. ^ Operation and Service Manual Gemini B/MOL/LV Electrical Interface Substitute, Report for the United States Air Force, McDonnell Aircraft, Project Gemini B, Contract No. F04655-67-0-0023, 31 March 1968
  8. ^ USAF Still Seeking Gelled Proppelant, Aviation Week & Space Technology, November 30, 1964 page 77