gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (10/24/86)
With all this talk about no expendable boosters around to put satellites into orbit, I was thinking: what about the (remaining) Titan II missiles used by the USAF as ICBMS in silos in Arkansas? They are being decommissioned - there have been several failures due to leaks causing fires, explosions, etc. So why not use the ones remaining? Pros: o The missiles take 1/2 hour to fuel, so their military usefulness is limited at best (first strike, anyone?) o They don't have to be moved; just remove the warhead bus and replace with a satellite & shroud & ... (I didn't say this was free or even cheap; just available soon) Cons: o Are they reliable enough to use as satellite launchers? o Would the Soviets be nervious if they saw a (single) launch of a Titan II into circum-polar orbit? [i.e., would they think it's a pin-down strike?] o Military: We can't spare a single missile. Unknowns: o Cargo weight of a Titan II to LEO? to GSO? o Time to build a housing for a satellite for the Titan II? Anyway, if anyone knows more about this than I (That is to say, any real facts), I would be curious about this. -- -- Bob Gottlieb UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 Phone: (617) 263-9110 Foot: "You can't get there from here". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/26/86)
> ... what about the (remaining) > Titan II missiles used by the USAF as ICBMS in silos in Arkansas? > They are being decommissioned... As I recall, the USAF is way ahead of you, and already plans to use some of them for satellite launches. > o The missiles take 1/2 hour to fuel, so their military usefulness > is limited at best (first strike, anyone?) Can you cite a reference for this? The Titan II, unlike the long-gone Titan I, uses room-temperature propellants specifically so that it can sit in the silo fully fuelled. > o They don't have to be moved; just remove the warhead bus and > replace with a satellite & shroud & ... No, they do have to be moved. Missile silos are sited without much concern for range safety; if those things are going up, nobody is going to be too worried about where the spent stages will land, or where the rocket might go if something fails. That isn't acceptable for peacetime space launches. > o Are they reliable enough to use as satellite launchers? Should be. The Titan launchers are only modest variants of the ICBMs. One early variant was used for the Gemini manned missions. > o Would the Soviets be nervious if they saw a (single) > launch of a Titan II into circum-polar orbit? [i.e., > would they think it's a pin-down strike?] This is another reason why it's smart to launch from an existing launch site on well-known launch paths, rather than straight from silos. Early-warning radars aren't necessarily capable of counting the missiles or precisely identifying where they are headed. > o Cargo weight of a Titan II to LEO? to GSO? Into LEO, comparable to a Gemini spacecraft, since it's the same rocket. Clarke orbit, maybe not a lot. > o Time to build a housing for a satellite for the Titan II? Probably not too hard, since there are payload shrouds already in use for the assorted Titan space-booster variants. Martin Marietta's commercial Titan will probably use essentially stock Ariane shrouds. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (10/27/86)
The Titan II uses "storable liquid" propellants as they're known in the military. They're also "hypergolic", i.e., they ignite spontaneously on contact. The specific fuel is Aerozine-50, a 50-50 mixture of unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) and plain hydrazine. The oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide. Missiles like the Titans make poor ICBMs because they must sit fueled and launch-ready for years at a time. The explosion of a Titan in Arkansas a few years back was caused by a technician dropping a socket wrench that punctured the Titan's tanks, resulting in a propellant leak. It is likely that the explosion and eventual sinking of the Soviet submarine off Bermuda a few weeks ago had a similar cause. It is interesting to note that the majority of Soviet missiles are liquid fueled, unlike American missiles which are (except for the Titans) now all solid fueled. (This has interesting implications when comparing the two forces, especially when strategic defenses are involved, but I digress...) As a space launcher, the Titan II can put 3700 Kg into low earth orbit. Without solid rocket boosters, this is considerably less than the 13600 Kg capability of a Titan III-D. (Source: "The Rocket", by David Baker.) Phil
jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) (10/29/86)
> Missiles like the Titans make poor ICBMs because they must sit fueled and > launch-ready for years at a time. The explosion of a Titan in Arkansas > a few years back was caused by a technician dropping a socket wrench that > punctured the Titan's tanks, resulting in a propellant leak. It is likely > that the explosion and eventual sinking of the Soviet submarine off Bermuda > a few weeks ago had a similar cause. It is interesting to note that the > majority of Soviet missiles are liquid fueled, unlike American missiles > which are (except for the Titans) now all solid fueled. (This has interesting > implications when comparing the two forces, especially when strategic > defenses are involved, but I digress...) > > Phil Please digress further! I, for one, would be very interested in a comparison of American and Soviet missiles. Are liquid fueled or solid fueled boosters more easily "targeted" during boost phase? As I understand it liquid fueled has more lift capability. Does that imply a hotter plume? Please, digress! Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around