Talk:Titan (rocket family)

Payload

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???

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

"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

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)

& see LGM-25C_Titan_II#Mishaps - Rod57 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Weaponized version of Titan III

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

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?

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

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."

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

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. Another scheme was to use it to boost refurbished Apollo Command Modules for space rescue. NASA estimated Titan 3M would be cheaper, $15-16 million vs Saturn IB at $28 million. The 7 section solid strap on was tested. The modified LR87 had been successfully tested. Ground Support Equipment was built The fuel used in the modified YRL87-AJ-11 was "Alumazine 50 "a suspension of powdered aluminum in (gelled) Hydrazine.". 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

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_missile/chronology.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Propose move Accidents at Titan II silos and delete/reduce here

The whole section Accidents at Titan II silos is covered in similar depth in the Titan II ICBM article and could be much reduced or deleted from this article ?? - Rod57 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does Titan V redirect here?

As far as I know, there is no "Titan V" rocket built, nor did this article mention anything about that.--fireattack (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture TItan versions

When I see the overview of Titan development, should the last one not be the IV-B rather than the III-B?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_IV 2A02:A459:77A2:1:B73:7154:F212:AD5B (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)